Abstract
In this rejoinder, we respond to comments raised by Goodyear, Wampold, Tracey, and Lichtenberg; Norcross and Karpiak; Reese; and O’Shaughnessy, Du, and Davis about the definition of expertise and methods for increasing expertise. The most consensus among these authors was found for client outcomes as a criterion of expertise and practice as a mechanism for increasing expertise. Until we have better empirical evidence, however, we suggest keeping the eight criteria that we originally proposed to measure expertise (performance, cognitive processing, client outcomes, experience, personal qualities, self-assessment, reputation, credentials), as well as the four mechanisms for increasing expertise (training, practice, feedback, and personal therapy). We challenge future researchers to hone the list and determine how to weight the various criteria and mechanisms based on empirical evidence.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
