I will need to think more on an evidence evaluation framework and how Rousseau’s model might be enhanced by Messick’s model of validity as discusses in my last post.
As Messick said that validity is about test use not tests in themselves, so evidence-based practice is about how the evidence is used in practice, not about the evidence itself. This needs to be spelled out.
The practice research gap – Research validity generally become greater the more context can be controlled and parsed out of studies. In evidence-based practice evidence must be related to context to be valid. The more confident you are of research results, the less confidence you are that it will relate to the constellation of factors seen in contexts. I don’t know how you can get beyond this without some applied research that puts research syntheses to the test.
Practice is most often cross or interdisciplinary. This impacts the last point, but it also means that each practice relates to many potential disciplines. Accumulating the vast amounts of data will be next to impossible in a practical manor. We need a technological solution through some sort of Web 3.0 or metadata solution as well as a technological way to compile data.