Sex-related effects on clinicians' attributions of parental responsibility for child psychopathology

An attempt was made to reproduce and extend previously reported data suggesting the operation of sex-related bias in clinicians' attributions of parental involvement in children's psychopathologies. More and less sex-role traditional male and female family-oriented practitioners were shown contrived profiles in which a boy or girl was described as masculine or feminine role-deficient, and apportioned maternal versus paternal blame, treatment focus, adjunctive therapy need, and likelihood of sabotage. As in the previous study, mothers were implicated slightly more than fathers and also were viewed as requiring relatively greater therapeutic attention by female than by male clinicians. However, several earlier findings were not replicated. Overall, the results offer only marginal support for the notion of sex-related practitioner bias.     

'Care': The case of paulette

School counsellors are often presented with information about pupils from a third party - a parent, another pupil, a member of the canteen staff a social worker, or a member of the teaching staff - with the expectation that the counsellor is in a position to take 'necessary' or 'appropriate' action. One particular case is used to illustrate some of the difficulties involved in acting upon third-party information.     

I Can't Relax! You're Driving me Quasi!

Robust Realists think that there are irreducible, non‐natural, and mind‐independent moral properties. Quasi‐Realists and Relaxed Realists think the same, but interpret these commitments differently. Robust Realists interpret them as metaphysical commitments, to be defended by metaphysical argument. Quasi‐Realists and Relaxed Realists say that they can only be interpreted as moral commitments. These theories thus pose a serious threat to Robust Realism, for they apparently undermine the very possibility of articulating the robust metaphysical commitments of this theory. I clarify and respond to this threat, showing that there is in fact space to develop and defend a robust moral ontology.     

Defining the Assessment and Treatment Competencies to Deliver Low-Intensity Cognitive Behavior Therapy: A Multi-Center Validation Study

Despite the vastly increased dissemination of the low-intensity (LI) version of cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) for the treatment of anxiety and depression, no valid and reliable indices of the LI-CBT clinical competencies currently exist. This research therefore sought to develop and evaluate two measures: the low-intensity assessment competency scale (LIAC) and the low-intensity treatment competency scale (LITC). Inductive and deductive methods were used to construct the competency scales and detailed rating manuals were prepared. Two studies were then completed. The first study used a quantitative, fully-crossed design and the second a multi-center, quantitative longitudinal design. In study one, novice, qualified, and expert LI-CBT practitioners rated an LI-CBT assessment session (using the LIAC) and an LI-CBT treatment session (using the LITC). Study two used the LIAC and LITC across four training sites to analyze the competencies of LI-CBT practitioners over time, across raters, and in relation to the actor/patients’ feedback concerning helpfulness, the alliance, and willingness to return. Both the LIAC and LITC were found to be single factor scales with good internal, test-retest reliability and reasonable inter-rater reliability. Both measures were sensitive to measuring change in clinical competence. The LIAC had good concurrent, criterion, discriminant, and predictive validity, while the LITC had good concurrent, criterion, and predictive validity, but limited discriminant validity. A score of 18 accurately delineated a minimum level of competence in LI-CBT assessment and treatment practice, with incompetent practice associated with patient disengagement. These observational ratings scales can contribute to the clinical governance of the burgeoning use of LI-CBT interventions for anxiety and depression in routine services and also in the methods of controlled studies.