The Future of Training and Credentialing in Group Psychotherapy

High-quality group psychotherapy training is seen as more important than ever in the current health care environment. The training opportunities available at present are assessed. It is argued that there is a body of knowledge about generic group psychotherapy that can and should be taught, and that there are appropriate people to teach it. Credentialing is discussed, and it is suggested that the assessment of actual work in clinical situations must be emphasized if such efforts are to be meaningful.     

Will the Mother-Group Have a Face? The Future of the Facilitating Environment

The author predicts that maintaining the responsible practice of group psychotherapy in the coming years will require attention to three areas of professional life. The training of group therapists must include group-as-a-whole, in addition to intrapsychic and interpersonal, theoretical constructs. A supportive network of professional colleagues must be available to provide consultation and continuing education. Finally, a culture that values the necessary components of group psychotherapy practice must be encouraged and supported.     

Shepherding Group Analysis: Shepherds Past, Present and Future

The development of group analysis in Britain and Europe following the death of the founder, S. H. Foulkes is described. Group analytic training, journal and book publications are noted. Future prospects for group analysis are envisaged.     

Argumentational Integrity: A Training Program for Dealing with Unfair Argumentative Contributions

In this article we present a training program based on the empirical research conducted in the project 'argumentational integrity'. After a brief sketch of the problem dimensions concerning unfair argumentation we give an overview of the training concept and the underlying empirical research. Exemplification of the instructional design is given for the second and the fifth training dimension (standards of argumentational integrity and reactions to unfair contributions). Finally we indicate how the training is to be evaluated and present initial results demonstrating that in comparison with an untrained control group participants in the training significantly improve their skills in identifying and naming argumentative rule violations.     

Improving an optimization‐based framework for sensitivity analysis in multi‐criteria decision‐making

The framework for sensitivity analysis in discrete multi‐criteria decision analysis developed by Rios Insua and French allows simultaneous variation of all parameters and applies to many paradigms for decision analysis. However, its computational load may inhibit use, particularly in the context of a decision conference where results are required in near real time. In order to improve on the current algorithm and its implementation, we investigate, on the one hand, an opportunistic approach aimed at reducing the number of optimization problems solved in the original framework and, on the other, an alternative framework based on distance analysis. Computational results on linear and bilinear models are reported. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Assessing risky public investments with MUSTARD

This paper presents a practical implementation of multicriteria methodologies based on the UTA model by Jacquet‐Lagrèze and Siskos and Quasi‐UTA model by Beuthe and Scannella, which are specified with a non‐linear, but piecewise linear, additive utility function. In contrast with the general UTA model, the Quasi‐UTA specification structures the partial utilities as recursive exponential functions of only one curvature parameter. This allows for a reduction of the quantity of information necessary to build the utility function. The software MUSTARD implements different variants of these models. Firstly, it offers the basic deterministic UTA model of disaggregation, but also its first programmed stochastic version. In both cases, the software proceeds stepwise and interactively helping the decision maker to formulate the problem and state preferences between projects; in the stochastic case, the decision maker is even helped to build the criteria distributions. The Quasi‐UTA specification can be introduced in this disaggregation model. Secondly, the software offers an aggregation model whereby the Quasi‐UTA partial utility functions are built separately through specific questioning processes. The questions relating to deterministic criteria are of the ‘direct rating type’, while those of the stochastic criteria are either of the ‘variable probability’ or the ‘variable outcome’ type. The criteria weights can be assessed by the ‘swing weight’ method or by a UTA‐II side‐program. As an example as well as a test of the Quasi‐UTA aggregation approach, the paper presents its application to a real problem of selecting road investment projects in Belgium. Several experts and civil servants were interviewed, and their individual utility functions derived. The projects are ranked according to their rate of return, which is computed on the basis of the projects certain equivalent money value. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

An evaluation of multi‐criteria methods in integrated assessment of climate policy

Those who conduct integrated assessments (IAs) are aware of the need to explicitly consider multiple criteria and uncertainties when evaluating policies for preventing global warming. MCDM methods are potentially useful for understanding tradeoffs and evaluating risks associated with climate policy alternatives. A difficulty facing potential MCDM users is the wide range of different techniques that have been proposed, each with distinct advantages. Methods differ in terms of validity, ease of use, and appropriateness to the problem. Alternative methods also can yield strikingly different rankings of alternatives. A workshop was held in which climate change experts and policy makers evaluated the usefulness of MCDM for IA. Participants applied several methods in the context of a hypothetical greenhouse gas policy decision. Methods compared include value and utility functions, goal programming, ELECTRE, fuzzy sets, stochastic dominance, min max regret, and several weight selection methods. Ranges, rather than point estimates, were provided for some questions to incorporate imprecision regarding weights. Additionally, several visualization methods for both deterministic and uncertain cases were used and evaluated. Analysis of method results and participant feedback through questionnaires and discussion provide the basis for conclusions regarding the use of MCDM methods for climate change policy and IA analyses. Hypotheses are examined concerning predictive and convergent validity of methods, existence of splitting bias among experts, perceived ability of methods to aid decision‐making, and whether expressing imprecision can change ranking results. Because participants gained from viewing a problem from several perspectives and results from different methods often significantly differed, it appears worthwhile to apply several MCDM methods to increase user confidence and insight. The participants themselves recommended such multimethod approaches for policymaking. Yet they preferred the freedom of unaided decision‐making most of all, challenging the MCDM community to create transparent methods that permit maximum user control. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.