{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018853102906520033, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.961748633879782, '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}}
Evidentiary Pluralism as a Strategy for Research and Evidence-Based Practice in Rehabilitation Psychology.

This paper examines the utility of evidentiary pluralism, a research strategy that selects methods in service of content questions, in the context of rehabilitation psychology. Hierarchical views that favor randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) over other evidence are discussed, and RCTs are considered as they intersect with issues in the field. RCTs are vital for establishing treatment efficacy, but whether they are uniformly the best evidence to inform practice is critically evaluated. We argue that because treatment is only one of several variables that influence functioning, disability, and participation over time, an expanded set of conceptual and data analytic approaches should be selected in an informed way to support an expanded research agenda that investigates therapeutic and extra-therapeutic influences on rehabilitation processes and outcomes. The benefits of evidentiary pluralism are considered, including helping close the gap between the narrower clinical rehabilitation model and a public health disability model. KEY WORDS: evidence-based practice, evidentiary pluralism, rehabilitation psychology, randomized controlled trials.