BCIA Continuing Education Posts

Neurophysiological assessment serves not as an independent diagnostic tool but as a physiologically grounded framework for understanding how clients process information, regulate emotions, respond to stressors, and organize their behavior.

A null result does not always mean that the independent variable (the factor manipulated by the researcher) does not affect on the dependent variable (the outcome being measured).

A comprehensive meta-analysis of 138 studies found that facial feedback does have a statistically significant effect on emotional experience, but the effect is small and highly variable.

Dr. Gevirtz's journey began in 1964 as an undergraduate psychology major at the University of Wisconsin.

A growing body of research and clinical innovation has underscored the need to integrate multiple therapeutic modalities like neurofeedback and biofeedback when working with clients who present with complex psychological and physiological concerns.

Mentor is the most widely used GPT for biofeedback, HRV biofeedback, and neurofeedback didactic learning.

Using a large nationally representative dataset, the researchers found that people hospitalized for TBI were more than twice as likely to be diagnosed with schizophrenia or other psychotic conditions than similar individuals without TBI.

Although ASD is historically considered more prevalent in males, this assumption may reflect diagnostic bias rather than biological reality.

Before a diagnosis of a mental disorder can be made, the clinician must rule out that the symptoms are not attributable to the physiological effects of a substance or another medical condition.

The Biofeedback Certification International Alliance (BCIA) is introducing a new performance-focused certification designation.

Small-N designs are particularly powerful when the treatment effect is large and immediate, allowing researchers to infer causality with confidence.

The goal of this post is to help you think like a scientist when it comes to evaluating questionable claims.

To support a causal claim, a study must meet three essential criteria: covariance, temporal precedence, and internal validity.

Interrogating association claims means asking three core questions: Were the variables measured well (construct validity)? Can the results be generalized to other populations (external validity)? And is the association statistically strong, significant, and precise (statistical validity)?

The four big validities offer a comprehensive toolkit for evaluating psychological research. Construct validity ensures that variables are accurately measured or manipulated. External validity tells us whether the results generalize. Statistical validity ensures the numbers are trustworthy. Internal validity confirms that cause-and-effect relationships are legitimate.

Association claims are foundational to psychological research because they help us identify variables that are connected and warrant further investigation. While they cannot prove causality, they provide essential groundwork for asking deeper questions.

Understanding how each variable was operationalized helps you evaluate whether results can be compared or generalized. It also helps you decide whether the measure actually reflects the concept you’re interested in.

Women’s faster heart rates are linked to higher expression of genes controlling the sinoatrial node, the heart’s natural pacemaker.

Quigley et al. (2024) delivered a comprehensive and much-needed revision of the methodological standards guiding research in heart rate (HR) and heart rate variability (HRV) within psychophysiology.

Breathing ensures healthy CO2 levels. The main functions of breathing are gas exchange and acid-base (pH) regulation.