LCSW--Psych Testing

[edieb]

---

Members do not see this ad.

According to the Virginia COunselors' Ass'n, LPCs are allowed to do all types of psychological testing, inclu neuropsychological, AND they also receive reimbursement for it from insurance. All the info is here:

http://www.vacc.org/

 

[slinger]

So if I have it right, you would see physicians handling/supervising all medicine (fair enough) and bachelor's level social workers providing case management and linking patients with services. What would be the distinction between clinical social workers and psychologists?

Yes I would, since they have a full range of medicine training, it would make the most sense. BSW's are more than well-trained for quality case management. Not much difference between the function of clinical social workers and psychologists. Psychologists can do the testing.

Don't take this the wrong way, but I am not going to argue semantics with you above comments. The fact of the matter is, we are comparing apple degrees with orange degrees. I cannot compare an MSW degree against a PhD Psychologist. I can however, compare an LCSW with two, one year internships, and 2 years of clinical supervision, as well as a 1 year post masters fellowship at Menningers or other respected facilities. You ask, why do we not become Psychologists? Good question, maybe the scope of the training is different. Our philosophies are different. Our approaches to treatment vary.

You said in an earlier post that you are not a "shrink". It just seems that you are really upset that the fields are being so closely compared. You make statements like, "I am not being elitist", yet you are. I have a right to make the distinction between a BSW undergraduate degree and 4-5 years of clinical social work training, lol. It is completely different.

Look. I love working with the psychologists and get along with them great. I urge you to take a different approach to how you view other treaters, as we are all the life blood of mental health. This turf war stuff is ridiculous. I have been consulted many times from a chief psychologist of a unit, and I have sought consultation from many psychologists myself. We learn to work together.

Since you are still a student, I challenge you to really think about what is at stake here, the patients. Some people come into our professions naturally better at psychotherapy than seasoned professionals. Does it really matter at the end of the day what your title or academia is in? Good luck with your internship.

 

[Savagebee]

According to the Virginia COunselors' Ass'n, LPCs are allowed to do all types of psychological testing, inclu neuropsychological, AND they also receive reimbursement for it from insurance. All the info is here:

http://www.vacc.org/

but I think VA has one of the most intensive requirements for licensure. There was a student at my interview day talking about how to make the transition to VA after getting an OK degree. The prof told us that OK has some of the highest grad/licensure requirements, but some states are higher

 

[Savagebee]

The fact of the matter is, we are comparing apple degrees with orange degrees.



I have a right to make the distinction between a BSW undergraduate degree and 4-5 years of clinical social work training, lol. It is completely different.

So you are saying that a BSW is not comprable to an MSW, with a two year difference in education, plus supervision, but that you CAN compare an MSW to a PhD/PsyD, which is two more years of school, typically with similar supervision, at a minimum.

I understand LCSWs can function in very similar roles as PhDs/PsyDs, but the same applies to BSWs and MSW's/LPCs, depending upon the context. But, the higher degrees indicate a better education with more ability.

I have worked as a bachelors level clinician in a CMHC inpt facility and worked exactly as the LCSW, except she did EDO's and Court commits. That was the only difference in assigned job duties. She happened to be an excellent therapist, and very very good at crisis intervention. She was much better at her job than I was, even though our day to day tasks were extremely similar.

I never once thought that we were equals in aptitude, education, or execution, but I learned a lot from her, even though our outlooks were very dissimilar.

I guess the point Im trying to make is that the degree does matter, as well as the person utilizing it. If LCSWs and PhDs function in the exact same way than what do they learn in all the extra education? I do not believe all the extra years are simply filler and fluff.

I can however, compare an LCSW with two, one year internships, and 2 years of clinical supervision, as well as a 1 year post masters fellowship at Menningers or other respected facilities

That is far from a typical MSW degree though. If you start with a BSW here in OK you can get an MSW in a single year and begin working under supervision immediately

Maybe my state is very different in their SW standards though

 

[BSWdavid]

So you are saying that a BSW is not comprable to an MSW, with a two year difference in education, plus supervision, but that you CAN compare an MSW to a PhD/PsyD, which is two more years of school, typically with similar supervision, at a minimum.

I understand LCSWs can function in very similar roles as PhDs/PsyDs, but the same applies to BSWs and MSW's/LPCs, depending upon the context. But, the higher degrees indicate a better education with more ability.

I have worked as a bachelors level clinician in a CMHC inpt facility and worked exactly as the LCSW, except she did EDO's and Court commits. That was the only difference in assigned job duties. She happened to be an excellent therapist, and very very good at crisis intervention. She was much better at her job than I was, even though our day to day tasks were extremely similar.

I never once thought that we were equals in aptitude, education, or execution, but I learned a lot from her, even though our outlooks were very dissimilar.

I guess the point Im trying to make is that the degree does matter, as well as the person utilizing it. If LCSWs and PhDs function in the exact same way than what do they learn in all the extra education? I do not believe all the extra years are simply filler and fluff.



That is far from a typical MSW degree though. If you start with a BSW here in OK you can get an MSW in a single year and begin working under supervision immediately

Maybe my state is very different in their SW standards though

In Indiana, with a BSW, one can complete their degree in 12 months, with only 3 semesters of practicum. With an additional two years of clinical experience, the individual is eligible for licensure. Certainly, in these regards, the training is not comparable.

 

[slinger]

Wow. Definitely not my experience. I was in fact, comparing LCSW's with PhD Psychologists, the training I am talking about leaves you with about a 1 year gap between LCSW's and PhD in Psych.

Look peeps, PhD in Psychology of course is much more prestigious, and it is more work. Sometimes on this forum, there is too much of a bandwagon of "LCSW's in no way compare to the level of training in Psychotherapy that a PhD has". I just totally disagree with this statement.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Don't take this the wrong way, but I am not going to argue semantics with you above comments. The fact of the matter is, we are comparing apple degrees with orange degrees. I cannot compare an MSW degree against a PhD Psychologist. I can however, compare an LCSW with two, one year internships, and 2 years of clinical supervision, as well as a 1 year post masters fellowship at Menningers or other respected facilities. You ask, why do we not become Psychologists? Good question, maybe the scope of the training is different. Our philosophies are different. Our approaches to treatment vary.

You are cherry-picking an atypical amount of training for a social worker, and using that to compare against doctoral training, instead of looking at a typical amount of training. No matter which way you try and present it, the training is not comparable. My comments aren't meant to demean SW training, but instead I want to point out exactly why so many doctorally-trained clinicians get frustrated by the "different but pretty much the same training" mantra.

In Indiana, with a BSW, one can complete their degree in 12 months, with only 3 semesters of practicum. With an additional two years of clinical experience, the individual is eligible for licensure. Certainly, in these regards, the training is not comparable.

Being able to attain a degree in 1yr post-BA/BS, with full licensure in 3 years is a far different picture than presented above.

 

[Savagebee]

Wow. Definitely not my experience. I was in fact, comparing LCSW's with PhD Psychologists, the training I am talking about leaves you with about a 1 year gap between LCSW's and PhD in Psych.

I understand the training you are referring to is more than I am, but is what youre talking about really that typical for LCSW's?

 

[BSWdavid]

I understand the training you are referring to is more than I am, but is what youre talking about really that typical for LCSW's?

Slinger's experience is atypical of clinical social work training. When you say two one-year internships (while most only have 1.5 years) you must also state that these are 16-20hr/week practica, not full-time internships, which certainly makes a big difference when comparing experience requirements. Also, fellowships are extremely rare in social work, and while it is great that Slinger has this experience, it certainly is not common in social work, nor a requirement for licensure. I am not advocating that clinical social workers aren't well prepared to be therapists, but I certainly won't pretend that the training and experience requirements in clinical social work are similar to those of clinical psychology (certainly, psychologists have a much more difficult road to licensure than we do). I, for one, would love to see more stringent requirements for LCSW licensure, across all 50 states, as minimal standards only hurt our profession and ultimately do harm to clients.

 

[O Gurl]

Yes I would, since they have a full range of medicine training, it would make the most sense. BSW's are more than well-trained for quality case management. Not much difference between the function of clinical social workers and psychologists. Psychologists can do the testing.

Don't take this the wrong way, but I am not going to argue semantics with you above comments. The fact of the matter is, we are comparing apple degrees with orange degrees. I cannot compare an MSW degree against a PhD Psychologist. I can however, compare an LCSW with two, one year internships, and 2 years of clinical supervision, as well as a 1 year post masters fellowship at Menningers or other respected facilities. You ask, why do we not become Psychologists? Good question, maybe the scope of the training is different. Our philosophies are different. Our approaches to treatment vary.

...ok? So you would see psychologists and LCSWs performing the same jobs with the same patients in the same settings but freely admit the training is different. So given:

1) A PhD whose program had courses in lifespan developmental psych, cognitive neuro, test construction and design, cogn/personality assessment, applied behavior analysis, psychopharm, psychopathology, and human learning who completed 4 years (at least) of supervised practica, one year of clinical internship, and at least another year of postdoc
or
2) A LCSW whose MSW coursework included 2-3 of those "foundation" courses, social justice/systems courses, and then several therapy intervention courses and then had 2 years of supervised practice for licensure

Who would you refer an adult diagnosed as MMR and attention deficit as a child who has bipolar disorder and comorbid substance abuse to?

LCSW training well prepares professionals to provide therapy in a number of areas like grief counseling, marital discord, depression/anxiety, etc. However, without the most comprehensive set of tools that includes the same rigor as doctoral level programs and tools for integrated assessment (yes, testing), certain cases are less appropriate for LCSWs. Like someone else already asked, what the heck do you think we (psychologists) are doing in those extra years? Yes, a BSW is very different from and MSW which is different from an LCSW. So is a LCSW from a PsyD/PhD. To basically call everyone elitist who makes a distinction between a doctorate and a masters while fully advocating for the distinction between a bachelors and a masters is absurd.

 

[BSWdavid]

...ok? So you would see psychologists and LCSWs performing the same jobs with the same patients in the same settings but freely admit the training is different. So given:

1) A PhD whose program had courses in lifespan developmental psych, cognitive neuro, test construction and design, cogn/personality assessment, applied behavior analysis, psychopharm, psychopathology, and human learning who completed 4 years (at least) of supervised practica, one year of clinical internship, and at least another year of postdoc
or
2) A LCSW whose MSW coursework included 2-3 of those "foundation" courses, social justice/systems courses, and then several therapy intervention courses and then had 2 years of supervised practice for licensure

Who would you refer an adult diagnosed as MMR and attention deficit as a child who has bipolar disorder and comorbid substance abuse to?

LCSW training well prepares professionals to provide therapy in a number of areas like grief counseling, marital discord, depression/anxiety, etc. However, without the most comprehensive set of tools that includes the same rigor as doctoral level programs and tools for integrated assessment (yes, testing), certain cases are less appropriate for LCSWs. Like someone else already asked, what the heck do you think we (psychologists) are doing in those extra years? Yes, a BSW is very different from and MSW which is different from an LCSW. So is a LCSW from a PsyD/PhD. To basically call everyone elitist who makes a distinction between a doctorate and a masters while fully advocating for the distinction between a bachelors and a masters is absurd.

Surprisingly, I completely agree with what you said. I think that if clinical social workers want to work with more severe populations, than more training should be required, ideally at the doctoral level. Unfortunately, with the direction the market is headed, I think we are much more likely to see the reverse happen, which is really problematic for our profession. What really bugs me is that, even if I spend years gaining additional training and education, my peers with less training will be representing the profession, which will weaken my license, regardless of my additional training. As professionals, I hope we begin to realize that even though minimal standards make things easier in the short-run, they make things much more difficult in the long-run. There is nothing worse than working with a patient to realize you have no idea what you are doing. Similarly, lower standards equate less respect, prestige, and ultimately income. We need to set our egos aside for a moment and ask ourselves what's best for the profession, society, and ultimately, our clients. While we may do many things right, and have a lot to offer, with some great clinical programs, we also fall short in many ways. I truly believe in the highest of standards, and as much as it pains me to admit it, social work as a long way to go in meeting my definition of high standards.

 

[O Gurl]

In Indiana, with a BSW, one can complete their degree in 12 months, with only 3 semesters of practicum. With an additional two years of clinical experience, the individual is eligible for licensure. Certainly, in these regards, the training is not comparable.

Wow. Definitely not my experience. I was in fact, comparing LCSW's with PhD Psychologists, the training I am talking about leaves you with about a 1 year gap between LCSW's and PhD in Psych.

That is b/c BSWdavid is described a typical course of training, whereas you, Slinger, are trying to use an atypical case to make your argument. That is like me trying to spell out the training and curriculum of MD/PhD or JD/PhD programs and acting like it is a common path for psychologists or a psychiatrist pretending like they all complete advanced psychotherapy fellowships after residency. 🙄

 

[O Gurl]

Surprisingly, I completely agree with what you said. I think that if clinical social workers want to work with more severe populations, than more training should be required, ideally at the doctoral level. Unfortunately, with the direction the market is headed, I think we are much more likely to see the reverse happen, which is really problematic for our profession. What really bugs me is that, even if I spend years gaining additional training and education, my peers with less training will be representing the profession, which will weaken my license, regardless of my additional training. As professionals, I hope we begin to realize that even though minimal standards make things easier in the short-run, they make things much more difficult in the long-run. There is nothing worse than working with a patient to realize you have no idea what you are doing. Similarly, lower standards equate less respect, prestige, and ultimately income. We need to set our egos aside for a moment and ask ourselves what's best for the profession, society, and ultimately, our clients. While we may do many things right, and have a lot to offer, with some great clinical programs, we also fall short in many ways. I truly believe in the highest of standards, and as much as it pains me to admit it, social work as a long way to go in meeting my definition of high standards.

I think that most SWs who really care about the patients would agree with this point. You are right, though, that making a movement in this direction will be nearly impossible because there are so many people who are more caught up in the "anything you can do I can do better" game. They accuse everyone else of turf-warring while they are piecing together roundabout training to justify wanting to practice at one degree level while holding a degree at a level prior. And there are too many insurance companies that are just looking for a lower-cost option that encourage these shenanigans.

 

[slinger]

O Gurl, if you look at your comments and the way you spell out things when you talk about social work, you really are trashing our profession with ignorance. You really speak of it as a "less" profession. I think we might have some ego issues here. I have already stated that a PhD in Psychology has more training than a typical MSW. 🙂

Social Justice? 2 foundation classes? What are you talking about?

My class listings went something like this:

Cognitive Therapy 600
Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy 601
Behavior Therapy 650
Multi-Theoretical Approaches to Psychotherapy 603
Individual Psychotherapy 604
Group Psychotherapy 605
Psychopharmacology 606



I think I will pull out of this argument now, as I don't want it to be clinical social worker vs. psychologist. I hope the social work profession can differentiate itself from the more "administrative" or case management focused programs. Eventually, I hope that the PhD Social Work program will be designed around creating a clinician. There are just some psychologists, no matter if I were a social worker with 30 years of psychotherapy experience, the PhD Psychologist will tell you straight out of their program that they are more proficient than social workers in psychotherapy. I really hope that people don't think that we get "survey" courses in psychotherapy. yikes. I would be scared of that therapist too.

 

[stigmata]

It is hard to adequately treat a patient, even when just using psychotherapy, if you aren't trained in how to diagnose. Where are the psychopathology courses? How can you learn anything about psychopharm above and beyond magazine ads without a solid basis is psychopathology, neuroanatomy, neurochemistry etc...?
This whole argument is silly. MSW/MA training is a lesser training by the very definition...masters Vs. doctorate! This whole "everything, everyone is the same and equal stuff" is just not reality...it is PC.

 

[O Gurl]

O Gurl, if you look at your comments and the way you spell out things when you talk about social work, you really are trashing our profession with ignorance. You really speak of it as a "less" profession. I think we might have some ego issues here. I have already stated that a PhD in Psychology has more training than a typical MSW.

It is ignorant to say that a doctorate provides more intensive training than a masters? Fine. I'm ignorant, then. It is "less" intensive. You never answered this question, btw: What do you think the extra time spent in pursuing a doctorate is for?

Social Justice? 2 foundation classes? What are you talking about

I'm talking about the typical MSW--the same one you referenced above. Sure, there are some MSW programs that emphasize clinical elements, but there are many more that provide generalist SW training. Regardless of which program one completes, the MSW is license-eligible after 3000 supervised hours (roughly 2 years of practice) are accumulated. So yes, there are plenty of LCSWs in practice who completed broad MSW programs, who may or may not have had some psych foundation courses, completed 2 years of internship, studied and passed the state exam, and proclaim to be able to perform all the same functions as someone who studied and practiced for double that time.

Beyond this, there is a national accreditation (APA) for doctoral psychology programs. It provides a minimum standard of courses and training that must be provided. Is there any such standardization for MSW programs that produce LCSWs? If so, what are they, because as mentioned above, plenty of people complete the generalist model that emphasizes social justice and then go on to complete licensure.

My class listings went something like this:

Cognitive Therapy 600
Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy 601
Behavior Therapy 650
Multi-Theoretical Approaches to Psychotherapy 603
Individual Psychotherapy 604
Group Psychotherapy 605
Psychopharmacology 606

Several people have noted, including you, that this is atypical for MSW programs, no? Even so, my earlier point still stands. If you re-read what I said:

So you would see psychologists and LCSWs performing the same jobs with the same patients in the same settings but freely admit the training is different. So given:

1) A PhD whose program had courses in lifespan developmental psych, cognitive neuro, test construction and design, cogn/personality assessment, applied behavior analysis, psychopharm, psychopathology, and human learning who completed 4 years (at least) of supervised practica, one year of clinical internship, and at least another year of postdoc
or
2) A LCSW whose MSW coursework included 2-3 of those "foundation" courses, social justice/systems courses, and then several therapy intervention courses and then had 2 years of supervised practice for licensure

Who would you refer an adult diagnosed as MMR and attention deficit as a child who has bipolar disorder and comorbid substance abuse to?

Taking intervention courses is great, but what about the foundation of psychotherapy? Understanding the principles of learning, cognition, development, etc? Given normative adjustment issues like bereavement or marital conflict or garden-variety depression, one doesn't really need all that. Nor do they need intensive assessment. Thus, I am all for master's level clinicians as there are tons of people who can benefit from supportive therapy or streamlined interventions. However, there are more complex cases that are not as appropriate if one has had a lot of applied course, but less supervised practice, no assessment training, and hardly any foundation (science and theory) courses. That is my point. There is a place for master's level clinicians (LCSWS, MFTs, LPCs/LMHCs). There are also some situations where more comprehensively trained professionals are needed.

There are just some psychologists, no matter if I were a social worker with 30 years of psychotherapy experience, the PhD Psychologist will tell you straight out of their program that they are more proficient than social workers in psychotherapy.

Of course one should develop with practice. That is a given. Of course an entry level PhD therapist could learn a lot from an LCSW with 30 years of practice in a certain field. However, if you compare those professionals at the same point in their training, there should be some differences in their abilities merely because one completed double the amount of training. We are not talking about individuals here. We are talking about professional training differences.

I hope the social work profession can differentiate itself from the more "administrative" or case management focused programs. Eventually, I hope that the PhD Social Work program will be designed around creating a clinician.

Puzzling. Why should social work differentiate itself from social work? Why is there a need for a doctorate-level clinician in social work? At one point, I thought you were saying that social workers approach clinical work differently, like integrating social justice and case management with psychotherapy. However, you then described a bunch of courses and trainings that are identical to the approaches used in psychology, like CBT, with still no mention on what the distinction or justification would be for creating clinicians that the market doesn't need. What is the point of adding more psychologists under a different name?

 

[pingouin]

A reminder that the topic of this thread is psych testing, not psychotherapy or MSW program content. There seems to be a generally mutual agreement that testing is not the purview of LCSWs or really any other field outside of doctoral-level clinical psychology, so I'm not sure what's really left to debate there.

If this thread doesn't get back on topic, I'll be closing it.

 

[slinger]

O Gurl, I really wish not to argue semantics. For your sake I will clarify my use of the word "ignorance". You are summarizing about a profession and training program you know nothing about. You can't say that the atypical social work track is case management oriented and not clinically driven. It would be suffice to say that there are equal clinical programs to administrative/case management programs out there. It's this rich history that social work has, where the idea is that really we are just qualified for "community outreach, case management, phone calls, applications, and now we have this flavor of psychotherapy. The CSWE accredits all programs and requires a certain level of clinical focus for the MSW, so that upon graduation you have at least one internship immersed in psychotherapy, albeit that is the minimum. Most clinically driven programs are totally focused on therapy, and yes one of my classes was psychopathology, and clinical assessment and diagnosis which is basically a class where we immerse ourselves in the DSM.

I can only speak about psychology because I was accepted in the Adler school and did all the necessary prep and research to ready myself for the program but eventually declined to pursue my social work career as well as my M.A. in Forensic Psychology.

To end the argument. A PhD Clinical Psychology program is much more intensive than a bare bones 2 year MSW. For a TYPICAL clinical program with all the right classes and internships and post-masters fellowship. It would be suffice to say that the intensity is right up there. Reality, in the workplace, PhD's are more respected and all that good stuff, and so be it, they went the extra mile.

I don't want to differentiate social work from social work. I want to differentiate a clinical social worker from an administrative social worker. I don't want it to be this one in in the same type of thing. All this goes without saying, any program, no matter what you call it, and what you can call yourself after taking it, is only as good as what you put in it. Strictly adhering to what only we learn in our educational programs is a bottleneck for practice.

One book I am currently reading, Integrative Multitheoretical Psychotherapy, Jeff E. Brooks-Harris. That is where my current study focus is, trying to better my work.

You are right, the world doesn't need more Psychologists branded under a different name. Since social work uses different approaches and models, it would be a different take and interpretation on psychotherapy. I am just theorizing here. I, like you, don't want a bunch of administrative social workers that happened to pass an LCSW exam, and have no psychotherapy experience, be thrust into a situation in an agency where they are practicing psychotherapy. I want a differentiation. The path I took was somewhat long-winded, but hey, it gave me the training. Maybe I should of been a PhD Psychologist with all this effort, but hey, there I things I have learned social work that are absolutely crucial to treating patients and I incorporate everyday in my practice. So there must be a way to make this into a singular program, and not have it all broken up with fellowships and what-not.

 

[slinger]

Pingouin,

Sorry about that. Back to the topic. I think the general consensus is that social workers from both typical admin. and clinical programs have no current place in doing formal psychological assessments. Clinical Psychologists are THE equipped personnel to handle this form of work.

 

[BSWdavid]

It is ignorant to say that a doctorate provides more intensive training than a masters? Fine. I'm ignorant, then. It is "less" intensive. You never answered this question, btw: What do you think the extra time spent in pursuing a doctorate is for?



I'm talking about the typical MSW--the same one you referenced above. Sure, there are some MSW programs that emphasize clinical elements, but there are many more that provide generalist SW training. Regardless of which program one completes, the MSW is license-eligible after 3000 supervised hours (roughly 2 years of practice) are accumulated. So yes, there are plenty of LCSWs in practice who completed broad MSW programs, who may or may not have had some psych foundation courses, completed 2 years of internship, studied and passed the state exam, and proclaim to be able to perform all the same functions as someone who studied and practiced for double that time.

Beyond this, there is a national accreditation (APA) for doctoral psychology programs. It provides a minimum standard of courses and training that must be provided. Is there any such standardization for MSW programs that produce LCSWs? If so, what are they, because as mentioned above, plenty of people complete the generalist model that emphasizes social justice and then go on to complete licensure.



Several people have noted, including you, that this is atypical for MSW programs, no? Even so, my earlier point still stands. If you re-read what I said:



Taking intervention courses is great, but what about the foundation of psychotherapy? Understanding the principles of learning, cognition, development, etc? Given normative adjustment issues like bereavement or marital conflict or garden-variety depression, one doesn't really need all that. Nor do they need intensive assessment. Thus, I am all for master's level clinicians as there are tons of people who can benefit from supportive therapy or streamlined interventions. However, there are more complex cases that are not as appropriate if one has had a lot of applied course, but less supervised practice, no assessment training, and hardly any foundation (science and theory) courses. That is my point. There is a place for master's level clinicians (LCSWS, MFTs, LPCs/LMHCs). There are also some situations where more comprehensively trained professionals are needed.



Of course one should develop with practice. That is a given. Of course an entry level PhD therapist could learn a lot from an LCSW with 30 years of practice in a certain field. However, if you compare those professionals at the same point in their training, there should be some differences in their abilities merely because one completed double the amount of training. We are not talking about individuals here. We are talking about professional training differences.



Puzzling. Why should social work differentiate itself from social work? Why is there a need for a doctorate-level clinician in social work? At one point, I thought you were saying that social workers approach clinical work differently, like integrating social justice and case management with psychotherapy. However, you then described a bunch of courses and trainings that are identical to the approaches used in psychology, like CBT, with still no mention on what the distinction or justification would be for creating clinicians that the market doesn't need. What is the point of adding more psychologists under a different name?

From what I understand, at least in my state, generalist MSW program graduates aren't eligible for a clinical license. There are certain clinical courses, including an assessment course, that have to be taken in order to qualify as a clinical program, and thus, ensure its graduates are eligible for licensure.

 

[PsyDLICSW]

LCSW in private practice here.. do NOT do psych testing and other than this board, have never heard of anyone other than a doctoral-level psychologist doing it. psychometricians administering, yes, but only psychologists interpreting.

that said, I recently got something from NASW which had a little blurb about new CPT codes for LCSWs doing testing. I'm away for the holidays, but when I get home next weekend, I'll look into it.

but I have to say- I'm with the psychologists on this one, and I've gone on the record with my opinion before- LCSWs have no business doing testing. it's outside the scope of practice.

I agree. I am a student in a clinical psychology program, but i have an MSW. SOcial workers should not be interpreting psychological tests. In my area, they are not properly trained for this. SOme programs are generalist programs and do not even properly train for therapy. Psyc testing is psychology's domain.

 

[KayJay85]

Why is there a need for a doctorate-level clinician in social work? At one point, I thought you were saying that social workers approach clinical work differently, like integrating social justice and case management with psychotherapy. However, you then described a bunch of courses and trainings that are identical to the approaches used in psychology, like CBT, with still no mention on what the distinction or justification would be for creating clinicians that the market doesn't need. What is the point of adding more psychologists under a different name?

In reading this and simlilar topics on expanding the scope of [insert provider], I am stuck with this very same question: Why? What is the market demand? I agree with the point above that there is no need for a new wave of doctoral psychotherapists. I cannot think of a single way that will improve care for consumers, esp. since the psychotherapeutic approaches that have been proven effective are limited and well covered by psychologists and master's level clinicians already. When it comes back to the original question of testing, again, I have to wonder how expanding these services to other disciplines helps the consumer. I understand the issue of service accessibility in rural/underserved areas. However, simply reducing the training standard to provide these services doesn't solve the problem and may, in fact, exacerbate it if assessments are mishandled. The answer, which appears to be underway, is to increase recruitment of doctoral level providers in these areas through education debt reduction (loan forgiveness) programs and such. Also, the sheer saturation of the job market right now will eventually drive many psychologists out of the metropolitan hot spots. I realize that is not the ideal way to increase service delivery, however, it seems inevitable. So if undersserved areas is no longer an issue (and it probably won't be for much longer) what is the purpose for expanding testing priveleges to LCSWs or other master's level providers?

 

[slinger]

In reading this and simlilar topics on expanding the scope of [insert provider], I am stuck with this very same question: Why? What is the market demand? I agree with the point above that there is no need for a new wave of doctoral psychotherapists. I cannot think of a single way that will improve care for consumers, esp. since the psychotherapeutic approaches that have been proven effective are limited and well covered by psychologists and master's level clinicians already. When it comes back to the original question of testing, again, I have to wonder how expanding these services to other disciplines helps the consumer. I understand the issue of service accessibility in rural/underserved areas. However, simply reducing the training standard to provide these services doesn't solve the problem and may, in fact, exacerbate it if assessments are mishandled. The answer, which appears to be underway, is to increase recruitment of doctoral level providers in these areas through education debt reduction (loan forgiveness) programs and such. Also, the sheer saturation of the job market right now will eventually drive many psychologists out of the metropolitan hot spots. I realize that is not the ideal way to increase service delivery, however, it seems inevitable. So if undersserved areas is no longer an issue (and it probably won't be for much longer) what is the purpose for expanding testing priveleges to LCSWs or other master's level providers?

Well, theoretically there are more than just 2 options. Instead of lowering the standards for us LCSW's, we could just expand accessibility to LCSW's by increasing LCSW's education requirement to test. Of course that is what started the argument above, of re-labeling psychologists. I disagree with it, it's not relabeling because we all go through completely different education. Just my .02. A social worker that could provide testing, provided being adequately trained, is a social worker who could provide testing. Not a re-labeled psychologist. If a social worker does indeed become educated in testing, and psychologists start calling it re-labeling their profession, then I guess that is some substance to the argument of "all psychologists do different is testing".

Of course I am playing devil's advocate here. I am not (at this point) a large proponent of psych testing within the realm of social work. Maybe within the next 10-15 years, I will sing a different tune.

 

[O Gurl]

I think the question is still: WHY? Why do we need social workers to do testing. Again, it is not like there is a massive shortage of psychologists. And, like KayJay85 pointed out, the job market may very well eradicate the lack of accessibility in more rural areas.

When it comes to expanding scope of practice,there should be a tangible reason to do so. Right now, there still is no need for social workers to provide psych testing. So one is left to wonder whether the proponents of this movement (and Slinger, I realize you are not one of them) really only want one less thing to differentiate them from psychologists.

 

[BSWdavid]

As I have said before, I don't think social workers should provide testing, however, I do wish many of you would understand that social work IS NOT merely social justice and case management. While we may not receive as much training as psychologists (due in part to the limited nature of a masters program) we certainly are not limited to the social justice realm. If you do an extensive literature review on clinical social work education you will notice that social workers have been trained in psychotherapy since the mid 1940's, due in part to the demand during WWII and the Great Depression. Psychology DOES NOT = psychotherapy and social work DOES NOT = social justice/case management. Certainly the two professions are different but neither has a monopoly on mental health treatment, although interestingly, as I have noted in prior posts, social workers provide more mental health services than psychologists, psychiatrists, and counselors combined. Whatever dominance psychology did have has disappeared!

 

[O Gurl]

As I have said before, I have no problem with LCSWs or any other master's level therapist providing therapy. In most cases, people seek therapy for what can be considered normative maladjustment issues (complicated bereavement, marital conflict, parenting issues, and such). I have said and will say again that one does not need a doctorate to assess and treat these issues. When you get into severe pathology, comorbid issues (whether substance abuse, medical illness, or what have you), extreme trauma, or developmental issues (from autism on up to dementia), or any cases requiring specialized assessment, then you are dealing with a different beast. That is where clinical PhD or clinical PsyD providers are trained to intervene.

Back to the original point of this thread, what is the benefit in having the LCSW training model modified for psych testing when there is no shortage of psychologists to do it? The fact is that there is NO NEED for most scope of practice movements other than to secure more turf.

 

[slinger]

As I have said before, I have no problem with LCSWs or any other master's level therapist providing therapy. In most cases, people seek therapy for what can be considered normative maladjustment issues (complicated bereavement, marital conflict, parenting issues, and such). I have said and will say again that one does not need a doctorate to assess and treat these issues. When you get into severe pathology, comorbid issues (whether substance abuse, medical illness, or what have you), extreme trauma, or developmental issues (from autism on up to dementia), or any cases requiring specialized assessment, then you are dealing with a different beast. That is where clinical PhD or clinical PsyD providers are trained to intervene.

Back to the original point of this thread, what is the benefit in having the LCSW training model modified for psych testing when there is no shortage of psychologists to do it? The fact is that there is NO NEED for most scope of practice movements other than to secure more turf.

To your first statement, what you are more referring to is counseling services. LCSW's are trained to to TREAT mental illness, not just "head-nod" a married couple or an individual that doesn't know how to parent. I'm going to put this bluntly, because there doesn't need to be disinformation on this forum, or any other for that matter. LCSW's CAN treat mental illness with psychotherapy. This includes trauma, substance use/abuse issues, (comorbidity), even severe pathology; NOT only maladjustment problems. Developmental issues, I defer to neuropsych.


Back to the topic. Part of the problem is rural mental health care. Often, pscyhologists aren't willing to live there (or anyone else for that matter). So broadening the horizons in terms of testing/assessments are an option, so that MORE providers can be diverse in their assessment and treatment, and mental healthcare can be expanded. In terms of rural mental health care, there is a shortage of psychologists.

 

[Ecomaster]

I wanted to provide some opinion pieces in regards to what looks like a very heated but interesting topic. I am an MSW at a California state school, graduating very soon. I have worked and continue to work in community mental health as a trainee. My focus and passion is community mental health. I have worked along side psych doc students, both psy.d and ph.d pract. doc students and while their roles are very similar at the placement: providing psychotherapy (CBT mainly), and intensive case management, & doing intakes (assessments but non psych-testing in nature) I believe the area of psych-testing should be left to psych doc profession. As MSWs, we are well-trained in looking at the person in the environment and can be considered "jack of all trades" as explained below. But very specialized testing that may be required of court such as for forensics, or for other legal reasons will be out of our scope. Its just not practical period.

However to debunk the myth that we are only social justice pushers... well we are all of that and more : ) Allow me to clarify:

As mentioned before, all Accredited programs Social Work Programs and this is important since to become a LCSW in CA, it must be accredited by the CSWE (Council for Social Work Education). It must include a minimum of courses and content which includes foundational and advanced Micro, Mezzo, Macro courses + electives (electives include: Adv. Assessment, Family Violence, etc). To clarify, Micro (Individual psychotherapy & case management), Mezzo (Groups and family therapy & case management), Macro (Advocacy and Advance Legislation/Policy Analysis). As one can see, the education is holistic, however psych-testing would not be a practical application of our strengths.

As SW'ers we are trained to work with individuals in a person in the environment perspective while utilizing frameworks for assessment and intervention. Our assessment is based on DSM Criteria, which satisfies our master level clinician roles as expected of us and just like our fellow MFT practitioners. Psych testing imo is a different area than interpreting the DSM with clinical skills and knowledge that is expected of us. From what I understand requires a different set of knowledge like neuropsych, and other psychobiological domains which is not common if even existent in MSW circ. from my experience. Now don't get me wrong, even after licensure, you don't stop growing and one can take classes to "catch up" but as far as being prep for that in a program, I vouch for psychologist roles for that.

Hope that clarifies some aspect of the conversation coming from the social work side of things,

-Eco

 

[slinger]

I wanted to provide some opinion pieces in regards to what looks like a very heated but interesting topic. I am an MSW at a California state school, graduating very soon. I have worked and continue to work in community mental health as a trainee. My focus and passion is community mental health. I have worked along side psych doc students, both psy.d and ph.d pract. doc students and while their roles are very similar at the placement: providing psychotherapy (CBT mainly), and intensive case management, & doing intakes (assessments but non psych-testing in nature) I believe the area of psych-testing should be left to psych doc profession. As MSWs, we are well-trained in looking at the person in the environment and can be considered "jack of all trades" as explained below. But very specialized testing that may be required of court such as for forensics, or for other legal reasons will be out of our scope. Its just not practical period.

However to debunk the myth that we are only social justice pushers... well we are all of that and more : ) Allow me to clarify:

As mentioned before, all Accredited programs Social Work Programs and this is important since to become a LCSW in CA, it must be accredited by the CSWE (Council for Social Work Education). It must include a minimum of courses and content which includes foundational and advanced Micro, Mezzo, Macro courses + electives (electives include: Adv. Assessment, Family Violence, etc). To clarify, Micro (Individual psychotherapy & case management), Mezzo (Groups and family therapy & case management), Macro (Advocacy and Advance Legislation/Policy Analysis). As one can see, the education is holistic, however psych-testing would not be a practical application of our strengths.

As SW'ers we are trained to work with individuals in a person in the environment perspective while utilizing frameworks for assessment and intervention. Our assessment is based on DSM Criteria, which satisfies our master level clinician roles as expected of us and just like our fellow MFT practitioners. Psych testing imo is a different area than interpreting the DSM with clinical skills and knowledge that is expected of us. From what I understand requires a different set of knowledge like neuropsych, and other psychobiological domains which is not common if even existent in MSW circ. from my experience. Now don't get me wrong, even after licensure, you don't stop growing and one can take classes to "catch up" but as far as being prep for that in a program, I vouch for psychologist roles for that.

Hope that clarifies some aspect of the conversation coming from the social work side of things,

-Eco

Good post Eco. Most MSW programs do a general survey of psychotherapy practice within the Micro, Mezzo, and Macro setting such as Eco stated.

To note, the CSWE requirements are a minimum, and that the MSW can maintain it's program as such that when graduates take the licensure test they can pass it, and that they will be allowed to take it in the first place (CSWE accredidation). There are many clinically focused MSW programs out there, and are slowly becoming the norm, that are not "holistic" and very much take a specific approach to treating mental illness.

I do agree with Eco, in that the traditional MSW programs DO NOT prepare average LCSW's to do psych testing, even though I have seen some schools with elective courses in interpretation, this is merely an understanding of the scoring patterns, and maybe to decrease the language barrier between psychologist and social worker.

Some people go to schools of social justice, some go to schools of social welfare, and some go to schools of clinical social work (my choice).

 

[DrGero]

Im hoping that went over like a turd in the punch bowl.

The SLP that works at my facility is a masters level clinician, supervised by a doctoral level speech therapist. She does what amounts to cognitive testing with patients, but it's extremely circumscribed and tends to be almost 100% focused on assessing for language deficits, which makes sense to me. A Boston Diagnostic Aphasia exam including a BNT, etc.

What I do find interesting is the memory training stuff the SLP does with some of the demented / brain injured patients. Not something I've been trained in (at least, not what she's doing), but I don't have a huge problem with it. It looks incredibly boring and repetitive to do with patients.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

The issue I have w. SLP is scope creep. What started w. Primarily speech/language assessment spreads into executive functioning and other areas. Our SLPs are incredibly skilled at what they do (swallow studies, dysphasia work, etc), but their "cognitive assessment" is not the same as real cog. assessment.

 

[Savagebee]

The SLP that works at my facility is a masters level clinician, supervised by a doctoral level speech therapist. She does what amounts to cognitive testing with patients, but it's extremely circumscribed and tends to be almost 100% focused on assessing for language deficits, which makes sense to me. A Boston Diagnostic Aphasia exam including a BNT, etc.

What I do find interesting is the memory training stuff the SLP does with some of the demented / brain injured patients. Not something I've been trained in (at least, not what she's doing), but I don't have a huge problem with it. It looks incredibly boring and repetitive to do with patients.

I wonder if there are significant regional differences in an SLP's scope. Im current working as a Bachelors level clinician, but have had many discusisons with some SLP's about cognitive defecits and my experience with them. Either they are not trained, or never used the training and lost it. I often perform the brief cognitive assessments, then give them to the therapists that contract through the home or the psychiatrist, for evaluation/interpretation. The SLP's have nothing to do with the assessments of cognitive functioning, except severe aphasia type problems.

I wonder why the difference, it may just be my backwoods hillbilly region

 

[O Gurl]

To your first statement, what you are more referring to is counseling services. LCSW's are trained to to TREAT mental illness, not just "head-nod" a married couple or an individual that doesn't know how to parent. I'm going to put this bluntly, because there doesn't need to be disinformation on this forum, or any other for that matter. LCSW's CAN treat mental illness with psychotherapy. This includes trauma, substance use/abuse issues, (comorbidity), even severe pathology; NOT only maladjustment problems. Developmental issues, I defer to neuropsych.

We may have to agree to disagree on this point. The science and theory behind assessment and psychotherapy is key when dealing with severe pathology. In general, I do not see how this is accomplished with majority of applied courses (often in modalities designed for less severe presenting issues) and 2 years of supervised practice. I also outright disagree with equating counseling with head-nodding.

Back to the topic. Part of the problem is rural mental health care. Often, pscyhologists aren't willing to live there (or anyone else for that matter). So broadening the horizons in terms of testing/assessments are an option, so that MORE providers can be diverse in their assessment and treatment, and mental healthcare can be expanded. In terms of rural mental health care, there is a shortage of psychologists.

Like KayJay85 already pointed out, psychologists are no longer able to restrict ourselves to metropolitan areas. Recruiting individuals trained in assessment makes far more sense to me than changing the training model for another discipline.

 

[slinger]

We may have to agree to disagree on this point.

Agreed.

 

[PsyDLICSW]

We may have to agree to disagree on this point. The science and theory behind assessment and psychotherapy is key when dealing with severe pathology. In general, I do not see how this is accomplished with majority of applied courses (often in modalities designed for less severe presenting issues) and 2 years of supervised practice. I also outright disagree with equating counseling with head-nodding.

Originally Posted by slinger
Back to the topic. Part of the problem is rural mental health care. Often, pscyhologists aren't willing to live there (or anyone else for that matter). So broadening the horizons in terms of testing/assessments are an option, so that MORE providers can be diverse in their assessment and treatment, and mental healthcare can be expanded. In terms of rural mental health care, there is a shortage of psychologists


Like KayJay85 already pointed out, psychologists are no longer able to restrict ourselves to metropolitan areas. Recruiting individuals trained in assessment makes far more sense to me than changing the training model for another discipline.

I have been trained in both psychology and social work. I have an MSW but I went back to psychology because 1) my MSW program was generalist and therefore I was not properly trained in psychotherapy (two classes and an abnormal psyc class in social work's clothing is not enough to be trained properly as a psychotherapist, even after a year of practicum), 2) I am a republican (fiscally, not so much socially) and could not stomach the extreme liberal atmosphere of the classrooms. ANd 3) I wanted to do testing. Psychologists are the only clinicians who are trainied in doing testing. LPCs can't do it. MFTs can't do it. LMHCs can't do it. Psychiatric Nurse practitioners can't do it. Psychiatrists can't do it. And LICSWs (Licensed Independent Clinical Social Worker in my state) can't do it.

I understand the issue of rural areas. I am from a rural area. My program specifically trains doctoral level psychologists for practicing in rural areas. My program is not the only one either. There are several PhD and PsyD programs that have a rural focus. SUre, not everyone wants to live in a rural area, but these clinical psychology programs (e.g. Marshall University in West Virginia, Ohio University in Athens OH, The Unviersity of Alaska at Anchorage/Fairbanks, University of South Carolina) are dedicated to preparing compitent psychologists for practice in rural and underserved areas. Appalachian State Unviersity in Boone NC is working on starting a rural focused clinical psychology program. Psychology is taking care of the needs rural areas. Graduates from my program are staying in the area and practicing. My point here is that social workers are not trained in psychological testing. Psychological testing requires training and expertise that social workers are not trained in. My MSW program did not like how psyc testing "labels" people and risks pigeon-holing those individuals into an oppressed group. Social workers in clinical social work programs are trained in therapy and they have every right to do therapy as well as other practices they are properly trained for. Most of the master's level providers of psychotherapy in my state are LICSWs, not psychologists. But the only clinicians doing testing are psychologists. Social work has too broad of a scope when it comes to training. Perhaps a deeper understanding of psychological testing will help social wokrers better advocate for clients through treatment or even social policy reform. But leave the testing to psychologists. Also, psychological testing is more than giving someone a Beck and making a depression diagnosis based on the result. Psyc testing has an impact on people's lives and mistakes are costly, which is why doctoral level psychologists are the only profession with the training and expertise to interpret psychological testing. Administering psyc testing, fine, but not interpreting psychological testing.

 

[BohuMSW]

.

 

[Neuropsych2be]

Surprisingly, I completely agree with what you said. I think that if clinical social workers want to work with more severe populations, than more training should be required, ideally at the doctoral level. Unfortunately, with the direction the market is headed, I think we are much more likely to see the reverse happen, which is really problematic for our profession. What really bugs me is that, even if I spend years gaining additional training and education, my peers with less training will be representing the profession, which will weaken my license, regardless of my additional training. As professionals, I hope we begin to realize that even though minimal standards make things easier in the short-run, they make things much more difficult in the long-run. There is nothing worse than working with a patient to realize you have no idea what you are doing. Similarly, lower standards equate less respect, prestige, and ultimately income. We need to set our egos aside for a moment and ask ourselves what's best for the profession, society, and ultimately, our clients. While we may do many things right, and have a lot to offer, with some great clinical programs, we also fall short in many ways. I truly believe in the highest of standards, and as much as it pains me to admit it, social work as a long way to go in meeting my definition of high standards.

I worked for years and years at the masters level and convinced myself that the difference between that level of training and a Ph.D. was a few stats classes and a dissertation. Oh how wrong I was. My perspective now is that doctoral training gives one an entirely new and different perspective, a vastly richer theoretical base and far more nuanced and complex way to engage in case conceptualization and a more advanced skill set. I now believe that the LCSW should be a doctoral level profession. I don't think this is education/training creep. its instead a recognition that the provision of quality services requires a certain level of training that earlier generations did not need. The knowledge base in the behavioral sciences has exploded and training requirements should keep pace. However, economic forces countervail against that however.
Sadly LCSW's have in some ways painted themselves into a corner by advocating that master's level training is sufficient for independent practice and Medicare reimbursement while concurrently stating that master's prepared LPC's or LMHC's who have similar training should not.

 

[Savagebee]

Sadly LCSW's have in some ways painted themselves into a corner by advocating that master's level training is sufficient for independent practice and Medicare reimbursement while concurrently stating that master's prepared LPC's or LMHC's who have similar training should not.

Ive always questioned that logic, as most LPC programs and many LMHC programs Ive seen require significantly more education than an LCSW program

 

[PsyDLICSW]

Ive always questioned that logic, as most LPC programs and many LMHC programs Ive seen require significantly more education than an LCSW program

Coming from an MSW program, you're right. LPCs and LMHCs have more training in therapy than social workers. I took two "therapy" classes and one class on psychopathology (aka undergrad abnormal psyc). I am eliglbe for licesure as an independent clinical social worker with this limited training. I got a therapy-based internship but not everyone in my program got this training. I went to to doctoral training in psychology because I did not think that the MSW prepared me well for therapy. Unfortunately, there are some graduates from my program that are practicing therapy that have not been properly trained to do so. I advocate for doctoral training in social work if the doctorate focuses on therapy and higher level training in mental health practice and psychpathology. However, still, leave the testing to psychologists.

 

[Savagebee]

Advanced Standing

33 hour program
(One year to complete degree)

Thats from the University of Oklahoma
All it requires is a 3 point gpa and, well, a bsw

5 years total school and you can offer psychotherapy

My program is 61 hours, regardless of education before hand, and takes 7 semesters full time.

I was kind of surprised when I found out MSWs are the insurers preferred providers, as their therapy core is pretty poor.

My therapy program is about 30 hours of therapy education, IIRC, with a thesis. I have a friend going through the program at OU, and he is pretty unhappy with the lack of therapy focused education, which is what he wants to do when finished.

 

[BohuMSW]

I was kind of surprised when I found out MSWs are the insurers preferred providers, as their therapy core is pretty poor.

I agree that "Advanced Standing" leads to undereducated providers. I think that this topic and much of the debate on here in general stems from the point another poster made earlier about choosing your discipline and being happy within it.

Social Work is not a subfield of psychology or an alternative path to being a therapist. The social work discipline descends from charity and social welfare. It exists to ameliorate poverty and inequality. Entering the social work field if your primary intention is not to help poor or disadvantaged people is contrary to the discipline's ethics. If trained properly we can incorporate mental health based interventions such as therapy, but that should never be our identity. What some people call the "generalist" part of our role, i.e. keeping people housed, fed, integrated with community resources, advocating for their rights etc, is actually quite demanding of time and effort. It requires a broad, flexible orientation to problem solving that can not be instilled through psychotherapy classes, just like we can't learn psych testing in our community organization/advocacy classes.

I'd like to see Social Work have it's own forum here and not be grouped under psychology. Not perpetuating the idea that we are "master's level" psychologists might be a small, but helpful step toward helping misguided social workers understand that we should not now or in the future be doing psych testing.

 

[PsyDLICSW]

Thats from the University of Oklahoma
All it requires is a 3 point gpa and, well, a bsw

5 years total school and you can offer psychotherapy

My program is 61 hours, regardless of education before hand, and takes 7 semesters full time.

I was kind of surprised when I found out MSWs are the insurers preferred providers, as their therapy core is pretty poor.


My therapy program is about 30 hours of therapy education, IIRC, with a thesis. I have a friend going through the program at OU, and he is pretty unhappy with the lack of therapy focused education, which is what he wants to do when finished.

I really feel for your friend. I was very unhappy with my MSW courses. I don't give a crap about social policy analysis and the other garbage I had to learn. I think that there are good social work therapists out there. Perhaps it's the progrma model. I went to a generalist social work program, which may be the problem. There are some clinically focused MSW programs out there (e.g. Michigan State) that probably produce good therapists. My supervisors in social work were great therapists with MSWs from my program; however, both went to get training beyond the MSW. One went to the Gestalt Institute training in DC and the other went to the Beck Institute for CBT work. Perhaps your friend should think about changing programs or seeking extra training after the MSW. I chose the MSW because they can practice independently in my state and 47 others, but the therapy training I got was deplorable and nothing compared to MAs in counseling or MFT.

 

[slinger]

Well there is no such thing as a Masters Psychologist. There is an individual with a Masters of Arts or Science in Psychology, who, in some states, can be licensed to practice psychotherapy.

I don't think that any MSW claims to be a masters level psychologist. I didn't go into the MSW program to work in a soup kitchen and working with financial and housing issues. In my program, as well as many others, it is strictly psychotherapy. I do remember vaguely in my BSW program, the history of social work, with community outreach, access to the basics. This is all stuff that is basic part of any practice, EVEN PSYCHOLOGISTS. If client sees a PhD Psychologist, and presents issues of immediate housing needs that puts the client at danger, and the psychologist turns his/her nose up because it isn't therapy, honestly, the psychologist should be reviewed for malpractice. So just quit this discussion that social workers focus is basic needs. My focus is psychotherapy, and I obviously integrate all the psychosocial quantities within for effective treatment. This professional label discussion is somewhat nonsense.

I do agree with PsyDLICSW, in that I wish the doctoral programs in social work can become clinical, and leave the testing to psychologists. It would be fine by me. Of course then insurance companies would have the LCSW's anymore to pay cheaply.

 

[spctle342]

Social Work is not a subfield of psychology or an alternative path to being a therapist.

I'd like to see Social Work have it's own forum here and not be grouped under psychology. Not perpetuating the idea that we are "master's level" psychologists might be a small, but helpful step toward helping misguided social workers understand that we should not now or in the future be doing psych testing.

I think I love you. My quest for graduate programs has been somewhat demoralizing, as there seems to be an overwhelming trend toward clinical practice with only tangential references to the broader mission of social justice. When I tell people I want to pursue social work, they all assume I want to be a child welfare case manager or a therapist. I've worked alongside numerous people who obtained their MSW solely because they found it the most inexpensive and effortless path to financially lucrative private practice, which to me runs contrary to the ethical principles and philosophical foundations of social work.

 

[Ecomaster]

I think I love you. My quest for graduate programs has been somewhat demoralizing, as there seems to be an overwhelming trend toward clinical practice with only tangential references to the broader mission of social justice. When I tell people I want to pursue social work, they all assume I want to be a child welfare case manager or a therapist. I've worked alongside numerous people who obtained their MSW solely because they found it the most inexpensive and effortless path to financially lucrative private practice, which to me runs contrary to the ethical principles and philosophical foundations of social work.

IMO, there is a vested group of individuals in this forum who only want to do psychotherapy and therefore only choose to see the MSW profession as being limited: Either as the "ideal" profession for psychotherapy or the opposite, in which individuals claim that they are the most "unqualified" to do so. The fact is, they're balanced, and the jack of all trades. I believe some individuals find personal affront to that.

MSW do psychotherapy and will continue to be one of the most supported and empowered groups to do so. LCSW is one of the strongest if not the strongest master's level credentials. However, do all MSW do psychotherapy? No. Is psychotherapy the end all be all? No. Intensive Case Management is just as important as psychotherapy if not more important depending on the client's needs. Hence, social workers not only work with psychotherapy models such as CBT which is highly effective for symptom management, but psychosocial issues and needs are to be addressed, hence case management!

So yes, Social Workers adhere to social justice principles, ethical standards as outlined by the NASW (naswdc.org), and want to improve the quality of life for individuals, but to do so: psychotherapy, intensive case management, macro based systemic support (advocacy), all utilizes psychological and human behavior in the social environment (HBSE) concepts. So are we out of place in this forum? No. Should we be undermined or overboasted? No. Lets just leave social workers as being balanced to do many things for those that we serve and we are golden ok?

P.S. I guess I did not address the private practice aspect of the comments, yes there are those that go to the straight therapy route as an MSW (LCSW), but imo the professional path will be different for everyone. I know colleagues that will only do therapy and nothing else, I know those that would like to do advocacy work and nothing else, then there are those who like to do both to keep their individual and group clinical skills in top shape (micro & mezzo) as well being efficient advocates for consumers (macro). And guess what? There are all Psy.D, Ph.D, MFT, LCSW.

Best thing is to know is that no matter the profession, the person is far more important concept in any intervention. So keep that in mind next time you worry if your great psychotherapy knowledge is helping out the client or not.

Eco

 

[spctle342]

IMO, there is a vested group of individuals in this forum who only want to do psychotherapy and therefore only choose to see the MSW profession as being limited: Either as the "ideal" profession for psychotherapy or the opposite, in which individuals claim that they are the most "unqualified" to do so. The fact is, they're balanced, and the jack of all trades. I believe some individuals find personal affront to that.
Eco

To be clear, I mean no disrespect to those who are ethically sound social workers with a clinical preference. Certainly, there is a legitimate need and place for such people in the profession. I think much of my contempt is based on personal negative experiences with social work graduates. As an undergrad, I frequently wrote service plans for masters level social workers who were incapable of doing so, and let them pass off my work as their own. I was happy to help, but I have some resentment if nothing else but because I can't understand what they were possibly learning in grad school that they were never trained to write a simple service plan.

My only other real experience with a social worker was as a student in a class taught by an adjunct MSW, who made disparaging comments about people with disabilities, had no concept of written or verbal communication, and interjected irrelevant experiences from her private psychotherapy practice into every classroom discussion. Perhaps I'm projecting a bit and trying to distance myself from people I view as poor examples of what social work is all about.

More on-topic, I personally don't doubt that clinical social workers could be trained to administer and interpret psychological tests, but I think the underlying concern of many is that the education and training would be grossly inadequate, adhering to the absolute minimum requirements and not effectively meeting the needs of client or professional.

 

[aequitasveritas]

The proficiency of the (ideal) Psychologist is created by the diathesis of the variations in training and then the culmination in extended pre and post doctoral training where most specialize or gain higher proficiency. Also, at the PhD level there is this little thing called an empirical/quantitative/experimental dissertation. All of this interacts to produce a clinician who can comprehend the mind enough to measure it and to describe it through various and complex assessment methods.

IN fact, this is one of the things that delineates Psychologists from other mental health workers...our profieciency and competency in psych assessment.

To make it simple:

LSCW, MSW, BSW all = masters level therapy and social work.

Psychologist = that and doctoral level therapy competency, assessment, research capacity.

This is implicit in the design on the different programs and it is supposed to be hierarchical yet not demeaning.

 

[spctle342]

The proficiency of the (ideal) Psychologist is created by the diathesis of the variations in training and then the culmination in extended pre and post doctoral training where most specialize or gain higher proficiency. Also, at the PhD level there is this little thing called an empirical/quantitative/experimental dissertation. All of this interacts to produce a clinician who can comprehend the mind enough to measure it and to describe it through various and complex assessment methods.

IN fact, this is one of the things that delineates Psychologists from other mental health workers...our profieciency and competency in psych assessment.

To make it simple:

LSCW, MSW, BSW all = masters level therapy and social work.

Psychologist = that and doctoral level therapy competency, assessment, research capacity.

This is implicit in the design on the different programs and it is supposed to be hierarchical yet not demeaning.

It's not so much demeaning as it is inaccurate to suggest that BSW=MSW and that MSW=LCSW and that any and all of those equate to masters level therapy/social work. Beyond that, are you really trying to convince us that a psychologist is inherently a therapist and a social worker and then some? Unless a psychologist has specifically completed education and training in social work, there is nothing that should tie him/her to the profession of social work. Similarly, not all psychologists are therapists. Social work =/= therapy =/= psychology. There is overlap, but your attempt to simplify things belies the crucial distinctions within ethics, education, training, and scope of practice.

 

[pingouin]

To make it simple:

LSCW, MSW, BSW all = masters level therapy and social work.

Psychologist = that and doctoral level therapy competency, assessment, research capacity.

This is implicit in the design on the different programs and it is supposed to be hierarchical yet not demeaning.

Actually, the bolded is incorrect.

BSW or BSSW = Bachelors (of Science) of Social Work = generalist practice = no psychotherapy

MSW = Masters of Social Work = depending on the track/coursework, MAY be eligible for a clinical license, which when obtained may permit independent practice, including but not limited to psychotherapy. Some psychotherapy services MAY be provided under direct supervision of a licensed provider, usually a LCSW. That's rare.

LCSW = LICENSED (not a degree) Clinical Social Worker = requirement of completion of accredited MSW program. Generally suggests the highest level of social work licensure and permits independent practice, including psychotherapy. Title of highest level varies dependent on state- in mine, it's LCSW, one state away it's LICSW, and 3 states the other way it's LISW.

Many states have now created other tiers of licensure that are for non-clinical MSWs, for those social workers who engage in community or administrative practice. This prohibits them from engaging in independent clinical practice.


Pingouin, BSSW, MSW, LCSW

 

[aequitasveritas]

It's not so much demeaning as it is inaccurate to suggest that BSW=MSW and that MSW=LCSW and that any and all of those equate to masters level therapy/social work. Beyond that, are you really trying to convince us that a psychologist is inherently a therapist and a social worker and then some? Unless a psychologist has specifically completed education and training in social work, there is nothing that should tie him/her to the profession of social work. Similarly, not all psychologists are therapists. Social work =/= therapy =/= psychology. There is overlap, but your attempt to simplify things belies the crucial distinctions within ethics, education, training, and scope of practice.

I did not mean to imply that psychologists do social work...indeed that was my mistake I was referring to the "therapy" part of it.