Bridging the Gap: Addressing the Mental Health Needs of Underrepresented Collegiate Students at Psychology Training Clinics

Mental health treatment utilization on college campuses remains disproportionately low among underrepresented (UR) students (i.e., racial/ethnic minorities, first-generation college students, and students from low-income families). Additionally, UR students report that factors including stigma, long wait times, and costs are barriers to accessing treatment. Given these trends, new methods to bolster the utilization of counseling services among UR college students are needed. Concurrently, there is a call for psychology training programs to increase their efforts in preparing health service psychologists to work with culturally diverse populations including UR students. Psychology training clinics may be an additional resource on campuses that can be useful in meeting both of these needs. We present a program evaluation of 4-year partnership between a counseling psychology department training clinic and an academic division serving UR students at a large Midwestern university. Two quantitative metrics, including service utilization hours by UR students (2,020) and direct service hours accrued by clinical trainees (1,266), highlight the benefits of the partnership. A social justice framework and implications for training programs interested in developing similar partnerships are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved

In pursuit of truth: A critical examination of meta-analyses of cognitive behavior therapy

OBJECTIVE: Three recent meta-analyses have made the claim, albeit with some caveats, that cognitive-behavioral treatments (CBT) are superior to other psychotherapies, in general or for specific disorders (e.g., social phobia). METHOD: The purpose of the present article was to examine four issues in meta-analysis that mitigate claims of CBT superiority: (a) effect size, power, and statistical significance, (b) focusing on disorder-specific symptom measures and ignoring other important indicators of psychological functioning, (c) problems inherent in classifying treatments provided in primary studies into classes of treatments, and (d) the inclusion of problematic trials, which biases the results, and the exclusion of trials that fail to find differences among treatments. RESULTS: When these issues are examined, the effects demonstrating the superiority of CBT are small, nonsignificant for the most part, limited to targeted symptoms, or are due to flawed primary studies. CONCLUSION: Meta-analytic evidence for the superiority of CBT in the three meta-analysis are nonexistent or weak