Studies of refiection-impulsivity support the view that it is correlated with performance on a variety of similar tests and predicts the quality of problem solving in problems that contain response uncertainty. However, reflectionimpulsivity is typically not a predictor of performance in preschoolers whohave not yet learned to delay and scrutinize alternative hypotheses. The response time component of reflection-impulsivity is relatively independent of IQ, whereas the error component is moderately related. Shortcomings of the major test used to measure reflection-impulsivity are described, and norms to guide the researcher are presented. Studies of scanning behavior show that reflectives gather more information more carefully and systematically than do impulsives. Attempts to relate this variable to personality and social variables have been only partially successful. Reflection-impulsivity is related to certain clinical syndromes including hyperactivity, brain damage, epilepsy, and mental retardation. It also affects school performance, as shown by the greater impulsivity of children with reading difficulties, learning disabilities, and school failure. Impulsivity has been found to be modifiable: The most consistently successful strategy in this regard is to teach impulsives improved scanning strategies by means of appropriate training materials while having them verbalize such strategies aloud.

Luborsky et al.'s findings of a non‐significant effect size between the outcome of different therapies reinforces earlier meta‐analyses demonstrating equivalence of bonafide treatments. Such results cast doubt on the power of the medical model of psychotherapy, which posits specific treatment effects for patients with specific diagnoses. Furthermore, studies of other features of this model—such as component (dismantling) approaches, adherence to a manual, or theoretically relevant interaction effects—have shown little support for it. The preponderance of evidence points to the widespread operation of common factors such as therapist‐client alliance, therapist allegiance to a theoretical orientation, and other therapist effects in determining treatment outcome. This commentary draws out the implications of these findings for psychotherapy research, practice, and policy.

This article critiques major trends in the psychotherapy integration movement from the postmodem perspectives of contextualism and pluralism. A contextualist position asserts that psychothelrpeutic concepts and interventions u n be understood only within the linguistic, theoretical, and ideological f n m e w o h in which they are embedded. Therefore, they take on new meanings when extracted from their original context and are incorporated into an eclectic therapy. Pluralism holds that there is no single theoretiul, epistemological, or methodologiul approach that is preeminent and no one, cotred integrative system toward which the field of psychotherapy is evolving. In light of this critique, we ugue that the goal of the integration movement should be t o maintain an ongoing dialogue among proponents of d*rent theories and world views, thenby allowing for tho darifiution of d f h rences as well as the judicious integmtlon of akemative perspectives and techniques. The article also spollr out the implications of contextualism i n d pluralism for psychotherapy theory, practice, and research.

This article illustrates the application of an adjudicated form of hermeneutic single-case efficacy design, a critical-reflective method for inferring change and therapeutic influence in single therapy cases. The client was a 61-year-old European-American male diagnosed with panic and bridge phobia. He was seen for 23 sessions of individual process-experiential/emotion-focused therapy. In this study, affirmative and skeptic teams of researchers developed opposing arguments regarding whether the client changed over therapy and whether therapy was responsible for these changes. Three judges representing different theoretical orientations then assessed data and arguments, rendering judgments in favor of the affirmative side. The authors discuss clinical implications and recommendations for future interpretive case study research.

No abstract