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.     

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.     

Scaling clinical judgments of symptom pathology by means of the psychophysiological method of magnitude estimation

Summing scores across heterogeneous symptom items without consideration of their differing psychopathological significance has been criticized as producing an inadequate picture of an individual's clinical status. The purpose of this study was to derive symptom item weights representing clinically judged seriousness of each symptom through the application of Stevens's psychophysical method of magnitude estimation. A nationwide sample of 129 clinicians rated the pathological significance of 221 symptom items in a design such that every rater rated 121 items, 21 of which were rated by all raters and 100 of which were rated only by the A or B subgroup to which each rater was randomly assigned. Each item was rated as to the seriousness of the pathology it would represent if manifested by either a boy child, girl child, boy adolescent, or girl adolescent, with one-fourth of the raters assigned to each condition. The results of 211 two-way analyses of variance revealed that age and age and sex in interaction, but not sex alone, significantly influenced the clinical ratings. The resulting magnitude estimation ratings of symptom pathology ranged from 1.0 to 9.9. They were demonstrated to have satisfactory reliability and convergent validity and to have the psychophysical characteristics of a prothetic continuum.A preliminary version of this paper was presented at the 85th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, August 1977. The research was supported by HEW grant MH24886. The authors wish to express appreciation to Walter W. Wengel for his work in developing the median quotient ratings used in the study, to Terrance Auger for making available unpublished raw data, and to Merton S. Krause for helpful suggestions regarding the interpretation of results.     

Analysis of variances and covariances is misleading as a guide to a common factor model

The “factor” analyses published by Schultz, Kaye, and Hoyer (1980) confused component and factor analysis and led in this case as in many others to unwarranted conclusions. They used component analysis to develop factor models that were subjected to restricted (confirmatory) maximum likelihood analysis, but the final models for which good fits with the observed correlations were obtained were not common factor models. They were, however, discussed as such and conclusions drawn accordingly. When their correlation matrices are analyzed by the principal factors method, two factors are sufficient to account for the intercorrelations. These two factors generally support the a priori expectation of a difference between intelligence tasks and spontaneous flexibility tasks. They are also quite similar in younger and older subjects, when similarity is judged in terms of factor pattern. Factor loadings for the younger subjects, however, are much smaller than expectations based on the respective ranges of talent in the two groups of subjects or on past experience with similar tests in undergraduate student populations.