Just received PsyD & being called "Dr."

[GoldenFlower]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

What is the consensus about calling a recent PsyD (or PhD, for that matter) graduate "Dr. So & So" in a clinical setting?

I tend to think it is misleading, as that person is not yet licensed as a psychologist, although that person does indeed possess a doctorate degree. Is it harmful? How much openness and honesty is really required in such a case, in order to avoid misleading clients/patients/consumers?

Looking forward to your thoughts.

 

[erg923]

What is the consensus about calling a recent PsyD (or PhD, for that matter) graduate "Dr. So & So" in a clinical setting?

I tend to think it is misleading, as that person is not yet licensed as a psychologist, although that person does indeed possess a doctorate degree. Is it harmful? How much openness and honesty is really required in such a case, in order to avoid misleading clients/patients/consumers?

Looking forward to your thoughts.

Why does license status matter here? What you are talking about seems to put limits on whether you call yourself "psychologist" or "psychological assistant," or graduate psychologist, etc not using the title "Dr". Post-docs in most setting I have been in are referred to as"Dr. So and So"..as long their diss is defended and they have the degree.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I'd think it is fine as long as your state does not have any superseding law to the contrary.

 

[GoldenFlower]

I tend to agree with both of you, it makes sense. Would you then agree that any PhD, even one that is not clinically-based, can be called "Dr."? Doesn't it matter what setting they're in and what they're representing?

 

[erg923]

I tend to agree with both of you, it makes sense. Would you then agree that any PhD, even one that is not clinically-based, can be called "Dr."? Doesn't it matter what setting they're in and what they're representing?

Obviously, in academia, this is common place. You don't call your history professor Joey, do you?

Experimental psychologists who conduct human subjects research often introduce themselves to their participants as "Dr." But, obviously, their role, title, and function is made explicitly clear as well.

 

[nitemagi]

I tend to agree with both of you, it makes sense. Would you then agree that any PhD, even one that is not clinically-based, can be called "Dr."? Doesn't it matter what setting they're in and what they're representing?

As T4C mentioned, some states have legislation spelling out contexts where "Dr." can and cannot be used. This is got brought up previously because of DNP's calling themselves doctors in hospital settings, which is misleading. California, for example, requires that all providers spell out what their credentials specifically are, and which board regulates them, for all patients.

 

[GoldenFlower]

Obviously, in academia, this is common place. You don't call your history professor Joey, do you?

Experimental psychologists who conduct human subjects research often introduce themselves to their participants as "Dr." But, obviously, their role, title, and function is made explicitly clear as well.

I miscommunicated what I was intending to say--sorry. I'm trying to give the example in my own life without being too identifiable. What happens when someone works in a clinical setting, or even if someone is a clinician licensed at the master's level, then receives a PhD in another field or subfield of psychology (i.e., not clinical psychology), and then continues to be called "Dr."? That is what I meant. It is misleading, right? For the clients as well as the outside world (e.g., legal, inter-agency communications).

Most people think of "Dr." as a medical doctor anyway, especially in a setting where there is a heavy medical presence (as it is in my case). At least a psychologist is a license reserved for someone with a doctorate, so there's no mistaking that. And I mean absolutely no disrespect for psychologists, here. What I mean is that in a medical setting, the "Dr." title can lead directly to assuming one is a psychologist or medical doctor (psychiatrist).

So, in my own example, the clinician is in an entry level clinical role (one that could be, and is, filled by pre-master's level employees), has a master's level license, and is being called "Dr.". It's not a postdoc position. Seems confusing.

I do get the state-by-state regulation, too, that makes sense. I'll have to look into that.

 

[stigmata]

I think if you have a doctorate in a field that requires it for a license then you should be called Dr in all healthcare settings. Academia and stuff is different.

 

[PerhapsMaybeOk]

I think we need a new title for PsyD. Abecedarian?

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Most people think of "Dr." as a medical doctor anyway, especially in a setting where there is a heavy medical presence (as it is in my case). At least a psychologist is a license reserved for someone with a doctorate, so there's no mistaking that. And I mean absolutely no disrespect for psychologists, here. What I mean is that in a medical setting, the "Dr." title can lead directly to assuming one is a psychologist or medical doctor (psychiatrist).

This is why in a medical setting everyone should introduce themselves and what they do. My general intro is: "Hello. I'm Dr. T4C, your neuropsychologist. I'm the fellow on your treatment team. I work with patients on...etc." We have a ton of consult teams on our floor, so it is important to let the patient who you are, and your relation to their treatment.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I think we need a new title for PsyD. Abecedarian?

Troll much?

 

[erg923]

I miscommunicated what I was intending to say--sorry. I'm trying to give the example in my own life without being too identifiable. What happens when someone works in a clinical setting, or even if someone is a clinician licensed at the master's level, then receives a PhD in another field or subfield of psychology (i.e., not clinical psychology), and then continues to be called "Dr."? That is what I meant. It is misleading, right? For the clients as well as the outside world (e.g., legal, inter-agency communications).

Most people think of "Dr." as a medical doctor anyway, especially in a setting where there is a heavy medical presence (as it is in my case). At least a psychologist is a license reserved for someone with a doctorate, so there's no mistaking that. And I mean absolutely no disrespect for psychologists, here. What I mean is that in a medical setting, the "Dr." title can lead directly to assuming one is a psychologist or medical doctor (psychiatrist).

So, in my own example, the clinician is in an entry level clinical role (one that could be, and is, filled by pre-master's level employees), has a master's level license, and is being called "Dr.". It's not a postdoc position. Seems confusing.

I do get the state-by-state regulation, too, that makes sense. I'll have to look into that.

Well, the "Dr." you use should be relevant to/related to the clinical service being provided. That's pretty common sense to me. I guess I'm thinking of an MSW who gets a ph.d in art history later on, but then starts seeing patients again. And then they refer to themselves as "Dr. So and So." I have no idea what the advantage to this would be, as you cant charge anymore for your services cause your ph.d isnt related to your job in this case. I assume this is what you were getting at, no?

 

[GoldenFlower]

This is why in a medical setting everyone should introduce themselves and what they do. My general intro is: "Hello. I'm Dr. T4C, your neuropsychologist. I'm the fellow on your treatment team. I work with patients on...etc." We have a ton of consult teams on our floor, so it is important to let the patient who you are, and your relation to their treatment.

Yes, that is an excellent guideline.

Well, the "Dr." you use should be relevant to/related to the clinical service being provided. That's pretty common sense to me. I guess I'm thinking of an MSW who gets a ph.d in art history later on, but then starts seeing patients again. And then they refer to themselves as "Dr. So and So." I have no idea what the advantage to this would be, as you cant charge anymore for your services cause your ph.d isnt related to your job in this case. I assume this is what you were getting at, no?

Not to that extreme--it's a paraprofessional clinical position (requires certification, which can be attained with less than a baccalaureate degree, but no license) in a specific area of expertise. The clinician is a recent PsyD graduate, with a full master's level clinical license. Said clinician took the position for experience within this specialized area. However, the director of the program (an RN) is impressed by the clinician's education and likes to call the clinician, "Dr." I don't mind it, except that the director insisted upon this in certain circumstances where it might have more influence, in correspondence with legal channels. I warned the nurse that this could create confusion. "Dr." would imply medical doctor or psychologist, which when used by patients is not harmful, but in terms of scope of practice may imply more responsibility than the position actually requires.

Whew. I said more than I originally wanted to...and it was tiring trying to be anonymous and vague!!