Interesting article: "Why The Clinical Science Model Fails"

[perhaps11]

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/theory-knowledge/201406/why-the-clinical-scientist-model-fails

Thoughts?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[WisNeuro]

Read it, not impressed. He has a narrow view of the clinical science model. Which is far from the mode of the field in my opinion. It's a somewhat incoherent view, hard to see what he's arguing for exactly.

 

[thewesternsky]

I almost stopped reading here:

"Let’s begin with a question: “If a loved one of yours was having some serious psychological difficulties, say dealing with bulimia and depression, and I ask you, what are the competencies you hope that their health care professional would have, would you be more inclined to refer them to a practitioner whose primary identity is forming effective therapeutic alliances that foster understanding and adaptive change, or would you want to send your loved one to a researcher on eating disorders who was good at getting grants, and writing peer-reviewed papers?”

...because I hate false dichotomies, even when they are used to make a point. I'm not from a clinical science program, so I can't comment on the actual attitude of these programs to clinical work (hopefully others will weigh in)... BUT I have trouble believing that they'd truly endorse what he implies about "clinical science technicians". Obviously clinical practice needs to be based on theoretical and conceptual understanding-- Basing your practice simply on available (and thus VERY limited) empirical data would be paralyzing. I'm sure clinical science programs emphasize conceptualization within the frameworks and orientations that they teach. Anyway, my sense is that he's working from a very flawed idea of the goals of clinical science programs.

 

[cara susanna]

I never understood this conceptualization of clinical scientists as bad clinicians. I mean, usually they're the ones who developed the treatments in question, it's not like they'd be bad at them.

 

[Doctor Eliza]

I just skimmed, but I was struck by the venue here. Psychology Today? That is just a magazine for lay people interested in pop psychology. Doesn't this belong in some sort of periodical geared toward psychologists?

 

[A Blue Duck]

...because I hate false dichotomies, even when they are used to make a point.

I had this exact same quote copied and ready to post when I checked the thread. Thank you for saving me the time.

 

[MCParent]

Like others, did not like it. The entire article seems to be founded in a series of logical fallacies and failures (probably willfull failures) to understand the model or even make a clear argument.

 

[Ollie123]

Henriques has done some good work, but this is not among that work (not surprising given where its posted).

I agree with the above that it basically boils down to being exceedingly black and white. I'm sorely tempted to post a counter-argument saying the scholar-practitioner model is ineffective because its all about training people to believe that a hug is all anyone ever needs and therefore its totally okay that their doctoral graduates can't add single digit numbers....

The clinical science model is not without its flaws for sure. Its still a developing model and we're only a few years out from the Delaware Project. The clinical science movement is not about what is the best training for "therapist" but whether "therapist" is the best core identity for applied clinical psychology moving forward. Therapist training is a consideration, not the end-all, be-all. His argument seems to rest on the assumption it is, which I think is often the crux of the problem in these debates. When you have an exceedingly narrow view of what a psychologist can do...yeah, I can see why it would make sense to make the training narrow too (though even then it will come with many negative consequences). I see little evidence its beneficial, ample reason to believe people will be able to keep up with the changing times and significant reason to believe such an approach will lead to further intellectual and financial degeneration of the field unless we change dramatically from the current approach.

I also fully agree with Cara, I'm not sure what people think is being taught in these programs. Believe me, clinical scientists understand the role of therapeutic alliance...likely better than most of those outside clinical science programs that don't emphasize scientific training. My clinical science program had a whole course dedicated to it. I'm not sure how scientific training precludes this from happening.

I'm also curious if Henriques would be doubtful of Marsha Linehan's ability to implement DBT because of the amount of grant funding she has pulled in...

 

[erg923]

I would you be more inclined to refer them to a practitioner whose primary identity is forming effective therapeutic alliances that foster understanding and adaptive change

Used car salesmen can do this everyday...

I would prefer to go with the person who has demonstrated expertise in the topic. Call me crazy, but I have some confidence that an individual with a Ph.D in clinical psychology has been taught the therapy 101 principle of relationship/rapport building. This isn't some foreign concept only taught in PsyD. programs...

 

[QAsPsych]

Whenever someone starts with a history of psychology, you know you're in for a bad time.

I think there are some problems with the clinical science model, but this article does a piss poor job of articulating them (and is just wrong on some of them). I agree with most of the comments from Dennis Wendt that he links/refers to, though.

 

[deadmau5]

I never understood this conceptualization of clinical scientists as bad clinicians. I mean, usually they're the ones who developed the treatments in question, it's not like they'd be bad at them.

or bad scientists, which is the reason why my program does not have it's own specific clinical program even when it could have had the best program in the country with it's amazing partnerships with local hospitals.

 

[smalltownpsych]

Did he have a point? Helping to confuse the public and create unfounded fears that some clinical psychologists have no therapy skills does not help promote psychology. A psychologist by definition should be a scientist regardless of where they go to school or what part of the field they work in. I wanted to be a psychologist because of the science, I was a bit disappointed when I found out that the doctoral program I entered used the practitioner-scholar model.

 

[Dr_lost]

Honestly I don't understand why the Psychological field seems to be having an identity crisis.

It doesn't matter if you have (or earning) a PhD or PsyD in Clinical Psychology. You spent years (literally) working/studying in a clinical environment. With the goal of spending a couple of years in that environment helping people. That's like a fighter pilot (the Navy for example), that spends years in a simulation and in an actual fighter jet. After all that "practice time" they end up spending their 9am to 5pm in the seat of a jet.

I agree with Smalltownpsych. This article will continue to confuse the public. Many professionals don't respect the Psychological field like they used to. I blame the internet and all of it's free "counselors" for that. What the layman known about Clinical Psychology is very limited, yet whenever they watch Dr.Phil they swear they just earned their PhD in Psychology in one afternoon.

 

[cara susanna]

Edit: Sorry, I misunderstood the post. I'll blame internship for melting my brain.