Loading…
Ethical Claims for Outcome Monitoring: A Reply to Pinner and Kivlighan (2018)
Pinner and Kivlighan (2018) advocated for routine outcome monitoring (ROM) in the practice of psychotherapy as a strategy to ensure ethical decision-making and assessment of therapists' competence. We agree that deploying ROM can improve therapeutic outcomes. However, we also believe they overs...
Saved in:
Published in: | Professional psychology, research and practice research and practice, 2021-04, Vol.52 (2), p.186-189 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Summary: | Pinner and Kivlighan (2018) advocated for routine outcome monitoring (ROM) in the practice of psychotherapy as a strategy to ensure ethical decision-making and assessment of therapists' competence. We agree that deploying ROM can improve therapeutic outcomes. However, we also believe they overstated the value of ROM as a means to assess clinician competence or ethicality. The fictionalized case example presented as an illustration has the potential to confuse readers regarding the calibration of clinical experience with decisions to accept or refer out potential clients. Although ROM can certainly prevent premature termination and enhance the effectiveness of psychotherapy, the technique by itself cannot stand as an ethical prerequisite or arbiter of practice competence.
Public Significance Statement
A previous publication in this journal by Pinner and Kivlighan (2018) described routine outcome monitoring in psychotherapy practice as a means of assuring psychotherapist competence. We believe that some problems with their reasoning and case example warrant correction. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0735-7028 1939-1323 |
DOI: | 10.1037/pro0000282 |