The state of rehabilitation research: art or science?

Rehabilitation research has been criticized as not standing up enough to the rigors of scientific method to be called "science." The field has been portrayed as slow to promote its scientific achievements and to include them under the rubric of evidence-based rehabilitation. Following in the footsteps of psychology, rehabilitation as a broad-based discipline has faced many similar obstacles in achieving scientific status. Controversy exists about what exactly constitutes rehabilitation science versus its art and its respective multidisciplinary domains. The conception of these domains is directly related to current methods available to assess the state of the discipline and its research accomplishments. I used quantitative methods, such as randomized clinical and/or controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews, to assess the status of rehabilitation research. Findings suggest that, as a field, rehabilitation makes significant contributions to science, measurable by the number and quality of RCTs and systematic reviews conducted so far on topics of critical importance for clinical care. In "artful" complement, qualitative approaches can be used as research tools to aid investigators in seeking knowledge beyond that obtained by quantitative methods, assessing many complexities associated with the various contexts of rehabilitation research. Other requirements to develop a common vision of rehabilitation science are also discussed.