“…Thus, the review is a tutorial in that the author (a) defines and clarifies the problem; (b) summarizes previous research; (c) identifies the relations, contradictions, gaps, and inconsistencies in the literature; and (d) recommends the next steps in solving the problem. Although the theoretical and empirical literature related to counselor education and supervision have been reviewed (Baker & Daniels, 1989;Ellis, Ladany, Krengel, & Schult, 1988;Garb, 1989;Hansen, Pound, & Petro, 1976;Hansen, Robins, & Grimes, 1982;Hansen & Warner, 1971;Holloway, 1987;Holloway & Wampold, 1986;Kaplan, 1983;Kurtz, Marshall, & Banspach, 1985;Leddick & Bernard, 1980;Liddle & Halpin, 1978;Loganbill, Hardy, & Delworth, 1982;Matarazzo & Patterson, 1986;Russell, Crimmings, & Lent, 1984;Worthington, 1987), few met all of these criteria satisfactorily. In general, the reviews tended to (a) fail to build on previous reviews, (b) suffer from sampling biases, (c) be fairly circumscribed, and (d) adhere to the traditional narrative and subjective approach to conducting integrative reviews (see Cooper, 1982Cooper, , 1989, for the limitations of this approach).…”