Special issue editorial: The art and science of trauma-focused training and education.

Exposure to potentially traumatic events places individuals at risk for a range of deleterious psychological, social, and physical consequences (e. g. , Kessler, Sonnega, Bromet, Hughes, Kilpatrick et al. , 2003). Thus, most psychology and allied professionals will encounter trauma-related issues in their work, regardless of specialty or context. Trauma-related information, therefore, is a necessary part of undergraduate and graduate (Courtois Zurbriggen, this issue) and graduate (Sigel Newman, this issue; Layne et al. , this issue) education contexts. These contributions offer practical tips for instructors new to trauma education as well as advanced instructors engaged in supervision and management of trauma-focused treatment teams. Several articles provide emerging evaluation data, from objective knowledge measures to community partner and trainee assessments. These initial data start us down the path of integrating evaluation into training/education efforts to ultimately identify and fine tune best practices. The second half of the special issue tackles training and education issues in larger systems and communities. Mattar (this issue) opens this conversation by calling for training and education practices that support system-wide, culturally responsive practice. But, all the high quality training in the world is for naught if practitioners do not integrate trauma training and trauma-informed treatments in their practices. Focusing on the important issue of uptake of trauma education and training, Couineau and Forbes (this issue) document a range of self-reported barriers to uptake of trauma-focused treatments at both individual and organizational levels. Hansel et al. (this issue) add the perspective of practitioners’ own disaster exposure when responding to training regarding disaster-related services, especially in one’s own community. Next, Straits-Troster, Brancu, Goodale, Pacelli, and Kudler (this issue) and Bernardy, Hamblen, Friedman, Ruzek, and McFall (this issue) delve into important process issues: how can big systems develop new procedures/protocols for different constituents? Bernardy and colleagues emphasize the need to help administrators examine structural issues of trauma-focused clinical care delivery, staff education, and resource allocation. Finally, translating the lessons of a decade of exposure therapy practice, Zoellner and colleagues emphasize the ultimate goal of training and education: to help trauma-exposed clients process trauma memories effectively in the context of safe therapeutic relationships, where clinicians’ lack of knowledge or discomfort does not interfere with healing. Across contributions, we note two major themes that highlight what is present and absent in this collection. First, methodologies for describing and evaluating particular educational approaches are still developing. DePrince et al. (this issue) describe pre-to-post gains, relative to a nonequivalent control group, in knowledge about a specific trauma issue; however, few studies have prepost data and fewer yet have control groups. As a field, we need to think about how to evaluate the impact of education and training programs in meaningful ways that capture qualitative as well as quantitative changes. We also need meaningful outlets for scholarship related to the important work of trauma education and training. We applaud this journal’s leadership for supporting this special section as a critical first step in dialoguing about the emerging scholarship around education and training practices. If the field generally (and Division 56 specifically) is to fulfill goals of developing and implementing high quality trauma education and training, we simply must have outlets for this scholarship. Anne DePrince, Department of Psychology, University of Denver; Elana Newman, Department of Psychology, University of Tulsa. Anne DePrince and Elana Newman contributed equally to this article. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Anne P. DePrince, Department of Psychology, University of Denver, 2155 South Race Street, Denver, CO 80208. E-mail: adeprinc@du. edu Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy © 2011 American Psychological Association 2011, Vol. 3, No. 3, 213–214 1942-9681/11/12. 00 DOI: 10. 1037/a0024640