PhD/PsyD Clinical Science

[PsychMajorUndergrad18]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hello Everyone,

This may be a dumb question but are people who obtained a PhD in Clinical Science psychology programs called Psychologists or Clinical Scientists? Also is there a defined differenced between a person with a Psych PhD and a Clinical Science PhD? Like in regards to clinical practice and research?

Thanks Everyone

 

[erg923]

Hello Everyone,

This may be a dumb question but are people who obtained a PhD in Clinical Science psychology programs called Psychologists or Clinical Scientists? Also is there a defined differenced between a person with a Psych PhD and a Clinical Science PhD? Like in regards to clinical practice and research?

Thanks Everyone

1. Psychologist

2. I would say yes. More likely to have a scientist-practitioner careers.

 

[PsychMajorUndergrad18]

Thanks erg.

 

[bcliff]

I see clinical science programs as the antithesis to FSPS programs

 

[boo_radley]

Calling the program Clinical Science instead of Clinical Psychology is just another way for them to say that they think they're better than the other programs. Its the same thing. I'm being overly simplistic, but it means they want to train researchers not clinicians.

Source: In a "Clinical Science" program.

 

[Pragma]

Calling the program Clinical Science instead of Clinical Psychology is just another way for them to say that they think they're better than the other programs. Its the same thing. I'm being overly simplistic, but it means they want to train researchers not clinicians.

Source: In a "Clinical Science" program.

There'd be no need to differentiate if we hadn't let the field invite an influx of anti science folks based on for profit motives. It's like a backwards Vail model effect now since we have so many research is icky types masquerading as actual psychologists.

 

[PsychMajorUndergrad18]

So basically the difference is that these programs want to train the next generation of psychological researchers? And is the opposite of certain PsyD programs that only wanna train the next generation of practitioners who do little to none research?

 

[bcliff]

I think clinical science programs offer excellent training across the board with an emphasis on research & stats.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

So basically the difference is that these programs want to train the next generation of psychological researchers? And is the opposite of certain PsyD programs that only wanna train the next generation of practitioners who do little to none research?

It's a different training model, with the two other such models being scientist-practitioner (i.e., the Boulder model) and practitioner-scholar (i.e., the Vail model). I wouldn't necessarily say it's the opposite of the general practitioner-scholar model, but in the same way that the practitioner-scholar model places greater emphasis on clinical practice, the clinical science model places greater emphasis on research and adherence to the scientific method in all aspects of practice. It was developed in response to the course the practitioner-scholar model has taken, though, and some might indeed consider it the opposite.

 

[deleted343839]

Also is there a defined differenced between a person with a Psych PhD and a Clinical Science PhD? Like in regards to clinical practice and research?

The basic APA-approved training standards are the same, but in a clinical science program there is more emphasis on competence in research methods and using research productivity as a basis for evaluation. The clinical science designation is a type of accreditation by the Academy of Psychological Clinical Science.

I know people who graduated from clinical science programs and are now in full-time clinical practice. There are also people who attended scientist-practitioner programs and ended up landing R1 tenure-track faculty jobs. The distinction here is the type of training (to some extent), but it does not lay down a concrete career path.

 

[erg923]

So basically the difference is that these programs want to train the next generation of psychological researchers? And is the opposite of certain PsyD programs that only wanna train the next generation of practitioners who do little to none research?

I think in reality that's largely what happens, although theoretically they are supposed to be producing psychologists that are not just taking/gunning TT academic positions but that also work in the clinical field in administrative or supervisory positions where they are furthering the field through outcomes research, program eval, and dissemination research and work.