Printer Friendly

The Journal of Mental Health Counseling publication pattern review: a meta-study of author and article characteristics, 1994-2009.

Patterns of articles published in the Journal of Mental Health Counseling (JMHC) from 1994 through 2009 were reviewed. Characteristics of authors (e.g., sex, employment setting, nation of domicile) and articles (e.g., topic, type, design, sample, sample size, participant type, statistical procedures and sophistication) are described and analyzed for trends over time.


The Journal of Mental Health Counseling (JMHC) is the premier journal of the American Mental Health Counselors Association (AMHCA). The journal is published quarterly. Each issue provides counseling practitioners and researchers with insightful articles regarding the latest practice, theory, and research in mental health counseling (AMHCA, 2011). The journal was first published in 1979 as the American Mental Health Counselors Association Journal; it was renamed the Journal of Mental Health Counseling in 1987. Throughout its 32-year lifespan, the journal has been edited by eight individuals: Bill Weikel (1979-1981); James D. Wiggins (1982-1984); Linda Seligman (1985-1987); Lawrence Gerstein (1988-1993); Earl Ginter (1993-1996); Kevin R. Kelly (1996-2002); M. Carol Pistole (2002-2005); and James Rogers (July 2005-2011). Under their dedicated leadership, the JMHC has become a widely read source of scholarly information about the practice of mental health counseling.

The past 30 years have ushered in myriad changes to the mental health field, and mental health counseling in general has changed dramatically since the journal's inception. One of the most notable recent changes is the licensing of mental health counselors in all 50 states. The JMHC provided ample information on the licensing movement and, scanning the journal, it is quickly apparent that the editors have covered other major changes in the provision of mental health services throughout the years. Examples are changes related to managed care (e.g., Danzinger & Welfel, 2001; Lawless, Ginter, & Kelly, 1999); the pharmaceutical industry (e.g., Murray, 2009); client diagnosis (e.g., Feisthamel & Schwartz, 2009; Seligman, 1999); and the use of technology in mental health services (e.g., Bradley, Hendricks, Lock, Whiting, & Parr, 2011; Riemer-Reiss, 2000). Because the content of the journal has evolved to reflect significant issues in the profession, it is important to periodically assess such changes to ensure that over time it is adjusting to professional trends in the field, meeting the needs of mental health practitioners and researchers, and addressing societal concerns (Charkow & Juhnke, 2001; Williams & Buboltz, 1999).

Three viable methods have been identified for tracking and analyzing publishing trends in a journal over time (Erford, Miller, Duncan, & Erford, 2010). The first, rather simplistic, method involves compiling and evaluating special issues and sections a journal has published. Special issues, which are selected by journal editors, are used to disseminate information and research pertinent to vital professional and societal issues in a timely manner. Ten special issues or sections appeared in the JMHC between 1994-2009; they are Couple and Family Therapy: Constructivist/Ecosystem View (January 1994); Disasters and Crisis: A Mental Health Counseling Perspective (July 1995); Counseling Racially Diverse Clients (July 2001); Professional Exchange (January 2004); Perspective on Counseling the Bereaved (April 2004); Unique Issues in Counseling the Bereaved (July 2004); Master Therapists (January 2005); Counseling Around the World (April 2005); Counseling Outside of the United States: Looking in and Reacting out (July 2005); and Helping Military Personnel and Recent Veterans Manage Stress Reactions (April 2009).

The second method proposed by Erford et al. (2010) for ascertaining journal publishing trends is a qualitative review. Qualitative reviews are systematic reviews of a journal's published content within a prescribed time by a skilled scholar with expertise in the relevant discipline. To identify specific trends (e.g., author characteristics, topical content areas), close attention is paid to trends in journal issues, and additional content-related characteristics of significance are noted. To date, no qualitative review of JMHG has been conducted.

The final methodology described by Erford et al. (2010) is a meta-study. A recta-study, the procedure used in this article, consists of a quantitative review of publication patterns. It describes and analyzes trends in the characteristics of authors (e.g., demographics, domicile) and articles (e.g., topics, typology, research designs, participants, statistical methods). Many ACA journals have published such meta-studies, among them the Journal of Counseling Development (JCD; Arredondo, Rosen, Rice, Perez, & Tovar-Gamero, 2005; Lancher, Buboltz, & Soper, 2010; Efford et al., 2011); Counselor Education and Supervision (CES; Crockett, Byrd, Erford, & Hays, 2010); the Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development (Bennett, Rowe, & Hill, 1991; Pope-Davis, Ligiero, Liang, & Codrington, 2001); Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development (MECD; Efford et al., 2010); Journal of Addictions and Offender Counseling (Charkow & Juhnke, 2001; Juhnke, Bordeau, & Evanoff, 2005); ADULTSPAN (Erford, Clark, & Erford, 2011); Journal of Humanistic Counseling, Education, and Development (JHCEAD; Erford, Erford, & Broglie, in press); Professional School Counseling Journal (Falco, Bauman, Sumnicht, & Engelstad, 2011); Journal of Employment Counseling (JEC; Erford, Crockett, Giguere & Darrow, 2011); and Journal of College Counseling (JCC; Byrd, Crockett, & Erford, 2011).

Streicher and Gerstein (1994) wrote a publication pattern article that spanned the first 13 years of the AMHCA Journal and JMHC history, but the scope of their review was limited to whether authors were employed by universities, in private practice, or in mental health centers. Thus, this article is the first systematic meta-study of JMHC journal content. It addressed two primary questions: (a) What is published in the JMHC (article characteristics)? and (b) Who publishes in the JMHC (author characteristics)?


All articles published in the JMHC from 1994 through 2009 were examined and coded to describe author and article characteristics. Author characteristics identified were the number of authors, sex and employment setting of all authors, and domicile (national or international) of the lead author. Article characteristics specified were article typology (practice, theory, research, and professional exchange); content (professional issues, symptoms/disorders, technique/theory, multicultural issues); and focus (research or nonresearch). Research articles were subjected to additional analysis to identify research design paradigm (quantitative or qualitative); type of research design (descriptive, quasi-experimental, true experimental, test development, correlational, comparative, or ethnographic); intervention or nonintervention; sample size; use of random or nonrandom sampling/assignment procedures; types of participants (adults, counseling professionals, children and adolescents, graduate students, undergraduate students); sophistication of statistical applications (basic, intermediate, or advanced); and primary statistical analyses used (descriptive, ANOVA/ANCOVA, MANOVA/MANCOVA, t-test, correlation, regression analysis, chi square, other nonparametric, factor analysis). Also coded were inclusion of effect size estimates and dependent variable score reliability and validity.

Data were coded independently by the lead and second authors and disagreements resolved between coders or adjudicated by the third author. Coded data were entered into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, aggregated into 4-year time windows, and analyzed for trends over time with SPSS descriptive and univariate statistical procedures using weighted proportions. Type I error was established at ct < .05 and Scheffe's test was applied post hoe to determine group differences over time. Effect sizes are reported as eta-squared ([[eta].sup.2]) with a rule-of-thumb interpretive range of .01--small effect, .09--medium effect, and .25--large effect.


Between January 1994 and December 2009, 514 articles were printed in the JMHC, of which 79 were excluded from analysis because they were brief entries such as editorials, introductions to special issues, and brief nonscholarly reactions and reports. Data from the 435 articles selected for analysis were coded and collapsed into 4-year convenient class intervals. Results and Discussion are presented according to author and article characteristics.

Author Characteristics

For nearly all articles published in the JMHC in 1994-2009 (96.8%), first authors resided in the United States. For 1998-2001, no articles with non-US-resident lead authors were published; however, for 2002-2009 more than 5% of articles were from lead authors who lived outside the United States. The main effect variation across time periods indicated a trend over time toward more lead authors who were internationally domiciled [F(3, 431) = 2.21, p = .09; [[eta].sup.2] = .015J]

Female lead authors increased from 39.3% in 1998-2001 to 61.8% in 2006-2009, indicating a significant shift over time [F(3,433) = 4.48, p = .004; [[eta].sup.2] = .03]. The total number of female authors publishing in the JMHC mirrors the lead author results [F(3,864) = 8.20, p < .001; [[eta].sup.2] = .03], rising from 39.1% to 60.4% throughout the 16-year period. Thus, females now compose the majority of both lead and total contributors to the JMHC. Also, over the 16 years the average number of authors per article published in the JMHC increased from 1.67 in 1994-1997 to 2.49 authors in 2006-2009.

Over the 16 years, a stable rate of approximately 86% of lead authors of JMHC articles were employed by universities [F(3, 421) = 0.80, p = .49; [[eta].sup.2] = .006]. Interestingly, there appeared to be a temporary trend toward more university-based total JMHC authors [F(3,841) = 2.16, p = .09; [[eta].sup.2] = .008]: university-based authors rose from 81.4% in 1994-1997 to 88.9% in 2002-2005, before dropping back to 81.6% in the most recent 4-year window of 2006-2009. Finally, the 10 universities whose faculty contributed most frequently to JMHC publications in 1994-2009 are Purdue University (14 articles); Ball State University and University of Florida (9 each); University of Georgia, University of North Garolina at Greensboro, and Youngstown State University (8 each); Ohio State University and University of Iowa (7 each); and Oakland University and Ohio University (6 each). Faculty of a number of other universities published three to five articles

Article Characteristics

The JMHC has traditionally categorized articles as Practice, Theory, Research, and Professional Exchange. No significant change in effect [F(3, 369) = 0.61, p = .61; [[eta].sup.2] = .005] was noted among article types; each category has maintained consistent representation over time. Overall, 38.3% of JMHG articles focus on practice, 10.7% on theory, 37.3% on research, and 13.7% on professional exchanges. Likewise, the topics covered in the JMHC (see Table 1) have remained quite stable over time [F(3,678) = 0.66, p = .58; [[eta].sup.2] = .003]. Of articles published in the 16 years studied, 21.6% focused on techniques and theories of mental health counseling, 16.9% on symptoms and disorders, 13.3% on professional issues, and 11.4% on multicultural issues in mental health counseling.

Analyzed separately, a comparison of research and nonresearch articles published in the JMHC for 1994-2009 indicates a significant increase in research articles over time [F(3, 431) = 4.72, p = .003; [[eta].sup.2] = .032]. For 1995-1999, 21.9% of all articles were research-based. By 2006-2009 this proportion had risen to 43.8%, which suggests that the percentage of research articles published has increased significantly over time. With this as context, the remainder of the Results section focuses exclusively on characteristics of the research articles published in the JMHC during the study period.

Quantitative research studies published in the JMHC declined steadily, mirrored by a concomitant increase in qualitative research designs [F(3, 145) = 5.08, p = .002; [[eta].sup.2] = .10]. Only 6.5% of research articles published in 1994-1997 used a qualitative research design, but by the 2005-2009 period the percentage had increased substantially, to 38.1%. The types of research designs appearing in JMHC articles (see Table 2) also shifted significantly over time [F(3, 137) = 6.12, p = .001; [[eta].sup.2] = .118]. Ethnographic design rose from 6.5% to 33.3% of all designs used in the 16 years studied and correlational designs from 6.5% to 30.8%, while descriptive studies decreased from 48.4% to 15.4%, comparative designs from 19.4% to 7.7%, and quasi-experimental designs from 16.1% to 5.1%. Only 12.1% of all published research studies highlighted mental health interventions; this result was stable over time [F(3, 137) = 0.31, p = .82; [[eta].sup.2] = .007].

Sample size, randomization, and participant types were three sampling-related variables coded for JMHC research articles. Sample size was collapsed into four categories (frequency of small, medium, large, and very large samples); it changed significantly over time IF(3, 138) = 5.28, p = .002; [[eta].sup.2] =. 103]. Median sample size decreased from 190 for 1998-2001 to 70 for 2002-2005. Small samples increased from 6.5% to 33.3%, while large samples decreased from 64.5% to 33.3%. The proportions of random sampling and assignment in JMHC research studies remained steady over time [F(3, 137) = 0.06, p = .98; [[eta].sup.2] = .001]; nearly 20% of studies used randomization. Also, the types of participants used in JMHC research studies have remained stable over time [F(3, 145) = 1.82, p =. 15; [[eta].sup.2] = .04]: about 40% of research studies published in the JMHG over the past 16 years had adult participants, 27.3% counseling professionals, and 14.7% undergraduate students (see Table 3).

Statistical sophistication was coded for use of basic (e.g., one-way ANOVA, t-tests, descriptive statistics); intermediate (e.g., multiple regression, one-way ANCOVA); or advanced (e.g., MANOVA/MANCOVA, structural equation modeling) techniques and did not change significantly over time [F(3, 160) = 1.20, p = .31; [[eta].sup.2] = .022]. The types of statistical procedures used by authors publishing in the JMHC were not significant [F(3, 176) = 2.43, p = .07; [[eta].sup.2] = .04]. The proportion of JMHC studies using ANOVA/ANGOVA declined from 29.7% in 1994-1997 to 4.9% in 2006-2009 and those using MANOVA from 21.6% to 9.8% (see Table 4). Meanwhile, correlational studies increased from 8.1% to 19.5% and regression analyses from 2.7% to 12.2%.

Three final variables in JMHC research articles were coded to assess changes in editorial requirements for reporting standards over the past decade. JMHC authors have been encouraged to include effect sizes in research articles, resulting in a significant change over time [F(3, 118) = 14.38, p < .001; [[eta].sup.2] = .27]. No effect sizes were reported in studies published between 1994 and 2001, but 39.3% of research studies published between 2006 and 2009 reported effect sizes. The largest effect of any analysis in this meta-study was demonstrated in the report of reliability data for the dependent variable under study [F(3, 118) = 17.75, p < .001; [[eta].sup.2] = .31]: reports jumped from just 3.4% of all 1994-1997 research articles to 69.6% of all 2002-2005 research articles. However, frequency of report of validity data for the dependent variable being studied displayed no significant increase [F(3, 118) = 1.06, p = .37; [[eta].sup.2] = .026].


The findings of this meta-study suggest that the JMHC continues to evolve as the mental health counseling discipline matures and as a new generation of authors contributes scholarship to further the discipline. One major trend has been a decline in the number of JMHC articles published, from a high of 193 in 1994-1997 to just 95 for 2006-2009. AMHCA intends to stabilize page space and number of articles published at the current levels, but fewer articles may mean that the JMHC has less professional or scholarly impact than two decades ago when it published substantially more articles annually. The remainder of the Discussion section will address author and article characteristics.

Who Publishes in the JMHC?

A journal's global impact can be inferred from the number of publications submitted by authors domiciled outside the United States, and there has been a slight trend toward more such authors in the JMHC. Although the 5% rates posted during the past eight years are far below recent reports from JEC (30% international; Erford, Crockett et al., 2011) and MECD (21% international; Efford et al., 2010), it is in line with recent reports from most counseling journals, including JCD (7.7% international; Erford et al., 2011) and CES (3.5% international; Crockett et al., 2010), and substantially exceeds journals such as JCC (2% international; Byrd et al., in press); ADULTSPAN (<1% international; Erford, Clark et al., 2011); and JHCEAD (<1% international, Erford, Erford et al., in press). This JMHC trend toward more international authorship should be encouraged; an international audience is a sign of professional robustness and worldwide interest in mental health counseling. Because the counseling profession encourages diverse views and perspectives, and counselor training and practice is becoming a global initiative, it is imperative that international researchers are encouraged to submit articles to the JMHC.

Female authors now compose the majority of lead authors and total authors of JMHC articles. As female authorship composed more than half (over 60%) of all articles for 2006-2009, it appears that the JMHC has successfully closed its previous gender gap. These significant increases in majority female author contributions were also noted in recent recta-studies of JCC (Byrd et al., in press); CES (Crockett et al., 2010); ADULTSPAN (Efford, Clark, et al., 2001); JEC (Erford et al., in press); JHCEAD (Efford, Erford et al., in press); MECD (Erford et al., 2010); and JCD (Erford et al., 2011). This increase in scholarly contributions by female authors mirrors the shift in the reported numbers of female counselors, female counseling students, and female counselor educators, nationally and internationally (Efford et al., 2011).

The average number of authors per ]MHC article has steadily increased over the past 16 years, indicating more collaboration. Similar increases in authors per article were noted in other recta-studies of counseling journals (Byrd et al., in press; Crockett et al., 2010; Erford, Clark et al., 2011; Erford, et al., in press; Erford et al., 2010; Erford et al., 2011) and may indicate a concerted effort by more experienced scholars to mentor graduate students and faculty colleagues. This is certainly a positive development, but the increase does not appear to be the result of increased academician-practitioner partnerships. Approximately 13% of lead authors and 15% of total authors over the 16 years studied are nonacademics who have consistently contributed to the JMHG. While they are vastly underrepresented in comparison with university-affiliated contributors, the JMHG has the highest rate of non-university-affiliated authors of any counseling journal recently evaluated.

Indeed, for most counseling journals more than 95% of current authors have university affiliations (JCC, Byrd et al., in press; CES, Crockett et al., 2010; ADULTSPAN, Erford, Clark et al., 2011; JEC, Erford, Crockett et al., 2011; MECD, Efford et al., 2010; JGD, Erford, Miller et al., 2011). Only JHCEAD came close to the JMHC with a 9% non-university-affiliated author rate for 2002-2009 (Erford, Erford et al., in press). Here the JMHC is leading the way in practitioner-based research, and other counseling journals should take notice of the procedures and efforts of the JMHC to enhance the rich, practical applications that field-based practitioners bring to the professional literature. Still, much can be done to increase the voices of practitioners in the JMHG, including future special issues and active advocacy for practitioner-scholar collaborations. Mental health counselors might consider collaborating with academicians to conduct applied or action research to facilitate change in a particular setting, develop cutting-edge counseling techniques and interventions, and evaluate counseling programs and interventions. To increase practitioner submissions to all counseling journals, it is important for academicians to facilitate relationships with both practitioners outside academia and practitioners returning for graduate degrees. It can be expected that average authorship numbers will continue to climb if additional faculty-student mentorship and faculty-practitioner collaborations ensue. It is also important for the JMHC editorial board to continue to solicit direct submissions from field-based practitioners.

What Is Published in the JMHC?

The JMHC traditionally has categorized articles according to a standard typology: practice, theory, research, and professional exchange. These categories have received stable degrees of attention over the past 16 years, with practice and research articles each providing approximately 40% of the total number of articles each, and theory and professional exchange each about 10%. This balanced mix of article types has been matched by balanced topical content (see Table 1). On cursory inspection, these proportions appear to appropriately represent the multiple foci of mental health counseling, professional development needs, and readership interest.

The proportion of research articles appearing in the JMHC over the past 16 years has increased significantly, a welcome trend reflected in several other counseling journals, among them CES (Crocker et al., 2010); JHCEAD (Erford, Erford et al., in press); MECD (Erford et al., 2010); and JCD (Erford et al., 2011). Currently, MECD has the highest rate of research publications at 82% (Erford et al., 2010).

The types of research design appearing in JMHC articles have shifted significantly over time; descriptive studies and comparative designs decreased over the 16-year period while ethnographic studies and correlational designs increased. These shifts in design typologies reflect the significant increases in qualitative research designs noted in several other counseling journals over the past few decades (CES, Crockett et al., 2010; JHCEAD, Erford et al., in press; JCD, Erford, Miller et al., 2011). Qualitative research is essential to the continued development of the counseling field because it gives voice to individual experiences and allows for research questions to be answered and theories validated inductively. The increase in qualitative contributions to the JMHC likely reflects the field's increasing acceptance of qualitative research as both viable and needed.

While the number of qualitative studies published in the JMHC has increased, the most robust types of experimental designs (true experimental, quasi-experimental) and the designs most likely to quantitatively explore the effectiveness of counseling interventions accounted for just 11.4% of the research studies published in the JMHC between 1994 and 2009. It is important that experimental designs, which employ randomization, allow for more complex statistical analysis, and are more generalizable, be used more frequently, in conjunction with qualitative research, to further the field's understanding of what works and thus increase the efficacy of mental health counseling practice.

Not surprisingly, adults are the most common participants in JMHC research studies over the 16 years studied, followed by counseling professionals. Only 7.3% of all JMHC research studies focused on children and adolescents, though they make up a large constituency in clinical counseling practice. Sample sizes of JMHC research articles have changed significantly since 1994, reflecting the smaller sample sizes associated with greater numbers of qualitative, ethnographic designs, as was the case with JCD, CES and JHCEAD. On average, about 20% of the research studies used randomization. Currently, IMHC research articles use randomization procedures at rates higher than any other ACA journal.

The use of basic, intermediate, and advanced statistical tests in JMHC articles has been fairly stable since 1994, with about half the studies using a basic test, one-fourth an intermediate test, and one-fourth an advanced test. Meanwhile, a trend was noted in the frequency of specific statistical procedures used: use of ANOVA and MANOVA declined slightly and use of correlation and regression analyses increased. Fluctuation in use of specific statistical procedures is not unusual; several recent meta-studies (JCC, Byrd et al., in press; CES, Crockett et al., 2010; MECD, Erford et al., 2010; JCD, Erford et al., 2011) reported significant changes in other counseling journals.

Not surprisingly, the JMHC editorial board's emphasis on reporting sample effect size and reliability and validity estimates is having a marked impact on reporting quality, and these efforts should be emulated by other counseling journal editorial boards. Effect size estimates were included in 40% of JMHC articles published between 2006 and 2009, and reliability estimates were included in over half of all research articles during the same period. Unfortunately, the same progress was not displayed for report of sample validity estimates, although the 17.9% compliance noted for 2006-2009 is promising. Again, the JMHC editorial board is to be commended: reporting effect size, reliability, and validity estimates helps lay the foundation for interpretation of study quality and treatment effectiveness. Regardless of the statistical procedures used, it is important for authors of JMHC research articles to make clear to readers the benefits and limitations of statistical procedures, psychometric characteristics of dependent variables, and effect size estimates, so that readers can make an informed decision about using suggested procedures and interpreting study results.

Study Limitations and Future Directions for Research in the JMHC

Several study limitations merit mentioning. Although data were crosschecked by the first two authors and disagreements mediated by the third, there may have been coding errors for classifications on some variables because some were more subjective and relied on greater coding expertise. Other researchers might have chosen to code additional variables of interest or not to code some of the variables covered in this meta-study. Researchers interested in analyzing microtrends might have chosen to use smaller time periods of two or three years, although doing so would have reduced the power of the analyses due to smaller sample sizes. In addition, because the data composing this meta-study are descriptive, no causal explanations can be made about categorizations or trends.

The results of this meta-analysis provide insight into future directions for mental health counseling research. Given that only 12% of all research studies published in the JMHC highlight interventions, future authors may wish to consider designing and executing both quantitative and qualitative research studies that address the efficacy of clinical interventions. Likewise, contributions that relate to innovative counseling approaches and evaluation of current mental health programming would further align the journal's content with its commitment to furthering the practice of mental health counseling. Lastly, research that examines the mental health issues of and treatment for children and adolescents may promote the journal's continued development.

The purpose of this recta-study was to describe and identify trends in JMHC author and article characteristics so as to inform readers and the editorial board about who and what is being published. The purpose was not to evaluate the quality of the articles published, the journal in general, or the degree to which the JMHC addresses societal or professional issues. For more than 30 years, the JMHC has addressed the diverse needs of AMHCA members, scholars, and counseling students, and has dealt with contemporary and innovative mental health counseling practice issues. It is our hope that readers, potential authors, and editorial board members interested in diverse scholarship issues and current trends in the field will benefit from the information and insights described here.


American Mental Health Counselors Association. (AMHCA). (2011). Journal author guidelines. Retrieved from:

Arredondo, P., Rosen, D. C, Rice, T., Perez, P., & Tovar-Gamero, Z. G. (2005). Multicultural counseling: A 10-year content analysis of the Journal of Counseling & Development. Journal of Counseling & Development, 83, 155-161.

Bennett, S. K., Rowe, W., & Hill, T. L. (1991). A content analysis of the JMGD revisited: How are we doing five years later? Journal of Multicultural Counseling & Development, 19, 98-104.

Bradley, L. J, Hendricks, B., Lock, R., Whiting, P. P., & Parr, G. (2011). E-mail communication: Issues for mental health counselors. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 33, 67-79.

Byrd, R., Crockett, S. A., & Erford, B. T. (in press). A meta-study of Journal of College Counseling (lCC) author and article publication characteristics from 1998-2009. Journal of College Counseling.

Charkow, W. B., & Juhnke, G. A. (2001). Journal of Addictions and Offender Counseling submission patterns, topic areas, and authors: 1979-1998. Journal of Addictions and Offender Counseling, 22, 12-20.

Crockett, S., Byrd, R., Efford, B. T., & Hays, D. G. (2010). Counselor Education and Supervision (CES) golden anniversary publication pattern review: Author and article characteristics from 1985-2009. Counselor Education and Supervision, 50, 5-20.

Danzinger, P. R., & Welfel, E. R. (2001). The impact of managed care on mental health counselors: A survey of perceptions, practices, and compliance with ethical standards. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 23, 137-151.

Erford, B. T., Clark, K. H., & Erford, B. M. (2011). ADULTSPAN publication patterns: Author and article characteristics from 1999-2009. ADULTSPAN, 10, 52-62.

Erford, B. T., Crockett, S. A., Giguere, M., & Darrow, J. (2011). A meta-study of Journal of Employment Counseling (JEC) publication patterns from 1994-2009. Journal of Employment Counseling, 48, 81-92.

Erford, B. T., Erford, B. M., & Broglie, C. (in press). Journal of Humanistic Counseling, Education, and Development (JHECD) publication patterns: Author and article characteristics from 1994-2009. Journal of Humanistic Counseling, Education, and Development.

Erford, B. T., Miller, E. M., Duncan, K., & Erford, B. M. (2010). Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development (MECD) submission patterns: MECD author and article characteristics from 1990-2009. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 42, 296-307.

Erford, B. T., Miller, E. M., Schein, H., McDonald, A., Ludwig, L., & Leishear, K. (2011). Journal of Counseling & Development (JCD) publication patterns: Author and article characteristics from 1994-2009. Joumal of Counseling & Development, 89, 73-80.

Falco, L. D., Bauman, S., Sumnicht, Z., & Engelstad, A. (2011). Content analysis of the Professional School Counseling journal: The first ten years. Professional School Counseling, 14, 271-277.

Feisthamel, K. P., & Schwartz, R. C. (2009). Differences in mental health counselors' diagnoses based on client race: An investigation of adjustment, childhood, and substance-related disorders. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 31, 47-59.

Juhnke, G. A., Bordeau, W. C., & Evanoff, J. C. (2005). Journal of Addictions and Offender Counseling submission patterns, topic areas, and authors: 1999-2004. Journal of Addictions and Offender Counseling, 22, 12-20.

Lancher, A. T., Buboltz, W. C., & Soper, B. (2010). Content analysis of the Journal of Counseling Development. Journal of Counseling & Development, 88, 139-145.

Lawless, L. L., Ginter, E. J., & Kelly, K. R. (1999). Managed care: What mental health counselors need to know. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 21, 50-66.

Murray, T. L. (2009). The loss of client agency to the psychopharmaceutical-industrial complex. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 31, 283-308.

Pope-Davis, D. B., Ligiero, D. P., Liang, C, & Codrington, J. (2001). Fifteen years of the Journal of Multicultural Counseling & Development: A content analysis. Journal of Multicultural Counseling & Development, 29, 226-238.

Riemer-Reiss, M. L. (2000). Utilizing distance technology for mental health counseling. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 22, 189-201.

Seligman, L. (1999). Twenty years of diagnosis and the DSM. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 21, 229-240.

Streicher, P. J., & Gerstein, L. (1994). Publication patterns in the AMHCA Journal and the Journal of Mental Health Counseling. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 16, 369-374.

Williams, M. E., & Buboltz, W. C. (1999). Content analysis of the Journal of Counseling Development: Volumes 67 to 74. Journal of Counseling & Development, 77, 344-349.

Stephanie A. Crockett is affiliated with Oakland University, Rebekah J. Byrd with East Tennessee State University, and Bradley T. Erford with Loyola University Maryland. Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to Dr. Stephanie E. Crockett, 3613 Cherry Creek Lane, Sterling Heights, MI 48314. E-mail:
Table 1. Topical Content of JMHC Articles

Topic                     1994-1997     1998-2001     2002-2005

Approaches                 4 (2.1%)      5 (2.9%)      6 (3.7%)
Counselor training         8 (4.1%)      8 (4.7%)      6 (3.7%)
Health/well-being          2 (1.0%)      2 (1.2%)      6 (3.7%)
Identity development       5 (2.6%)      9 (5.3%)      2 (1.2%)
Measurement/Dx            23 (11.9%)     9 (5.3%)      5 (3.1%)
Miscellaneous              8 (4.1%)     17 (10.0%)    13 (8.0%)
Multicultural issues      17 (8.8%)     20 (11.8%)    28 (17.3%)
Professional issues       27 (14.0%)    23 (13.5%)    29 (17.9%)
Program evaluation        14 (7.3%)      3 (1.8%)      1 (0.6%)
Symptoms/disorders        10 (5.2%)     29 (17.1%)    30 (18.5%)
Technique/theory          70 (36.3%)    33 (19.4%)    22 (13.6%)
Treatment/intervention     5 (2.6%)     12 (7.1%)     14 (8.6%)
Total                    193           170           162

Topic                     2006-2009       Total

Approaches                 6 (3.8%)     21 (3.1%)
Counselor training         6 (3.8%)     28 (4.1%)
Health/well-being          4 (2.5%)     14 (2.1%)
Identity development       0 (0.0%)     16 (2.3%)
Measurement/Dx            11 (7.0%)     48 (7.0%)
Miscellaneous             18 (11.5%)    56 (8.2%)
Multicultural issues      13 (8.3%)     78 (11.4%)
Professional issues       12 (7.6%)     91 (13.3%)
Program evaluation         1 (0.6%)     19 (2.8%)
Symptoms/disorders        46 (29.3%)   115 (16.9%)
Technique/theory          22 (14.0%)   147 (21.6%)
Treatment/intervention    18 (11.5%)    49 (7.2%)
Total                    157           682

Note: Many articles reflect multiple content issues. Thus, totals
exceed the number of accepted articles.  Approaches = family, group,
individual counseling.

Table 2. Study Design Used in JMHC Research Articles, 1994-2009

Design               1994-1997    1998-2001    2002-2005

Descriptive          15 (48.4%)   15 (35.7%)    3 (10.3%)
Quasi-experimental    5 (16.1%)    2 (4.8%)     1 (3.4%)
True experimental     0 (00.%)     1 (2.4%)     3 (10.3%)
Test development      1 (3.2%)     0 (0.0%)     1 (3.4%)
Correlational         2 (6.5%)    11 (26.2%)   10 (34.5%)
Comparative           6 (19.4%)   10 (23.8%)    6 (20.7%)
Ethnographic          2 (6.5%)     3 (7.1%)     5 (17.2%)
Totals               31           42           29

Design               2006-2009       Total

Descriptive           6 (15.4%)    39 (27.7%)
Quasi-experimental    2 (5.1%)     10 (7.1%)
True experimental     2 (5.1%)      6 (4.3%)
Test development      1 (2.6%)      3 (2.1%)
Correlational        12 (30.8%)    35 (24.8%)
Comparative           3 (7.7%)     25 (17.7%)
Ethnographic         13 (33.3%)    23 (16.3%)
Totals               39           141

Note: Many articles reflect multiple content issues. Thus, totals
exceed the number of accepted articles.  Approaches = family, group,
or individual counseling.

Table 3. Types of Participants in JMHC Research Articles

Participant Type         1990-1994    1995-1999    2000-2004

Adults                   10 (32.3%)   16 (34.0%)   14 (45.2%)
Counselors               10 (32.3%)   12 (25.5%)   10 (32.3%)
Children/adolescents      1 (3.2%)     5 (10.6%)    3 (9.7%)
Graduate students         3 (9.7%)     2 (4.3%)     0 (0.0%)
Undergraduate students    5 (16.1%)    9 (19.1%)    4 (12.9%)
Others                    2 (6.5%)     3 (6.4%)     0 (0.0%)
Totals                   31           47           31

Participant Type         2005-2009       Total

Adults                   20 (50.0%)    60 (40.0%)
Counselors                9 (22.5%)    41 (27.3%)
Children/adolescents      2 (5.0%)     11 (7.3%)
Graduate students         5 (12.5%)    10 (6.7%)
Undergraduate students    4 (10.0%)    22 (14.7%)
Others                    0 (0.0%)      6 (4.0%)
Totals                   40           150

Note: Some articles used more than one sample, so some totals may
exceed the actual total of research articles  analyzed in this study.

Table 4. Primary Statistical Procedures Used in JMHC Research
Articles, 1994-2009

Statistical Procedure   1994-1997    1998-2001    2002-2005

Descriptive              9 (24.3%)   17 (29.3%)    8 (18.2%)
ANOVAIANCOVA            11 (29.7%)    9 (15.5%)    4 (9.1%)
MANOVA                   8 (21.6%)    8 (13.8%)    6 (13.6%)
t-test                   4 (10.8%)    5 (8.6%)     8 (18.2%)
Correlation              3 (8.1%)     4 (6.9%)     5 (11.4%)
Regression analysis      1 (2.7%)     6 (10.3%)    7 (15.9%)
Chi square               0 (0.0%)     4 (6.9%)     5 (11.4%)
Other nonparametric      0 (0.0%)     1 (1.7%)     0 (0.0%)
Factor analysis          1 (2.7%)     4 (6.9%)     1 (2.3%)

Total                   37           58           44

Statistical Procedure    2006-2009       Total

Descriptive             12 (29.3%)     46 (25.6%)
ANOVAIANCOVA             2 (4.9%)      26 (14.4%)
MANOVA                   4 (9.8%)      26 (14.4%)
t-test                   6 (14.6%)     23 (12.8%)
Correlation              8 (19.5%)     20 (11.1%)
Regression analysis      5 (12.2%)     19 (10.6%)
Chi square               3 (7.3%)      12 (6.7%)
Other nonparametric      1 (2.4%)       2 (l.1%)
Factor analysis          0 (0.0%)       6 (3.3%)

Total                   41            180
COPYRIGHT 2012 American Mental Health Counselors Association
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2012 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:RESEARCH
Author:Crockett, Stephanie A.; Byrd, Rebekah J.; Erford, Bradley T.
Publication:Journal of Mental Health Counseling
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Jan 1, 2012
Previous Article:Mobile mind mapping: using mobile technology to enhance rational emotive behavior therapy.
Next Article:Adapting the Safety Planning Intervention for use in a veterans psychiatric inpatient group setting.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters