The three reactions written in response to our review article (Forrest, Elman, Gizara, & Vacha-Haase, 1999 [this issue]) are gratifying on a number of levels. First, we are pleased and appreciative of the thorough feedback we received from these three eminent psychologists whose work has informed our thinking on trainee impairment. As the lead author on early and seminal works on trainee impairment (Lamb, Cochran, & Jackson, 1991;Lamb et al., 1987), Douglas Lamb's (1999 [this issue]) comments clarify several points in our review, and the new work he presents extends the dialogue about this complex topic in exciting new directions. In "Practicing What We Preach," Gary Schoener (1999 [this issue]) brings to his reactions an extensive background and well-developed expertise in treating distressed and impaired practicing psychologists, as well as his long-time involvement with state and national professional associations. Melba Vasquez's (1999 [this issue]) multicultural, feminist perspective combines with her many years of experience as training director of an American Psychological Association (APA) accredited internship and as an author of a popular ethics textbook (Pope & Vasquez, 1991) to provide unique perspectives on trainee impairment.Second and more important, we believe that Lamb (1999), Schoener (1999), and Vasquez (1999) have extended the conversation that we hoped to facilitate about the extent of the unfinished work on the subject of impaired and incompetent trainees. Each of the reactants thoughtfully steps into the dialogue, extending our review by articulating new insights and proposing future directions for consideration.Together, the reactants' comments push our understanding of trainee impairment from an individual level focused on the trainee to a complex 712