Countertransference awareness and treatment outcome

Abargil, M., & Tishby, O. (2022). 

Journal of counseling psychology,

69(5), 667–677.

https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000620

Abstract

Countertransference (CT) is considered a central component in the therapy process. Research has shown that CT management does not reduce the number of CT manifestations in therapy, but it leads to better therapy outcomes. In this study, we examined therapists' awareness of their CT using a structured interview. Our hypotheses were (a) treatments in which therapists were more aware of their CT would have a better outcome and (b) different definitions of CT would be related to different therapy outcomes. Twenty-nine patients were treated by 19 therapists in 16 sessions of short-term psychodynamic therapy. We used the core conflictual relationship theme to measure CT, a special interview was developed to study CT awareness. Results show that awareness of CT defined as the relationship with the patient moderated 10 outcome measures and awareness of CT defined as the relationship with the patient that repeats therapist conflicts with significant others moderated three outcome measures We present examples from dyads in this study and discuss how awareness can help the therapist talk to and handle patient challenges.

From the Discussion section

Increased therapist awareness of CT facilitate improvement in patient symptoms, emotion regulation and affiliation in relationships. Since awareness is an integral part of CT management, these findings are consistent with Hayes’ results from 2018 regarding the importance of CT management and its contribution to treatment outcome. Moreover, therapist’s self-awareness was found to be important in treating minorities (Baker, 1999). This study expands the ecological validity of therapist awareness and shows that the therapists’ awareness of their own wishes in therapy, as well as his perception of himself and the patient, is relevant to the general population as well. Thus, therapists of all theoretical orientations are encouraged to attend to their personal conflicts and to monitor their reactions to patients as a routine part of effective clinical practice. Moreover, therapist awareness has been found in the past to lead to less therapist self-confidence, but to better treatment outcomes (Williams, 2008). Our clinical examples illustrate these findings (the therapist who had high awareness showed much more self- doubt) and the results of multilevel regression analysis demonstrate better improvement for patients whose therapists were highly aware. Interestingly, the IIP control dimension was not found to be related to the therapist’s awareness of CT. It may be that since this dimension relates to the patient’s control need, the awareness of transference is more important. Another possibility is that the patient’s experience of the therapist as “knowing” may actually increase his control needs. Moreover, regarding patient main TC, we only found a trend and not a significant interaction. One reason may be the sample size. Another explanation is that patients do not necessarily link the changes in their lives to the relationship with the therapist and the insights associated with it. Thus, although awareness of CT helps to improve other outcome measures, it is not related to the way patients feel about the reason they sought out treatment.

A recent study of CT found that negative types of CT were correlated with more ruptures and less repair in the alliance. For positive CT the picture is more complex; Positive patterns predicted resolution when the therapists repeated positive patterns with par- ents but predicted ruptures when they tried to “repair” negative patterns with the parents (Tishby & Wiseman, 2020). The authors suggest that awareness of CT will help the therapist pay more attention to ruptures during treatment so they can address it and initiate resolutions processes. Our findings support the authors’ suggestion. The clinical example demonstrates that when the therapist was aware of negative CT and was able to talk about it in the awareness interview, he was also able to address the difficult feelings that arose during a session with the patient. Moreover, the treatment outcomes in these treatments were better which characterizes treatments with proper repair processes.

The article is paywalled here.

Professional Psychology: Collection Agencies, Confidentiality, Records, Treatment, and Staff Supervision in New Jersey

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-4975-17T3

In the Matter of the Suspension or Revocation of the License of L. Barry Helfmann, Psy.D.

Here are two excerpts:

The complaint included five counts. It alleged Dr. Helfmann failed to do the following: take reasonable measures to protect confidentiality of the Partnership's patients' private health information; maintain permanent records that accurately reflected patient contact for treatment purposes; maintain records of professional quality; timely release records requested by a patient; and properly instruct and supervise temporary staff concerning patient confidentiality and record maintenance. The Attorney General sought sanctions under the UEA.

(cut)

The regulation is clear. The doctor's argument to the contrary, that a psychologist could somehow confuse his collection attorney with a patient's authorized representative, is refuted by the regulation's plain language as well as consideration of its entire context. The doctor's argument is without sufficient merit to warrant further discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

We find nothing arbitrary about the Board's rejection of Dr. Helfmann's argument that he violated no rule or regulation because he relied on the advice of counsel in providing the Partnership's collection attorney with patients' confidential information. His assertion is contrary to the sworn testimony of the collection attorney who was deposed, as distinguished from another collection attorney with whom the doctor spoke in the distant past. The latter attorney's purported statement that confidential information might be necessary to resolve a patient's outstanding fee does not consider, let alone resolve, the propriety of a psychologist releasing such information in the face of clear statutory and regulatory prohibitions.

The Board found that Dr. Helfmann, not his collection attorneys, was charged with the professional responsibility of preserving his patients' confidential information. Perhaps the doctor's argument that he relied on the advice of counsel would have had greater appeal had he asked for a legal opinion on providing confidential patient information to collection attorneys in view of the psychologist-patient privilege and a specific regulatory prohibition against doing so absent a statutory or traditional exception. That the Board found unpersuasive Dr. Helfmann's hearsay testimony about what attorneys told him years ago is hardly arbitrary and capricious, considering the Partnership's current collection attorney's testimony and Dr. Helfmann's statutory and regulatory obligations to preserve confidentiality.

The decision is here.

Walking on Eggshells With Trainees in the Clinical Learning Environment—Avoiding the Eggshells Is Not the Answer.

Gold MA, Rosenthal SL, Wainberg ML.
JAMA Pediatr. 
Published online August 05, 2019.
doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.2501

Here is an excerpt:

Every trainee inevitably will encounter material or experiences that create discomfort. These situations are necessary for growth and faculty should be able to have the freedom in those situations to challenge the trainee’s assumptions.5 However, faculty have expressed concern that in the effort to manage the imbalance of power and protect trainees from the potential of abuse and harassment, we have labeled difficult conversations and discomfort as maltreatment. When faculty feel that the academic institution sides with trainees without considering the faculty member’s perspective and actions, they may feel as if their reputation and hard work as an educator has been challenged or ruined. For example, if a trainee reports a faculty member for creating a “sexually hostile” environment because the faculty has requested that the trainee take explicit sexual histories of adolescents, it may result in the faculty avoiding this type of difficult conversation and lead to a lack of skill development in trainees. Another unintended consequence is that trainees will not gain skills in having difficult conversations with their faculty, and without feedback they may not grow in their clinical expertise. As our workforce becomes increasingly diverse and we care for a range of populations, the likelihood of misunderstandings and the need to talk about sensitive topics and have difficult conversations increases.

There are several ways to create an environment that fosters the ability for trainees and faculty to walk across eggshells without fear. It is important to continue medical school training regarding unconscious bias, cultural sensitivity, and communication skills. This should include helping trainees not only apply these skills with each other and with their patients but also with their faculty. Trainees are likely to have as many unconscious biases toward their faculty as their faculty have toward them. For example, one study found that at one institution, female medical school faculty were given significantly lower teaching evaluations by third-year medical students in all clerkship rotations compared with male medical school faculty. Pediatrics showed the second largest difference, with surgery having the greatest difference.

The info is here.

What can we learn from Dartmouth?

Leah Somerville
www.sciencemag.org
Originally posted November 20, 2018

Here are two excerpts:

There are many urgent discussions that are needed right now to address the cultural problems in academia. We need to find ways to support trainees who have experienced misconduct, to identify malicious actors, to reconsider departmental and institutional policies, and more. Here, I would like to start a discussion aimed at the scientific community of primarily well-intentioned actors, using my own experiences as a lens to consider how we can all be more attuned to the slippery slope on which a toxic environment can be built.

Blurry boundaries. In scientific laboratories, it can be easy to blur lines between the professional and the personal. People in labs spend a lot of time together, travel together, and in some cases socialize together. Some people covet a close, “family-like” lab environment. For faculty members, what constitutes appropriate boundaries is not always obvious; after all, new faculty members are often barely older than their trainees. But whether founded on good intentions or not, close personal relationships can be a slippery slope because of the inherent power differential between trainee and mentor.

(cut)

Shame and isolation. It is harder to appreciate the sheer dysfunctionality of an environment if you believe you are experiencing it alone. Yet even if multiple individuals have similar experiences, they may hesitate to share them out of fear and shame or a sense of pluralistic ignorance. The result? Toxic environments can remain shrouded in secrecy, allowing them to perpetuate and intensify over time. For example, a friend of mine from this era did not tell me until years later that she was the recipient of an unwanted sexual advance. This event and its aftermath had an excruciating impact on her experience as a graduate student, yet she suffered through this turmoil in silence.

It is crucial that people in positions of power appreciate the shame and isolation that can accompany being a recipient of inappropriate behavior and the great personal cost of coming forward. Silence should not be interpreted as a signal that the events were not serious and damaging. Moreover, students need to perceive that clear channels of support and communication are available to them.

The info is here.

Complaint: Allina ignored intern’s sexual harassment allegations

Barbara L. Jones
Minnesota Lawyer
Originally published March 7, 2018

Here is an excerpt:

Abel’s complaint stems from the practicum at Abbott, partially under Gottlieb’s supervision.  She began her practicum in September 2015. According to the complaint, she immediately encountered sexualized conversation with Gottlieb and he attempted to control any conversations she and other students had with anybody other than him.

On her first day at the clinic, Gottlieb took students outside and instructed Abel to lie down in the street, ostensibly to measure a parking space. She refused and Gottlieb told her that “obeying” him would be an area for growth. When speaking with other people, he frequently referred to Abel, of Asian-Indian descent, as “the graduate student of color” or “the brown one.”  He also refused to provide her with access to the IT chart system, forcing her to ask him for “favors,” the complaint alleges. Gottlieb repeatedly threatened to fire Abel and other students from the practicum, the complaint said.

Gottlieb spent time in individual supervision sessions with Abel and also group sessions that involved role play. He told students to mimic having sex with him in his role as therapist and tell him he was good in bed, the complaint states. At these times he sometimes had a visible erection, the complaint also says. Abel raised these and other concerns but was brushed off by Abbott personnel, her complaint alleges.  Abel asked Dr. Michael Schmitz, the clinical director of hospital-based psychology services, for help but was told that she had to be “emotionally tough” and put up with Gottlieb, the complaint continues. She sought some assistance from Finch, whose job was to assist Gottlieb in the clinical psychology training program and supervise interns.  Gottlieb was displeased and threatening about her discussions with Schmitz and Finch, the complaint says.

The article is here.

Speaking up about traditional and professionalism-related patient safety threats: a national survey of interns and residents

Martinez W, Lehmann LS, Thomas EJ, et al
BMJ Qual Saf Published Online First: 25 April 2017.

Background Open communication between healthcare professionals about care concerns, also known as ‘speaking up’, is essential to patient safety.

Objective Compare interns' and residents' experiences, attitudes and factors associated with speaking up about traditional versus professionalism-related safety threats.

Design Anonymous, cross-sectional survey.

Setting Six US academic medical centres, 2013–2014.

Participants 1800 medical and surgical interns and residents (47% responded).

Measurements Attitudes about, barriers and facilitators for, and self-reported experience with speaking up. Likelihood of speaking up and the potential for patient harm in two vignettes. Safety Attitude Questionnaire (SAQ) teamwork and safety scales; and Speaking Up Climate for Patient Safety (SUC-Safe) and Speaking Up Climate for Professionalism (SUC-Prof) scales.

Results Respondents more commonly observed unprofessional behaviour (75%, 628/837) than traditional safety threats (49%, 410/837); p<0.001, but reported speaking up about unprofessional behaviour less commonly (46%, 287/628 vs 71%, 291/410; p<0.001). Respondents more commonly reported fear of conflict as a barrier to speaking up about unprofessional behaviour compared with traditional safety threats (58%, 482/837 vs 42%, 348/837; p<0.001). Respondents were also less likely to speak up to an attending physician in the professionalism vignette than the traditional safety vignette, even when they perceived high potential patient harm (20%, 49/251 vs 71%, 179/251; p<0.001). Positive perceptions of SAQ teamwork climate and SUC-Safe were independently associated with speaking up in the traditional safety vignette (OR 1.90, 99% CI 1.36 to 2.66 and 1.46, 1.02 to 2.09, respectively), while only a positive perception of SUC-Prof was associated with speaking up in the professionalism vignette (1.76, 1.23 to 2.50).

Conclusions Interns and residents commonly observed unprofessional behaviour yet were less likely to speak up about it compared with traditional safety threats even when they perceived high potential patient harm. Measuring SUC-Safe, and particularly SUC-Prof, may fill an existing gap in safety culture assessment.

The article is here.

Are practitioners becoming more ethical?

By Rebecca Clay
The Monitor on Psychology
May 2017, Vol 48, No. 5
Print version: page 50

The results of research presented at APA's 2016 Annual Convention suggest that today's practitioners are less likely to commit such ethical violations as kissing a client, altering diagnoses to meet insurance criteria and treating homosexuality as pathological than their counterparts 30 years ago.

The research, conducted by psychologists Rebecca Schwartz-Mette, PhD, of the University of Maine at Orono and David S. Shen-Miller, PhD, of Bastyr University, replicated a 1987 study by Kenneth Pope, PhD, and colleagues published in the American Psychologist. Schwartz-Mette and Shen-Miller asked 453 practicing psychologists the same 83 questions posed to practitioners three decades ago.

The items included clear ethical violations, such as having sex with a client or supervisee. But they also included behaviors that could reasonably be construed as ethical, such as breaking confidentiality to report child abuse; behaviors that are ambiguous or not specifically prohibited, such as lending money to a client; and even some that don't seem controversial, such as shaking hands with a client. "Interestingly, 75 percent of the items from the Pope study were rated as less ethical in our study, suggesting a more general trend toward conservativism in multiple areas," says Schwartz-Mette.

The article is here.

There is no liberal right to sex with students

Maya J. Goldenberg, Karen Houle, Monique Deveaux, Karyn L. Freedman, & Patricia Sheridan
The Times Higher Education
Originally posted May 4, 2017

There is a long and distinguished history of conceptualising liberal democracy in terms of basic rights to which, all other things being equal, everyone is entitled. Sexual freedom is rightly counted among these. But should this right apply where one person is in a position of power and authority over the other? Doctors are sanctioned if they have sex with their patients, as are lawyers who sleep with their clients. Should sexual relationships between professors and students in the same department also be off limits?

Neil McArthur thinks not. As Times Higher Education has reported, the associate professor of philosophy at the University of Manitoba, in Canada, recently published a paper criticising the spread of bans on such relationships. But we believe that his argument is flawed.

The article is here.

Cultural Humility in Psychotherapy Supervision

Joshua Hook, et al
American Journal of Psychotherapy, Volume 70, Number 2, 2016, pp. 149-166

Abstract:

As a core component of multicultural orientation, cultural humility can be considered an important attitude for clinical supervisees to adopt and practically implement. How can cultural humility be most meaningfully incorporated in supervision? In what ways can supervisors stimulate the development of a culturally humble attitude in our supervisees? We consider those questions in this paper and present a model for addressing cultural humility in clinical supervision. The primary focus is given to two areas: (a) modeling and teaching of cultural humility through interpersonal interactions in supervision, and (b) teaching cultural humility through outside activities and experiences. Two case studies illustrating the model are presented, and a research agenda for work in this area is outlined.

The article is here.

Sleep Deprivation and Advice Taking

Jan Alexander Häusser, Johannes Leder, Charlene Ketturat, Martin Dresler & Nadira Sophie Faber
Scientific Reports 6, Article number: 24386 (2016)
doi:10.1038/srep24386

Abstract

Judgements and decisions in many political, economic or medical contexts are often made while sleep deprived. Furthermore, in such contexts individuals are required to integrate information provided by – more or less qualified – advisors. We asked if sleep deprivation affects advice taking. We conducted a 2 (sleep deprivation: yes vs. no) ×2 (competency of advisor: medium vs. high) experimental study to examine the effects of sleep deprivation on advice taking in an estimation task. We compared participants with one night of total sleep deprivation to participants with a night of regular sleep. Competency of advisor was manipulated within subjects. We found that sleep deprived participants show increased advice taking. An interaction of condition and competency of advisor and further post-hoc analyses revealed that this effect was more pronounced for the medium competency advisor compared to the high competency advisor. Furthermore, sleep deprived participants benefited more from an advisor of high competency in terms of stronger improvement in judgmental accuracy than well-rested participants.

The article is here.

Later Career Remedial Supervision - The Practice Event Audit

Jon Amundson
The Practitioner Scholar: Journal of Counseling and Professional Psychology 32 
Volume 5, 2016

Abstract

Clinical supervision has for the most part focused upon early career preparation and training. Fundamental to this process is emphasis upon emerging competency. However, supervision can also be required in relation to enduring competency. Where lapses in professional practice are of a subtle or non-egregious nature, supervision may arise as a remedial route. Through hearing, tribunal mandate or negotiation, arising from Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), remedial supervision may be the outcome. In this article mandated or negotiated remedial supervision is discussed with a specific description of a means for such – the Practice Event Audit. Issues related to ethics, conduct and competency, remedial supervision and the Professional Event Audit are discussed in light of a case example.

The paper is here.

The Strict Liability Standard and Clinical Supervision

Paul D. Polychronis & Steven G. Brown
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, Vol 47(2), Apr 2016, 139-146.

Abstract

Clinical supervision is essential to both the training of new psychologists and the viability of professional psychology. It is also a high-risk endeavor for clinical supervisors because of regulations in many states that impose a strict liability standard on supervisors for supervisees’ conduct. Applied in the context of tort law, the concept of strict liability makes supervisors responsible for supervisees’ actions without having to establish that a given supervisor was negligent or careless. Consequently, in jurisdictions where the strict liability standard is used, it is virtually inevitable that clinical supervisors will be named in civil suits over a supervisee’s actions regardless of whether a supervisor has been appropriately conscientious. In cases of supervisee misconduct, regulations in 27 of 51 jurisdictions (the 50 states plus the District of Columbia) generally hold clinical supervisors fully responsible for supervisees’ actions in a professional realm regardless of the nature of the supervisees’ misbehavior. Some examples are provided of language from these state regulations. The implications of this current reality are discussed. Altering the regulatory approach to clinical supervision is explored to reduce risk to clinical supervisors that is beyond their reasonable control. Recommendations for conducting clinical supervision and corresponding risk-management practices are suggested to assist clinicians in protecting themselves if practicing in a jurisdiction that uses the strict liability standard in regulations governing clinical supervision.

The article is here.

Episode 23: Ethics and Skills for Psychologist as Supervisor-Post-Doctoral Supervision - Part 3

Podcasts 21, 22, and 23 will provide supervisors and supervisees with an understanding of the skills and ethical issues surrounding supervision, including the Pennsylvania State Board of Psychology’s Regulations dealing with postdoctoral supervision. The workshop will review the basic requirements for ethical supervision, common pitfalls, and give supervisors an understanding of the requirements that must be met for obtaining post-doctoral supervision.

In this episode, John's guest is Don McAleer, Psy.D., ABPP, a psychologist and post-doctoral supervisor, and Samuel J. Knapp, Ed.D., ABPP, psychologist and Professional Affairs Officer at the Pennsylvania Psychological Association.

At the end of the podcast series the participants will be able to:

1.  Describe essential factors involved in ethically sound and effective supervision;
2.  List or identify the State Board of Psychology requirements for post-doctoral supervision.
3.  Explain ways to improve supervisee's level of competence, self-reflection, and professionalism; &
4.  Identify strategies to comply with the Pennsylvania State Board of Psychology regulations on supervision of post-doctoral trainees.




The associated SlideShare presentation can be found here.

Competency Assessment Form

Sample Supervision Agreement

Sample Post-doctoral Agreement from Northshore Psychological Associates

Sample Post-Doc Performance Problem Sheet

Click here to earn 3 APA-approved continuing education credits for all three supervision episodes

The rise of cognitive enhancers is a mass social experiment

By Emma A. Jane and Nicole A. Vincent
The Conversation
Originally posted June 15, 2015

Want to sign up for a massive human experiment? Too late. You’re already a lab rat. There was no ethics approval or informed consent. You weren’t asked, you never signed up, and now there’s no easy way to opt out.

We don’t want to be alarmist. We’re not suggesting you’re about to sprout wings, grow coarse hairs in surprising places and become a gruesome half-insect like the Brundlefly (the side effects of real life scientific experiments rarely impress like the special effects in David Cronenberg’s film The Fly).

But we do know not everyone wants to be a human lab rat. And yet we are all currently enrolled in a massive experiment involving cognitive enhancers.

(cut)

But what drugs, what devices? Well, take this guy, for instance, pumping electricity through his brain with a homegrown transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) device that emits a current so small it can run off a nine-volt battery. Or Elizabeth, the 20-something founder of a start-up who takes Adderall – a medication prescribed to treat attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) – except she doesn’t have ADHD.

The entire article is here.

Episode 22: Ethics and Skills for Psychologist as Supervisor-Post-Doctoral Supervision

Podcasts 21, 22, and 23 will provide supervisors and supervisees with an understanding of the skills and ethical issues surrounding supervision, including the Pennsylvania State Board of Psychology’s Regulations dealing with postdoctoral supervision. The workshop will review the basic requirements for ethical supervision, common pitfalls, and give supervisors an understanding of the requirements that must be met for obtaining post-doctoral supervision.

In this episode, John's guest is John Jay Mills, Ph.D., ABPP, a psychologist and professor at Indiana University of Pennsylvania, and Samuel J. Knapp, Ed.D., ABPP, psychologist and Professional Affairs Officer at the Pennsylvania Psychological Association.

At the end of the podcast series the participants will be able to:

1.  Describe essential factors involved in ethically sound and effective supervision;
2.  List or identify the State Board of Psychology requirements for post-doctoral supervision.
3.  Explain ways to improve supervisee's level of competence, self-reflection, and professionalism; &
4.  Identify strategies to comply with the Pennsylvania State Board of Psychology regulations on supervision of post-doctoral trainees.



The associated SlideShare presentation can be found here.

The YouTube video can be found here.

PA § 41.33. Supervisor requirements

PA § 41.32. Experience qualifications to become a psychologist

Verification of Post-doctoral Experience from the Pennsylvania State Board of Psychology

Episode 21: Ethics and Skills for Psychologist as Supervisor-Post-Doctoral Supervision

Podcasts 21, 22, and 23 will provide supervisors and supervisees with an understanding of the skills and ethical issues surrounding supervision, including the Pennsylvania State Board of Psychology’s Regulations dealing with postdoctoral supervision. The workshop will review the basic requirements for ethical supervision, common pitfalls, and give supervisors an understanding of the requirements that must be met for obtaining post-doctoral supervision.  

In this episode, John's guest is John Jay Mills, Ph.D., ABPP, a psychologist and professor at Indiana University of Pennsylvania.

At the end of the podcast series the participants will be able to:

1.  Describe essential factors involved in ethically sound and effective supervision;
2.  List or identify the State Board of Psychology requirements for post-doctoral supervision;
3.  Explain ways to improve supervisee's level of competence, self-reflection, and professionalism; &
4.  Identify strategies to comply with the Pennsylvania State Board of Psychology regulations on supervision of post-doctoral trainees. 

The associated SlideShare presentation can be found here.

Link to the YouTube Video here.

PA § 41.33. Supervisor requirements

PA § 41.32. Experience qualifications to become a psychologist

Verification of Post-doctoral Experience from the Pennsylvania State Board of Psychology

Clinical supervision of psychotherapy: essential ethics issues for supervisors and supervisees

By Jeffrey E. Barnett and Corey H. Molzon
J Clin Psychol 2014 Nov 14;70(11):1051-61. Epub 2014 Sep 14.

Abstract

Clinical supervision is an essential aspect of every mental health professional's training. The importance of ensuring that supervision is provided competently, ethically, and legally is explained. The elements of the ethical practice of supervision are described and explained. Specific issues addressed include informed consent and the supervision contract, supervisor and supervisee competence, attention to issues of diversity and multicultural competence, boundaries and multiple relationships in the supervision relationship, documentation and record keeping by both supervisor and supervisee, evaluation and feedback, self-care and the ongoing promotion of wellness, emergency coverage, and the ending of the supervision relationship. Additionally, the role of clinical supervisor as mentor, professional role model, and gatekeeper for the profession are discussed. Specific recommendations are provided for ethically and effectively conducting the supervision relationship and for addressing commonly arising dilemmas that supervisors and supervisees may confront.

The entire article is here.

Mentoring new scientists in the space between how things are and how things ought to be.

By Janet D. Stemwedel
Scientific American Blog
Originally published October 31, 2014

Scientists mentoring trainees often work very hard to help their trainees grasp what they need to know not only to build new knowledge, but also to succeed in the context of a career landscape where score is kept and scarce resources are distributed on the basis of scorekeeping. Many focus their protégés’ attention on the project of understanding the current landscape, noticing where score is being kept, working the system to their best advantage.

But is teaching protégés how to succeed as a scientist in the current structural social arrangements enough?

It might be enough if you’re committed to the idea that the system as it is right now is perfectly optimized for scientific knowledge-building, and for scientific knowledge-builders (and if you view all the science PhDs who can’t find permanent jobs in the research careers they’d like to have as acceptable losses). But I’d suggest that mentors can do better by their protégés.

The entire article is here.

Impressions of Misconduct: Graduate Students’ Perception of Faculty Ethical Violations in Scientist-Practitioner Clinical Psychology Programs

January, A. M., Meyerson, D. A., Reddy, L. F., Docherty, A. R., & Klonoff, E. A. (2014, August
25). Impressions of Misconduct: Graduate Students’ Perception of Faculty Ethical Violations
in Scientist-Practitioner Clinical Psychology Programs. Training and Education in Professional
Psychology. Advance online publication.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/tep0000059

Abstract

Ethical conduct is a foundational element of professional competence, yet very little is known about how graduate student trainees perceive ethical violations committed by clinical faculty. Thus, the current study attempted to explore how perceived faculty ethical violations might affect graduate students and the training environment. Of the 374 graduate students in scientist-practitioner clinical psychology programs surveyed, nearly a third (n  121, 32.4%) reported knowledge of unethical faculty behavior. Students perceived a wide range of faculty behaviors as unethical. Perception of unethical faculty behavior was associated with decreased confidence in department faculty and lower perceived program climate.  Implications of these findings are discussed and recommendations offered.

The entire article is here.

Episode 14: Ethics and Quality Enhancement Strategies

In Episode 14, John welcomes Dr. Sam Knapp back to the podcast.  Sam was fresh off his Lifetime Achievement Award in Ethics Education from the American Psychological Association.  After John's first attempt at listener mail, the topic moves toward ethics education and ways to contemplate positive ethics.  Rather than looking at remedial ethics or the ethical floor, John and Sam give examples about striving for the ethical ceiling.  The focus on quality enhancement strategies grew out of risk management strategies.  From a quality enhancement perspective, Sam and John give several examples of what may trigger the need for quality enhancement strategies.  They also review four quality enhancement strategies: 1) consultation, 2) empowered collaboration, 3) documentation, and 4) redundant protections.  Sam and John also talk about psychologists' emotional reactions to patients.

At the end of this podcast, the listener will be able to:

1. Outline three quality enhancement strategies,
2. Describe how to prepare for a helpful consultation, and,
3. List the reasons why redundant protections are helpful in clinical practice.

Click here to earn one APA-approved CE credit

Find this podcast on iTunes

Or listen directly below

Resources for this podcast

Ethical Issues With Patients at a High Risk for Treatment Failure 

Samuel J. Knapp and John Gavazzi

Can Checklists Help to Reduce Treatment Failure?

Sam Knapp and John Gavazzi

Quality Enhancement Strategies - PowerPoint

John Gavazzi, PsyD ABPP

Episode 8: The Dark Side of Ethics - False Risk Management Strategies 

Therapists' Anger, Hate, Fear, and Sexual Feelings: National Survey of Therapist Responses, Client Characteristics, Critical Events, Formal Complaints, and Training

Ken Pope and Barbara G. Tabachnick