The place and promise of theory in rehabilitation psychology research.

Psychology aspires to be a science awarded the same authority and credibility granted to biology, physics, and chemistry. The two major disciplinary organizations in psychology in the United States—the American Psychological Association (APA) and the Association for Psychological Science (APS)--are predicated on the idea that psychology is a science; indeed, the latter recently completed a name change to underscore this fact (Wargo, 2006). What qualities or characteristics denote whether a discipline is or is not a science? By no means do we intend to revisit the intricacies of this age-old debate in this article, which strikes us, in any case, as being more in the ken of historians and philosophers of science, as well as those interested in the psychology of science (e.g., Ghoulson, Shadish, Neimeyer, & Houts, 1989). Our answer to this question is simple: Most definitions of science emphasize the importance of and reliance on empirical observations and theory. As a broad discipline interested in explaining and predicting behavior, most psychologists working in most sub-areas embrace the empirical and the theoretical. What about rehabilitation psychology? Rehabilitation psychologists, researchers as well as practitioners, score well when it comes to using empirical observations and insights in their work with individuals who seek treatment for congenital, chronic, or acute disabilities. Findings routinely pass back and forth from the laboratory to the clinic, and data from journal articles are often integrated into existing therapeutic regimens. As argued herein, however, the corresponding track record for the creation and application of theory in rehabilitation psychology is much less well-developed, especially theory which incorporates empirical evidence. Other rehabilitation researchers echo this view (e.g., Siegert, McPherson, & Dean, 2005). Theory should be a cornerstone in rehabilitation research but, except for some notable exceptions, it is not. Our goal in this article is to demonstrate that theories should have pride of place in rehabilitation research, that focus on their primacy holds promise for scholars, clinicians, and people who live with chronic and debilitating health conditions. We explain why theories are needed in and useful for rehabilitation psychology, including some discussion of the history and course of some representative theories, reasons why there are few theories, and recent advances in theory. We then discuss ways that theory can inform psychosocial and clinical issues in rehabilitation research. A chief impediment to theory development is the fact that many researcher-practitioners are uncertain about how to go about developing a coherent, focused research program. We offer some suggestions in that vein by reviewing research settings, knowledge gained through controlled studies or clinical work, the importance of grantsmanship to theory development, and suggest some topical areas where new theories are needed. We also remind readers that rehabilitation psychology is characterized by and benefits from a judicious mix of scientific rigor and real-world vigor. Finally, we close by issuing a call for theory-driven research programs that test hypotheses across research designs to advance new theory and capitalize on the goals of this special issue of Rehabilitation Psychology—advances in research and methodology.