Can LPC's call themselves "Dr."?

[newchapter]

Okay so here is the situation...

I work in a group private practice with Ph.D.'s, LPC's, LCSW's and MFT's. A nice well rounded group.

Two new clinicans were hired. Licensed as LPC's and both have Ph.D.'s in Clinical Psychology from accredited schools - very good schools as a matter of fact. There is a disagreement amoung the clinicans as to whethere these newly hired LPC's can be advertised as "Dr.s" and how should they be refered to in general.

There is a splint in our practice. Some say you cannot (legal) and should not (ethical) call yourself a "Dr." in the mental health field unless you are a licensed psychologist. Other feel that they can be refered to as "Dr", since they have dotorates in clinical psychology - does not matter that they have LPC's.

Anyone have thoughts on this? Is it misleading to the public or have they earned their rights to be called "Dr." by getting their doctorates?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Psychadelic2012]

I was in a very similar situation! I thought it was misleading (especially because there was also one MD in the clinic, so it confused the clients). It's not legally wrong, but I maintain that it is confusing. I think it's better not to use it, be conservative--what's the harm in holding back? Wait a year or two, and when their position/license matches their degree, call them "Dr.".

 

[roubs]

Okay so here is the situation...

I work in a group private practice with Ph.D.'s, LPC's, LCSW's and MFT's. A nice well rounded group.

Two new clinicans were hired. Licensed as LPC's and both have Ph.D.'s in Clinical Psychology from accredited schools - very good schools as a matter of fact. There is a disagreement amoung the clinicans as to whethere these newly hired LPC's can be advertised as "Dr.s" and how should they be refered to in general.

There is a splint in our practice. Some say you cannot (legal) and should not (ethical) call yourself a "Dr." in the mental health field unless you are a licensed psychologist. Other feel that they can be refered to as "Dr", since they have dotorates in clinical psychology - does not matter that they have LPC's.

Anyone have thoughts on this? Is it misleading to the public or have they earned their rights to be called "Dr." by getting their doctorates?

When I worked in a medical center this was handled by allowing individuals with a doctoral degree to identify themselves as doctor but paired with identifying their professional credential in the next sentence.

 

[newchapter]

Yes, we do have their credentials listed as Jane Doe, Ph.D., LPC

I will check with the LPC licensing board just to make sure there is no legal issues as well as the Psych. board. Just want to be on the safe side.

Both clinicans have years of experience - even more then some of our Psychologists - and are very gifted therapists.

Their reason for not being licensed at the doctoral level is legit IMO.

One got sort of trapped in between state licensing laws when she moved. One state did not have the LPC so she went for the Ph.D after her Masters. When she moved to a state that did have the LPC she could not get employment without being licensed. She had enough hours for the LPC so got licensed and started working while still finishing her Ph.D. By the time she finished her Ph.D. she had a very sucessful pratice under her LPC and did not want to give up her pratice and source of income. I can understand as she worked very hard to build a practice.

The other person became very ill for several years and was never able to finish her post - doc hours. Instead when she was well enough she sat for her LPC - had enough hours for that.

So both clinicans have reasons for their license not matching their degree. Just quite a bit of discourse among the staff on this topic.

 

[roubs]

If they both work in a group practice now where there is a licensed psychologist they've probably accumulated the post-doc hours by now or could do so easily and could just take the EPPP. Or is there a statute of limitations I'm not aware of ?😛

 

[Neuropsych2be]

Psychologists and physicians do *not* own the title of doctor. If they have accredit ted degrees and they present themselves as LPC's and not psychologists they have every right to call themselves "Dr." The title comes from the degree not from the mental health profession. Some LPC's have Ph.D.s in Counseling not psychology. They can be referred to as "Dr."A social worker with a DSW or Ph.D. can be called "Dr." as well.

 

[newchapter]

In order for any Post-Doc hours to count (in my state of residence) the State Board needs to approve the supervisor or none of the hours will count.

So technically they could be supervised by the Psychologists in our practice (yes, the ones with way less experience!) and then 1 or 2 years later sit for their Psych. boards. If this were done they would need supervisor approval by the state.

But the question then becomes, why would they do that if they are already licensed to practice? Guess there is a bit of ego in everything.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Definitely consult with your state licensing board for mental health, as some states have much more strict legislation than others. This would also allow for an "official" source, though be prepared to read through the actual legislation because sometimes staff may not know the answer.

 

[newchapter]

Yes, I agree. The therapists making the noise about it are some of the younger Ph.D.'s

Technically the Ph.D. is a degree. I recall after defending my dissertation, my committee saying, "Congratualtion Dr. so and so". I did not have my post doc hours at that time🙂!

Maybe time for a group session amoung the staff...

So what if someone is a Psychologist with their Masters? I believe there are still some out there practicing as a Psychologist with a Masters ( I am aging myself here). They would be called Dr. based on license NOT degree. Should someone with an actual doctorate not have that same privilege?

I personally agree that LPC's OR LCSW's with doctorate should be called "Dr." as long as they do not put themselves out there as a Psychologist.

 

[4410]

I used to work at an agency that had some staff with PhD/PsyD degrees in counseling or clinical psychology who had reached the maximum time limit to pass their EPPP. They never passed the EPPP after three times. One of them had the PhD degree in counseling psychology from TWU; one a PhD in clinical psychology from UTSW; and one had a PsyD in clinical psychology from Alliant. The LPC board developed a plan where they were able to meet the requirements to gain licensure as a LPC. I know another lady who works at the VA and had a PhD degree in clinical psychology from a University in England. She had taken the EPPP and passed it but the psychology board evaluated her transcripts and said she would have to enroll in a respecialization program and take a number of courses and do a year long internship. It was very extensive what she was going to have to do so she went to the LPC board and they allowed her to gain licensure as a LPC. I know another individual who had the PsyD in clinical psychology and he passed the EPPP but the State he resides in requires graduation from an APA approved program to be licensed by the psychology board as a psychologists. He became licensed as Licensed Masters Level Psychologist and then got his LPC license.

These are some examples I can think of and all of these folks are referred as Dr. ? All of these professional's completed the doctorate degree in clinical psychology, year long internship and some even passed the EPPP but they were not allowed licensure by the psychology board. Two of them completed APA approved internships. Once you have the Dr. degree you may be referred to as Dr. Where people get into trouble is if they misrepresent their license. They can't refer to themselves as a licensed psychologist but they all use the designation of licensed professional counselor. The LPC that works at the VA is a director of one of their programs and they actually have psychology students do APA approved rotations at the program where she is the administrator. She actually has psychologists that she is their supervisor and she is working as an LPC.

 

[docma]

In California, if you are delivering mental health services to the public in private practice or a clinical setting, you must be licensed as a psychologist to call your self a psychologist in that setting (and on public representations of yourself, such as business cards). So your colleagues could be Dr. X, Ph.D, LPC...and a "psychotherapist" but not a "psychologist" in their private practice. However, in other settings (teaching, organizational practice) the use of "psychologist" is not restricted as it is outside the domain of health services to consumers. Your state licensing board is the one to consult for clarification, always.

 

[newchapter]

4410; Thanks for those examples - good illustration of the many scenerios that can happen.

Yes, my state has exempt setting as well whereby non licensed Ph.D. 's can call themselves Psychologists; university settings, hospitals etc.

These LPC's are aware that they cannot call themselves a Psychologists and they never would be advertised that way in the practice.

I cannot even imgaine the debates going on in the medical community regarding Nurses with Doctorates wanting to be called Dr. in hospital settings. Now THAT would be confusing to the patient. How would they introduce themselves? "Hello I'm Dr. so and so your Nurse"...

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I know another lady who works at the VA and had a PhD degree in clinical psychology from a University in England. She had taken the EPPP and passed it but the psychology board evaluated her transcripts and said she would have to enroll in a respecialization program and take a number of courses and do a year long internship. It was very extensive what she was going to have to do so she went to the LPC board and they allowed her to gain licensure as a LPC.

Just to be clear...she is licensed at the master's level and is practicing as an LPC? I want that to be clear because you have a way of confusing details in regard to training and scope of practice, which can be misleading to students not familiar with the VA requirements, which I have included below.

If she was hired as a psychologist....the VA would not have been able to even consider her, let alone hire her because she did not meet MULTIPLE VA requirements, all of which would have screened her out before even making it to an interview.

To be eligible for employment as a VA Psychologist, a person must be a U.S. citizen and must have completed an APA-accredited graduate program in psychology AND must have completed an APA-accredited internship in Psychology, with the specialty area of the degree consistent with the assignment for which the applicant is to be employed. The only exception is for those who complete a new VA internship that is not yet accredited.

SOURCE: http://www.psychologytraining.va.gov/eligibility.asp

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Yes, I agree. The therapists making the noise about it are some of the younger Ph.D.'s

Technically the Ph.D. is a degree. I recall after defending my dissertation, my committee saying, "Congratualtion Dr. so and so". I did not have my post doc hours at that time🙂!

Maybe time for a group session amoung the staff...

So what if someone is a Psychologist with their Masters? I believe there are still some out there practicing as a Psychologist with a Masters ( I am aging myself here). They would be called Dr. based on license NOT degree. Should someone with an actual doctorate not have that same privilege?

I personally agree that LPC's OR LCSW's with doctorate should be called "Dr." as long as they do not put themselves out there as a Psychologist.

I believe in this case, they could call themselves a psychologist but not use the title "Dr." since, as another poster mentioned, Dr. is related to your degree and not your license. This individual is licensed as a psychologist, but does not hold the equivalent of a doctoral degree, and thus has not earned the title Dr.

That's my take on things, anyway. Other posters and/or state legislation might disagree with me.

 

[ImGrumpy]

4410; Thanks for those examples - good illustration of the many scenerios that can happen.

I cannot even imgaine the debates going on in the medical community regarding Nurses with Doctorates wanting to be called Dr. in hospital settings. Now THAT would be confusing to the patient. How would they introduce themselves? "Hello I'm Dr. so and so your Nurse"...

Actually, my very wonderful nurse practitioner was in that exact situation. Although she didn't work in a hospital, she worked in a private practice and was on faculty at a University. For her private patients, she introduced herself as Dr. Beea Helper. I'll be the Nurse Practitioner seeing you today. Before we get started, do you have any questions? Usually the only question she was asked is "can you write me a prescription?".

Although she didn't usually supervise student nurses in the hospital, she did substitute supervise or do special kinds of things with the Bachelors and Masters level students in the hospital setting involved with patients. She was referred to as Dr. Beea Helper by the students, by the physicians and by the nursing staff. In front of the patient she always would add, I'm the Nurse Practitioner supervising. Also, she was very careful to make sure her name tag that carried her name followed by her credentials was very visible to the patients. She was very well respected and none of the physicians who had been around awhile had any problem with calling her Dr. More than once she had been offered positions running clinics. It was only the young hot shots who knew less than half of what she did that had any problems. She worked very hard to earn that PhD and was outstanding at what she did. As long as she didn't try to hold herself out as a medical doctor, why should she have to minimize the fact that she had credentials beyond standard nursing licensure because of misplaced egos?

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

She worked very hard to earn that PhD and was outstanding at what she did. As long as she didn't try to hold herself out as a medical doctor, why should she have to minimize the fact that she had credentials beyond standard nursing licensure because of misplaced egos?

Would it be any different if she had instead completed an online DNP? This seems to be the sticking point for many, as Ph.Ds in nursing stick almost exclusively to teaching in academia.

 

[newchapter]

I personally feel that Nurses do have the "right" to call him or herself "Dr." but needs to be very clear to the patient that she is not a Physician. It can cause alot of confusion for patients in a hospital setting. THAT should be the most important thing - not ego.

MD.'s borrowed the term "Doctor" from Ph.D.'s anyway. I just love (hate) when an MD makes a referal to me and introduces him or herself as Dr. so and so and calls me by my first name. ( I am a Ph.D. Clincal Psych.). Guess that is another topic all together..

 

[4410]

Just to be clear...she is licensed at the master's level and is practicing as an LPC? I want that to be clear because you have a way of confusing details in regard to training and scope of practice, which can be misleading to students not familiar with the VA requirements, which I have included below.

If she was hired as a psychologist....the VA would not have been able to even consider her, let alone hire her because she did not meet MULTIPLE VA requirements, all of which would have screened her out before even making it to an interview.

She works in some sort of Family reintegration program for the VA. Although she was certified in England to practice clinical psychology at the doctoral level and worked for some 30 odd years before moving to the States, she was not willing to put in another 2-3 years for respecialization and she decided to work for the VA with the LPC. She was working for the VA when she was trying to get her license transfered to the USA. Her area of specialization was considered a need area and there was a shortage of staff at that time, so she was hired on probationary status while sorting out her licensure status in the USA. Some of the foreign trained MD doctors have similar problems in having their license transfer to the USA.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

She works in some sort of Family reintegration program for the VA. Although she was certified in England to practice clinical psychology at the doctoral level and worked for some 30 odd years before moving to the States, she was not willing to put in another 2-3 years for respecialization and she decided to work for the VA with the LPC. She was working for the VA when she was trying to get her license transfered to the USA. Her area of specialization was considered a need area and there was a shortage of staff at that time, so she was hired on probationary status while sorting out her licensure status in the USA. Some of the foreign trained MD doctors have similar problems in having their license transfer to the USA.

This is true, though many international medical schools have similar requirements as the USA programs, which is not the case for most clinical psychology programs outside of the USA. Schools in the Carribean model their training after programs in the USA because they compete for the same residency spots. This obviously isn't the case for all medical schools, but there has been good reason for many foreign medical programs to model themselves after the USA's system. For whatever reasons, this has not held true for Clinical Psychology programs.

In regard to Clinical Psychology...therapy training is done at the MA/MS level in England, with research being reserved primarily for the Ph.D. Understandably, the progression of training, practica experiences, and related criteria are quite different between USA programs and programs found in England (Australia is similar in this regard). It is understandable that licensing boards would have some reservation at just granting a license when there are so many distinct differences in the training and mentoring experience. I'm not making a judgment of one approach being better than another, but when it comes to equivalency, respecialization seems to be the universal recommendation by state licensing boards within the USA.

 

[Jxz]

It's a little off topic, but I happened to be reading a NYTimes obit and saw that this person earned his PhD (in history or some such) and yet the article repeatedly called him Mr. I remembered all the debates on this board about this and thought I'd bump this thread again.

I looked up on the NYTimes style guide, and sure enough PhD's aren't given the title Dr. unless they request it (I guess if you're dead your family would request it) and it's germane to their job i.e. lab/academic.

Medical doctors are given Dr. and I think that includes psychologists and others in the helping fields with doctoral level degrees.

 

[DrPablo]

I'm sure the answer depends on your state law. In my state, LPC's can use the title "Dr." in a clinical setting, if the degree is in behavioral science, counseling, or closely related mental health field. They cannot use the title "Dr." in a clinical setting, if their degree does not meet this standard. This is specifically addressed in the licensing law for LPCs.

I am in academic and clinical settings, and I have a couple of colleagues with doctoral degrees in "Higher Education." They are not legally allowed to present themselves as "Dr." when acting in their LPC role (i.e. clinical settings). In contrast, I practice as an LMFT and LPC, and can use the "Dr." title since my doctoral degree meets the legal standard.

Bottom line in my state is if the licensing division recognizes your doctoral degree as a licensable degree (meets the standard to become licensed), you can use the title "Dr." in a clinical setting.

I also have a colleague who is fond of saying "PhD's are doctors and MD's are physicians". Technically, he's right. 🙂

 

[newchapter]

Well I did check it out with the state board of LPC and Psych. and it is compelty acceptable for LPC's with Ph.D. in Clinical Psych. (accredited of course) to refer to themselves as "Dr." in a clinical setting.

A doctorate in underwater bakset weaving would not cut it...

It seems the tension in the practice is more about ego then anything else. The two LPC's have close to 20 years experience each - that is about 19 yrs. more experience then the Psychologists that are making a fuss over it. Education is the same between the Psych.'s and LPC's, LPC's have more experience but license does not match their degree.

Never the less, they should still be called "Dr." if they choose and apparently it is legal. Hopefully that will quiet down the office conflict and everyone can get to the buisness at hand - therapy!. Thanks for all your thoughts and ideas.

 

[penguinbean]

There is a LMFT who has a doctorate in Divinity, and everyone calls him "Dr so and so" it drives.me.crazy. Then they get all confused with the billing, because he calls himself Dr, but they bill him as LMFT. ugggg.

I view the other situations as vastly different than this guy because they have doctorates in the same related field, so I wouldn't be frustrated with that situation probably.

 

[docma]

Really, the psychologists in the OP's group practice who are fussing about this should get over it. What you are "called" ultimately doesn't matter compared to what you are able to do professionally and carrying on about it just suggests status insecurity in the context described. As psychology becomes integrated into the interprofessional teamwork that will be required in integrated healthcare settings we are REALLY going to have to get over guild-based preoccupations and learn how to work as teammates with all kinds of degrees that psychology has tended to look "down" on or resent for the facts of their earning power in current markets. Unattractive "better than" attitudes undermine our capacity to open up new opportunities and build collaboration that serves everyone.

 

[Pragma]

Really, the psychologists in the OP's group practice who are fussing about this should get over it. What you are "called" ultimately doesn't matter compared to what you are able to do professionally and carrying on about it just suggests status insecurity in the context described. As psychology becomes integrated into the interprofessional teamwork that will be required in integrated healthcare settings we are REALLY going to have to get over guild-based preoccupations and learn how to work as teammates with all kinds of degrees that psychology has tended to look "down" on or resent for the facts of their earning power in current markets. Unattractive "better than" attitudes undermine our capacity to open up new opportunities and build collaboration that serves everyone.

While I agree with your overall point, I think you are missing an important one. First of all, some states have legally protected the term "clinical psychologist" to mean that you have met doctoral level licensure requirements (i.e., EPPP, etc). If the OP psychologists are in one of those states, they are violating the law.

I think we all cross-train and get our hands dirty to a degree in interdisciplinary work. but if you go to the doctor's office and someone introduces themselves as "Dr." then I think it is safe to assume that they have a doctorate in whatever it is you are there for. So for people with a different doctorate who are practicing at the Master's level, this is BS (lol pun not intended). If it were me, I'd probably just explain it to patients. But no one knows what patients assume when they walk into the office. To even misrepresent yourself in the slightest way is a violation of ethical standards, IMHO.

 

[docma]

I agree that if you go to an orthopedist you expect to see a doctor who is a physician but I think we have interesting possibilities as we enter into behavioral health practice and into general practice settings with many kinds of "doctors' to actually get past the name as a status and into seeing both patients and practitioners in a more specific and individual way.

I know individual nurse practitioners who are better prescribers than psychistrists and social workers who are better psychotherapists than psychologists and I don't think "doctor" makes someone more talented: they have just gained a certain degree over a certain amount of time. Should we even introduce why J.D's don't ever use the title to this discussion?

And for any profession it is (or should be) a violation to mis-represent yourself. I just don't think we "own" doctor in some special way. And I think we need to find common sense ways to explain all this to patients because they can understand it.

 

[Psychadelic2012]

Should we even introduce why J.D's don't ever use the title to this discussion?

And for any profession it is (or should be) a violation to mis-represent yourself. I just don't think we "own" doctor in some special way. And I think we need to find common sense ways to explain all this to patients because they can understand it.

This is such an interesting discussion. Someone did bring up the issue of a PhD in counselor education referring to him/herself as "Dr." and in a recent perusal of the ACA ethics, this is considered ethical--as long as the doctorate is in an counseling-related field: "Counselors clearly state their highest earned degree in counseling or closely related field. Counselors do not imply doctoral-level competence when only possessing a master’s degree in counseling or a related field by referring to themselves as 'Dr.' in a counseling context when their doctorate is not in counseling or related field."

However, I do think that this takes some sensitivity in actual practice. As I mentioned previously, if you work in a clinic where other "Dr."s work and there is a difference between their specialties, the likelihood of confusion is huge, especially if the other Dr. is a physician. I do think it also applies to a practice that has psychologists, but as long as either of these things are explained clearly to the clients, it should be okay. But then, why the enormous insistence on using it, really? I think all people's motives should be examined. Does it really matter, for example?

The JD example is a good one. Many JDs use "Esq." in their names, which reflects the tradition of the field and the degree. Also, the word "attorney" alone implies a JD. "Psychologist" doesn't quite have the same tradition, what with masters-level practitioners using the title in the past. Let's face it, terminal degrees don't exist in the legal profession at the master's level in the way that also allows independent practice. It truly is field-dependent and can be confusing.

 

[Pragma]

I agree that if you go to an orthopedist you expect to see a doctor who is a physician but I think we have interesting possibilities as we enter into behavioral health practice and into general practice settings with many kinds of "doctors' to actually get past the name as a status and into seeing both patients and practitioners in a more specific and individual way.

I know individual nurse practitioners who are better prescribers than psychistrists and social workers who are better psychotherapists than psychologists and I don't think "doctor" makes someone more talented: they have just gained a certain degree over a certain amount of time. Should we even introduce why J.D's don't ever use the title to this discussion?

And for any profession it is (or should be) a violation to mis-represent yourself. I just don't think we "own" doctor in some special way. And I think we need to find common sense ways to explain all this to patients because they can understand it.

If I go to an orthopedist, I expect to see an orthopedist, not any physician!

Agreed on common sense ways. I think the point of contention for me is that many of these folks may use the title WITHOUT explanation. If ANY confusion is possible, I think they are operating unethically if they do not explain their credentials systematically. I always explain mine and what my limits are from the get go.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

If I go to an orthopedist, I expect to see an orthopedist, not any physician!

Agreed on common sense ways. I think the point of contention for me is that many of these folks may use the title WITHOUT explanation. If ANY confusion is possible, I think they are operating unethically if they do not explain their credentials systematically. I always explain mine and what my limits are from the get go.

Agreed. It may in part be based on the situation/environment--if you're working in any sort of medical setting, for example, I'd say it's reasonable to think patients will assume you're a physician if you refer to yourself as Dr. ____. Thus, it's encumbant upon us as psychologists in that setting to briefly (and proactively) describe our status with essentially everyone we assess/treat.

Ultimately, though, it's better to err on the side of caution. If you think there's any confusion, just go ahead and clarify with the patient.

 

[docma]

I think it is actually healthy, ethical and effective to always explain your training and areas of competence as part of informed consent in any context. Being a "psychologist" covers multiple skills sets and doesn't inevitably include being a "psychotherapist", so it seems to me graduate students (and beyond) should be encouraged to start honing their "elevator" speech (how you describe what you do when asked in an elevator...and short enough to deliver before reaching your floor..🙂

 

[wigflip]

If I go to an orthopedist, I expect to see an orthopedist, not any physician!

Treading lightly as an outsider/prospective here, but do you think that most people who initially seek (or are somehow mandated to acquire) mental health care understand the differences in scope of practice between various mental health subfields without someone overtly explaining it to them?* Most of the laypeople I know, including academics in fields other than psych, lump everyone together in one category or use "psychiatrist" when they mean "psychologist" or "psychologist" when they mean "LMFT."

*A genuine question, not sassy-challenge.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Treading lightly as an outsider/prospective here, but do you think that most people who initially seek (or are somehow mandated to acquire) mental health care understand the differences in scope of practice between various mental health subfields without someone overtly explaining it to them?* Most of the laypeople I know, including academics in fields other than psych, lump everyone together in one category or use "psychiatrist" when they mean "psychologist" or "psychologist" when they mean "LMFT."

*A genuine question, not sassy-challenge.

Just in my own experiences, the biggest confusion is between psychologist and psychiatrist. Most people I work with think/ask/assume I went the medical school route, so I've frequently had to gently correct them that I'm not a physician or physician-in-training. Most generally, that also means I'll explicitly let them know that I can't prescribe medications (although I can certainly setup appropriate referrals for them and/or speak with their current medical provider if desired).

 

[Pragma]

Treading lightly as an outsider/prospective here, but do you think that most people who initially seek (or are somehow mandated to acquire) mental health care understand the differences in scope of practice between various mental health subfields without someone overtly explaining it to them?* Most of the laypeople I know, including academics in fields other than psych, lump everyone together in one category or use "psychiatrist" when they mean "psychologist" or "psychologist" when they mean "LMFT."

*A genuine question, not sassy-challenge.

I have seen quite the range of knowledge. Some people are pretty familiar with the system and some have no clue. Some ask more questions and some seem fairly apathetic about the whole thing. When I engage in this discussion with my patients about how I am an unlicensed postdoctoral fellow, they seem to appreciate it.

My point is that folks should be conservative. I think it is important to educate people so that they are aware of the limitations of your credentials, especially if they know less about the system. For me, if I see medical specialist who calls herself "Dr. X" then I assume she is credentialed in that specialty. If I went in for a surgical consultation and a neurologist ended up seeing me, I'd expect them to tell me that they are not a surgeon. That's my point...the Doctor of Divinity should probably explain this to folks when they are working as an LPC in a mental health clinic. They don't have a doctorate in providing mental health services.

At the extreme level, it reminds me of Marcus Bachmann, who got an online PhD in Liberal Arts/Interdisciplinary Studies with an "emphasis" in clinical psychology (unaccredited), but says he has a "PhD - clinical psychology" on his website. "Dr. Bachmann" is the same guy who is practicing without a license and trying to turn homosexual people straight at his mental health clinic.

Think Dr. Bachmann should tell people he is a Dr. of "Interdisciplinary Studies" and note that he is unlicensed at the doctoral level? Well, he calls himself "Dr. Bachmann" but I'll at least give him credit for never overtly calling himself a "clinical psychologist."

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Think Dr. Bachmann should tell people he is a Dr. of "Interdisciplinary Studies" and note that he is unlicensed at the doctoral level? Well, he calls himself "Dr. Bachmann" but I'll at least give him credit for never overtly calling himself a "clinical psychologist."

...though letting the other person assume you are something you are not is just as problematic and wrong. I work in a teaching hospital where it is customary to identify yourself to each patient, as there can literally be a dozen (or more) providers interacting with the patient on a given day.

 

[ClinPsychEnthus]

At the extreme level, it reminds me of Marcus Bachmann, who got an online PhD in Liberal Arts/Interdisciplinary Studies with an "emphasis" in clinical psychology (unaccredited), but says he has a "PhD - clinical psychology" on his website. "

Just saying PhD- Clinical Psychology is really stating that the PhD was in Clinical Psych. I looked up this guy and his web site and the school, and there are no PhD programs in clinical psych at the school... but the way its written on the web site, to me, qualifies as false advertising.

 

[Pragma]

Just saying PhD- Clinical Psychology is really stating that the PhD was in Clinical Psych. I looked up this guy and his web site and the school, and there are no PhD programs in clinical psych at the school... but the way its written on the web site, to me, qualifies as false advertising.

It seemed like a good opportunity for APA to come in and make a statement when all of the political/media attention was on Michelle and Marcus Bachmann, but of course they probably don't want to come off as political.

 

[ClinPsychEnthus]

Though, APA has an ethics code that speaks about proper advertising, as do other associations like ACA... the type of manipulation Mr. Bachman is perpetrating should fall under someone's ability to speak to/penalize him for... I think.

 

[4410]

Just saying PhD- Clinical Psychology is really stating that the PhD was in Clinical Psych. I looked up this guy and his web site and the school, and there are no PhD programs in clinical psych at the school... but the way its written on the web site, to me, qualifies as false advertising.

Union Institute has a PsyD in Clinical Psychology. Minnesota is one of the States where they have MA-MS level psychologist who may have a private practice. I don't believe The Union Institute is an online program. They were in the process of applying for APA accreditation but voluntarily withdrew their application. They probably used to have a PhD in clinical psychology when he was a student there but now they have a PsyD in clinical psychology.

 

[Pragma]

Union Institute has a PsyD in Clinical Psychology. Minnesota is one of the States where they have MA-MS level psychologist who may have a private practice. I don't believe The Union Institute is an online program. They were in the process of applying for APA accreditation but voluntarily withdrew their application. They probably used to have a PhD in clinical psychology when he was a student there but now they have a PsyD in clinical psychology.

No they never did. Did some research on it a few months back. They were a different University at the time and they have never had a Clinical PhD program ever.

 

[ClinPsychEnthus]

Union Institute has a PsyD in Clinical Psychology. Minnesota is one of the States where they have MA-MS level psychologist who may have a private practice. I don't believe The Union Institute is an online program. They were in the process of applying for APA accreditation but voluntarily withdrew their application. They probably used to have a PhD in clinical psychology when he was a student there but now they have a PsyD in clinical psychology.

And the current Psy.D. on their web site says it has an "emphasis" in clinical psych... I'm not sure what that even means? What else are they studying if they are only emphasizing clinical psych? This is not an accredited program so they don't have anyone holding them to particular standards of training....

 

[JeyRo]

http://www.angelsisland.com/index.html

This lady advertises herself as "Catherine Athans, Ph.D.," does regular press releases where she bills her experience as being in "clinical psychology," and at times has advertised herself as a "psychologist." She is not licensed as a psychologist and instead is licensed as an MFT. This is just what I can gather from Googling her....

Any thoughts? 🙂

 

[psych844]

She seems like a psychic type lol
Report her.

http://www.angelsisland.com/index.html

This lady advertises herself as "Catherine Athans, Ph.D.," does regular press releases where she bills her experience as being in "clinical psychology," and at times has advertised herself as a "psychologist." She is not licensed as a psychologist and instead is licensed as an MFT. This is just what I can gather from Googling her....

Any thoughts? 🙂

 

[BlackSkirtTetra]

To the OP: I honestly don't think most members of the public would have enough knowledge to understand the distinction.

So what if someone is a Psychologist with their Masters? I believe there are still some out there practicing as a Psychologist with a Masters ( I am aging myself here). They would be called Dr. based on license NOT degree.

Kansas has Masters level Psychologists, but they're not called Doctor. They're just called by their first name.

I recently learned that Alberta has Masters level Psychologists too, but I don't know if they're called "Doctor" or not. I wouldn't imagine so.

The JD example is a good one. Many JDs use "Esq." in their names, which reflects the tradition of the field and the degree. Also, the word "attorney" alone implies a JD. "Psychologist" doesn't quite have the same tradition, what with masters-level practitioners using the title in the past. Let's face it, terminal degrees don't exist in the legal profession at the master's level in the way that also allows independent practice. It truly is field-dependent and can be confusing.

Interestingly, though, "Esq." is wholly unregulated in the USA. Anybody can use it legally or ethically. It's only by tradition that lawyers do so. I've seen a real estate salesman use it.

 

[psych844]

Kansas has Masters level Psychologists, but they're not called Doctor. They're just called by their first name.

I recently learned that Alberta has Masters level Psychologists too, but I don't know if they're called "Doctor" or not. I wouldn't imagine so.

So does Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland. I believe New Brunswick are trying to currently switch to Phd only. Nunavut and North West Territories as well.

In Saskatchewan they call Master-level psychologists, "registered psychologist" and people that have phd's "Registered Doctoral Psychologist"

 

[BlackSkirtTetra]

Hmm...I wouldn't imagine that people who see them for services would routinely (or ever) say, "I'm going to see my Registered Doctoral Psychologist." In Kansas, you just say "Psychologist" whether it's MA- or PhD-level.

Though, APA has an ethics code that speaks about proper advertising, as do other associations like ACA... the type of manipulation Mr. Bachman is perpetrating should fall under someone's ability to speak to/penalize him for... I think.

Why hasn't he been reprimanded, I wonder? The cynic in me wonders if it's not because he's too wealthy/powerful/famous in the local community...

 

[psych844]

haha..oh I know..meant that is what titles they can use. Also noting Alberta isn't the only province who allows masters-level.

 

[BlackSkirtTetra]

Ah, gotcha. I'm pretty sure that Kansas isn't the only state, either. I'm just not familiar with the others...

Edit: I found this interesting page about Mr. Bachmann's credentials and unlicensed practice of Psychology: http://www.signorile.com/2011/07/what-kind-of-doctor-is-marcus-bachmann.html

 

[DrPablo]

I have another example of a confusing title issue that is slightly related. In my US state, pharmacists used to be "Registered Pharmacists, RPh", but increased the education requirements to the PharmD several years ago. Shortly after the educational requirement changed, the state updated the legal title from Registered Pharmacists RPh. to Doctor of Pharmacy DPharm. There are hundreds of Pharmacists with a BS in Pharmacy that are now legally "Doctors of Pharmacy."

Now THAT is confusing! 😕

 

[BlackSkirtTetra]

That's the first time I've seen an instance of a BA-level practitioner being a doctor...