Evaluation & the Health Professions

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click Here for More Information

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Cohen, L. H.
Right arrow Articles by Nelson, D. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Cohen, L. H.
Right arrow Articles by Nelson, D. W.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Evaluation & the Health Professions, Vol. 5, No. 2, 130-144 (1982)
DOI: 10.1177/016327878200500202

Peer Review of Psychodynamic Psychotherapy

Generous Versus Restrictive Reviewers

Lawrence H. Cohen

Dean W. Nelson

University, of Delaware

American Psychological Association/CHAMPUS peer reviewers (N = 168) evaluated clinical treatment reports that described psychodynamic treatment of middle-aged, depressed outpatients. Descriptive data are reported on the reviewers' recommendations concerning the reimbursement for previous and total (previous plus future) care. In addition, generous and restrictive reviewers are compared on their theoretical orientation, the self reported factors affecting their review decisions, and their previously reported clinical practice patterns and attitudes toward psychological peer review. The implications of these findings for mental health qualitY assurance programs are discussed.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 American Behavioral ScientistHome page
L. H. COHEN and S. STRAUSS-ZERBY
Peer Review of Psychotherapy
American Behavioral Scientist, May 1, 1984; 27(5): 631 - 648.