This rejoinder responds to the four reactions in the May 2005 issue of The Counseling Psychologist. Areas of possible confusion are clarified, and relevant examples are highlighted. Of particular interest are examples of the nomological network, which offers an excellent tool for counseling psychologists and others in related disciplines as well as within the broader field of psychology. In addition, the implications of current and future theoretical and empirical investigation of multicultural issues are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Betz, N. E. (2005). Enhancing research productivity in counseling psychology: Reactions to three perspectives. The Counseling Psychologist, 33, 358-366.
2.
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281-302.
3.
Gore-Felton, C. (2005). Understanding quantitative research in counseling psychology: An elusive endeavor in an increasingly diverse discipline. The Counseling Psychologist, 33, 367-374.
4.
Heppner, P. P., Kivlighan, D. M., & Wampold, B. E. (1999). Research design in counseling. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
5.
Kahn, J. H. (2005). Institutional research productivity, use of theory-driven research, and statistical application in counseling psychology: Examining the research base. The Counseling Psychologist, 33, 340-348.
6.
Lee, D. (2005). Calls for multiple indices incorporating multiculturalism in content analysis. The Counseling Psychologist, 33, 349-357.
7.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
8.
Tracey, T. J. G., & Glidden-Tracey, C. E. (1999). Integration of theory, research design, measurement, and analysis: Toward a reasoned argument. The Counseling Psychologist, 27, 299-324.
