Psychotherapy is effective (Wampold & Imel, 2015), however, some clinicians consistently achieve better outcomes with patients than others (Rousmaniere, Goodyear, Miller, & Wampold, 2017). This known difference has been recognized across disciplines including psychiatry, medicine, nursing, psychology, and social work (Gerdes, K. E., & Segal, E. A., 2009; Stietz, J., Jauk, E., Krach, S., & Kanske, P., 2019). The American Psychological Association Task Force for Evidence Based Relationships has recommended that graduate programs provide additional training in empathy and other soft skills that facilitate effective therapeutic relationships (APA Task Force, 2018). The purpose of this study was to address the skills gap that exists in the helping professions through the provision of an online empathy skills training based on the integration of best practices and research-based interventions, i.e. deliberate practice. This study recruited a total of?N?= 51 participants from five graduate courses at a Midwest University from the three departments (i.e., Social Work, Counseling Psychology, and Rehabilitation Counseling Psychology) to complete a three-week, self-paced, online training. The training incorporated didactics related to fostering ethnocultural empathy and deliberate practice skills practice to improve empathic communication skills. Trainee empathy was assessed from three perspectives -- self-reports, analog client ratings, and observer ratings using the Barrett Lennard Relationship Inventory -- MO, OS, and Obs versions. Participants were assigned to an Immediate intervention group (n = 30 ) or a Delayed intervention group or TAU (n = 21) based on alignment with current course topics. Participants completed a skills assessment via a 15-minute role play with analog clients at three time points -- pre-test, post-test, and follow up. The Delayed intervention group received treatment-as-usual (TAU) consisting of standard clinical skills training between Time 1 and Time 2 (T1 and T2). The Immediate intervention group received TAU plus the 3-week online empathy training during this interval. T1-T2 comparisons were quantified as standardized mean differences (d) computed on the change scores for each group and indicated a negligible effect (d = 0.12 [-0.49, 0.72]) for trainee-rated empathy, but small-to-medium effects (ds = 0.33 [-0.26, 0.93] and 0.48 [-0.13, 1.10], respectively) for observer-rated and client-rated empathy. (A similar pattern of findings held for changes in the BLRI total scores for the two groups.) Although these between-group differences were not statistically significant in this relatively small-N pilot study, the magnitude of the incremental gains from the addition of the skills-based empathy training are encouraging, especially as these are relative to a comparison group already receiving standard instruction in basic clinical skills. I tentatively conclude that this deliberate-practice application represents a promising model for bridging the gap between skill and unskilled clinicians and helping professionals. Study limitations, training implications, and directions for future research are discussed. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://www.proquest.com/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.]