This document provides a critique of the article "Effects of Spirituality on Professionals at Risk of Developing Secondary Traumatic Stress Disorder". The critique examines several points, including the practical application of the research findings, the view of spirituality as a trait versus process, additional variables that could influence results, and whether resilience truly requires spiritual processes. In summarizing, the critique states that while the research on spirituality and resilience among therapists is intriguing, it does not have enough data to stand alone and further research is needed to better illustrate or falsify the hypothesis.

1. Running Head: CRITIQUE 1 1
Philip Guillet
First Research Article Critique
PC 673: Crisis Intervention
Loyola University Maryland
Pastoral Counseling Department
Dr. Kari O’Grady
January 27, 2015

2. CRITIQUE 1 2
The article “Effects of Spirituality on Professionals at Risk of Developing
Secondary Traumatic Stress Disorder” (Koslowski, 2012) will be reviewed with the
intention of critiquing its approach to treating cosmological events, as well as its
perception of the role spirituality plays during the recovery process. Among the points to
be assessed will be its level of practical functionality (i.e. individual or mass level) as
well as its relevance to Loyola University Maryland’s Crisis Intervention course and its
Center for Trauma Studies and Resilience Leadership.
What was initially intriguing and unique about this particular research study was
that its focus lay in examining “Secondary Traumatic Stress” solely within the field of
mental health therapists and counselors. This article brought to attention that there is
an inherent value in being mindful of the effect of trauma experienced by counselors
and therapists by listening to clients describe their accounts. As will be discussed
further, the article also viewed “compassion fatigue”, “vicarious trauma”, and burnout as
common variables associated with Secondary Traumatic Stress.
The first point of examination regards the level on which the research operates.
Basically, are the treatments prescribed meant for the individual person, or can they be
offered en masse? Basically, the answer is a little of both. The research examined solely
the experiences of mental health practitioners, so in this aspect, there is little practicality
beyond those specifically in the field. Furthermore, the article proposes a treatment
modality aligned with Constructive Development Theory, which may be considered too
narrow a claim if the results were intended to be applied to a larger population, (i.e.
therapists on a national level). On the other hand, the prevention of secondary traumatic
stress can also be incorporated into a therapist’s pre-licensure supervision process. This

3. CRITIQUE 1 3
can not only provide/educate a level of preemptive self-care within the therapist, it
could also be offered in groups of therapists as opposed to a strictly one on one setting.
The second point of this critique is in regards to the article’s perception of
spirituality itself, and whether spirituality is seen more of a trait or a process. The short
answer is: the former. Koslowski was very clear in establishing the idea that spirituality
plays an integral role for the therapist in minimizing potential or established detriments
of secondary traumatic stress disorder (henceforth “STSD”) in himself. Throughout the
article, some of the synonyms denoting spirituality include: mechanism, source, and
factor. Koslowski approaches the concept of one’s spirituality in terms of a “tool in a
toolbox” and not as a flowing process.
Also one must look at the study’s viewpoint of ontology and epistemology. An
unfortunate trend among contemporary researchers in spirituality and its role in health
is the lack of distinction and clarity within the definition of spirituality. What may be
resulting from such “definition fogginess” is the author’s certainty that spirituality and
resilience in dealing with STSD are directly related. Although Koslowski cites numerous
additional that supports her hypothesis, the balance between published validation and
falsifiability is off-kilter.
Additional variables within the therapist’s life were taken into consideration, e.g.
age, race, SES, number of years in practice. However, given the strictly quantitative
approach to data analysis, it is possible that these factors, along with countless others,
may also play as integral a role in the therapist’s life as his spirituality. A quantitative
approach may not be able to appropriately encapsulate their influence on mental health
and resilience. This research may act better instead as part of a series of research studies
as opposed to a standalone study. Koslowski herself also admits the cross-section of data

4. CRITIQUE 1 4
is one of the limitations of the study, and is also open to the idea of expanding upon the
data received with subsequent research.
Fourthly, the study examined a demographic population with defined borders. It
is possible for a much larger group of mental health practitioners to benefit from the
results, even on a potential worldwide scale. The factors analyzed did not involve direct
contact or exposure to trauma on any level, let alone trauma on a disaster scale.
Although this may also serve as a benefit in terms of being applicable to a myriad of
secondary trauma (i.e. potential universality), Koslowski’s definition of “trauma” itself
was also ill-defined and subject to a vast array of interpretation.
Finally, there comes the question of whether or not Koslowski’s research
explicitly recognizes resilience as requiring spiritual processes and resources. Her
research has clearly established the heavy amount of prior studies indicating a
significant positive correlation between spirituality and health among therapists.
Additional citations also convey an significantly inverse correlation between “less
spirituality” and health (physical, mental, etc.) disorders. Koslowski is also careful,
nonetheless, not to state that there is a causal effect and that one is required for the
other to flourish.
In summation, the research examining spirituality in resilience among therapists
in treating/preventing STSD is intriguing, but does not have enough data to stand on its
own. Further research is needed to best illustrate Koslowski’s hypothesis, or even to
introduce additional falsifiability.

5. CRITIQUE 1 5
References:
Koslowski, Stephanie, "Effects of Spirituality on Professionals at Risk of Developing
Secondary Traumatic Stress Disorder" (2012). Master of Social Work Clinical Research
Papers. Paper 47.
http://sophia.stkate.edu/msw_papers/47