Clinical Science vs. Scientist-Practitioner programs, and eventual practice

[Retnuhrace]

So, I understand the difference between the two models, with Clinical Science being more geared towards research and academia-based careers, while Scientist-Practitioner still emphasizes research, but still gives you clinical training for future practice. But here's a hypothetical situation. Let's say you apply to PhD programs based completely on research interests (not discriminating based on program model), and you wish to practice as part of your career (along with academia). Let's say you are only accepted to one: a clinical science program. Would you accept and become a part of that program? And, is it possible (and if so, would it be fortuitous) to complete your PhD, and then receive enough clinical training elsewhere to become licensed and such?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[jexa]

If the program is APA-accredited it should provide quality clinical training to you. I work full-time at a lab that is a part of a clinical science oriented PhD program. The students do complain that their psychotherapy training isn't quite what they'd like it to be (like, very little preparation before a first client, too much focus on clinical trials methodology in Interventions class, etc) but it still meets APA standards. Some practicum experiences will be better than others as well -- as you meet these hours as required for completion of your program you should also find good training opportunities outside of your program. Plus, your internship year is total immersion in clinical practice for the most part. You should be prepared to be a licensed, practicing clinical psychologist considering all of the supervised hours you must put in for licensure, even if you do attend a clinical science program.

 

[Ollie123]

Clinical science programs are still clinical programs. You will still get clinical training, and will still be able to be licensed as long as you meet all other requirements (internship, post-doc, etc.).

The question is more about fit, happiness, etc. Chances are that such a program WILL expect you to spend tons of time in the lab, publish, etc. However I should note that "spend time in the lab" doesn't mean data entry...at some labs this can/will even consist of clinical hours. I'm in a clinical science program, in one of the most research-heavy labs, and one that is primarily on the basic science side (e.g. not traditional "clinical" research), and I still have probably 200+ face-to-face clinical hours just from the lab...plus another couple hundred at the school clinic, I do clinical work at a VA, and will likely do at least 1-2 other clinical placements before graduating. And I'm the sort of person that generally prefers to avoid clinical work so I could have done a whole lot more😉 We have students in the program here with no real interest in a research career. Most of them will come out with as much or more clinical experience than the average graduate from a scientist-practitioner program.

So I guess the answer is that "it depends". Your advisor would likely have a say....they vary greatly in how much time they expect the students to spend in the lab. On the other hand, "in the lab" may mean acting as the research therapist on a major clinical trial in your area of specialization...that might not be such a bad thing for someone in your situation, and could place you on the "cutting edge" come graduation and licensing if you have gained a lot of experience in a new and successful treatment method that most practitioners will not have had exposure to. However, if they expect you to sleep in the lab and run analyses the rest of the time....that could be a very unfortunate situation.

I say apply, go to the interview if invited, and find out more - I think that's really the only way to tell.

 

[cara susanna]

Another question you need to ask yourself is how much you want to do research because sometimes balanced programs don't have much set time for that. At my program, I have to really put an effort into doing non-required research and find time for it.

 

[aagman01]

I would also try to talk to students and faculty in the program. I almost enrolled in a clinical-scientist program. I decided not to, because I was worried of the reprocussions of not going for an academic/research career. Students I spoke with in the program, along with the "feel", if you would, led me to strongly suspect that students who opt for a clinical career in that program lose A LOT of support from faculty. Such lack of support could make for a difficult time in succumbing the challenges of phd program, getting into internship, etc. This weighted heavily on my mind, and led me to enroll in a scientist-practitioner program. Every program is different, though.....so I would recommend that you try to talk to as many faculty and students in the program as possible.


Students who opt for a non-academic career face

So, I understand the difference between the two models, with Clinical Science being more geared towards research and academia-based careers, while Scientist-Practitioner still emphasizes research, but still gives you clinical training for future practice. But here's a hypothetical situation. Let's say you apply to PhD programs based completely on research interests (not discriminating based on program model), and you wish to practice as part of your career (along with academia). Let's say you are only accepted to one: a clinical science program. Would you accept and become a part of that program? And, is it possible (and if so, would it be fortuitous) to complete your PhD, and then receive enough clinical training elsewhere to become licensed and such?