This reaction evaluates three content analyses that investigated separate aspects of research articles published in major counseling psychology journals: (a) institutional research productivity, (b) use of structural equation modeling, and (c) use of theory-driven research. The evaluation focuses on the adequacy of indices used in the content analyses and implications as well as cautions in interpreting the findings. Recommendations are provided with an emphasis on multiculturalism and diversity, the core values of the field of counseling psychology.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411-423.
2.
Bandalos, D. L., & Finney, S. J. (2001). Item parceling issues in structural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides & R. E. Schumaker (Eds.), New developments and techniques in structural equation modeling (pp. 269-296). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
3.
Brown, F. G. (1969). Seven years of the journal: A review. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 48, 263-272.
4.
Buboltz, W. C., Jr., Miller, M., & Williams, D. J. (1999). Content analysis of research in the Journal of Counseling Psychology (1973-1998). Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46, 496-503.
5.
Cowen, E. L., Spinell, A., Hightower, A. D., & Lotyczewski, B. S. (1987). Author reactions to the manuscript revision process. American Psychologist, 42, 403-405.
6.
Delgado, E. A., & Howard, G. S. (1994). Changes in research productivity in counseling psychology: Revisiting Howard (1983) a decade later. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 41, 69-73.
7.
Diegelman, N. M., Uffelman, R. A., Wagner, K. S., & Diegelman, S. A. (2005). Current institutional trends in research productivity in counseling psychology journals. The Counseling Psychologist, 33, 327-339.
8.
Fassinger, R. E. (1987). Use of structural equation modeling in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34, 425-436.
9.
Gelso, C. J., & Lent, B. W. (2000). Scientific training and scholarly productivity: The person, the training environment, and their interaction. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (3rd ed., pp. 109-139). New York: John Wiley.
10.
Heppner, P. P., Casas, J. M., Carter, J., & Stone, G. L. (2000). The maturation of counseling psychology: Multifaceted perspectives, 1878-1998. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (3rd ed., pp. 3-49). New York: John Wiley.
11.
Heppner, P. P., Kivlighan, D. M., Jr., & Wampold, B. E. (1999). Research design in counseling (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
12.
Hills, H. I., & Strozier, A. A. (1992). Multicultural training in APA-approved counseling psychology programs: A survey. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 23, 43-51.
13.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Examining model fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 76-99). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
14.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
15.
Karr, C. A., & Larson, L. M. (2005). Use of theory-driven research in counseling: Investigating three counseling psychology journals from 1990 to 1999. The Counseling Psychologist, 33, 299-326.
16.
Kazdin, A. E. (1992). Research design in clinical psychology. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
17.
Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcelornotto parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 151-173.
18.
MacCallum, R. C., Wegener, D. T., Uchino, B. N., & Fabrigar, L. R. (1993). The problem of equivalent models in applications of covariance structure analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 185-199.
19.
Marsh, H. W., & O’Neill, R. (1984). Self description questionnaire III: The construct validity of multidimensional self-concept ratings by late adolescents. Journal of Educational Measurements, 21, 153-174.
20.
Martens, M. P. (2005). The use of structural equation modeling in counseling psychology research. The Counseling Psychologist, 33, 269-298.
21.
McDonald, R. P., & Ho, M. R. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychological Methods, 7, 64-82.
22.
Perez, R. M., Constantine, M. G., & Gerard, P. A. (2000). Individual and institutional productivity of racial and ethnic minority research in the Journal of Counseling Psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 223-228.
23.
Ponterotto, J. G. (1988). Racial/ethnic minority research in the Journal of Counseling Psychology: A content analysis and methodological critique. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 35, 410-418.
24.
Ponterotto, J. G., Fuertes, J. N., & Chen, E. C. (2000). Models of multicultural counseling. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (3rd ed., pp. 639-669). New York: John Wiley.
25.
Quintana, S. M., & Maxwell, S. E. (1999). Implications of recent developments in structural equation modeling for counseling psychology. The Counseling Psychologist, 27, 485-527.
26.
Russell, D. W., Kahn, J. H., Spoth, R. S., & Altmaier, E. M. (1998). Analyzing data from experimental studies: A latent variable structural equation modeling approach. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45, 18-29.
27.
Tracey, T. J. G. (2000). Issues in the analysis and interpretation of quantitative data: Deinstitutionalization of the null hypothesis test. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (3rd ed., pp. 177-198). New York: John Wiley.
