| Abstract: | Reports an error in "From trainee impairment to professional competence problems: Seeking new terminology that facilitates effective action" by Nancy S. Elman and Linda Forrest (Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 2007Oct], Vol 385], 501-509). The APA ethics code standards for issues related to training were incorrectly identified in the last sentence on p. 501 (and continuing on p. 502). The sentence should read as follows: "The 2002 revision of the APA ethics code added standards that address training, including due process conditions for requiring disclosure of personal information when problems arise for trainees (Standard 7.04) as well as standards for mandating individual or group psychotherapy (Standard 7.05)." (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2007-14485-007.) Professional psychology has used the term impairment to describe trainees whose behavior does not meet minimum standards of professional competence, despite difficulties with the term that have been identified (L. Forrest, N. Elman, S. Gizara, & T. Vacha-Haase, see record 1999-03998-001), and a few new terms that have been posited. Overlap with definitions of disability and impairment under the Americans With Disabilities Act (1990) create legal risk for training programs continuing to use the term impairment (C. A. Falender, C. J. Collins, & E. P. Shafranske, 2005). In this article, we review this and other problems with impairment, propose new terminology that captures three concepts (problems, professional, and competence), and examine ways in which the new terminology is contextually grounded in emerging trends in psychology (e.g., the competency movement). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved) |
