Editing Inner child (section)

==Criticism==

Despite some promising therapeutic outcomes, the inner child concept has been subject to significant academic criticism. Critics argue that the inner child lacks [[falsifiability]], an essential criterion for scientific validity according to Karl Popper (1963). Since it is framed metaphorically and not operationalised in measurable terms, it resists empirical testing and classification as a scientific theory. <ref name="Popper1963">Hesse, M., & Popper, K. R. (1963). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. ''The Philosophical Quarterly, 15''(61), 372. [https://doi.org/10.2307/2218271 https://doi.org/10.2307/2218271]</ref> This challenges its standing as a psychological construct.

Furthermore, most studies are based on [[qualitative data]] or [[self-report]] measures, which lack validity.  Lilienfeld et al. (2013)  argue that cognitive biases can influence subjective reports from clients and clinicians and, therefore, cannot replace controlled empirical research. <ref name="Lilienfeld2013">Lilienfeld, S. O., Ritschel, L. A., Lynn, S. J., Cautin, R. L., & Latzman, R. D. (2013). Why many clinical psychologists are resistant to evidence-based practice: Root causes and constructive remedies. ''Clinical Psychology Review, 33''(7), 883–900. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2012.09.008 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2012.09.008]</ref> Moreover, many studies supporting inner child-based therapies rely on small sample sizes, lacking generalisability.<ref name="Hodgdon2021" /><ref name="Edalat2022" /> This makes it difficult to draw definitive conclusions about the effectiveness of inner child therapies. 

Large-scale, controlled studies directly validating the inner child as a psychological construct remain limited. Most available research assesses outcomes of therapeutic practices referencing the concept, rather than testing it as an independent variable.<ref name="Lilienfeld2013" />