If you are a therapist, how knowledgeable are you and how knowledgeable do you need to be about psychotherapy research findings? In this study, the authors examined practicing psychologists' knowledge of general psychotherapy research findings. Results revealed that some psychologists showed excellent familiarity with this body of outcome research, but many did not achieve this standard. Not infrequently, psychologists believed that research findings were less positive than is actually the case, perhaps explaining some of the negativity that practitioners sometimes express toward psychotherapy research. Research knowledge could not be predicted by years graduated, percentage of long-term clients, percentage of time conducting therapy, theoretical orientation, or perceived familiarity with research. The modest familiarity with research findings that therapists, in general, demonstrated may be understood, in part, through examination of the acquisition of research knowledge as a judgment task. The authors explore potential factors that may influence therapists' judgments about the research. In addition, they examine possible relations between research knowledge and therapy outcome and their potential practice implications.

We examined leading international psychotherapy researchers' views on psychotherapy outcome research. Participants completed a questionnaire on which they rated level of research evidence for or against various assertions about psychotherapy processes and outcomes. Participants rated how confident they were that the assertions were supported by psychotherapy research. Strong, or relatively strong, consensus was achieved on several of the questionnaire items. Areas for which relative uniformity of opinion does or does not exist have potential implications for the teaching and conduct of psychotherapy and for the science-practice interface in psychotherapy. Additionally, consensus about psychotherapy findings can be used as a yardstick by which to measure practicing clinicians' knowledge of the research. CHARLES M. BOISVERT received his PhD in clinical psychology from the University of Rhode Island in 1999. He is an assistant professor in the Department of Counseling and Educational Psychology at Rhode Island College. His general research interests include science-practice relations, predictors of psychotherapy outcome, and clinical judgment. His professional interests include cognitive-behavioral treatments for schizophrenia and anxiety, and stress management. DAVID FAUST received his PhD in clinical psychology from Ohio University in 1979. He is a professor in the Department of Psychology at the University of Rhode Island with an affiliate appointment in the Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior at the Brown University Medical School. His research and professional activities include such areas as philosophy/psychology of science, clinical judgment, neuropsychology, and psychology and law.

We investigated the relation between the label of "schizophrenia" and causal attributions of violence. Undergraduates read 1 of 10 scenarios in which two variables were manipulated: a psychiatric label and environmental stress. The scenario described an employee who acted violently toward his boss. Subjects made causal attributions for the employee's behavior by completing an adapted version of the Causal Dimension Scale II. Subjects also completed a questionnaire designed to explore several issues concerning the effects of the schizophrenia label on perceptions of behavior. Contrary to the primary hypothesis, the schizophrenia label did not lead subjects to make significantly more personality causal attributions for violent behavior. With increasing environmental stress, subjects did make significantly fewer personality attributions. A follow-up study using practicing clinicians as subjects yielded similar findings. The results of these studies are discussed in light of perceived stereotypes of persons with schizophrenia and conceptual issues in attribution research.

Comments on Negative effects from psychological treatments: A perspective by David Barlow (see record 2009-24989-002). The author addresses negative treatment effects in the psychotherapy field by stating that Barlow provided a historical perspective of clinical psychology's long-standing interest in studying the positive effects of psychotherapy, and he indicated that although negative treatment effects have long been identified, little attention has been paid to them. Barlow also recommended a greater emphasis on more idiographic approaches to studying negative effects. He further added that "this would be best carried out in the context of a strong collaboration among frontline clinicians and clinical scientists". I would argue that this may best be carried out between frontline clinicians and their clients. So the science that we use may not be clinical mandates prohibiting, for example, certain treatments but may simply be the sharing of our scientific knowledge about clinical possibilities so as to better inform clients about the treatment they are considering.

Higher clinical costs associated with longer lengths of stay in colder climates have implications for budget planning. Climate factors must also be recognized for their potential effect on performance monitoring systems focused on hospital utilization. Researchers must continue to consider broader contextual variables such as climate if they are to fully understand the determinants of health care utilization and psychiatric hospitalization costs.