Who's Really Killing the Profession: One Last Conversation

[Fan_of_Meehl]

Have you heard about this study? http://digest.bps.org.uk/2015/02/were-quicker-to-dismiss-evidence-from.html

yup...some of the stunning pictures of functional brain scans published in the papers under a headline such as, "Brain Researchers Isolate 'Companionship' Center of Brain" often strike me as little more than modern day phrenology

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

I think this especially important when you have clients that bring trash (or good findings) in the therapy room. One must know how to actively respond to such nonsensical (or relevant) literature actively rather than passively. You'll be doing your patient and the profession a favor.

I like Richard McNally's pithy quote regarding EMDR (referencing the dismantling studies that appear to indicate that it is likely the exposure component in EMDR that is the active ingredient)...

"What is effective in EMDR (exposure) is not new, and what is new in EMDR (the eye movements) is not effective."

That being said, I'm open to research supportive of the main theory under-girding EMDR practice...but I think that the burden lies on its proponents to articulate a sensible theoretical model that is founded on what we already know (in terms of basic neuroscience, cognitive science, etc.) and that makes falsifiable predictions (so that elements of the model can be tested empirically).

 

[horse.renoir]

I think you've got a lot to learn, friend. Undergrad psych classes don't really translate to grad level and beyond clinical practice all that much.

Amen. To both statements.

yup...some of the stunning pictures of functional brain scans published in the papers under a headline such as, "Brain Researchers Isolate 'Companionship' Center of Brain" often strike me as little more than modern day phrenology

Agreed. MRI junkies are "killing" the field much more than many other things. Although, it is a little bit fun to watch the defensive panic that ensues when one cites evidence suggesting that MRIs and the like are not as reliable as most people believe.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2935983/

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

"So…using "neuro" in every sentence doesn't make it scientific?!!" -EMDR clinicians

"Are you sure?!!" -Chiropractic Neurologists

"..but we can still sell you a 10 treatment package, right?" - Both of them.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

"So…using "neuro" in every sentence doesn't make it scientific?!!" -EMDR clinicians

"Are you sure?!!" -Chiropractic Neurologists

"..but we can still sell you a 10 treatment package, right?" - Both of them.

I am treating all of my clients who have anxiety neurosis with a magnetized wand that invokes neuromodulation and sensory integration along naturopathic lines of confluence and harmon....

oh hell, just sit still in the chair while I run your credit card!

Some of the practices are truly frightening

 

[smalltownpsych]

I think this especially important when you have clients that bring trash (or good findings) in the therapy room. One must know how to actively respond to such nonsensical (or relevant) literature actively rather than passively. You'll be doing your patient and the profession a favor.

Yes. It's also more than patients who are going to be questioning your sources of knowledge. I had no idea when I first set out to be a psychologist how much we work with other professionals and how our knowledge and skills overlap with theirs. I work with lawyers and medical doctors all of the time and the sharp ones will know if I am blowing smoke or have a firm grasp of the research and evidence behind statements, conclusions, or recommendations. I also hate the "I hate research crowd" and to me they can't really be a psychologist since research is one of our core skills.

 

[Justanothergrad]

While I do not believe people are "better than".... I do believe the scientist-practitioner model is better suited to training psychologists.

I think this hits at the heart of this thread. Competence is so poorly defined that we don't have consistent modern debates on training models take up nearly the time that they should. So, undoubtably, the issue of program quality is greatly influenced by that. From there it is a matter of effective adherence to the model that produces change.

There is a local psychologist (recent grad) from a puppy-mill PsyD program (to be differientiated from the programs of super quality) who completed their dissertation on the prediction of a single correlation of two measures using 50 college students (the prediction was wrong btw in both magnitude and direction). The school describes itself as a scientist-practitioner model.

 

[bcliff]

I think this hits at the heart of this thread. Competence is so poorly defined that we don't have consistent modern debates on training models take up nearly the time that they should. So, undoubtably, the issue of program quality is greatly influenced by that. From there it is a matter of effective adherence to the model that produces change.

There is a local psychologist (recent grad) from a puppy-mill PsyD program (to be differientiated from the programs of super quality) who completed their dissertation on the prediction of a single correlation of two measures using 50 college students (the prediction was wrong btw in both magnitude and direction). The school describes itself as a scientist-practitioner model.

I thought that PsyD by default was 'scholar'-practitioner (Vail Model)

 

[smalltownpsych]

I think this hits at the heart of this thread. Competence is so poorly defined that we don't have consistent modern debates on training models take up nearly the time that they should. So, undoubtably, the issue of program quality is greatly influenced by that. From there it is a matter of effective adherence to the model that produces change.

There is a local psychologist (recent grad) from a puppy-mill PsyD program (to be differientiated from the programs of super quality) who completed their dissertation on the prediction of a single correlation of two measures using 50 college students (the prediction was wrong btw in both magnitude and direction). The school describes itself as a scientist-practitioner model.

We did more than that level of analysis in my undergrad research methods class where we had a 2x2x3 factorial design. I'll never forget the statement I heard from one of the FSPS students during a group supervision where she said the difference between indices on the WAIS was not statistically significant but there was still a noticeable difference so I will interpret it anyway which to me demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what statistical significance really means.