Many of the discrepancies reported to date in empirical investigations of the impostor phenomenon (IP) may be due in part to (a) the use of different methods for identifying individuals suffering from this syndrome (impostors), (b) the common use of a median split procedure to classify subjects and (c) the fact that subjects in many studies were drawn from impostor-prone samples. In this study, we compared the scores of independently identified impostors and nonimpostors on two instruments designed to measure the IP: Harvey's I-P Scale and Clance's IP Scale. The results suggest that Clance's scale may be the more sensitive and reliable instrument. Cutoff score suggestions for both instruments are offered.

Touch is a critical and pervasive form of communication between humans.Although the use of touch in psychotherapy is often debated on theoretical grounds, these discussions frequently center on all-or-none propositions related to the "taboo against touch." The authors believe that such arguments miss the complexities and subtleties of the therapeutic relationship and that insufficient attention has been paid to linking these theoretical arguments to ethical considerations. Theoretical arguments and historical developments regarding touch in psychotherapy are reviewed, highlighting ethical concerns. Guidelines for the ethical use of touch in psychotherapy are presented.

The first part of this two-part series discusses psychological influences in delayed and failed recovery and resulting unnecessary work disability; the second part discusses theoretical and practical aspects of the issue, including evaluation and treatment. Delayed and failed recovery and unnecessary disability (DFRUD) refers to a lag in, or lack of, expected recovery from a medical condition and/or unnecessary resultant disability. Causation is complex, and we are not doing well at managing this group of workers using a biomedical model. The traditional biomedical model posits that disease or injury produces symptoms and signs that cause impairment and result in disability. This approach too strictly separates mental phenomena and bodily function (Cartesian dualism) and leads to scientific reductionism when actually six domains are active in worker disability: medical, personal, psychological, sociocultural, systematic (including compensation and insurance), and workplace elements. Medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS) should be understood as a disturbance of normal neurological and/or psychological processes underlying symptom production, perception, and experience and cannot be better explained by another physical or psychiatric illness. Within this system of evaluation, administrative and medical iatrogenicity are associated with unnecessary medical care and poor outcomes for individuals. In addition to determining industrial causality and apportionment, if evaluators accept some psychological factors, MUPS, and central sensitization, they must explain to what extent these are compensable. Part two of this article will discuss theoretical and practical approaches, including specific evaluation and treatment methods.

No abstract

No abstract