LOL. Throw that little bugger into a full-time post-deployment clinic assessing/treating an active caseload of around 100 veterans with PTSD, clinical depression, SUDS, obstructive sleep apnea, and history of traumatic brain injury in the current VA system. That would be child abuse and he'd have to report his supervisors to child protective services (mandatory reporting).
Edit: Got up early this morning and read the article (thanks for the citation!). I think part of what we're seeing in the field right now (and across all kinds of other areas including business, academia, etc.) is some sort of 'measurement' or 'counting fetish' such that organizations are blindly assuming that anything even nominally 'measured' or 'counted' = valid assessment of construct and, therefore, accountability for 'outcomes.' Sure, if done properly and with due respect for the limitations of ANY measurement system, then measuring 'outcomes' (in psychotherapy, or in training for purposes of specialty credentialing) is a useful and noble endeavor. But WAY too many idiots in charge who couldn't pass an intro to stats undergrad course (let alone an undergrad course in experimental methods) are using 'stats' related to 'measured outcomes' with dubious operationalizations as a billy club to beat the hell out of and de facto supervise better trained professionals in their medical and mental health practices. Of course, this is rampant (and worsening) in the VA system but I'm sure it's equally out of control in other settings.
The ridiculous mantra that ANYTHING 'measured' or 'counted' using ANY method = valid measurement of the underlying construct needs to end yesterday.
Far too many people who haven't been clinically or scientifically trained fail to realize that operationalization/measurement of a construct is a means to an end rather than an end in itself.
