Methodology for research on psychology of the Arts: A systematic review, critique, and argument for mixed methods
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.metip.2025.100199
- Published
- 12
- Container
- Methods in Psychology
- Publisher
- Not recorded
- Open access
- yes
Credibility signals
uncertain Score 53/100 under policy 1.0.0. This is a metadata assessment, not a judgment of the paper's conclusions.
Show all credibility signals
- cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- supportingDirectory of Open Access Journals: A matching record was returned by DOAJ.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- supportingOpen access status: Normalized open-access status: open.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.
Cite this work
BibTeX
@article{allodium:10.1016/j.metip.2025.100199,
title = {Methodology for research on psychology of the Arts: A systematic review, critique, and argument for mixed methods},
author = {Megan G. Stutesman and Thalia R. Goldstein and Divya Varier},
year = {2025},
journal = {Methods in Psychology},
doi = {10.1016/j.metip.2025.100199},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.metip.2025.100199}
}RIS
TY - JOUR TI - Methodology for research on psychology of the Arts: A systematic review, critique, and argument for mixed methods AU - Megan G. Stutesman AU - Thalia R. Goldstein AU - Divya Varier PY - 2025 JO - Methods in Psychology DO - 10.1016/j.metip.2025.100199 UR - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.metip.2025.100199 ER -
APA
Stutesman, M. G., Goldstein, T. R., & Varier, D. (2025). Methodology for research on psychology of the Arts: A systematic review, critique, and argument for mixed methods. Methods in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.metip.2025.100199
Source records
- doaj · retrieved 2026-09-25T17:07:36.685Z