Background-This study reports on effectiveness trial outcomes of Health in Motion, a computer tailored multiple behavior intervention for adolescents.

No abstract

Psychotherapy membership to provide a contemporary portrait of psychologists conducting psychotherapy and to chronicle historical trends. Five hundred thirty-eight psychologists (57% response rate) completed a questionnaire in summer 2001 regarding their demographic characteristics, professional activities, theoretical orientations, and career experiences. The results point to an aging and increasingly diverse membership that continues to be employed primarily in private practices (66%) and university settings (14%) and that continues to embrace eclectic/integrative (36%), psychodynamic (21%), and cognitive (16%) orientations. Professional activities have remained quite similar across the past 20 years, with the exception of a notable decline in personality and projective testing.

The paucity of research on PsyD programs has led to unsubstantiated generalizations and uniformity myths about practitioner training. The authors collected information on the admission rates, financial assistance, theoretical orientations, and selected characteristics of American Psychological Association (APA)-accredited PsyD programs in clinical psychology (89% response rate). Systematic comparisons were made between PsyD programs housed in university departments, university professional schools, and freestanding institutions to describe the differences and commonalities among the heterogeneous PsyD programs. Empirical comparisons were provided among APA-accredited PsyD, practice-oriented PhD, and research-oriented PhD programs in clinical psychology to highlight the distinctive features of PsyD programs.The first national training conference on clinical psychology, the Boulder conference (Raimy, 1950), was a milestone for several reasons. First, it established the PhD as the required degree, as in other academic research fields. Second, the conference reinforced the idea that the appropriate location for training was within university departments, not separate schools or institutes as in medicine. And third, clinical psychologists were to be trained as scientist-practitioners for simultaneous existence in two worlds: academic/scientific and clinical/professional.Dissension with the recommendations of the Boulder conference gradually culminated in the 1973 national training conference held in Vail, Colorado. The Vail conferees endorsed different principles, leading to a diversity of training programs (Korman, 1974;Peterson, 1976Peterson, , 1982. Psychological knowledge, it was argued, had matured enough to warrant creation of explicitly professional programs along the lines of professional programs in medicine, dentistry, and law. These "professional" programs were to be added to, not replace, Boulder-model programs. Further, it was proposed that different degrees should be used to designate the scientist role (PhD) from the practitioner role (PsyD). Graduates of Vail-model professional programs would be scholar/professionals: The focus would be primarily on clinical service and less on research (Stricker & Cummings, 1992).The Vail conference led to the emergence of two relatively distinct training models typically housed in different settings. Boulder-model programs are almost universally located in graduate departments of universities. However, Vail-model programs can be housed in three organizational settings: within a psychology department; within a university-affiliated psychology school; or within an independent, freestanding psychology school.Clinical psychology now has two established and complementary training models that typically, but not invariably, generate different doctoral degrees. Although Boulder-model programs still outnumber Vail-model programs, Vail-model programs enroll, as a rule, three to four times the number of incoming doctoral candidates (Mayne, Norcross, & Sayette, 1994). This creat...

Building upon extensive research from 2 validated well-being instruments, the objective of this research was to develop and validate a comprehensive and actionable well-being instrument that informs and facilitates improvement of well-being for individuals, communities, and nations. The goals of the measure were comprehensiveness, validity and reliability, significant relationships with health and performance outcomes, and diagnostic capability for intervention. For measure development and validation, questions from the Well-being Assessment and Wellbeing Finder were simultaneously administered as a test item pool to over 13,000 individuals across 3 independent samples. Exploratory factor analysis was conducted on a random selection from the first sample and confirmed in the other samples. Further evidence of validity was established through correlations to the established well-being scores from the Well-Being Assessment and Wellbeing Finder, and individual outcomes capturing health care utilization and productivity. Results showed the Well-Being 5 score comprehensively captures the known constructs within well-being, demonstrates good reliability and validity, significantly relates to health and performance outcomes, is diagnostic and informative for intervention, and can track and compare well-being over time and across groups. With this tool, well-being deficiencies within a population can be effectively identified, prioritized, and addressed, yielding the potential for substantial improvements to the health status, performance, and quality of life for individuals and cost savings for stakeholders. (Population Health Management 2014;17:357-365)