Mass traumatic terror in Oklahoma City and the phases of adaptational coping,part I: Possible effects of intentional injury/harm on victims' post-traumatic responses

The bombing in Oklahoma City shook the entire nation from “sea to shining sea.” This tremendous collective sensation was made even worse when available evidence revealed that this act of terrorism had not been committed by some terrorist from the Middle East but one from Middle America. The blast stunned the nation's sense of collective safety, while it raised serious questions about our ability as a nation to manage violence, and the profound feelings of discontent and narcissistic injuries among distressed Americans. Was it this failure to address chronic discontents that led to this tragedy of mass violence? These larger sociocultural and political issues are being debated in public and private forums throughout the nation, an activity that is likely to continue for some time to come. As these issues are debated in the public arena, victims' levels of psychological distress are expected to rise, as they attempt to process the traumatic shock in their minds and bodies. Specifically, this article has two parts and focuses on acute and post-acute psychophysiological traumatic stress responses in victims, as well as issues pertaining to assessment, prevention, and treatment. Part I addresses the nature of disasters, with a special emphasis on the victim's subjective evaluation (meaning) of the reality of a catastrophe caused by intentional human strategy. The article, additionally, discusses issues of epidemiology of stress reactions, post-traumatic stress disorder, co-morbidity, risk factors, and assessment and diagnostic considerations. Part II, to be published in the next of issue of the Journal, will focus on issues of prevention as well as post-disaster intervention. Prevention of chronic post-traumatic stress disorder after the Oklahoma City bombing is a critical objective by debriefers and mental health professionals. A proposed four-phase model called “self-efficacy adaptational coping” will be presented in Phase II as well. The present article is probably the first major discussion on the traumatic effects of the blast on individuals, families, and the communities of Oklahoma City, and the first to offer some broad guidelines to intervention. Since it predates future empirical studies, the author relies on his almost 20 years of experience in the field of traumatic stress, and on a review and integration of pertinent disaster outcome studies in the national and international literature.     

Marital attributions in spouses of depressed patients

Causal attributions (i.e., locus, stability, globality) and responsibility attributions (i.e., bad intent, selfish motivation, blame) were assessed in the spouses of 27 depressed psychiatric inpatients and 30 nondepressed dyads to test predictions derived from Hooley's (1987) symptom-controllability model of marital distress. Results indicated that (1) depressed patients and their spouses were less dyadically adjusted than nondepressed spouses, (2) causal and responsibility attributions about depressive behaviors predicted lower dyadic adjustment, and (3) attributions of causality mediated the relationship between group status (depressed or nondepressed) and dyadic adjustment among spouses who had higher expectations for their partner to change. Results suggest that among spouses with a high expectancy for change, depression may be a risk factor for marital distress.     

An investigation of the effects of comorbid Axis II pathology on outcome of inpatient treatment for unipolar depression

DSM-based research on comorbidity has suggested thatdepression andpersonality disorder frequently occur together and that the combination of syndromes is associated with a poor response to treatment for depression. The present study was designed to explore the effect of comorbid Axis II pathology for a sample of 45 inpatients who received treatment for major depression. Both categorical and dimensional ratings of personality disorder were used in the statistical analysis. Positive categorical diagnosis of Cluster C (anxious-avoidant) disorder, as well as higher dimensional rating of Cluster A (odd-eccentric) pathology, was predictive of a poor response to treatment (p<.05), as measured by change in pre-post clinical ratings on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale. These results were construed as indicative of a significant Axis II comorbidity effect in the context of an inpatient, multimodal treatment setting for depression. The results also spotlight the influence of techniques of measurement in determining the outcome of statistical analysis.     

Thinking About “Tests and Assessment” and the Career Beliefs Inventory

The author (a) comments briefly on the “Tests and Assessment” section of the Journal of Counseling & Development (JCD)—what it has covered and has not covered in recent years—and (b) introduces a set of articles that discuss a new career-oriented inventory of potential interest to counselors.     

Accreditation Standards for University and College Counseling Centers

The accreditation standards outlined in the article are used by the International Association of Counseling Services, Inc., as the basis for the formal accreditation of college and university counseling programs throughout the United States and Canada. They reflect the program elements and practice standards that are deemed essential in a counseling center that provides high-quality services to students.     

Personality disorder correspondence between the million behavioral health inventory (MBHI) and the minnesota multiphasic personality inventory (MMPI)

The MBHI and MMPI personality disorder scales were analyzed for convergent and discriminant validity. Correlational data demonstrated that six of the eight scales were significantly related, while the remaining two scales approached significance. Further analyses of these data, however, demonstrated that none of the scales correlated significantly better with its convergent scale compared to nonconvergent scales. The MBHI classified significantly more of the sample as personality disordered (93%) compared to the MMPI personality disorder scales (17%). Furthermore, the MBHI tended to describe the sample as falling within the Anxious cluster of personality disorders, whereas the MMPI described them within the Dramatic cluster. Single scale codetype correspondence was found to be 15%, while two-point concordance was 12.5%, indicating very low congruence between personality style codetypes. These two measures do not appear to be measuring the same personality style constructs.