Research in Clinical Supervision: Revitalizing a Scientific Agenda

The purpose of this article was to revitalize and disentangle common misconceptions about a scientific agenda for clinical supervision.     

The experience of professional autonomy among psychotherapists in Korea and the United States

This study investigates professional autonomy as experienced by psychotherapists in Korea and in the United States using data collected as part of a collaborative international study of the development of psychotherapists (Orlinsky et al. (1999). Psychotherapy Research, 9(2), 127–153; Orlinsky & Rønnestad, (2005). How psychotherapists develop: A study of therapeutic work and professional growth. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association). The major aims are: to compare the extent of professional autonomy experienced by psychotherapists in Korea and by their counterparts in the USA; and to explore the professional and social correlates of the professional autonomy experienced by Korean therapists and compare these with the correlates of autonomy experienced by American therapists. These aims are pursued through analyses of a database of questionnaire responses. Results indicate that Korean therapists, compared to American therapists in our sample experience significantly lower levels of professional autonomy. For Korean therapists, whether they have a salient theoretical orientation in their practice is the single most important influence in their experience of work autonomy. Seniority and work setting are also significant correlates of autonomy for the Korean therapists. Similar to Korean therapists, seniority and having a salient orientation are also important influences on the way American therapists experience professional autonomy. American therapists, who work in independent practice experience higher work autonomy, whereas American social workers tend to experience lower professional autonomy.     

Can Knowledge of Erasure Behavior be Used as an Indicator of Possible Cheating?

What is the typical amount of student answer‐changing that takes place in a low‐stakes test environment? Can we use this information to look for evidence of improper answer‐changing (cheating) on high‐stakes test?