Behavioral science priorities in residency education: The perspective of practicing family physicians.

INTRODUCTION: The family medicine residency behavioral science curriculum is more effective if prioritized to match what is needed in practice after graduation. Two prior studies (Kendall, Marvel, & Cruickshank, 2003; Marvel & Major, 1999) identified physician priorities for behavioral science education. The present study extends this research to include topics from more recent curriculum guidelines and examines the extent to which size of community and perceived competence correlate with prioritization of Washington state family physicians. METHOD: Practicing family physicians in Washington state (N = 2,270) were invited to complete the survey. Respondents provided demographic and practice information. Respondents then rated, on a scale from 1 to 4, 35 behavioral science topics on 2 different scales including (a) priority to be given in residency education and (b) perceived level of competence. RESULTS: A total of 486 responded and 430 completed both priority and competence scales for a response rate of 19%. The top half of 35 topics of the present study included the top 13 topics found in the 2 prior studies. Priority and competence scales were moderately correlated (r = .48, n = 430, p = .001). There was a small significant correlation with size of community and priority ratings (r = .13, n = 435, p = .006). DISCUSSION: Family physicians in Washington state prioritize behavioral science topics in residency education similar to Colorado and Mississippi. The results of this study support recent ACGME guidelines, in that training should focus on common psychiatric illnesses, including depression and anxiety, and interpersonal processes. (PsycINFO Database Record

The structure of the cognitive revolution: an examination from the philosophy of science.

The received view is that psychology has undergone several scientific revolutions similar to those that occurred in the physical sciences. Of these, this paper will consider the cognitive revolution. Because the arguments in favor of the existence of a cognitive revolution are cast using the concepts and terms of revolutionary science, we will examine the cognitive revolution using accounts of revolutionary science advanced by five influential philosophers of science. Specifically, we will draw from the philosophical positions of Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, Laudan, and Gross for the purpose of discussion. We conclude that no substantive revolution took place according to these accounts. This conclusion is based on data gathered from some of the major participants in the "cognitive revolution" and on a general scholarly survey of the literature. We argue that the so-called cognitive revolution is best characterized as a socio-rhetorical phenomenon.