Mental health-related smartphone apps (MHapps) have the potential to greatly enhance and enrich the counseling relationship, and dramatically improve the lives of clients. However, a large portion of MHapps have not been empirically researched and found to be effective. An average of 2 million apps are available in the Apple and Android stores, and users average more than 80 apps on their phones. Many of the apps lack disclaimers about the collection of user information, and there is no governing body to oversee and regulate app development and availability. This is particularly problematic with mental health-related smartphone apps, because many developers are not affiliated with mental health professionals, and many apps do not provide emergency information should a mental health emergency occur while using the app. Moreover, users are left to haphazardly make decisions about health-related apps usage without assistance. Counselors who supplement counseling with mental health-related smartphone apps could unknowingly violate their Code of Ethics by integrating apps that may jeopardize their clients' safety. The authors review literature related to mental health-related app efficacy, safety, and ethics and provide a compilation of items to consider that can be used before supplementing counseling with mental health-related apps.

Based on analyses of Maclean’s ranking data pertaining to Canadian universities published over the last 24 years, we present a summary of statistical findings of annual ranking exercises, as well as discussion about their current status and the effects upon student welfare. Some illustrative tables are also presented. Using correlational and cluster analyses, for each year, we have found largely nonsignificant, inconsistent, and uninterpretable relations between rank standings of universities and Maclean’s main measures, as well as between rank standings and the many specific indices used to generate these standings. In our opinion, when assessed in terms of their empirical characteristics, the annual data show generally that this system of ranking is highly limited in terms of its practical or academic value to students. Among other difficulties with the interpretation of ranks, we also discuss the possibility that ranking exercises have unintended, though potentially serious, negative consequences for the intellectual and personal welfare of students.

No abstract

No abstract