This article provides a test of an application of M. Zeidner and D. Saklofske's (1996) adaptive model of coping to counseling through the development of a brief multidimensional outcome measure for psychotherapy that specifically examines clients' resolution of their presenting problems. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses revealed 4 primary factors, all reflecting different components of clients' problem resolution: (a) Problem-Solving Strategies, (b) Problem-Solving Self-Efficacy, (c) Problem Impact on Daily Functioning, and (d) General Satisfaction With Therapy. Descriptive statistics, normative information, and reliability and validity estimates suggest that the Problem Resolution Outcome Survey has promise as an effective psychotherapy outcome measure. The results support the application of Zeidner and Saklofske's adaptive model of coping to the therapy process, as well as the utility of problem-solving constructs within psychotherapy outcome research.

No abstract

A sample of 210 persons varying by age (young adults, middle-aged, older adults), gender, and relationship status (single or involved) were administered the Holtzman Inkblot Technique (HIT) and Geriatric Draw-A-Person (G-DAP) to ascertain projectively assessed aspects of body image in adulthood. Results suggested that both the HIT and G-DAP were sensitive to the effects of age and gender, wherein young adults scored higher on both HIT Barrier and Penetration than both middle-aged or older adults. In addition, G-DAP scores favored young adults. HIT Penetration scores varied by both age and relationship status.

No abstract

No abstract

With the advent of managed care, counseling psychologists are encountering vexing ethical issues. These issues arise not only for practitioners but for researchers, educators, and trainers as well. In this article, the authors briefly describe the evolution of managed care and review basic biomedical ethics and ethical decision-making models. The authors then examine specific ethical issues and offer suggestions for practice, research, and education and training. This article concludes with a research agenda, a review of projected general trends in health care delivery, and a discussion of counseling psychology’s role in addressing current concerns as well as influencing the future evolution of health care delivery.

When writing a major contribution such as the one in this issue (Cooper & Gottlieb, 2000), one cannot help being fearful of criticism for going in the wrong direction, missing major issues, inadvertently offending, or simply failing to say anything of great value. We were relieved and gratified that all three of the authors who responded to our article were generally supportive and that each used our article as a reference point to discuss other issues. We take this as a compliment and will try to respond to some of the major issues that they raised.Younggren (2000 [this issue]) expanded on the issue of informed consent, and from our perspective, he is right on target. We especially agree with his notion that informed consent is a process, a concept that still eludes many practitioners. Also, he echoed our concern that there is far too little research in the area and that professional preparation remains inadequate.Younggren (2000) and Tjeltveit (2000 [this issue]) noted the need for organized psychology to address these ethical issues, develop solutions, and help support individual practitioners. We wholeheartedly agree but reluctantly note that Younggren and Tjeltveit's recommendations have not been honored even by the appearance of unity within organized psychology. Whether it was intentional or not, the managed care (MC) movement conquered and divided. Not only did organized psychology find itself set against other professions but against itself as well. For example, one of us (Gottlieb) was a member of the American Psychological Association (APA) Council of Representatives when a group tried to establish a managed care division within APA. New divisions within APA are generally approved in a routine manner and not controversial. None of this was true when it came to an MC division. Some of those representing private practice found the prospect of a division of managed care within APA as tantamount to having the enemy within one's own camp. They marshaled every conceivable defense against what they perceived as a fundamental threat to their very being. Eventually there was a debate on the floor of the council that saw colleagues bitterly 263