Such formal means are needed to prevent validity questions as those that came about following the first standards mandated in 1989.
This is not to say updating the standards is not without risk, for in modern society counselors must now concern themselves with "litigious" claims in a "litigious climate" (Cobia & Pipes, 2002:140). This means counselors agreeing to serve clients, and clients willing to enter into trusting relationships feel more at risk and more inclined to argue for malpractice or other harm resulting from sessions.
More often now than not, clients are likely to sue or file complaints of malpractice for counseling received they feel inadequate. By updating professional standards using the methods suggested above, many professional counselors can rest assured knowing they are less likely to become victimized if they follow the proper standardization procedures. Claims including those suggesting the counselor is impaired may be better fought if standardization in every state remained the same and required an exact amount of training, one defined by empirical evidence validating the positive outcomes of such training and rehabilitation.
It is also important...
The potential for positive outcomes, based on the present literature, is high if governing bodies take the time to conceptualize (Cobia & Pipes, 2002) new rules and standards that benefit both counselor and client or patient.
References
Cobia, D.C., & Pipes, R.B. (2002). Mandated supervision: An intervention for disciplined professionals. Journal of Counseling and Development, 80(2): 140.
Goodyear, R.K., & Bernard, J.M. (1998). Clinical supervision: Lessons from the literature. Counselor Education and Supervision, 38(1): 6-23.
Walzer, R.S., & Miltimore, S. (1993). Mandated supervision: Monitoring, and therapy of disciplined health care professionals. The Journal of Legal Medicine, 14(1):565-96.
Watkins, C.E. (1995). Psychotherapy supervision in…
