Rosenhan evaluation Flashcards
Evaluate in terms of the use of observation.
The participant observation meant that the pseudo patients could experience the ward from the patients’ perspective while also maintaining some degree of objectivity.
Evaluate in terms of validity.
The study was a type of field experiment and was thus fairly ecologically valid whilst still managing to control many variables such as the pseudo patients’ behaviour.
Evaluate in terms of generalisability.
Rosenhan used a range of hospitals. They were in different States, on both coasts, both old/shabby and new, research-orientated and not, well staffed and poorly staffed, one private, federal or university funded. This allows the results to be generalised.
Evaluate in terms of Rosenhans subjective opinion on psychiatric hospitals.
Perhaps Rosenhan was being too hard on psychiatric hospitals, especially when it is important for them to play safe in their diagnosis of abnormality because there is always an outcry when a patient is let out of psychiatric care and gets into trouble. If you were to go to the doctors complaining of stomach aches how would you expect to be treated? Also, Doctors and psychiatrists are more likely to make a type two error (that is, more likely to call a healthy person sick) than a type one error (that is, diagnosing a sick person as healthy).
Evaluate in terms of validity, (weakness)
Rosenhan did note that the experiences of the pseudo-patients could have differed from that of real patients who did not have the comfort of knowing that the diagnosis was false.
Evaluate in terms of the DSM.
When Rosenhan did his study the psychiatric classification in use was DSM-II. However, since then a new classification has been introduced which was to address itself largely to the whole problem of unreliability - especially unclear criteria. It is argued that with the newer classification DSM-III, introduced in the 1980s, psychiatrists would be less likely to make the errors they did.
Evaluate in terms of ethics. (deception)
The hospital staff were deceived - this is, of course, unethical. Although Rosenhan did conceal the names of hospitals or staff and attempted to eliminate any clues which might lead to their identification.
Evaluate in terms of ethics in relation to genuinely ill patients.
The admission of the pseudopatients into a psychiatric ward could have taken time and effort away from genuine patients who did need the help. Also, genuinely ill people were turned away from psychiatric units in the period following publication so some who did require hospitalisation would not receive the help they needed.
Evaluate in terms of the ethics in relation to the pseudo patients.
Although the pseudopatients went into the study understanding what they had to do it must have been distressing when they discovered they could not easily be discharged.
The pseudopatients were administered powerful antipsychotic drugs which would have been harmful to them if they swallowed them.
The real identity and occupation of the pseudopatients was not used so there was no long term consequence of a mental illness being recorded in their health records.
Evaluate in terms of applications.
The study demonstrates both the limitations of classification and importantly the appalling conditions in many psychiatric hospitals. This has stimulated much further research and has lead to many institutions improving their philosophy of care.
Evaluate Rosenhans view on labelling.
Rosenhan, like other anti-psychiatrists, is arguing that mental illness is a social phenomenon. It is simply a consequence of labelling. This is a very persuasive argument, although many people who suffer from a mental illness might disagree and say that mental illness is a very real problem.
