Research in the context of Clinical Psych and Implications

[psych844]

So I have a two part question. First, to distinguish what research means in the context of a Clinical Psych.

I see a lot of you making statements like "I tend to do x amount of research". So just to clarify for students like me and others, what does that actually mean?
a) Is it original research that you're conducting on a part-time basis?
b) is is research that's related to clinical cases that you see?
c) is it continuing education to keep up with the latest research in your particular area?
d) only a
e) b and c

Second, maybe some concrete examples of how your research has informed your Clinical practice? I ask this because there are criticisms about the Boulder model, and a major part of the criticism seems to be if these two things (the science and clinical practice) can in fact be bridged properly.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[deleted343839]

(a) Usually we are referring to original research, either as a principal investigator or as a collaborator.
(b) Often, but not necessarily. Some clinical psychologists in academia and applied settings do not have a clinical practice.
(c) No one calls continuing education "research."

Research informs a tremendous amount of what I do clinically. To use one broad example, my interventions resemble those that have been tested in clinical trials and are shown to be effective for the problems/disorders I treat. Research also informs my assessment. If I am familiar with the major risk factors for a given problem or disorder, I specifically assess for those when a patient presents with that type of problem. If research tells me that one instrument is sensitive to clinical change and another isn't, I'll use the former when I'm monitoring treatment progress. I mean, there are so many examples of how research informs my clinical practice I think it's fair to say that it touches on nearly every aspect of it. Even when thinking about the therapeutic relationship and the so-called "nonspecific" factors.

 

[smalltownpsych]

First, I wouldn't count reading up on articles to stay up to date as research. It is research in the general layperson sense of the word, but in psychology when we say research we mean formal studies that are publishable. It could be completely original or it could be a meta-analysis or use archival data.

For the second part, I have not conducted any research since grad school, but in order to stay up on the latest information, I need to be able to critically analyse and interpret other's research findings so that I can apply it to clinical practice. I also believe that having the mindset of a scientist makes me a better clinician as I am more likely to be skeptical and aware of the limitations and biases inherent in my clinical work.

 

[Ollie123]

What the above two said. When people in the field say research, they are usually talking about actually conducting it (either independently or collaboratively). Not just reading other people's research. It may or may not be directly related to your clinical work. Depends on a huge number of factors. I think most folks who do both have at least some commonalities between the two, but it is often quite distal - especially for basic scientists. Neuroimaging is fascinating, but has exceedingly few clinical applications at present outside of a handful of extremely narrow contexts.

Some general ways research informs practice is by 1) Forcing you to think like a scientist (something sorely lacking in many practitioners); and 2) Forcing you to stay at least somewhat current with the literature when it would otherwise be very easy to let it slide. These are just two of many ways, its kind of a tough question to answer. As for the specifics...well that will depend entirely on what you are doing. Someone researching novel techniques for treating X disorder can build it into their practice. Someone who developed an assessment tool can embed it in their practice. These are the obvious ones, but there are many more. Often times it goes both directions (e.g. assessments used in the clinic are then studied empirically).

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

a) Is it original research that you're conducting on a part-time basis?
Typically.

b) is research that's related to clinical cases that you see?
Sometimes. Typically a case series or case study of a rare/unique presentation. I typically only do them if one of my fellows or residents has an interest in publishing it or presenting at a conference.

c) is it continuing education to keep up with the latest research in your particular area?
It is only counted towards CE if I attend formalized trainings/talks that have the proper documentation through the APA or other recognized group that can designate that it meets CE standards. If I just read articles...no.

 

[bcliff]

So I have a two part question. First, to distinguish what research means in the context of a Clinical Psych.

I see a lot of you making statements like "I tend to do x amount of research". So just to clarify for students like me and others, what does that actually mean?
a) Is it original research that you're conducting on a part-time basis?
b) is is research that's related to clinical cases that you see?
c) is it continuing education to keep up with the latest research in your particular area?
d) only a
e) b and c

Second, maybe some concrete examples of how your research has informed your Clinical practice? I ask this because there are criticisms about the Boulder model, and a major part of the criticism seems to be if these two things (the science and clinical practice) can in fact be bridged properly.

Boulder vs. Vail model has been discussed ad nauseam on this board, and my understanding is that the Vail model was designed to serve a purpose decades ago when clinical psychology PhD programs provided minimal clinical training. Now, if I recall correctly, APPIC data suggests that, on average, Boulder model (scientist-practitioner PhD) students receive more clinical hours/training than Vail model (practitioner-scholar PsyD). I think that being trained as a scientist is integral to becoming a psychologist, which, as you may have guessed, influences my perspective on many PsyD (and some problematic PhD) programs.

I'm currently in a scientist-practioner program, and I can't imagine what a doctoral program in psychology would look like w/o heavy stats and methods coursework/expectations. My research and clinical interests align very closely to one another, which is a huge efficiency booster, because it allows me to kill two birds with one stone when reviewing the relevant literature. My program incorporates what we learn in our stats and methods classes into our assessment and treatment seminars/classes, and it's such a valuable perspective to have when conceptualizing cases and working on treatment planning. Honestly, my treatment and assessment classes have been a relative breeze compared to my more philosophical (faculty love to remind us what PhD stands for) stats and methods courses. While the actual contents of the DSM-5 may have you believe otherwise, don't forget that, in name, the DSM is a statistical manual as much as it's a diagnostic manual. I think that our training as researchers is a huge bonus that we, as a field, bring to the (mental) healthcare table, and I worry that psychologists without this training affect how our utility is perceived by other disciplines.

 

[psych844]

Boulder vs. Vail model has been discussed ad nauseam on this board, and my understanding is that the Vail model was designed to serve a purpose decades ago when clinical psychology PhD programs provided minimal clinical training. Now, if I recall correctly, APPIC data suggests that, on average, Boulder model (scientist-practitioner PhD) students receive more clinical hours/training than Vail model (practitioner-scholar PsyD). I think that being trained as a scientist is integral to becoming a psychologist, which, as you may have guessed, influences my perspective on many PsyD (and some problematic PhD) programs.

I'm currently in a scientist-practioner program, and I can't imagine what a doctoral program in psychology would look like w/o heavy stats and methods coursework/expectations. My research and clinical interests align very closely to one another, which is a huge efficiency booster, because it allows me to kill two birds with one stone when reviewing the relevant literature. My program incorporates what we learn in our stats and methods classes into our assessment and treatment seminars/classes, and it's such a valuable perspective to have when conceptualizing cases and working on treatment planning. Honestly, my treatment and assessment classes have been a relative breeze compared to my more philosophical (faculty love to remind us what PhD stands for) stats and methods courses. While the actual contents of the DSM-5 may have you believe otherwise, don't forget that, in name, the DSM is a statistical manual as much as it's a diagnostic manual. I think that our training as researchers is a huge bonus that we, as a field, bring to the (mental) healthcare table, and I worry that psychologists without this training affect how our utility is perceived by other disciplines.

A lot of the time I ask questions but have a good idea of what the answers will be.

What you said there in bold are exactly my thoughts.
I've just taken undergrad research methods, and then 2 separate stats courses, and after taking these courses, the way I look at any Psychological research or other course content is different. You finally get an understanding of what it means to "think like a scientist".


Maybe someone can offer a good analogy of what training in psychology would be without solid foundation in stats/research methods.

 

[ClinicalABA]

In my case, it's (b)- clinical researarch in the context of active cases (or active admin/organizational/staff related issues). I am required to be actively participating in a research project, with dissemination at least biannually (conference counts), with the benefit that all national and regional conferences (ABA related) are fully funded (travel, registration, hotel, and stipend). Monetary bonuses for peer reviewed pubs, with higher amounts for higher impact journals within the field (e.g., JABA). My discipline is largely based on single case research design, and experimental control is a common component of our clinical work, so research fits nicely into our day to day clinical practices (though IOA and fidelity checks can be cumbersome, as a lot of services are done in kiddos homes and it can be tough to shoehorn in additional or non-familiar staff).

In regards to your seconds line of inquiry, I think there is a bigger role for single case designs within other areas of clinical practice. They answer different questions than you may be used to (i.e., "what happens when...?" vs. "did this happen when...?"), but they're important and interesting questions, often more in line with typical clinical experiences and needs.

 

[Justanothergrad]

So I have a two part question. First, to distinguish what research means in the context of a Clinical Psych.

I see a lot of you making statements like "I tend to do x amount of research". So just to clarify for students like me and others, what does that actually mean?
a) Is it original research that you're conducting on a part-time basis?
b) is is research that's related to clinical cases that you see?
c) is it continuing education to keep up with the latest research in your particular area?
d) only a
e) b and c

Second, maybe some concrete examples of how your research has informed your Clinical practice? I ask this because there are criticisms about the Boulder model, and a major part of the criticism seems to be if these two things (the science and clinical practice) can in fact be bridged properly.

a) yes,
b) not generally, although some of it is. I specialize in assessment methods as a measurement phenomenology so I do some stuff on population specific traits [malingering trials, CFA's of instruments in populations, etc.], but I also test clinical populations that I don't emphasize or work with as a primary are for theoretical questions about the generalizability of the instrument
c) the research keeps me aware of current trends and information on use, but thats not the primary reason I do it. I do it because of my career trajectory. I don't believe most states count research as continuing education. Although some may (NC for instance, I believe, allows a certain % of hours to count towards a specific class of CE), most don't.

Concrete example:
I do research on assessment. As a result of one of those research projects using a factor analysis on an intelligence test in those with ID, I have shifted how much emphasis I place on patterns of subscales and how I interpret factors of the test within that population.

 

[psych844]

Concrete example:
I do research on assessment. As a result of one of those research projects using a factor analysis on an intelligence test in those with ID, I have shifted how much emphasis I place on patterns of subscales and how I interpret factors of the test within that population.

That sounds exciting. I'd be interested to hear more about this..maybe I'll send you a PM if you don't mind, or you can post more details here.

One reason your line of research is interesting is that it is the most concrete and best example of using research methods/stats (or the science) to inform practice. Failing to see this link is imo what causes otherwise decent people to essentially hate the science of Psychology, and say things like "I like seeing patients..the Clinical aspect, but hate research!!". I don't think they really see the link, and it's hard to blame them sometimes. These are people that get excited about the idea of diagnosing people, and having that power, but they don't realize that they would be incompetent without the stats/research background. If you can make the case that they would be incompetent (I think your example illustrates that)..I think they can get excited about studying stats/research methods because the link has been made between the science and proper diagnosis (patient care), and if they truly care about taking care of patients, being a good clinician, they will fall in love with the science.

 

[Justanothergrad]

That sounds exciting. I'd be interested to hear more about this..maybe I'll send you a PM if you don't mind, or you can post more details here.

One reason your line of research is interesting is that it is the most concrete and best example of using research methods/stats (or the science) to inform practice. Failing to see this link is imo what causes otherwise decent people to essentially hate the science of Psychology, and say things like "I like seeing patients..the Clinical aspect, but hate research!!". I don't think they really see the link, and it's hard to blame them sometimes. These are people that get excited about the idea of diagnosing people, and having that power, but they don't realize that they would be incompetent without the stats/research background. If you can make the case that they would be incompetent (I think your example illustrates that)..I think they can get excited about studying stats/research methods because the link has been made between the science and proper diagnosis (patient care), and if they truly care about taking care of patients, being a good clinician, they will fall in love with the science.

I firmly believe that people don't hate research. People hate bad experiences of research and assume that is what research is as a concrete thing. Its sort of like math. No one hates math. They hate being bad at math or doing math.

PM away. A lot of my projects follow very concrete lines with real world implications. I'd be happy to talk about some of them in private.