Toward science‐informed supervision of clinical case formulation: A training model and supervision method

Case formulation is a core competency in the practice of clinical psychology and although many component skills can be taught in lectures, supervised clinical practice is a key step in moving from knowledge about case formulation to knowledge of formulation. The present paper outlines a model of science‐informed clinical practice and the ways in which clinical supervision may play a role. In addition, a methodology for assessing and benchmarking skills in case formulation is described to assist clinical psychology training programs to provide supervisees with normative feedback about their skills in case formulation. In so doing, the supervision of case formulation can become more informed by science and responsive to evaluation.     

EXPLAINING U.S. COURTS OF APPEALS DECISIONS INVOLVING PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL: ACCURACY, FAIRNESS, AND VALIDATION

Accuracy and due process perspectives were used to extend policy-capturing research concerning employment discrimination case law. Two-hundred ninety-five usable U.S. Circuit Court decisions concerning performance appraisal were located from 1980–1995. In both chi-square and multivariate LOGIT analyses, decisions were explained by: use of job analysis, provision of written instructions, employee review of results, and agreement among raters. Contrary to hypotheses, appraisal frequency and type (traits vs. behaviors or results) were unrelated to judicial decision. Rater training approached significance in chi-square analysis. Of other variables checked (e.g., type of discrimination claim, statutory basis, class action status, year of decision, circuit court, type of organization, purpose of appraisal, evaluator race and sex), only circuit court approached significance. We conclude that issues relevant to fairness and due process were most salient to judicial decisions; issues pertaining to accuracy were important, yet validation was virtually ignored in this sample of cases.     

What is conceptual research in psychoanalysis?1

The development of psychoanalysis as a science and clinical practice has always relied heavily on various forms of conceptual research. Thus, conceptual research has clarifi ed, formulated and reformulated psychoanalytic concepts permitting to better shape the fi ndings emerging in the clinical setting. By enhancing clarity and explicitness in concept usage it has facilitated the integration of existing psychoanalytic thinking as well as the development of new ways of looking at clinical and extraclinical data. Moreover, it has offered conceptual bridges to neighbouring disciplines particularly interested in psychoanalysis, e.g. philosophy, sociology, aesthetics, history of art and literature, and more recently cognitive science/neuroscience. In the present phase of psychoanalytic pluralism, of worldwide scientifi c communication among psychoanalysts irrespective of language differences and furthermore of an intensifying dialogue with other disciplines, the relevance of conceptual research is steadily increasing. Yet, it still often seems insuffi ciently clear how conceptual research can be differentiated from clinical and empirical research in psychoanalysis. Therefore, the Subcommittee for Conceptual Research of the IPA presents some of its considerations on the similarities and the differences between various forms of clinical and extraclinical research, their specifi c aims, quality criteria and thus their specifi c chances as well as their specifi c limitations in this paper. Examples taken from six issues of the International Journal of Psychoanalysis in 2002‐3 serve as illustrations for seven different subtypes of conceptual research.