Journal of Technology in Human Services

ISSN: 1522-8835 (Print) 1522-8991 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wths20

Counseling and Technology: Some Thoughts About

the Controversy
Paul C. Abney PhD & Cleborne D. Maddux PhD
To cite this article: Paul C. Abney PhD & Cleborne D. Maddux PhD (2004) Counseling and
Technology: Some Thoughts About the Controversy, Journal of Technology in Human Services,
22:3, 1-24, DOI: 10.1300/J017v22n03_01
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J017v22n03_01

Published online: 08 Sep 2008.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 180

View related articles

Citing articles: 4 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wths20
Download by: [Tangaza College The Catholic University of Eastern Africa]

Date: 12 November 2016, At: 11:14

ARTICLES

Counseling and Technology:

Some Thoughts About the Controversy
Paul C. Abney
Cleborne D. Maddux

ABSTRACT. Counselors, like many other professionals, are being forced

to decide whether or not to make use of technology in their work. A review of the counseling and technology literature revealed existing controversies, and practical vs. philosophical concerns associated with
incorporating technology into counseling. The underlying assumptions
held by advocates and opponents of technology in counseling are reviewed and discussed. The premise of this article is that the controversy
concerning computers in counseling may be misunderstood if taken
merely at face value, and may be symptomatic of a much deeper dis-

Paul C. Abney, PhD, is Assistant Professor of Community Counseling in the Department of Counseling and Educational Psychology at the University of Nevada,
Reno. He is Director of the Downing Counseling Clinic at UNR. Cleborne Maddux,
PhD, is Professor, Department of Counseling and Educational Psychology, College of
Education, University of Nevada, Reno.
Address correspondence to: Paul C. Abney, PhD, Dept. of Counseling and Educational Psychology/281, University of Nevada, Reno, Reno, NV 89557-0213 (E-mail:
abney@unr.edu).
Journal of Technology in Human Services, Vol. 22(3) 2004
http://www.haworthpress.com/web/JTHS
2004 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
Digital Object Identifier: 10.1300/J017v22n03_01

JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY IN HUMAN SERVICES

agreement. These differences can be further explored by recognizing the

varying worldviews which can be characterized as modernist and postmodernist perspectives. In conclusion, tolerance of dual approaches to
applying technology in counseling will best permit the counseling field
to progress. [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document
Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <docdelivery@haworthpress.
com> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> 2004 by The Haworth
Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]

KEYWORDS. Counseling, technology, computer uses, Internet counseling, online therapies

One of the hallmarks of the last two or three decades has been the
rapid pace of technological change. Sawyer and Zantal-Wiener (1993)
identify a long list of technological innovations that we take for granted
today, but that were not available as recently as 1972. This list includes,
among others, MRIs or CAT scans, space stations, walkmans, camcorders, VCRs, CDs, Fax machines, cordless telephones, cellular phones,
bar codes, genetic fingerprinting, laser surgery, and automatic teller machines (p. 70). To that list, we could add GPS receivers, digital cameras,
surround sound, large screen TV, high density TV, and perhaps most
significantly of all, the personal computer, the Internet, and the World
Wide Web.
In only a little less than 25 years, small computers have become ubiquitous necessities in nearly every walk of life across the globe. Rapid
change of any kind is never accomplished painlessly, and the incredibly
rapid pace with which computers have been integrated with diverse human activities has resulted in a number of problems and controversies.
One of these controversies is whether or not computers should be used
in the helping professions, and if so, how they should be used (Childers,
1985; Hayes, 1999; Maddux & Johnson, 1998; Morton, 1996; Sharf,
1985; Wagman & Kerber, 1984).
Currently, one such controversy centers on the proper role of technology, including computer programs, telecommunications, and the
Internet in counseling. The critical and growing importance of this controversy in the field of counseling prompted Gary Walz, Director of the
Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) Counseling and Student Services Clearinghouse (ERIC/CASS), to suggest that while counselors are currently confronting many challenges and difficult societal

Paul C. Abney and Cleborne D. Maddux

problems and concerns, None of these concerns have been expressed

with more persistence and breadth than those related to technology and
its impact on counseling (Walz, 2000, p. xii). Walzs interest in this
controversy led to publication of a book of readings entitled Cybercounseling and Cyberlearning: Strategies and Resources for the Millennium (Walz & Bloom, 2000). That volume of readings was published
as a collaborative effort of ERIC/CASS and the American Counseling
Association (ACA) and has led to a permanent ERIC/CASS Website
(http://cybercounsel.uncg.edu/) devoted to the topic of technology in
counseling (dubbed Cybercounseling). The extent of the controversy
is also reflected in the fact that the Codes of Ethics and Standards of
Practice published by the American Counseling Association (2003), the
National Board of Certified Counselors (2001), and the American Psychological Association (1997) are either solely devoted to guidelines
for the use of computers in counseling or mention various problems involving computers in many other sections of their Codes.
The controversy concerning technology and counseling has generated a large body of literature (Farrell, 1989; Smith & Reynolds, 2002;
Wolf, 2003).
Although this literature is extensive and interesting, it has done little
to settle the various controversies related to the use of technology in
counseling or any of the other helping professions. Advocates and opponents of the use of computers in counseling continue to defend their
respective positions. The purpose of the present article is not to take a
stand for or against the use of computers in counseling, but to review
some of the issues and to attempt to clarify some of the underlying and
often unstated assumptions made by both those who support computer
involvement in counseling, and those who maintain that computers
have no useful role to play in the counseling process. Such a clarification may prove helpful to those counselors who have yet to make up
their minds about this important issue.
Although there are many aspects to the controversy concerning technology and counseling, most issues can be placed into one of three
broad categories: (a) computer-based test administration (Wall, 2000),
(b) computer-based test interpretation (Butcher, Perry, & Atlis, 2000;
Snyder, 2000), and (c) Internet-based or Web-based therapies (Cabaniss,
n.d.; Hayes, 1999). While each of these categories has generated debate,
computer-based test administration was one of the earliest concerns, beginning in the early 1980s (Butcher, Perry, & Atlis, 2000; Snyder,
2000). The category of test interpretation was most problematic beginning in the mid- to late-1980s and continuing into the early nineteen

JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY IN HUMAN SERVICES

nineties. Most recently, the category of Internet/Web-based therapy has

been the subject of the most heated controversy.
COMPUTER-BASED TEST ADMINISTRATION
In this category, we would place the use of technology for test administration, scoring, data analysis, data management, and score reporting.
Of these, by far the most problematic is test administration.
The use of the computer to administer tests originally given by humans was a subject of great early contention. Perhaps it was the speed
and accuracy of computers in performing tedious, error-prone, mathematical calculations that persuaded many counselors, psychologists,
and other members of the helping professions that technology might
have a positive role to play in test administration. In any case, Epstein
(2001) has suggested that [Since] nearly the moment computers were
made available to academicians, researchers have been investigating
the effectiveness of automating psychological testing and assessment
(p. 295).
There are different types of computerized testing in use: computer-based
(CB) and computerized adaptive (CA) tests (Maddux & Johnson, 1998).
Most recently, virtual reality simulations have been added to the computerized assessment measures that are available (Lundberg & Cobitz,
1999). In CB testing, a test is simply transferred from paper to the computer, and clients respond to the same items in the computerized version
as in the paper version. In CA testing, the clients test is customized
while he or she is being tested. This is done by building into the test a
decision making model that responds to the clients level of errors and
adjusts the items administered based on this information. Computerized adaptive testing allows for clearer and more accurate test scores by
taking into account the statistical properties of the test items as well as
the number of correct responses (Vance & Awadh, 1998, p. 8).
Both types of tests are the subjects of controversy. For instance, a
special problem arises when regular paper and pencil tests are converted
to computerized adaptive tests, since those taking the CA version respond to a different set of items than those they would respond to in the
traditional version of the test.
Regardless of the controversies engendered by computer-based test
administration, commercial producers moved quickly to adapt their instruments for computer delivery. Consequently, the number of available computerized assessment measures has increased rapidly since

Paul C. Abney and Cleborne D. Maddux

their first appearance nearly 40 years ago. In fact, there are now well
over 300 computer-based assessment products provided by some 72
identified suppliers, nearly half of which are intended to assist in personality evaluation (Snyder, 2000).
One of the primary debates related to test administration centers on
the equivalence of results obtained by tests with and without computer
administration (Butcher, Perry, & Atlis, 2000). Counselors, psychologists, and other assessment professionals have questioned whether or
not the conversion of a test from human to computer administration
changes what is being measured.
Results of research on this issue are mixed. In fact, Snyder (2000) has
suggested that research results are so inconclusive that they permit considerable divergence in their interpretation (p. 52). In view of this caveat, it is
surprising that many reviewers of this research literature have been quite
positive with regard to this issue. A case in point is the following: Research has supported the position that, by and large, computer-administered tests are essentially equivalent to booklet-administered instruments
(Butcher, Perry, & Atlis, 2000, p. 15). Snyder (2000) takes issue with such
positive statements about equivalence, and suggests that research findings
show that Conclusions regarding equivalence are more ambiguous than
this (p. 53).
Some of the confusion in interpreting the research on equivalence has to
do with the use of different statistics for measuring it. For example, some
studies depend on comparison of mean scores of paper and pencil tests and
the same tests converted to computer administration. Many of these studies
find differences in means not to be significant. However, several reviewers
(Burke, 1993; Honaker, 1988; and Epstein & Klinkenbert, 2001) have
pointed to the importance of considering whether the same distributions
are obtained through computer administration, particularly the same rank
ordering. Obviously, if two forms of a test rank test-takers differently, they
cannot be said to be equivalent, even though means may not differ.
Honaker and Fowler (1990) concur and suggest that variances and criterion
validity should also be considered. According to these reviewers, many
equivalence studies fail to compare anything other than means.
The evidence is so contradictory, that Weiner (2003) has called it an
unresolved issue (p. 10). Overall, he suggests that equivalence is
fairly good for pencil-and-paper questionnaires, particularly those used
for personality assessment such as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI). It should be noted that some research has found
significant differences in results obtained with computerized versus traditional versions of the MMPI (e.g., Roper, Ben-Porath, & Watt, 1995).

JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY IN HUMAN SERVICES

However, he suggests that equivalence has not been demonstrated for

computerized administration of structured clinical interviews or for
many measures of visual-spatial functioning used in neuropsychological
assessment (p. 10). He concludes: Among software programs available for test administration, moreover, very few have been systematically evaluated with respect to whether they obtain exactly the same
information as would emerge in a standard administration of the measure on which they are based (p. 10). This is probably due to a combination of factors such as the time, effort, and expense involved.
Test administration by computer is increasing rapidly and is not considered as controversial today as it once was (Sampson, 2000). Although the research literature on equivalence is often contradictory, it is
becoming apparent that many tests can be converted to computer administration and, given sufficient competent psychometric development,
can be made to be reasonably equivalent to the original, non-computer
versions. However, many experts have pointed out that such development work has not been carried out for a large number of computerized
tests, the equivalency of results must be established on a case-by-case
basis, and the responsibility for verifying the existence of such equivalence evidence rests with users (French, 1986; Snyder, 2000).
COMPUTER-BASED TEST INTERPRETATION
Interpretation of test results is one of the fastest growing applications
of computers in the assessment process (Clauser, Swanson & Clyman,
1999; Maddux & Johnson, 1998). Automated-assessment computer
programs (also called Computer-Based Test Interpretations, or CBTIs)
are already widely used to interpret test results (Garb, 2000). In fact,
CBTI programs for use with the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) alone have produced results for over 1.5 million clients in the United States since 1985 (Epstein & Rotunda, 2000).
Furthermore, there is a great deal of ongoing work to produce CBTI
programs using emerging technology. For example, much attention is
being given to attempts to apply emerging technology to clinical decision-making processes. A recent review of literature indicates increased
interest in Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) for the production of
CBTI programs for psychiatric and psychological use (Price, Risk,
Spitznagel, Downey, Meyer & El-Ghazzawy, 2000). One such effort
used an ANN to examine how varying the values of each of the four
Stages of Change (SOC) scales (Prochaska & Di Clemente, 1983) af-

Paul C. Abney and Cleborne D. Maddux

fected anxiety outcomes, thus allowing prediction of the amount of

changes in anxiety outcomes given a certain level of change in an SOC
scale (see Reid, Nair, Mistry, & Beitman, 1996). Some observers suggest that these applications of ANNs to psychological assessment are
likely to continue to increase in availability and importance (Garb,
2000a).
Whether or not CBTI programs can be produced that yield results as
useful as those produced by experienced clinicians has yet to be shown,
and this question is at the heart of the controversy concerning whether
or not CBTIs should be implemented in counseling. There is a body of
research aimed at establishing the validity of various CBTI programs.
Not unlike the research on equivalency of computer-administered and
human-administered tests, results of this research are mixed (Butcher,
Perry, & Atlis, 2000; Grove, Zald, Lebow, Snitz, & Nelson, 2000;
Meehl, 1954; Moreland, 1985).
Some researchers have approached the problem of validity by comparing the predictive power of CBTI programs and human experts. Before discussing this research, however, it may help to understand how
CBTI programs make predictions such as who is likely to succeed in
medical school, in one of the military academies, or in some other undertaking or in the ability to perform child abuse risk assessment (see
Powell, Wilson, & Hasty, 2002).
In many CBTI programs, actuarial and statistical methods are employed in the production of interpretation reports. An actuarial method
refers to an explicit, fixed, and objective method of combining data to
make a decision. The method is described as algorithmic, mechanistic,
formalistic, and rule-governed. The computer programmer uses actuarial or statistical data such as high school GPA, score on an aptitude test,
and other variables known to be related to success in medical school. In
some programs, sophisticated statistical techniques such as discriminant
analysis or multiple regression may also be employed. It is important,
however, to note that while CBTIs do make use of quantitative algorithmic formulae, they also typically combine empirically validated correlates of test scores with clinical judgments about what various patterns
of scores are likely to signify, and many algorithms involve beliefs as
well as established fact concerning what these patterns mean (Weiner,
2003, p. 16). Therefore, all CBTI programs should not be considered to
be alike. Some are wholly rule-governed, while others draw conclusions on the basis of work of a clinician who creates interpretations using published research and clinical experience (Butcher, Perry, &
Atlis, 2000).

JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY IN HUMAN SERVICES

Whether such so-called objective methods are more predictive

than the subjective opinions of experts such as professors in the medical school who interview candidates and examine permanent folders
was of interest to researchers long before computers became widely
available. For example, Meehl (1954) concluded that non-computer,
clinical predictions derived from objective information were ultimately
more valid than predictions made by experts.
With regard to objective information applied by computers, a wellknown meta-analysis of 137 studies comparing clinical versus computer-based statistical prediction was carried out recently by Grove, Zald,
Lebow, Snitz, and Nelson (2000). These reviewers concluded that CBTI
programs were about 10% more accurate than clinical predictions. The
authors reported that computer-generated predictions substantially outperformed clinical prediction in 33%-47% of cases examined, and while
clinical predictions were often as accurate as computer-generated predictions, in only a few studies (6%-16%) were they substantially more accurate. However, Garb (2000b) has pointed out that in almost half of the
studies in the meta-analysis, the experts were more accurately predictive
than the CBTI programs, and that a more justifiable conclusion would be
that computers were no more than five percent more accurate than were
the experts. Furthermore, Niolon (2003) suggested that when medical
studies, studies unrelated to psychological testing, and studies more than
20 years old were eliminated, only 11 studies remained. Despite these
problems, the authors of the meta-analysis suggested that the trend in
their data demonstrated the superiority of actuarial/statistical methods
used in the computer-generated predictions.
Other contradictory results have been found, such as that reported in
a review of validity studies of CBTI programs. Moreland (1985) determined that methodological problems abound in this literature. These
problems include the need to assess individual interpretative statements
rather than global accuracy ratings and the difficult estimation of interrater
reliabilities in field studies. Such methodological concerns call into
question any positive conclusions that might be drawn regarding the
predictive validity of CBTIs (Adams & Heaton, 1985; Butcher, Perry, &
Atlis, 2000; Epstein & Rotunda, 2000; Matarazzo, 1986).
HUMAN-MEDIATED ONLINE AND WEB-BASED THERAPIES
Some writers have noted that interest in computers and counseling
seemed to wane in the early 1990s, as evidenced by a decline in com-

Paul C. Abney and Cleborne D. Maddux

puter-related articles in academic counseling journals (Granello, 2000).

The growth and popularity of the Internet and the World Wide Web put
a quick end to this declining interest. An index of the phenomenal
growth of the World Wide Web can be seen in the fact that when President Clinton first assumed office, there were only 50 plain text pages on
the Web (Maddux, 2002-2003). By the end of his second term, however, there were close to one billion pages including six trillion characters of text (Lawrence & Giles, 1999) and huge numbers of graphics
files, sound and music files, video files, and more. Today, there may be
more than five billion pages on the Web (Sceats, 2003), and more than
58% of all American households are connected to the Internet (Pastore,
2003).
In the face of such fantastic growth, it was probably inevitable that
counselors began to experiment with using the Internet and the Web to
deliver counseling services. The popularity of Internet-based and Webbased counseling services quickly began to parallel the unprecedented
growth of the Web itself. In fact, Wilson, Jencius, and Duncan (1997)
were prompted to observe that The number of counseling and psychology services offered over the Internet is growing so rapidly as to render
growth estimates meaningless (p. 1). As early as 1997, one study concluded that there were at least 275 practitioners offering direct counseling services on the Internet (Sampson, Kolodinsky & Greeno, 1997).
Today, there are many more. The growth in the number of practitioners
and the controversy that accompanied this growth prompted many organizations concerned with counseling and other mental health issues to
take positions and formulate statements. For example, in 1999, the
American Counseling Association issued Standards for the Use of Electronic Communications Over the Internet (1999). The American Psychological Association published their APA Statement on Services by
Telephone, Teleconferencing, and Internet (1997) and the National
Board for Certified Counselors adopted Standards for the Ethical Practice of Web Counseling (2001). The Clinical Social Work Federation
(2001) also published a position paper on Internet text-based therapy,
which begins: The general coverage of online counseling, both in professional and general print and other media, has exploded within the
past couple of years and the debate about such issues as liability, efficacy and jurisdiction is raging (p. 1). The rapidity with which online
counseling services have become available prompted Powell to declare,
as early as 1998, that People are using, and are likely to continue using,
cyber-services . . . Cybertherapy is here (p. 2).

10

JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY IN HUMAN SERVICES

There is a wide variety of counseling services available over the

Web. A comprehensive description of those services is beyond the
scope of the present article. Suffice it to say that in this section on online
therapies, we include only those therapeutic services that are moderated
by human beings. We exclude experiments in completely computermediated therapy such as the widely known ELIZA computer program
(Weizenbaum, 1976), PLATO DCS (Wagman & Kerber, 1978), or
DOCTOR (Selmi, Klein, Greist, Johnson, & Harris, 1982). (Many
Internet-based versions of ELIZA are available, including one at http://
www-ai.ijs.si/eliza-cgi-bin/eliza_script.) These programs are simulations of psychotherapists. Utilizing the principles of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and Exposure Therapy several websites (http://www.
egetgoing.com; http://www.maiw.com; and http://www.fearfighter.com)
currently incorporate language analysis programs; while other sites incorporate streaming video dramatizations, realtime chat, and whiteboards
during human-mediated counseling sessions conducted online. We include only human-moderated therapeutic services such as those provided through e-mail, chat-rooms, bulletin boards, and various kinds of
Websites. For a complete discussion of current and future possibilities,
see Fenichel et al. (2002), available online at http://www.rider.edu/
~suler/psycyber/therapy.html. In that article, he defines cybertherapy as
any psychotherapeutic environment mediated by computer communication and designed, facilitated, or prescribed by a mental health professional. He classifies the various pathways of communication between
therapist and client, presently or potentially available, as falling into
one of the following five categories: (a) synchronous/asynchronous,
(b) text/sensory, (c) imaginary/real, (d) automated/interpersonal, or (e) invisible/present. He includes a discussion of pros and cons of each category.
Research is only beginning to assess the effectiveness of online therapies (Baer, Cukor, & Coyle, 1997; Sampson, Kolodinsky, & Greeno,
1997), and no consensus on this issue is likely to emerge in the near future.
Nevertheless, these activities continue to increase, and it would probably
be accurate to say that experts in mental health are becoming progressively
more optimistic about the potential of online therapies. A case in point is
this statement by Fenichel et al. (2002), in their report of the three-year
Case Study Group of the International Society for Mental Health Online:
As practitioners and clients become more comfortable with, and
knowledgeable about, online relationships and the many available
options for synchronous and asynchronous communication, there
has also been a blossoming of non-traditional approaches which

Paul C. Abney and Cleborne D. Maddux

11

have, under the microscope of peer group study, been demonstrated to have remarkable therapeutic potential in ways that
have not been widely recognized or understood . . . In detailing
some of our experiences we hope to describe how effective our interventions can be in facilitating positive changes through guided
online mental health activities. (p. 1)
These authors go on to identify ten myths of online clinical work, one
of which is that online therapy cannot be effective.
TAKING A STAND ON THE USE
OF TECHNOLOGY IN COUNSELING
Since the research on the use of technology in counseling is in its infancy, and since results of that research are mixed, a logical question is
What is the basis for strong advocacy or opposition to the use of technology in counseling? Put another way, in the absence of evidence,
how are counselors and others deciding to accept or reject the use of
technology in their professional activities? It seems to us that the answer
to this question is that practitioners must be making their decision based
on grounds that could be loosely categorized as either practical or theoretical/philosophical (Snauwaert, 1999).
PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS
IN THE USE OF TECHNOLOGY IN COUNSELING
Although actual research on the use of technology in counseling is not
voluminous, there are many articles describing advantages and disadvantages of each of the three major categories discussed in this article.
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
OF COMPUTER-BASED TEST ADMINISTRATION
An advantage frequently cited for computerized tests over paperand-pencil versions is that since adaptive tests can be constructed that will
result in a typical client taking fewer test items, the time required to take
the test will be shortened. Additionally, since the difficulty level of each
succeeding item can be made to depend on the previous response, diffi-

12

JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY IN HUMAN SERVICES

culty level of the entire test will be customized to the individual, and clients, because they will be continuously challenged at the proper level of
difficulty, will not be bored by items that are too easy, or intimidated by
items that are unreasonably difficult. Then too, because no two clients
take exactly the same items, test security may be easier to maintain.
Other advantages cited for computer-based tests in general include
the potential for immediate client feedback, the ability to track performance over time, and the fact that use of technology may motivate clients to try their hardest and contribute to making testing a more enjoyable
experience (Maddux & Johnson, 1998; Tymofievich & Leroux, 2000).
Maddux and Johnson (1998) identified some of the above advantages
as well as the following: assessment personnel will be relieved from
routine data gathering and freed to devote more time to direct service to
clients; test takers will feel more in control and will thus tend to be more
active participants in the counseling activity; precisely standardized administration procedures such as timing can be guaranteed; computers
are never impatient or judgmental; clients will have much more flexibility in when and where they take the test; special test formats can be developed to make tests accessible to individuals with disabilities; clients
can receive their scores as soon as they complete the test; and computers
and related technology will make it possible to develop new kinds of
tests. These authors provide extensive discussions of these and other advantages as well as numerous citations to articles related to each. Another advantage cited is the cost-effectiveness of computer-assisted
testing (Sampson, 1995; Sampson, Kolodinsky, & Greeno, 1997).
Maddux and Johnson (1998) also include a list of actual and potential
disadvantages including lack of demonstrated equivalence between
most computer-based instruments and their original paper-and-pencil
versions; the fact that many tests, such as oral reading instruments, do
not lend themselves to computer implementation; hardware and software limitations such as the inability of test takers to review previously-answered items; lack of standardization of computer hardware
and peripherals; the need for extensive equipment maintenance and
staff technology training; the evidence that computerized tests are completed faster than paper-and-pencil versions, introducing the need for
shorter time limits on timed tests; the possibility of computers dehumanizing the assessment process; and the possibility that counselors
will neglect to take the necessary step of observing test takers in order to
be sensitive to variables such as emotional state or attitude.

Paul C. Abney and Cleborne D. Maddux

13

ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES

OF COMPUTER-BASED TEST INTERPRETATION
One of the most controversial applications of technology in counseling is the use of computer-based test interpretation (CBTI). One reason
for its controversial nature is the complexity involved in useful test interpretation. We quite simply do not know the critical component skills
or artistic components required of humans who are good at test interpretation, a sub-component of what might be termed clinical judgment.
Many of us would agree that excellent clinical judgment seems to
emerge from a complex, and poorly understood mix of, among other
things, experience, common sense, intuition, factual knowledge, and intelligence (Dreyfus & Dreyfus, 1986; Garb, 2000b; Snyder, 2000;
Weizenbaum, 1976). Further, it requires another unknown mix of human affective qualities such as sympathy, empathy, and wisdom. Although relatively crude efforts are under way to produce artificial
intelligence, the result is artificial indeed, and few computer scientists
or anyone else would argue that we are even close to imbuing computers
with anything but the palest of shadows of human intelligence (Sterner,
1997). The idea of artificial affect is even more far-fetched. Since both
human intelligence and human affect require human experience, it
seems unlikely that true human clinical judgment can ever be carried
out by computers, which are incapable of prerequisite human experiences such as birth, childhood, hunger, or thirst, to say nothing of the
myriad hormonal and other biochemical conditions common only to
living organisms (Butcher, Perry, & Atlis, 2000; Maddux & Johnson,
1998; Styles, 1991; Wall, 2000; Weizenbaum, 1976).
An excellent and lengthy discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of CBTI can be found in a recent article by Snyder (2000). He lists
the following potential advantages: reduction of errors in responding
and scoring; availability of interpretation reports immediately after testing; reduction of subjectivity; availability of comprehensive summaries; complete documentation of results; ability to access large data
bases and address many variables; and efficient and accurate indexing
and storing of results for use in future research. Disadvantages include
the following: lack of validation of CBTI systems; the tendency for clinicians to adopt a passive attitude toward assessment; the tendency to
regard computer-generated results as highly scientific; the possibility
that clinicians will be satisfied with generalities; the ease of misuse due
to wide availability to unqualified users; and the inability of most sys-

14

JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY IN HUMAN SERVICES

tems to permit users to modify rules used in generating reports after

tests are given and scored.
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
OF INTERNET-BASED OR WEB-BASED STRATEGIES
Advantages include the ability to reach traditionally underserved clients such as those that are homebound, those in geographic areas not
served by traditional means, and those who regard their problems as so
stigmatizing that they will not access local treatment options (Fenichel
et al., 2002). Other advantages often mentioned include the elimination
of scheduling problems and the fact that asynchronous online counseling is available 24 hours a day, the ability of asynchronous communication modes such as e-mail to permit clients and counselors to stop and
think without interference of nonverbal communications, greater emotional distance between client and therapist, the cathartic nature of email
therapy, flexibility in intensity of the client/therapist interaction, ease of
recording all interaction for later use in therapy or for counselor supervision, high potential for use with school-age children, the possibility
that clients will be more willing to engage in self-disclosure, availability
of a wide variety of online support groups, and the ability of online therapy to be used as a transition to face-to-face therapy (Barak, 1999;
Jedlicka & Jennings, 2000; Smith & Reynolds, 2002).
Disadvantages commonly mentioned include difficulty of determining the qualifications of online therapists and policing the profession;
problems ensuring confidentiality of sensitive information disclosed in
online counseling sessions; lack of spontaneity, authenticity, immediacy, and directness; the danger that online counseling may increase the
likelihood of Internet addiction; increased dangers of projection due to a
lack of nonverbal cues available only in face-to-face sessions; the tendency toward instant intimacy of Internet relationships; difficulty of the
counselor to show care and positive regard; the need for basic computer
literacy skills and access to computer hardware, software, and an
Internet connection; the need for online therapists to have special training; the possibility of sudden, unexpected termination of therapy due to
technological difficulties experienced by the counselor or client; and
the difficulty in dealing with client emergencies that may arise (Barak,
1999; Barak & Wander-Schwartz; 1999; Sussman, 1998; Seymour,
2003; Smith & Reynolds, 2002; Weil, 1996). As a result of these disadvantages common to online counseling, counselors sometimes experience

Paul C. Abney and Cleborne D. Maddux

15

difficulty in obtaining professional insurance coverage for practicing online and they run the risk of unintentionally violating professional ethics.
THEORETICAL/PHILOSOPHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
IN THE USE OF TECHNOLOGY IN COUNSELING
As can be seen from this brief consideration of advantages and disadvantages, there are excellent arguments both for and against using technology in the three categories of counseling activities we have chosen
for this discussion. Because research on efficacy is in its infancy, and
because results tend to be mixed, many counselors who feel strongly
about the use of technology may be basing their advocacy or opposition
on such pragmatic concerns. However, we suspect that this is not the
case, and that many counselors are making decisions by relying on theoretical or philosophical considerations.
We believe that it may be helpful to clarify some of the differing theoretical and philosophical assumptions that may underlie advocacy or
opposition to the use of computer technology in counseling, particularly
for those counselors who may not as yet have made up their minds about
this controversial issue.
DIFFERING WORLDVIEWS AND THEIR EFFECT
ON COUNSELORS ATTITUDES ABOUT TECHNOLOGY
One approach to understanding these differences was offered in a
classic article by Reese and Overton (1970). These authors suggest that
every psychological theory contains a unique worldview of human nature, also called a paradigm, a set of presuppositions, or a world hypothesis. Some theories may share a common worldview, while other
theories are based on differing worldviews of human nature. Debates
about the value of theories based on differing worldviews are, according to Reese and Overton (1970), pointless and unproductive, since the
theories are based on differing presuppositions. These pointless debates, such as the once-vitriolic debate between behavioral and cognitive psychologists, they term paradigm debates, and they suggest that
such debates serve only to alienate and polarize a professional field.
They suggest that psychology has historically embraced one of two developmental psychology models: the organismic and mechanistic world

16

JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY IN HUMAN SERVICES

views (p. 116). The organismic world view subscribes to a model of

human as a dynamic choice maker, while the mechanistic world view
embraces the model of human as machine. According to Reese and
Overton, it is pointless to argue about whether behavioral or cognitive
psychology is true or false, since each is based on irreconcilably different worldviews of human nature. If one accepts the worldview that humans
are dynamic choice makers, then cognitive psychology is a consistent and
logical theory. Conversely, if one accepts the worldview that humans
behave as do machines, then behavioral psychology, with its emphasis
on stimuli and responses, is consistent and logical. The best that one can
do, according to these authors, is to decide which of several opposing
theories seem to work best in which types of situations.
If we accept Reese and Overtons argument, the implications for the
present discussion seem obvious. Counselors choices derive from their
worldviews, and their worldviews regarding the nature of humans determine, among other things, whether or not a counseling approach can
support the use of computer technology and still be a theoretically consistent counseling approach.
The mechanistic worldview and its goals, including the quantification of human behavior and the drive to develop functional equations to
define and predict human behaviors and relationships, could be the
modern philosophical basis for the use of CBTI programs, for example.
Epstein and Rotunda (2000) may have been operating from this world
view when they hypothesized that: Because software may be designed
to make reliable diagnoses from actuarial databases in a manner which
avoids the influences of pre-existing biases, it should provide highly accurate predictions of patient symptomatology (p. 534).
In contrast, Reese and Overton (1970) described the organismic
worldview as follows: The organismic model of human nature is viewed
metaphorically as an organism that is a living, organized system. Humans are systems that can be experienced multi-dimensionally. The organismic model contains this assumption:
The holistic assumption maintains that any local organ [human] or
activity [behavior, affect, or thought] is dependent upon the context, field, or whole of which it is a constitutive part; its properties
and functional significance {meaning} are, in a large measure, determined by this larger whole or context. (Reese & Overton, 1970,
p. 136)

Paul C. Abney and Cleborne D. Maddux

17

Thus, the organismic model of human nature does not support quantification and mechanization of human behavior, or the goal to develop
equations for the purpose of predicting that behavior. Without the quantification of human experience and without the construction of functional equations, there is little basis for constructing prescriptive CBTIs.
MODERN AND POSTMODERN POSITIONS
Two epistemological approaches to human nature that also characterize some of the differences between those counselors who support the
use of technology and those counselors who believe that counseling is a
task for human clinicians, are that of modernism and postmodernism.
Modernists operate from the legacy of Descartes, engage in a quest for
certainty, and rely on the scientific method to explain and predict
(Connell, 1995, p. 7). Modernists would likely have few objections to
objective testing programs and the accompanying computer based test
administration, interpretation, or therapy programs if based on functional equations, statistical/actuarial rules, or other scientifically derived techniques.
Postmodernism, on the other hand, is based upon a relativistic theory
of knowledge. Rather than a single and certain truth existing about the
world, every question has an infinite number of answers, each equally
valid. Three general points are frequently found within postmodern literature (Burbules, 1993). These include: (a) a disavowal of the credibility of any claim to objectivity, impartiality, and universality, (b) a
rejection of any single universally accepted view of human nature, and
(c) a rejection of the idea that our aim should be finding common underlying principles, generalizable rules, or universal definitions as the
sign of theoretical coherence and credibility (Burbules, 1993, p. 3).
The idea of computerizing assessment or therapy would most likely not
find ready acceptance from this point of view.
Radical postmodernism or antimodernism (Burbules, 1993, p. 4)
virtually denies the existence of the Enlightment categories, leading to a
worldview that allows no objectivity, no judgments of better or worse,
no dialogue, and no understanding across worldviews. Certainly, from
this antimodern position, there would be little chance of acceptance of
computer administration, interpretation or therapy.
A more moderate postmodern worldviewthat knowledge is a socially
constructed presentation of the worldallows that when assessment procedures are necessary, the use of clinical judgment is preferable. Al-

18

JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY IN HUMAN SERVICES

though assessment might be accepted, the use of computers in the process

would likely not be acceptable, given even this moderate version of
postmodern thinking.
IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES
The modernist and the postmodernist worldviews, like the previously
described, related organismic and mechanistic worldviews, are clearly
divided along demarcation lines that extend outward from the very basic precepts contained in these contrasting approaches. The premise of
this article is that the controversy concerning computers in counseling
may be misunderstood if taken merely at face value, and may be symptomatic of a much deeper disagreement. The controversy may reflect
conflicting worldviews. If so, continuing the debate, while perhaps clarifying some of the issues, is not likely to produce consensus among
counselors, since the controversy may be based on what Reese and
Overton (1970) have called a paradigm debate. About such paradigm
debates and the possibility of resolving them through synthesis, they
say:
Theories built upon radically different models are logically independent and cannot be assimilated to each other. They reflect representations of different ways of looking at the world and as such
are incompatible in their implications. Different worldviews involve different understanding of what knowledge is and hence the
meaning of truth. Therefore, synthesis is, at best, confusing.
(p. 144)
Modernists, through deductive methods, can use questioning, and an
analysis of the individuals answers to determine which preordained
and universal diagnostic categories that particular individual fits within.
The postmodernists disavow the legitimacy of the modernists categories, and maintain that all answers are relative. Therefore, in terms of diagnosis, the postmodernists learn by taking apart any tacit assumptions
and ideologies (political, cultural, and religious). They reject assumptions and ideologies that are viewed by the modernists as objective, and
maintain that they are all simply conditioned by language, culture, and
power (Snauwaert, 1999).
There is little room for compromise in such diametrically opposed
viewpoints. There is no room at all for synthesis if we accept what Reese

Paul C. Abney and Cleborne D. Maddux

19

and Overton (1970) tell us about theories, models, and worldviews. What
then, should we do about the controversy about technology in the field of
counseling?
Most of all, we should avoid pointless and destructive polarization of the
counseling field such as that which took place years ago in psychology as a
consequence of disagreement between behaviorists and cognitivists. A
similar, equally bitter polarization continues to gather steam in science between modernists and postmodernists, and has come to be known as the
science wars (Bricmont, 1997).
LOOKING TOWARD THE FUTURE
What we believe needs to happen is for counselors to examine their
own theoretical roots, make sure that their positions with regard to technology is consistent with their worldviews, and agree to disagree with
those who approach counseling from a different worldview. Both sides
can then get on with the critical business of refining their own individual
counseling skills, regardless of whether or not technology is involved.
This is what finally occurred in psychology with regard to the behavioral/cognitive split. Advocates from both sides agreed to disagree,
scaled down the emotional content of their debate, and went about the
business of refining their own practices. There are signs that something
similar is occurring with regard to the science wars, where recently, the
invective has been toned down considerably (Snauwaert, 1999).
The important thing is that we do not permit the debate to polarize the
field, as Reese and Overton warn that paradigm debates often do. If we
acknowledge that the controversy itself may be merely symptomatic of
underlying differences in worldviews, the debate may serve a positive
purpose. That is, it may stimulate counselors to critically examine their
own unspoken assumptions and bring their own professional practices
more in line with their various worldviews. If such is the case, the debate will have been worthwhile, regardless of whether or not technology takes a more or less important role in counseling of the future.
Technology is here to stay, in counseling as in the culture at large
(Clauser, Swanson & Clyman, 1999; Garb, 2000a; Maddux & Johnson,
1998). Computers have simply become so ubiquitous, and have acquired so much cultural momentum that we could probably not prevent
them from continuing to find their way into the field of counseling, even
if we tried to do so. So, to us, the critical question is not so much
whether or not technology will be used in counseling in the future, but

20

JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY IN HUMAN SERVICES

whether or not the controversy concerning their use will serve to enlighten and inform, or to embitter and divide. We have written this article in the hope that in some small way, it can help promote the former,
rather than the latter. If the manuscript increases the readers awareness
of the degree to which disagreements, which are really paradigm debates, may have on decision-making, then readers can make more
thoughtful individual choices about the appropriate use of technology in
counseling.
REFERENCES
Adams, K.M., & Heaton, R.K. (1985). Automated interpretation of the neuropsychological test data. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 790-802.
American Counseling Association (1999). Standards for the use of electronic communications over the Internet. Retrieved April 14, 2003 from http://www.counseling.
org/resources/internet.htm
American Counseling Association (2003). ACA code of ethics and standards of practice.
Retrieved April 12, 2003, from http://www.counseling.org/resources/ethics.htm#ce
American Psychological Association (1997). APA statement on services by telephone,
teleconferencing, and Internet. Retrieved April 14, 2003 from http://www.apa.
org/ethics/stmnt01.html
Baer, L., Cukor, P., & Coyle, J. T. (1997). Telepsychiatry: Application of telemedicine.
In R. L. Bashshur, J. H. Sanders, & G. W. Shannon (Eds.), Telemedicine: Theory
and Practice (pp. 265-290). Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
Barak, A. (1999). Psychological applications on the Internet: A discipline on the
threshold of a New Millennium. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 8, 231-246.
Barak, A., & Wander-Schwartz, M. (1999). Empirical evaluation of brief group therapy through an Internet chat room. Retrieved April 19, 2003 from http://construct.
haifa.ac.il/~azy/cherapy.htm
Bricmont, J. (1997). Sciences studieswhats wrong? Physics World, 10(12). Retrieved October 10, 2002 from http://physicsweb.org/article/world/10/12/2
Burbules, N. C. (1993). Dialogue in teaching: Theory and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Burke, M. J. (1993). Computerized psychological testing: Impacts on measuring predictor constructs and future job behavior. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.),
Personnel selection in organizations, pp. 203-239. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
Butcher, J.N., Perry, J.N., & Atlis, M.M. (2000). Validity and utility of computerbased test interpretation. Psychological Assessment, 12(1), 6-18.
Childers, J. H. (1985). The counselors use of microcomputers: Problems and ethical
issues. The School Counselor, 33, 26-31.
Clauser, B.E., Swanson, D.B., & Clyman, S.G. (1999). A comparison of the generalizability of scores produced by expert raters and automated scoring systems [Electronic version]. Applied Measurement in Education, 12 (4), 281-300.

Paul C. Abney and Cleborne D. Maddux

21

Clinical Social Work Federation (2001). CSWF position paper on Internet text-based
therapy. Retrieved April 14, 2003 from http://www.cswf.org/therapy.html
Connell, J. (1995). Reconstructing a modern definition of knowledge: A comparison of
Toulmin and Dewey. Retrieved March 20, 2003 from University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Philosophy of Education Society Website: http://www.ed.uiuc.
edu/EPS/PES-yearbook/95_docs/connell.html
Das, A., Bright, L., & Smaby, M. (1983). Uses and abuses of computers in counseling.
Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, 18, 51-57.
Dreyfus, H. L. & Dreyfus, S. E. (1986). Mind over machine. New York, NY: The Free
Press.
Epstein, J., & Klinkenbert, W.D. (2001). From Eliza to Internet: A brief history of
computerized assessment. Computers in Human Behavior, 17, 295-314.
Epstein, J. & Rotunda, R. J. (2000). The utility of computer versus clinician-authored
assessments in aiding the prediction of patient symptomatology. Computers in Human Behavior, 16, 519-536.
Farrell, A.D. (1989). Impact of computers on professional practice: A survey of current
practices and attitudes. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 20(3),
172-178.
Fenichel, M., Suler, J., Barak, A., Zelvin, E., Jones, G., Munro, K. et al. (2002). Myths and
realities of online clinical work. In J. Suler (Ed.), Psychology of cyberspace, pp. 1-14.
Retrieved April 14, 2003 from http://www.rider.edu/~suler/psycyber/myths.html
French, C.F. (1986). Microcomputers and psychometric assessment. British Journal of
Guidance and Counseling, 14, 33-45.
Garb, H. N. (2000a). Computers will become increasingly important for psychological
assessmentnot that theres anything wrong with that. Psychological Assessment,
12(1), 31-39.
Garb, H. N. (2000b). Introduction to the special section on the use of computers for
making judgments and decisions. Psychological Assessment, 12(1), 3-5.
Granello, P. F. (2000). Historical context: The relationship of computer technologies
and counseling. In G. R. Walz and J. W. Bloom (Eds.), Cybercounseling and
cyberlearning: Strategies and resources for the millennium, pp. 3-15. Alexandria,
VA: American Counseling Association and Greensboro, NC: ERIC Counseling and
Student Services Clearinghouse.
Grove, W. G., Zald, D. H., Lebow, B., Snitz, B., & Nelson, C. (2000). Clinical versus
statistical prediction: A meta-analysis. Psychological Assessment, 12, 19-30.
Hayes, B. G. (1999). Wheres the data: Is multimedia instruction effective in training
counselors? Journal of Technology and Counseling, 1(1). Retrieved November 6,
2003, from http://jtc.colstate.edu/vol1_1/multimedia.hmtl.
Honaker, L. (1988). The equivalency of computerized and conventional MMPI administration: A critical review. Clinical Psychology Review, 8, 561-577.
Honaker, L. M. & Fowler, R. D. (1990). Computer-assisted psychological assessment.
In G. Goldstein & M. Hersen (Eds.), Handbook of psychological assessment (2nd
ed., pp. 521-546). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Jedlicka, D., & Jennings, G. (2000). Marital therapy on the Internet. Journal of Technology in Counseling, 1(2), 1-13.

22

JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY IN HUMAN SERVICES

Lawrence, S., & Giles, L. (1999). Accessibility and distribution of information on the
web. Nature, 400, 107-109.
Lundberg, D. J., & Cobitz, C. I. (1999). Use of technology in counseling assessment: A
survey of practices, views, and outlook. Journal of Technology in Counseling, 1(1).
Retrieved November 6, 2003, from http://jtc.colstate.edu/vol1_1/multimedia.html.
Maddux, C. D. (2002-2003). The World Wide WebImpediments to useful implementation in education at all levels. National Forum of Educational Administration and
Supervision Journal, 19(3), 31-42.
Maddux, C. D., & Johnson, L. (1998). Computer-assisted assessment. In H. B. Vance
(Ed.), Psychological assessment of children: Best practices for school and clinical
settings (pp. 87-105). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Matarazzo, J. (1986). Computerized clinical psychological test interpretations: Unvalidated plus all mean and no sigma. American Psychologist, 41, 14-24.
Meehl, P. (1954). Clinical versus statistical predictions: A theoretical review and
analysis of the evidence. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Moreland, K. L. (1985). Validation of computer-based interpretations: Problems and
prospects. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 816-825.
Morton, C. (1996). The modern land of laputa. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(1), 416-420.
National Board for Certified Counselors (2001). Standards for the ethical practice of Web
counseling. Retrieved April 14, 2003 from http://www.nbcc.org/ethics/webethics.htm
Niolon, R. (2003). Computers and psychological testing. Retrieved April 13, 2003
from http://www.psychpage.com/objective/computers.htm
Pastore, M. (2003). Minority, low-income Internet use increases. Retrieved April 14,
2003 from http://cyberatlas.internet.com/big_picture/demographics/article/0,,5901_
768141,00.html
Phillips, S. D. (1984). Contributions and limitations in the use of computers in counselor training. Counselor Education and Supervision, 24(2), 186-192.
Powell, M. B., Wilson, J. C., & Hasty, M. K. (2002). Evaluation of the usefulness of
Marvin: A computerized assessment tool for investigative interviewers of children. Computers in Human Behavior, 18, 577-592.
Powell, T. (1998). Online counseling: A profile and descriptive analysis. Retrieved
April 14, 2003 from http://netpsych.comj/Powell.htm
Price, R.K., Risk, N.K., Spitznagel, E.L., Downey, T.J., Meyer, D.J. &
El-Ghazzawy, O. G. (2000). Applying artificial neural network models to clinical
decision-making. Psychological Assessment, 12(1), 40-51.
Reese, H. W., & Overton, W. F. (1970). Models of development and theories of development. In L. R. Goulet & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), Life-Span Developmental Psychology (pp. 115-145). New York: Academic.
Reid, J. C., Nair, S. S., Mistry, S. I., & Beitman, B. D. (1996). Effectiveness of stages of
change and Adinazolam SR in panic disorder: A neural network analysis. Journal of
Anxiety Disorders, 10, 331-345.
Roper, B. L., Ben-Porath, Y. S. & Butcher, J. N. (1995). Comparability and validity of
computerized adaptive testing with the MMPI-2. Journal of Personality Assessment, 65, 358-371.
Sampson, J.P. (1995). Computer-assisted testing in counseling and therapy. ERIC
Document: ED391983.

Paul C. Abney and Cleborne D. Maddux

23

Sampson, J. P., Kolodinsky, R. W., & Greeno, B. P. (1997). Counseling on the information highway: Future possibilities and potential problems. Journal of Counseling
and Development: JCD, 75(3), 203-212.
Sawyer, R. J., & Zantal-Wiener, K. (1993). Emerging trends in technology for students
with disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 26, 70-77.
Sceats, M. (2003). How big is the Web? Internet facts and figures. Retrieved April 14,
2003 from http://www.viz.co.nz/internet-facts.htm
Selmi, P. M., Klein, M. H., Greist, J. H., Johnson, J. H., & Harris, W. G. (1982). An investigation of computer-assisted cognitive-behavior therapy in the treatment of depression. Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation, 14, 181-185.
Seymour, F. W. (2003). Online therapists Web sites and ethics: Do social workers in
electronic private practice address ethical issues? Retrieved April 19, 2003 from
http://www.victoriapoint.com/socialworkethics.htm
Sharf, R. S. (1985). Artificial Intelligence: Implications for the future of counseling.
Journal of Counseling and Development, 64, 34-37.
Smith, S. D., & Reynolds, C. (2002). Cyber-psychotherapy. Annals of the American
Psychotherapy Association, 5, 20-23.
Snauwaert, D.T. (1999). Knowledge and liberal education: Representation, postmodernism, and I-You inclusive knowing. In J. Kane (Ed.), Education, information, and transformation: Essays on learning and thinking (pp. 41-55). Upper
Saddle Brook, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Snyder, D.K. (2000). Computer-assisted judgment: Defining strengths and liabilities.
Psychological Assessment, 12(1), 52-60.
Sterner, W. (1997). Symbolic demeaning (or discursive debasement) in human-computer interactions. Retrieved November 11, 2003, from http://www.focusing.org/
apm_papers/sterner.html.
Styles, I. (1991). Clinical assessment and computerized testing. International Journal
of Man-Machine Studies, 35, 133-150.
Suler, J. (2000). Psychotherapy in cyberspace: A 5-dimension model of online and
computer-mediated psychotherapy. In J. Suler (Ed.), Psychology of cyberspace. Retrieved April 14, 2003 from http://www.rider.edu/~suler/psycyber/therapy.html
Sussman, R. J. (1998). Counseling online. Counseling Today. Retrieved April 19, 2003
from http://www.counseling.org/ctonline/sr598/sussman.htm
Tymofievich, M., & Leroux, J. A. (2000). Counselors competencies in using assessments. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 33, 50-59.
Vance, H. B., & Awadh, A. M. (1998). Best practices in assessment of children: Issues
and trends. In H. B. Vance (Ed.), Psychological assessment of children: Best practices for school and clinical settings (pp. 87-105). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Wagman, M., & Kerber, K. W. (1978). Dilemma Counseling System. Minneapolis:
Control Data Corporation.
Wall, J. E. (2000). Technology-delivered assessment: Power, problems, and promise.
In G. R. Walz and J. W. Bloom (Eds.), Cybercounseling and cyberlearning: Strategies and resources for the millennium (pp. 3-15). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association and Greensboro, NC: ERIC Counseling and Student Services
Clearinghouse.

24

JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY IN HUMAN SERVICES

Walz, G. (2000). Prologue. In G. R. Walz and J. W. Bloom (Eds.), Cybercounseling

and cyberlearning: Strategies and resources for the millennium, pp. xi-xvii. Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association and Greensboro, NC: ERIC Counseling and Student Services Clearinghouse.
Weil, M. W. (1996). From the couch to cyber-therapy. Retrieved April 19, 2003 from
http://www.scudh.edu/psych/article.htm
Weiner, I.B. (2003). The assessment process. Retrieved April 13, 2003 from http://
media.wiley.com/product_data/excerpt/70/04713840/0471384070.pdf
Weizenbaum, J. (1976). Computer power and human reason. New York: Freeman.
Wilson, F. R., Jencius, M., & Duncan, D. (1997). Introduction to the Internet: Opportunities and dilemmas. Counseling and Human Development, 29(6), 1-16.
Wolf, A. W. (2003). Introduction to the special issue. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 40(1-2), 3-7.

Received: August 11, 2003

Revised: November 19, 2003
Accepted: January 5, 2004
For FACULTY/PROFESSIONALS with journal subscription
recommendation authority for their institutional library . . .
If you have read a reprint or photocopy of this article, would you like to
make sure that your library also subscribes to this journal? If you have
the authority to recommend subscriptions to your library, we will send you
a free complete (print edition) sample copy for review with your librarian.
1. Fill out the form below and make sure that you type or write out clearly both the name
of the journal and your own name and address. Or send your request via e-mail to
docdelivery@haworthpress.com including in the subject line Sample Copy Request
and the title of this journal.
2. Make sure to include your name and complete postal mailing address as well as your
institutional/agency library name in the text of your e-mail.
[Please note: we cannot mail specific journal samples, such as the issue in which a specific article appears.
Sample issues are provided with the hope that you might review a possible subscription/e-subscription with
your institution's librarian. There is no charge for an institution/campus-wide electronic subscription
concurrent with the archival print edition subscription.]

Please send me a complimentary sample of this journal:

(please write complete journal title heredo not leave blank)

I will show this journal to our institutional or agency library for a possible subscription.
Institution/Agency Library: ______________________________________________
Name: _____________________________________________________________
Institution: __________________________________________________________
Address: ___________________________________________________________
City: ____________________ State: __________ Zip: ____________________
Return to: Sample Copy Department, The Haworth Press, Inc.,
10 Alice Street, Binghamton, NY 13904-1580