During the summer of 1984, APA-approved counseling psychology programs were surveyed about their research training practices. Although the programs view themselves as placing greater emphasis on the practitioner as opposed to the scientist aspects of training, many current students do publish research and/or present research findings at professional meetings. When the programs were categorized into high and low productive based on students publishing and presenting research during 1983-1984, several variables differentiated the categories. High productive programs tended to involve students in research early in training, required them to participate in research teams or to complete research apprenticeships, more strongly encouraged student research presentation and publication, and were more likely to provide typing for student manuscripts. They also placed greater emphasis on philosophy of science, gave more exposure to qualitative research, and were less likely to approve correlational/ex post facto research designs in doctoral dissertations. The training practices and their implications are discussed.
The authors surveyed the research training practices of doctoral‐level, APA‐approved counseling psychology programs, non‐APA‐approved counseling psychology programs, and counselor education programs to identify ways to improve such training. Some differences were found according to program type. No differences were found in percentage of students' publishing or presenting research during 1983–84. Suggestions for improving future research training were assessed; highest ratings were given to required participation in research teams; 1st‐year, “hands‐on” research experience; and greater emphasis on design rather than statistics training. Programs characterized by high and low student research productivity differed in the areas of required research training, research emphases and research climate, required presentation or submission of research for publication, and material support for student research. The implications of these findings are discussed.
Tested the relation between attributions and types of depression (with and without low selfesteem) postulated by reformulated learned helplessness theory vs. an alternative (Janoff-Bulman, 1979). 334 Ss completed the Beck Depression Inventory, Attributional Style Questionnaire, and Janis-Field Feelings of Inadequacy Scale. Scores above 8 on the Beck were considered depressed. A median split on the Janis-Field scale divided Ss into those with and without low self-esteem. Clearest support was found for Janoff-Bulman's formulations. Depressed Ss with low self-esteem made more internal characteroldgical attributions for bad events than the other groups. Nondepressed Ss made more internal behavioral attributions than depressed Ss. The implications for counseling and future research on depression and learned helplessness are noted. This article is based on a doctoral dissertation submitted by Richard F. Stoltz and directed by John P. Galassi.We gratefully acknowledge Nausicaa Halkias Stoltz and Elizabeth Ewing Taylor for their assistance with the study and Patricia Anne Rogers for her helpful comments on the manuscript.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.