IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/rpsyxx/v11y2019i3p238-247.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The use of formal criteria to assess psychological models of hallucinations: a systematic review

Author

Listed:
  • Tara Hickey
  • Kimberly Buck
  • So-An Lao
  • Barnaby Nelson
  • Graham Meadows

Abstract

Objectives: Our aim was to explore the application of systematic criteria proposed by Bentall, Corcoran, Howard, Black and Kinderman (2001) to determine whether they are helpful in determining the quality of psychological models, which are used to develop and guide treatment.Method: We chose to conduct a systematic review of models of hallucinations. PsycINFO, MEDLINE and PubMED were used to identify relevant articles. Each model was classified as a high, medium or low level of fit with the criteria.Results: Nineteen models met the inclusion criteria. Two models were a high level of fit, twelve a medium level of fit while the rest were a low level of fit. Some difficulties were encountered applying the criteria and are discussed.Conclusions: Bentall et al.’s (2001) criteria proved useful. Frith’s (2015) and Hoffman’s (1986) models were deemed the best level of fit. The role of self-monitoring and language-production processes in hallucination formation may merit further investigation. There is an outstanding need for international standardized guidelines to advance the quality of psychological models to assist the design and delivery of more effective interventions.

Suggested Citation

  • Tara Hickey & Kimberly Buck & So-An Lao & Barnaby Nelson & Graham Meadows, 2019. "The use of formal criteria to assess psychological models of hallucinations: a systematic review," Psychosis, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(3), pages 238-247, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:rpsyxx:v:11:y:2019:i:3:p:238-247
    DOI: 10.1080/17522439.2019.1607892
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/17522439.2019.1607892
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/17522439.2019.1607892?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:rpsyxx:v:11:y:2019:i:3:p:238-247. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RPSY20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.