Rod and TIPSters, Rod, I've been teaching a somewhat different course (400-level Clinical Psychology I: Counseling Methods, where Clin Psyc II is Tests and Measurements). But I've had the same frustration you have about the content offered in most of the texts available for these classes. I would love to hear more from the rest of you who teach similar courses...
I've tended to choose textbooks that fall more heavily on the science side of the clinical experience than the "art" side (e.g. Phares & Trull or Nietzel, Bernstein, and Millich), and have been adding more of the "touchy-feely" side of things by my in-class exercises and clinical anecdotes. I have trouble with the idea of devoting large amounts of time to teaching the theories _as though they mattered_ all that much (I'm bracing myself for the replies, here). But my reading of the outcomes literature is that the theory base adopted by a given practitioner is of little consequence in many clinical situations (I'm at home and don't have my refs available, but a standard text like Garfield's handbook of psychotherapy research is full of such reviews)... I certainly choose to use empirically-validated treatments when these exist, and such treatments fit pretty comfortably into my CBT background from graduate school. I think it's essential for students to know that such treatments exist, and that it would be unethical for a practitioner to use some other approach to panic, for example, without using exposure-based treatments as part of the package. In the case of panic, the empirically-validated CBT treatments would be necessary, though perhaps not always sufficient, depending on the client's presenting problems. This matters much more to me than whether they are familiar with the basic tenets of feminist therapy. I also focus on "common factors" quite a bit in that class, and wish we had textbooks that laid out material along the lines Rod is suggesting. Want to write a textbook, Rod? Esther > >Subject: teaching counseling theories (formerly Kohlberg et al) >From: "Hetzel, Rod" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 08:03:25 -0600 >X-Message-Number: 7 > >This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > >------_=_NextPart_001_01C29554.96421582 >Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="us-ascii" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > >I think Nancy is on target with her points. Cognitive neuroscientists >have made a lot of contributions to our understanding of human behavior >and I often find that students in my Abnormal Psychology classes have a >poor understanding of brain-behavior relationships. This thread is >particularly interesting to me as I've lately been thinking about other >ways to teach my Theories of Counseling course. Most of the >undergraduate-level texts in this area focus on theories that have very >little to no empirical support. The typical text in this area usually >covers: >=20 >Freudian therapy >Neo-Freudian (Jung to Horney to Kohut) therapy >Adlerian therapy >Existential therapy >Person-centered therapy >Gestalt therapy >Transactional analysis >Reality therapy >Behavior therapy >Cognitive-behavior therapy >Family systems therapy >Feminist therapy >=20 >Of these theories, some have received a bunch of empirical support >(behavioral and cognitive-behavioral, in particular) whereas others have >very little (for instance, existential and gestalt therapies). >Moreover, the layout of these texts seems to be different than the >current empirical trends in clinical psychology that are focusing on >common therapeutic factors (therapeutic alliance, client expectations, >etc.) and the development of specific treatment approaches for specific >disorders (exposure and response prevention for OCD, CBT or IPT for >depression, etc.). >=20 >Does it make sense to teach our students theories that have a place in >the history of psychology, but that are being replaced by more >contemporary approaches? Personally, I am very fond of existential and >Adlerian therapies and consistently find them to be helpful when working >with clients. However, when I am working with a client experiencing >panic attacks, an ethical approach is to use a treatment that has been >shown to be efficacious through empirical research. On the other hand, >there is an art as well as a science to therapy and, like most of life, >our clients usually don't fit into nice little diagnostic categories. >Having knowledge and skills in approaches that may not be >empirically-supported is often extremely useful in therapy. As Irvin >Yalom (2002) notes in his most recent text: >=20 >"...non-validated therapies are not invalidated therapies. Research, if >it is to be funded, must have a clean design comparable to research >testing drug efficacy. Design demands include "clean" patients (that >is, patients with a single disorder without symptoms of any other >diagnostic groups--a type of patient uncommonly seen in clinical >practice), a brief therapy intervention, and a replicable, preferably >manualized (that is, capable of being reduced to a step-by-step written >manual) treatment mode. Such a design heavily favors CBT and excludes >most traditional therapies that rely on intimate (unscripted) >therapist-patient relationship forged in genuineness and focusing on the >here-and-now as it spontaneously evolves...Analysis of results of >empirically-validated therapy (see Weston and Morrison) indicates far >less impressive outcomes than has generally been thought. There is >little follow-up at the end of one year and almost none at two years. >The early positive response of empirically-validated therapies (which is >found in any therapeutic intervention) has led to a distorted picture of >efficacy. The gains are not maintained and the percentage of patients >who remain improved is surprisingly low. There is no evidence that >therapist adherence to manuals positively correlates to improvement--in >fact, there is evidence to the contrary. In general, the implication of >the empirically-validated therapy research has been extended far beyond >the scientific evidence." (pp. 223-224) =20 >=20 >Despite these controversies, I've been thinking about alternative ways >of teaching a Theories of Counseling course. The ideal format would be >a two-course sequence. The first course could teach the traditional >theoretical approaches and techniques. The second course could focus on >empirically-validated therapies (although these types of approaches are >given some attention in Abnormal Psychology courses). In the meantime, >it would be great if we had a text that gave more attention to >empirically-validated treatments. >=20 >How do others on the list teach theories of counseling? >=20 >Rod >=20 >=20 >Reference: =20 >Yalom, I. D. (2002). The gift of therapy: An open letter to a new >generation of therapists and their patients. New York: HarperCollins.=20 >=20 >______________________________________________ >Roderick D. Hetzel, Ph.D. >Department of Psychology >LeTourneau University >Post Office Box 7001 >2100 South Mobberly Avenue >Longview, Texas 75607-7001 >=20 >Office: Education Center 218 >Phone: 903-233-3893 >Fax: 903-233-3851 >Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>=20 >Homepage: http://www.letu.edu/people/rodhetzel ><http://www.letu.edu/people/rodhetzel>=20 > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]=20 > Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 6:10 AM > To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences > Subject: Kohlberg et al >=09 >=09 --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
