Utilizing Evidence-Based Psychology Practice in the University of Denver's Professional Psychology Center: A Proposal

As acceptance of the Evidence-based Psychology Practice (EBPP) model continues to grow (Pagoto, Spring, Coups, Mulvaney, Coutu, & Ozakinci, 2007), it seems pertinent to explore how this model can be applied in different settings. This topic is timely as practitioners in the field are being held ever more accountable for the efficacy of the treatments they employ (Pagoto et al., 2007). Increased scrutiny has resulted in a need to integrate research into practice in order to ensure continued relevance in the ever-changing realm of American health care (Luebbe, Radcliffe, Callands, Green & Thorn, 2007; Collins, Leffingwell & Belar, 2007; Chwalisz, 2003). This paper explores how the requirements set forth by the American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on Evidence-Based Practice (2006) can be implemented at the University of Denver's (DU) Professional Psychology Center (PPC), a training clinic for students enrolled in the Psy.D. program at DU's Graduate School of Professional Psychology (GSPP). In doing so, the methods employed by Collins et al. (2007) at Oklahoma State University (OSU) are used as a template and modified to accommodate differences between these two institutions.

The Exploration and Development of Alternative Management Strategies for Mining and Recreational Activities Atop Mount Antero and Mount White; Chaffee County, Colorado

The Mount Antero/White area is a popular prospecting area. Recent expansions in the recreation economy is drawing more visitors to the area. Consequently, visitors may be placing unsustainable pressures on the landscape. In order to help rectify this, the legal, ecological, geologic, aesthetic, recreational, historic, social, and economic character of the Antero/White area has been identified. Four feasible management alternatives have also been recognized. They are a) take no new management actions, b) prohibit motorized activities in the area, c) develop a mineralogical park, and d) a combination of options b and c. Option C has been defended, as it best balances the desires of area users with the underlying ecological and geological character of the area.