{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014164305949008499, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.0227272727272725, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Critical Comment

The preceding article by Dayringer and Paiva is a good example of empirical research in terms of the standards set by most professional journals. The article addresses a serious clinical issue-the effect of CPE on changing clergy and nonclergy on such variables as sensitivity, understanding, and identity formation. Specifically, the hypothesis being tested was: CPE teaching methods are as effective in producing personal change in health care professionals as they are with clergy. One problem with the article was that technically the hypothesis was stated incorrectly. In most scholarly work the hypothesis is stated negatively as a null hypothesis: CPE teaching methods are not effective in producing personal change in health care professionals as they are with clergy. It is much easier to disprove something in research than it is to prove something. The authors can then tell whether the null hypothesis is confirmed or denied. The article inferred CPE was effective with both clergy and nonclergy, but did not state it directly.