APS

[Peacemaker36]

I've been wondering, are many of the frequent posters on this list members of the Association for Psychological Science (APS)?

I ask because APS takes a rather firm position about the fact that psychologists are clinical scientists, and has been known to make public statements disparaging PsyD programs. APS is in the process of creating a new level of licensure which would identify and elevate psychology training programs which meet certain standards of scientific rigor and adhere to evidence-based practices.

The APS voice is valuable to our field as a whole. I certainly don't mean to put it down. But right or wrong, APS's positions are only representative of the attitudes of a minority of psychologists. Actually, I believe APS would ultimately like to replace APA.

People planning to spend their entire professional lives in our field come to SDN looking for advice. I think they would benefit from knowing where the advice on SDN is coming from.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[EmotRegulation]

The information you are describing here is not entirely accurate. The group with the new accreditation standards (not licensure), PCSAS, is not (as far as I know) endorsed by APS *as a replacement for APA accreditation.* Even though the "history" section of the PCSAS website indicates support from APS, APS is an affiliate of the Academy for CLinical Psychological Science, not the actual creators of PCSAS. Moreover, the public statements link you posted is a description of a panel discussion at an APS conference. Is the panel discussion reported on in the APS Observer? Clearly, yes, but that is just reporting on what people said. Dick McFall, one of the proponents/creaters of PCSAS, spoke at this panel, and his opinions are certainly not shared by all (including MANY folks from scientist practitioner programs and people who would consider themselves clinical scientists).

So let us separate APS from PCSAS and also separate individuals who speak at APS functions from APS the organization. I don't think APS has any intention of becoming APA (what does that even mean, anyway? Become APA....how?). Yes, APS was started with people disgruntled with APA because APA was getting too clinical/political and folks wanted to see a return to promoting good quality science. Is it true that APS now has a newish journal, Clinical Psychological Science? Yep, but that's just a journal outlet.

Whether people on this forum are APS, APA, Academy, or other members doesn't mean that any person speaks on behalf of that organization. It is also possible to be a member of an organization without endorsing all of their beliefs.

 

[erg923]

I am a member of APS. I think, historically, there message has not been conveyed well, or even very accurately to be honest. I think their (historically) subtle disdain for full-time practitioners has largely given way to viewing practice as a primary component of clinical psychology, but one that involves much more than doing therapy and WAISs and MMPIs all day.

I would also remind people that folks can be part of organizations but not subscribe to all the beliefs/doctrines. Hello, I'm a cradle Roman Catholic....

 

[Peacemaker36]

The information you are describing here is not entirely accurate. The group with the new accreditation standards (not licensure), PCSAS, is not (as far as I know) endorsed by APS *as a replacement for APA accreditation.* Even though the "history" section of the PCSAS website indicates support from APS, APS is an affiliate of the Academy for CLinical Psychological Science, not the actual creators of PCSAS. Moreover, the public statements link you posted is a description of a panel discussion at an APS conference. Is the panel discussion reported on in the APS Observer? Clearly, yes, but that is just reporting on what people said. Dick McFall, one of the proponents/creaters of PCSAS, spoke at this panel, and his opinions are certainly not shared by all (including MANY folks from scientist practitioner programs and people who would consider themselves clinical scientists).

So let us separate APS from PCSAS and also separate individuals who speak at APS functions from APS the organization. I don't think APS has any intention of becoming APA (what does that even mean, anyway? Become APA....how?). Yes, APS was started with people disgruntled with APA because APA was getting too clinical/political and folks wanted to see a return to promoting good quality science. Is it true that APS now has a newish journal, Clinical Psychological Science? Yep, but that's just a journal outlet.

Whether people on this forum are APS, APA, Academy, or other members doesn't mean that any person speaks on behalf of that organization. It is also possible to be a member of an organization without endorsing all of their beliefs.

Thanks for clarifying. If it isn't obvious from my post, I am not an APS member, and I do value the perspectives of both the organization and of individual members. I've just been trying to understand why there are such strong differences of opinion on the SDN site. I do think this may be an element.

 

[EmotRegulation]

There's such strong differences of opinion on the SDN site because there are strong differences of opinion *in the field* on clinical training. What should be the focus (clinical work, research)? How much should research play a role? What is the best way to train competent clinicians? Everyone involved with clinical training (clinical, counseling, school) wants to produce strong clinicians, but different places take different tactics and have different resources.

 

[WisNeuro]

I am not a member of APS, but also one of those who believes that without an understanding of research foundations and knowledge of how to evaluate future research, individuals are not fit to practice clinically.

As EmotRegulation said, opinions differ greatly within and without factions in the field. I am not aware of some memo that was sent around to people telling them they had to follow the APS party line and only publicly talk about certain training methodologies.

 

[erg923]

I am actually probably more partial to the traditional scientist practitioner training model, so long as what constitutes "clinical training" continues to evolve, and we don't get stuck into training students to simply do two things: therapy and test.

 

[Ollie123]

I'm a member of both. My views are not really accurately characterized by either. It seems like you are looking for organization membership to have some explanatory power, but it seems far more likely to me that folks would opt to affiliate with organizations who support their preexisting opinions.