The study compared the acquisition, generalization, transfer, and maintenance of language comprehension and production responses by persons at two IQ levels: mentally retarded (N=10) and nonretarded (N=10). The two levels of the IQ Level factor were combined factorially with two levels of a Training Condition factor: Comprehension-Production and Production Only. Participants in the former groups were trained sequentially to (a) comprehend coin labels by pointing and then (b) produce verbally the correct coin label. Participants in the Production Only groups were trained on the latter response only. A three-factor mixed design with one repeated measure plus a multiple baseline across coin responses was employed. Results indicated that both mentally retarded and nonretarded subjects attained a high level of acquisition and maintained their performance on 1- and 4-week follow-up tests. No difference occurred between mentally retarded and nonretarded participants in magnitude of acquisition, but the mentally retarded groups took approximately three times as many trials to complete training. Data also suggested, contrary to past research, that generalization from comprehension to production was bidirectional, with no difference in magnitude between mentally retarded and nonretarded subjects. Transfer from comprehension to production occurred in both nonretarded and retarded subjects; comprehension training facilitated a savings of trials in production training. These results show that language differences between retarded and nonretarded persons are quantitative rather than qualitative as some past research may have suggested.

This national survey was conducted to answer several questions including: how predoctoral training sites practice group supervision, how these results compared to a similar survey sent in 1991 (Riva & Cornish, 1995), and whether group process and multicultural considerations are incorporated into group supervision practices. The original survey included 157 group supervisors from sites listed in the 1991-1992 APPIC Directory, while the current study's respondents included 162 group supervisors from sites in the 2006 -2007 APPIC Directory. Several important similarities and differences were found between the two time periods. The results and implications related to how group supervision is conducted are presented. Recommendations based on these results are outlined.

Group supervision is widely practiced, yet little is known about the frequency of use and how it is actually practiced. A national survey of psychology predoctoral internships was conducted to examine current practices of group supervision. Data were collected on characteristics of the leader, the structure and content of group supervision, and leaders' perceptions about the unique qualities of group supervision. The 243 returned surveys showed that group supervision was conducted at a majority (65%) of the sites. The survey indicated that groups typically consist of 3 to 5 interns who meet weekly for the entire internship. Group supervisors were also found to enjoy conducting group supervision and to have extensive experience in doing so. Results about the content of group supervision and the perceived unique characteristics are also presented, along with suggestions for future research. MARIA T. RIVA received her PhD in counseling psychology from the University of Pittsburgh in 1990. She is currently an assistant professor in counseling psychology at the University of Denver. Her major teaching and research interests are in adolescent development and group counseling. JENNIFER A. ERICKSON CORNISH received her PhD in clinical psychology from the California School of Professional Psychology-Los Angeles in 1982. She is currently the director of training at the University of Denver Counseling Center. Her major research interests are in supervision, training, and group psychotherapy.

The concept of confidentiality is fundamental to all forms of psychotherapy. The idea of protecting confidential material goes as far back as the Hippocratic Oath in ancient Greek history. Centuries later, authors continue to assert that "only by maintaining confidentiality can the essential groundwork of trust in treatment be developed" (Hough, 1992, p. 106). Others have even argued that without confidentiality, psychotherapy has no value (Epstein, Steingarten, Weinstein, & Nashel, 1977). Confidentiality in group psychotherapy is more complicated than in individual therapy because self-disclosure is at the core of group therapy and there are numerous people hearing the disclosures. Confidentiality in group therapy, once ignored in the literature on ethics, is gaining more attention as this modality becomes more widely practiced; so too is an acknowledgement that ethical dilemmas surrounding confidentiality in groups are commonplace. This article discusses the major considerations and dilemmas on confidentiality in group psychotherapy. We first review confidentiality broadly and discuss the ethical principles that are related to confidentiality. In the next section, we discuss the complexities of confidentiality in group psychotherapy. Finally, we review research on confidentiality in groups and describe common ethical dilemmas.

No abstract