Annual review of Asian American Psychology, 2014.

Abstract

This 2014 review of Asian American psychology is the sixth review in the series. It includes 316 articles that met the inclusion criteria established by the past five annual reviews. Featured articles were derived from three sources: 137 were generated via the search term “Asian American” in PyscINFO, 111 were generated via a search for specific Asian American ethnic groups, and 32 were generated via author searches of articles that met the inclusion criteria. The top primary topic was health and health-related behaviors, the most frequently employed study design was cross-sectional, and the most studied Asian American ethnic group was Chinese. This year’s review includes information on the target population of the primary topic, the age range and developmental period of participants, and whether the study design was cross-sectional or longitudinal. It also identifies top authors and journals contributing to the 2014 annual review. These new features reveal that the most common target population of the primary topic was youths; studies most commonly included emerging adults ages 18–25; cross-sectional study design was employed more often than longitudinal design; the top contributor to the 2014 review was Stephen Chen, who authored the highest number of papers included; and the Asian American Journal of Psychology generated the highest number of publications for this review.

Annual Review of Asian American psychology, 2015.

“…This search was first conducted on December 16, 2015 and resulted in 321 articles. As implemented by Juan et al (2012), and also followed by Yeh et al (2013); Wei, Carrera, and Li (2014), and Kim et al (2015), we conducted additional searches using terms that reflect specific Asian American ethnic groups (e.g., Chinese American, Filipino American, and South Asian American). As done in more recent reviews starting with Yeh et al (2013), we also incorporated search terms such as “Pacific Islander,” “Samoan,” and “Hawaiian.” Our approach in searching for specific subgroups yielded an additional 298 articles for a total of 619 articles to code for possible inclusion from our initial search of the literature.…”

“…We also introduced additional search terms including “immigrant” and “refugee” (e.g., South Asian immigrant, Chinese immigrant, and Hmong refugee) and uncovered 105 unique citations to consider for inclusion in our review. As recommended by Kim et al (2015), we decided to forego the secondary author search that some prior reviews have done, due to the amount of effort for little gain in identifying additional, unique articles.…”

“…Notably, our literature search was limited to the access provided by the online platform that was available to us, namely, EBSCO. As Kim et al (2015) discussed, there could be differences in the articles uncovered depending on the particular search engine that is used (e.g., EBSCO vs. ProQuest vs. OvidSP). We did find some inconsistencies when we attempted to replicate the searches of prior reviews.…”

“…In the previous year’s annual review, Kim et al (2015) introduced a new coding domain, namely, target population of the primary topic. We appreciate their rationale in doing so given that descriptive information regarding articles that have focused on specific populations could be overshadowed by primary topic information (e.g., a study examining women and breast cancer might be assigned the primary topic of Health rather than Women, and not fully represent the scope of the field).…”

“…Hence, we urge readers to examine not only the trends related to Primary Topic, but also the nonmutually exclusive topic categorizations in evaluating current research developments. We identify the eight target population categories that were coded by Kim et al (2015) and in the current review when presenting our results regarding topic area codes.…”