Cutts, L. (2011). Integration in counseling psychology: To what purpose?. Counseling Psychology Review, 26(2), 38-48.
Watkins Jr., C. Edward. (1992). Historical influences on the use of assessment methods in counseling psychology Counselling Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 5 Issue 2.
Thorne, Frederick C.(2000). The field of clinical psychology: Past, present, and future . Journal of Clinical Psychology, Volume 56, Issue 3, pages 257 -- 274,
Pointon, Clare. (2004). Difference and equality in practice. CPJ: Counselling & Psychotherapy Journal, Vol. 15. Issue 8, p42
Kinderman, P., Scoyoc, S., Vassalos, A & Roycroft, P. (2011). Research methods in Counselling Psychology: What would Wilhelm Wundt think?. Counseling Psychology Review; 2011, Vol. 26 Issue 4, p3-8, 6p
Moller, N. (2011). The identity of counseling psychology in Britain is parochial, rigid and irrelevant but diversity offers a solution. Counseling Psychology Review
Bloom J. Arvid (2000). Careers in clinical and counseling Psychology.
Retrieved February 27, 2010, from http://www.wcupa.edu/_academics/sch_cas.psy/
Jranks.org (n.d.). Statistics in Psychology. Psychology Encyclopedia: Branches of Psychology.
Retrieved February 27, 2010, from http://psychology.jrank.org/pages/612/Statistics-in-Psychology.html
Roberts C. Michael and Ilardi S. Stephen (n.d.). Research Methodology and Clinical
Psychology: An Overview. Clinical Psychology Research. Retrieved February 27, 2010,
We focus particularly on the differential implications for choice of experimental design, research operations, and plan of statistical analysis. We also claim that there are conceptual implications of the failure to appreciate the moderator-mediator distinction. Among the issues we will discuss in this regard are missed opportunities to probe more deeply into the nature of causal mechanisms and integrate seemingly irreconcilable theoretical positions. For example, it is possible that in some problem areas disagreements about mediators can be resolved by treating certain variable as moderators. (Baron & Kenny, The Moderator-Mediator Distinction, 1986)
There task for such distinction is still incomplete as the Frazier piece is written eighteen years later and the distinction still has not been made -- and they introduce considering these terms on three levels: conceptual, strategic, and statistical. (2004) Considering mediators and moderators in the ways proposed by Frazier et al. (2004) on the levels proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986) marks the intersection among mediators, moderators, and applications in management. This is yet another way the article by Frazier et al. demonstrates value to readers and researchers.
It is possible for an effect size to be fairly small in order for us to find it interesting. Frazier et al. remind the readers more than once that research into the distinctions between and the subsequent implications for those differences has not been researched a great deal. They mention in their conclusion how their study provides only a model and further implementation is necessary before commenting on a larger body of data. That larger body of data relevant specifically to mediator and moderator effects has not been made, as evidenced for example, by the eighteen year gap in two of the articles, yet their intention is nearly the exact same. Therefore, it is the opinion of the author that effect size need not be the primary issue, though effect sizes should be taken into consideration. The attention and tracking of mediators and moderators during the study is more relevant than the effect size because there is no great body of work to compare against. When there are more studies with many different effect sizes, then that question will be more significant and there is a greater possibility of a relevant, insightful answer. Both moderators and mediators contribute to effect size as they in essence represent the "when" & "for whom" and the "why" & "how" respectively. (Frazier et al., 2004) When a mediation occurs and why a moderation occurs both influence effect size. Their influence is different, but still quantifiable and qualifiable.