RESUMO
This study investigated how novice group counseling trainees' knowledge structures about group situations differed from experts.' Eight highly experienced group therapists and 54 novice trainees indicated which of the 19 leader interventions they would consider using to respond to the 21 group situations described in the Group Therapy Questionnaire (GTQ, Wile, Bron, & Pollack, 1970). Pathfinder Network Analysis (Schvaneveldt, 1990) was used to generate knowledge structures (cognitive maps) about group situations based on the aggregated response of experts and each trainee's response to GTQ. Comparing trainees' maps with the referent expert map, we found no common errors of commission, that is, relationship between situations in trainees' knowledge maps but not in experts' knowledge maps, but 10 common errors of omission, that is, relationships among group situations in experts' knowledge maps but not in trainees' knowledge maps. Cluster analysis identified 2 subgroups of trainees. Neither of these trainee subgroups incorporated the group's developmental stage into their map of group situations as experts did: experts saw the situations during the beginning and ending phases of the group as similar but different from situations in the middle phase of the group. The first group of trainees had a holistic approach to group situations but tended to make errors in dealing with group situations involving a problematic member. The second group had an atomistic approach to group situations but lacked a clearly differentiated and structured general organization for the situations. They tended to make errors in dealing with challenging situations where the group is avoidant and lacks engagement.