Looking back and moving forward: research in the Journal of Mental Health Counseling. (Editorials).

I am extremely pleased to begin my tenure as Associate Editor for Research for the Journal of Mental Health Counseling. Having served on the Editorial Board of the journal since late 1993, I have had the opportunity to both observe and contribute to the positive growth of the research section that occurred under the guidance of my recent predecessors Drs. Kevin R. Kelly and M. Carole Pistole. During that time, I have seen an increase in the presence of research articles in the journal as well as an increase in the quality of the articles being published. Clearly, to have the chance to further the growth of the section through the position of associate editor is an exciting prospect. Perhaps predictably, it will be my intent to continue the legacy of the past associate editors and contribute to the ongoing growth of the section in some specific ways.

My major goals in continuing the heritage of the research section are three-fold. First is the long-standing commitment to a broad definition of research that has been articulated in the past (Brown, 1988; Kelly, 1993; Pistole, 1996). This definition does not revolve around a differential valuing of quantitative and qualitative methodologies but rather places a strong focus on the conceptual link between the research question and the design characteristics necessary to interpret the data in relationship to that question. Thus, as in the past, the research section of JMHC will demonstrate an appreciation for methodological diversity by publishing high quality quantitative and qualitative articles relevant to the knowledge-base and practice of mental health counseling.

Second, as suggested previously, the prevalence of research articles in the journal has increased relative to Practice, Theory, and Professional Exchange contributions over the past years as a function of specific editorial initiatives in this direction (i.e., Kelly, 1993; Pistole, 1996). Research is important to the identity, health, and vitality of the profession of mental health counseling, and it has an intimate relationship with practice in terms of addressing clinically generated questions and providing empirical support for intervention strategies. This strong presence of research in the journal must be maintained.

Third, the editors of the JMHC have consistently considered the journal as serving a professional development mission. For example, Pistole (1996) discussed this mission in terms of taking an "educative and cooperative stance" (p. 309) within the review process in order to both nurture new talent and insure the publication of high quality manuscripts. The approach and attitude to working with authors submitting manuscripts to the research section demonstrated in the past and articulated by previous editors will also be sustained during my tenure.

Beyond continuing the legacy of previous associate editors of the research section related to operating under a broad and inclusive definition of research, maintaining a strong presence in terms of both the quality and quantity of articles published, and viewing the review process as educative and developmental, I have identified three specific areas of concentration for my tenure in this position. These areas can be broadly identified as focusing on issues of (a) theory, (b) psychometrics, and (c) significance with regard to research manuscripts. My goal will be to strengthen published research articles by increasing editorial attention to these areas. To this end, I briefly discuss each of these areas below.

THEORY

Theories provide the conceptual thread that allows scientifically oriented disciplines to build a coherent knowledge-base that, in turn, informs and contributes to the application of that knowledge to practice. According to Lynd (1939) and Pedhazur and Schmelkin (1991), theoretically driven research provides a framework to guide questions, determine the variables of interest, inform the design strategies, specify the analytic approaches, and influence the interpretation of the results. Furthermore, as suggested by Ginter (1996), it is theory that weds research and practice, a necessary link for a discipline such as mental health counseling which values the practitioner-scientist model (Ginter, 1993). Despite its importance, however, theory is sometimes overlooked or only implied in the introductions of research articles, and often the link between the results and the theory is not clearly communicated. As associate editor of the research section of JMHC, I will focus strongly on insuring that manuscripts provide a clear articulation of the theory or theories that have provided the research grounding. In addition, I will be sure that authors and researchers discuss the relevance of the results to the theoretical formulations that have guided the research. In this way, our knowledge-base will be strengthened.

PSYCHOMETRICS

Data for quantitative research comes from measurement. The quality of those data and the ability to interpret results in relation to the theoretical constructs of interest are a function of the psychometric properties of the measures used (Pehazur & Schmelkin, 1991). Therefore, providing adequate historical as well as sample-specific support for the measures used in research published in JMHC is necessary in order to support the interpretations of the results. Psychometric support includes attention to validity and reliability (Meiers & Davis, 1990; Thompson & Snyder, 1998; American Educational Research Association, 1999). Along these lines, Meiers and Davis and Thompson and Snyder have called for increased reporting of historical and sample-specific psychometric data. Additionally, Thompson and Snyder have called for language clarification with regard to discussions of reliability. Reliability refers to test scores and not to the tests themselves. The importance of this distinction is that, while there may be evidence of the reliability of test scores from previous literature, the reliability of the scores in any current research is an empirical question. Thus, it is incumbent on researchers to assess and report evidence of the reliability of the scores in their research. Similarly, validity is not a property of a test, but instead "refers to the degree to which evidence and theory support the interpretations of test scores" (AERA, p. 9). As associate editor of the research section of JMHC, I will focus on strengthening our published research by monitoring the use of language as it relates to reliability and validity and by expecting authors to report sample-specific reliability and validity information in addition to reporting historical psychometric information to support their choice of measures.

SIGNIFICANCE

Finally, the recent resurgence in concern over the misinterpretation and misapplication of statistical significance testing (e.g., Cohen, 1994) has resulted in an increased expectation that authors provide additional statistics beyond the conventional p values used in null hypothesis statistical significance testing (Thompson, 2002; Wilkenson & APA Task Force on Statistical Inference, 1999). This concern has been so strong that the most recent version of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA, 2001) has provided guidelines for authors related to reporting effect sizes in addition to p values and suggest that it is "almost always necessary to include some estimate of effect size or strength of relationship in your Results section" (p. 25). In general, the primary issue here is to consider not only statistical significance, but also issues of practical and clinical significance (see Thompson for a straightforward discussion of these issues). As associate editor, I will move us toward adopting an editorial policy requiring the reporting of effect sizes in quantitative research articles as has been done in a number of journals in the field. Reporting effect sizes will allow mental health counseling practitioners and researchers alike to better evaluate the importance of research results to their work.

In summary, I am very excited about beginning my tenure as the Associate Editor of Research for the JMHC. I am proud of the research tradition of the journal and my involvement on the editorial board since 1993. I believe that the initiatives that I have outlined herein will not only serve to continue that tradition, but will also contribute to ongoing positive growth of the research section and its reputation as an outlet for high quality research with relevance to the field of mental health counseling.

REFERENCES

American Education Research Association. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: Author.

American Psychological Association. (2001). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Brown, M. T. (1988). The mental health counselor and research: And never the twain shall meet? Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 10, 9-15.

Cohen, J. (1994). The earth is round (p < .05). The American Psychologist, 49, 997-1003.

Ginter, E. J. (1996). Three pillars of mental health counseling--watch in what you step. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 18, 99-107.

Ginter, E. J. (1993). A period of transition for the Journal of Mental Health Counseling: What we can learn from Necker cubes and stones. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 15, 221-227.

Kelly, K. R. (1993). Continuing the tradition: Goals for the Research Section of the Journal of Mental Health Counseling. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 15, 232-235.

Lynd, R. S. (1939). Knowledge for what? The place of social science in American culture. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Meier, S. T., & Davis, S. R. (1990). Trends in reporting psychometric properties of scales used in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 37, 113-115.

Pedhazur, J. P., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Pistole, C. M. (1996). Publishing research in the Journal of Mental Health Counseling. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 18, 307-311.

Thompson, B. (2002). "Statistical," "practical," and "clinical": How many kinds of significance do counselors need to consider? Journal of Counseling and Development, 80, 64-71.

Thompson, B., & Snyder, P. A. (1998). Statistical significance and reliability analyses in recent Journal of Counseling and Development research articles. Journal of Counseling and Development, 76, 436-441.

Wilkinson, L., & APA Task Force on Statistical Inference. (1999). Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations. American Psychologist, 54, 594-604. (Reprint available at http://www.apa.org/journals/amp/amp548594.html)

James R. Rogers, Ph.D., is an associate professor, Department of Counseling, The University of Akron, OH