The Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies initiated an interorganizational task force to develop guidelines for integrated education and training in cognitive and behavioral psychology at the doctoral level in the United States. Fifteen task force members representing 16 professional associations participated in a year-long series of conferences, and developed a consensus on optimal doctoral education and training in cognitive and behavioral psychology. The recommendations assume solid foundational training that is typical within applied psychology areas such as clinical and counseling psychology programs located in the United States. This article details the background, assumptions, and resulting recommendations specific to doctoral education and training in cognitive and behavioral psychology, including competencies expected in the areas of ethics, research, and practice.

No abstract

An intervention involving 60 incarcerated juvenile delinquents (30 male and 30 female) yielded significant gains in sociomoral reasoning that were attributable to a dilemma-discussions treatment. The treatment consisted of eight weekly smallgroup discussions of sociomoral dilemmas. The group participants initially differed in both sociomoral stage and dilemma opinion. Of the dilemma-discussions subjects, 87.5% were pretested at Modal Stage 2 (in terms of Kohlberg's moral judgment stages) and shifted to Modal Stage 3 on the posttest, whereas only 14.3% of the Modal Stage 2 control subjects did so. Pretest Modal Stage 3 subjects remained at Stage 3 on the posttest. Across the experimental groups, no difference was found between groups where a consensus was required for the discussion and groups having no consensus requirement. Investigations of the possible in-program and postrelease behavioral ramifications of the dilemma-discussions treatment are recommended.Recent reviews (Blasi, 1980, pp. 11-17;Jurkovic, 1980) have noted the potential contributions of structural-developmental theory to the understanding and treatment of delinquency. In the structural-developmental view, children in highly power-assertive, disharmonious homes who are identifiable as high risk for delinquency (Farrington, 1978;Welsh, 1976) are precluded from role-taking opportunities that would accrue from constructive child-rearing practices such as inductive discipline (featuring explanations of how one's transgression has had adverse consequences for others; Hoffman, 1970, pp. 282-294) and encouragement of the child's participation to a feasible extent in family decision making (Kohlberg, 1969, pp. 399-400). At least partly because of the dearth of such role-taking opportunities, many such children become developmentally delayed or arrested in the development of their social and moral reasoning. The research (reviewed by Blasi, 1980, pp. 11-17) generally shows that, in relation to matched controls, significantly higher percentages of We thank Duane Johnson and Nancy Mitchell of the Ohio Department of Youth Services for their extensive cooperation.

No abstract

Juvenile delinquents' (n = 60) and nondelinquents' (n = 73) stages of moral development were compared using both recognition and production measures. Juvenile delinquents were found to score significantly lower than nondelinquents on a production measure of moral judgment (the Sociomoral Reflection Measure). A recognition measure (the Sociomoral Reflection Objective Measure), however, did not discriminate between the two groups in an analysis controlled for significant covariates of age, socioeconomic status, and IQ. The possibility that delinquents are delayed in the production but not recognition of mature moral reasoning is considered. The possibility is also considered, however, that excessive error variance associated with recognition measures of moral reasoning when administered to juvenile delinquents is responsible for the inability of such measures to discriminate between delinquents and nondelinquents.