The Counseling Training Environment Scale (CTES) : development of a self-report measure to assess counseling training environment

Based on Bronfenbrenner's (1979, 1992) ecological framework, the Counseling Training Environment Scale (CTES) was developed as a self-report measure that assesses the learning and training environment of counseling and related mental health training programs as perceived by current students. A two-phase mixed-methods design was used to create and psychometrically evaluate the CTES: (a) item development, and (b) assessment of the outcomes to examine for preliminary evidence of validity and reliability. The results of the item development and content validation process yielded 128 items, of which 34 were used for the final intact version of the CTES. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted on four models of the CTES: (a) 34-item single-factor model, (b) 34-item five-factor model, (c) 26-item modified five-factor model, and (d) 24-item modified single-factor model. Results of the CFA suggest that despite not conforming to the hypothesized model of Bronfenbrenner's (1979, 1992) ecological theory, the data gathered from the modified 24-item single-factor CTES demonstrated the best fit on the following fit indices: NNFI (.95), CFI (.96), SRMR (.04), and RMSEA (.04). The modified 24-item CTES was also found to demonstrate strong reliability and temporal stability as demonstrated through Classical Test Theory analyses (a = .92) and test-retest reliability (r = .90, p< .01, two-tailed)

The Counseling Training Environment Scale (CTES): Development of a self-report measure to assess counseling training environment

Based on Bronfenbrenner's (1979, 1992) ecological framework, the Counseling Training Environment Scale (CTES) was developed as a self-report measure that assesses the learning and training environment of counseling and related mental health training programs as perceived by current students. A two-phase mixed-methods design was used to create and psychometrically evaluate the CTES: (a) item development, and (b) assessment of the outcomes to examine for preliminary evidence of validity and reliability. The results of the item development and content validation process yielded 128 items, of which 34 were used for the final intact version of the CTES. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted on four models of the CTES: (a) 34-item single-factor model, (b) 34-item five-factor model, (c) 26-item modified five-factor model, and (d) 24-item modified single-factor model. Results of the CFA suggest that despite not conforming to the hypothesized model of Bronfenbrenner's (1979, 1992) ecological theory, the data gathered from the modified 24-item single-factor CTES demonstrated the best fit on the following fit indices: NNFI (.95), CFI (.96), SRMR (.04), and RMSEA (.04). The modified 24-item CTES was also found to demonstrate strong reliability and temporal stability as demonstrated through Classical Test Theory analyses (α = .92) and test-retest reliability (r = .90, p< .01, two-tailed)

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field