Someone was interested in a Health Psychology Program...

[OneNeuroDoctor]

Here is an announcement for a new program.

Dear Colleagues,

I am writing to tell you about our new Ph.D. program in Health Psychology and Clinical Science at the City University of New York (CUNY). Our first class was enrolled in 2013 and we are requesting that you tell your most promising students who are applying for graduate study for Fall 2015.

We are excited to be offering a curriculum that provides a true commitment to elucidating the interaction between physical and mental health from a rigorously empirical biopsychosocial perspective. Students will receive a thorough grounding in both clinical science and health psychology, including current theoretical perspectives, the conduct and evaluation of scientific research methods, understanding of the behavioral and biological mechanisms of psychopathology and physical illness, the conduct of prevention and intervention trials across diverse populations and in diverse settings, and addressing health disparities in a sociocultural context.

Our faculty include Cheryl Carmichael, Tracy Dennis, Joel Erblich, Sarit Golub, Renee Goodwin, Michael Hoyt, Doug Mennin, Regina Miranda, Jeff Parsons, Laura Reigada, Tracey Revenson, Margie Rosario, Deborah Walder, and Mariann Weierich. Research areas cover a wide range of topics in clinical science and health, some of which are listed on the attached e-flyer. Further, these faculty have formal and informal relationships at premiere medical and public health institutions throughout New York City that offer collaborative opportunities for research and externship.

We will be admitting a small group of highly qualified predoctoral students for Fall 2015. We ask your help in guiding your top students who are interested in clinical science and/or health psychology to our program. Details are available at http://www.gc.cuny.edu/Page-Element...Psychology/Training-Areas/Health-and-Clinical or at our more detailed companion site, http://cunyclinicalandhealthgrad.net/ But, anyone who has specific questions may contact us directly. Admitted students are supported by multi-year packages that include stipends, tuition waivers, and health insurance. The program will be seeking accreditation with APA-CoA and, in time, PCSAS.

The deadline for Fall applications is December 1st. We would be most grateful if you were to print, post, and share the attached e-flyer. We look forward to receiving applications your best and brightest students.

Sincerely,

Doug Mennin and Tracey Revenson, Co-Directors, Health Psychology and Clinical Science Program

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[erg923]

is this APA accredited?

 

[OneNeuroDoctor]

Sounds like they will be applying for APA and PCSAS Accreditation. What is going on with developing a new system of accreditation for PsyD programs? It appears that there is a grassroots movement developing where PsyD program are going to develop their own accreditation system and leave APA. I guess this is what PCSAS accreditation has done due to many universities dissatisfaction with the APA Accreditation system. Is APA going to have an accreditation for Health Psychology Programs or Clinical Science Programs?

 

[CaliMac]

Here is an announcement for a new program.

Dear Colleagues,

I am writing to tell you about our new Ph.D. program in Health Psychology and Clinical Science at the City University of New York (CUNY). Our first class was enrolled in 2013 and we are requesting that you tell your most promising students who are applying for graduate study for Fall 2015.

We are excited to be offering a curriculum that provides a true commitment to elucidating the interaction between physical and mental health from a rigorously empirical biopsychosocial perspective. Students will receive a thorough grounding in both clinical science and health psychology, including current theoretical perspectives, the conduct and evaluation of scientific research methods, understanding of the behavioral and biological mechanisms of psychopathology and physical illness, the conduct of prevention and intervention trials across diverse populations and in diverse settings, and addressing health disparities in a sociocultural context.

Our faculty include Cheryl Carmichael, Tracy Dennis, Joel Erblich, Sarit Golub, Renee Goodwin, Michael Hoyt, Doug Mennin, Regina Miranda, Jeff Parsons, Laura Reigada, Tracey Revenson, Margie Rosario, Deborah Walder, and Mariann Weierich. Research areas cover a wide range of topics in clinical science and health, some of which are listed on the attached e-flyer. Further, these faculty have formal and informal relationships at premiere medical and public health institutions throughout New York City that offer collaborative opportunities for research and externship.

We will be admitting a small group of highly qualified predoctoral students for Fall 2015. We ask your help in guiding your top students who are interested in clinical science and/or health psychology to our program. Details are available at http://www.gc.cuny.edu/Page-Element...Psychology/Training-Areas/Health-and-Clinical or at our more detailed companion site, http://cunyclinicalandhealthgrad.net/ But, anyone who has specific questions may contact us directly. Admitted students are supported by multi-year packages that include stipends, tuition waivers, and health insurance. The program will be seeking accreditation with APA-CoA and, in time, PCSAS.

The deadline for Fall applications is December 1st. We would be most grateful if you were to print, post, and share the attached e-flyer. We look forward to receiving applications your best and brightest students.

Sincerely,

Doug Mennin and Tracey Revenson, Co-Directors, Health Psychology and Clinical Science Program

If I live to be 100...

 

[erg923]

Sounds like they will be applying for APA and PCSAS Accreditation. What is going on with developing a new system of accreditation for PsyD programs? It appears that there is a grassroots movement developing where PsyD program are going to develop their own accreditation system and leave APA. I guess this is what PCSAS accreditation has done due to many universities dissatisfaction with the APA Accreditation system. Is APA going to have an accreditation for Health Psychology Programs or Clinical Science Programs?

I have never heard of such a thing. I have of course heard of the academy of clincial psychological science's PCSAS though.

APA accredites health psychology programs (eg., UMKC) and clincial science programs (eg., PENN) and has done so for years.

What would be the point of leaving APA and shunning its accreditation? Its already a vague and rather low bar. Programs want to lower it even further now? Why? To benefit who? Sounds like digging your own grave as program. "Yea folks, come here and be inelgible to work at half the psychologist jobs in the market!"

 

[OneNeuroDoctor]

Awhile back someone posted a thread that they wanted to do research in biological psychology but had no interest in clinical psychology or accreditation. This would be a good option and since it is a new program it would not be eligible for accreditation until after it's first cohort graduates.

My understanding about PsyD program pulling out of APA is related to wanting their own organization to represent practitioners and not necessarily related to APA standards.

 

[erg923]

Awhile back someone posted a thread that they wanted to do research in biological psychology but had no interest in clinical psychology or accreditation. This would be a good option and since it is a new program it would not be eligible for accreditation until after it's first cohort graduates.

"Biological psychology" sounds like neuroscience/neurophysiology to me. And we already have (experimental) Ph.D. programs for that. So I dont follow you there.

My understanding about PsyD program pulling out of APA is related to wanting their own organization to represent practitioners and not necessarily related to APA standards.

Have you been to an APA conference in the past 25 years? Its dominated by a practice-related issues. That why APS was formed in the first place. APA was too practice oriented.

 

[MCParent]

SIt appears that there is a grassroots movement developing where PsyD program are going to develop their own accreditation system and leave APA. I guess this is what PCSAS accreditation has done due to many universities dissatisfaction with the APA Accreditation system. Is APA going to have an accreditation for Health Psychology Programs or Clinical Science Programs?

This is false. You can't just *decide* to be an accrediting body. Accrediting bodies are themselves accredited to accredit by the US Dept of Ed. This is why CAPIC, APPIC, and PCSAS are *membership organizations*, not accrediting bodies.

 

[Ollie123]

Actually I believe PCSAS is an accrediting body now. The nuances of this are somewhat beyond me, but I believe DOE is only one of the options for "accrediting to accredit". PCSAS went through CHEA in 2012. There are differences in the implications between DOE and CHEA that I can't explain. If memory serves, the reason they had to go through CHEA had something to do with DOE refusing to approve multiple systems for the same types of program (but I could be wrong on this). As an aside - just learned from their website that both Delaware and Illinois have apparently granted PCSAS equivalence to APA for licensure purposes. I imagine all schools will still be keeping both accreditations until most/all states and the VA grant do the same though.

CAPIC and APPIC are membership organizations.

 

[OneNeuroDoctor]

This is false. You can't just *decide* to be an accrediting body. Accrediting bodies are themselves accredited to accredit by the US Dept of Ed. This is why CAPIC, APPIC, and PCSAS are *membership organizations*, not accrediting bodies.

Right.... There are State and Federal Accrediting bodies regardless of association similar to APA, NASP, ect...

What is the current controversy regarding dissatisfaction with APA from PsyD programs?

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Argh. I really hope the new APA president can show some leadership around this issue, as training standards need to be unified and not divided. I like that PCSAS is putting pressure on the APA, but I don't believe two separate acred. bodies are good for the field.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

As an aside - just learned from their website that both Delaware and Illinois have apparently granted PCSAS equivalence to APA for licensure purposes.

Wow! That is big news.

On July 28, 2014, Delaware's Governor signed into law a statute granting the graduates from PCSAS accredited programs parity with the graduates from APA's CoA accredited programs in terms of their eligibility for state licensure as psychologists. On August 1, 2014, Illinois' Governor signed a similar licensing law.

 

[MCParent]

It's a tough road to hoe to call state accreditation ability the same thing as federal. We get down on other programs for this kind of thing on the board all the time (e.g., when someone wants to go to a regionally-accred program).

 

[OneNeuroDoctor]

VA is going to accept PCSAS programs as equivalent to APA programs.

REVIEW PROGRAM / UNIVERSITY

11-12-2009University of Illinois--U/C
05-26-2010University of Arizona
05-26-2010Washington University in St. Louis
12-04-2010 McGill University
12-04-2010 Stony Brook University
12-04-2010 University of Kentucky
12-04-2010 University of Southern California
05-25-2011 Northwestern University
05-25-2011 University of Missouri
05-25-2011 University of South Florida
12-10-2011 Arizona State University
12-10-2011 University of Delaware
12-10-2011 University of Iowa
05-23-2012 Harvard University
12-15-2012 University of Pennsylvania
12-15-2012 University of California, Los Angeles
05-21-2013 University of California, Berkeley
05-21-2013 University of Minnesota
05-21-2013 University of Oregon
05-21-2013 University of Pittsburgh
05-21-2013 University of Virginia
05-20-2014 University of Wisconsin--Madison
05-20-2014 Duke University
05-20-2014 Emory University
Next deadline for submission of applications: September 1, 2014

Note that the clinical science programs at Indiana University, University of Georgia, University of Illinois--Chicago, The Ohio State University, and University of Toronto have submitted Letters of Intent and have been deemed eligible to apply.

 

[Ollie123]

The VA decision hasn't been approved yet to my knowledge - its just something they are working towards.

I agree its less than ideal to have multiple accrediting bodies, but I have been viewing APA as a lost cause for some time. The resistance is so strong I'm not convinced fighting to change their perspectives is going to get us anywhere. I'd also prefer not to have a two-tiered system, but given the tremendous lack of movement on APA's part regarding this issue, I'm having troubles seeing an alternative.

 

[OneNeuroDoctor]

Several of my supervisors with PsyD did not renew their APA membership this year and they feel APA does not represent practitioners anymore. There appears to be heated debate and it could result in PsyD programs pulling out of APA and developing their own association similar to APS and PCSAS.

 

[erg923]

Several of my supervisors with PsyD did not renew their APA membership this year and they feel APA does not represent practitioners anymore. There appears to be heated debate and it could result in PsyD programs pulling out of APA and developing their own association similar to APS and PCSAS.

And their graduates would work where, exactly?

 

[MCParent]

I wasn't aware of the VA thing. That definitely does enhance PCSAS's position. If military and prison internship do the same thing then that would place them at a way more competitive position. The state boards would still have to approve it for it to be fully equivalent. That kind of screws with the APA's plans to have states only license APA-accred graduates, though, but at the same time so many boards presently allow non-accred sites, that it seems a smaller shift to side with PCSAS and just approve them, than side with apa and turn down many more applicants. Neat.

 

[MCParent]

Several of my supervisors with PsyD did not renew their APA membership this year and they feel APA does not represent practitioners anymore. There appears to be heated debate and it could result in PsyD programs pulling out of APA and developing their own association similar to APS and PCSAS.

It would have to go in the other order though. Develop the accred system, THEN not get renewed by APA. That's what PCSAS did. This does not seem likely to me.

 

[haRtwin]

UNC Charlotte is another health psychology program (http://healthpsych.uncc.edu/program-tracks/clinical). They offer a concentration in clinical psychology, which has recently been accredited by the APA

 

[OneNeuroDoctor]

And their graduates would work where, exactly?

Rarely do you need to have APA accreditation for licensure or be a member of APA to have a job as a Psychologist. They would work where they have always worked.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Rarely do you need to have APA accreditation for licensure or be a member of APA to have a job as a Psychologist. They would work where they have always worked.

...and you'd be blocked from worked at many different jobs, not competitive for many other jobs, and having to jump through a bunch of hoops any time you want to get licensed in a state.

 

[erg923]

They would work where they have always worked.

No, they wouldn't. You are thinking about internship. Which actually already eliminates many jobs these days. Take out attending an accredited PROGRAM and you eliminate eligiblity for even more jobs. So, no, they wouldnt work where they always have because they would be ineligible because their program wasn't accredited by the APA.
Why do you think I (all of us) asked the question about APA accredidation staus of the CUNY program in the first place? Cause a degree from an unaccredited program is worthless.

 

[edieb]

There is a glut of psychologists with both PhDs and PsyDs so employers have their pick from a large pool of applicants. Thus, employers set very high standards and usually require APA-accredited graduate programs and APA-accredited internships. This is just to get your application looked at. Additionally, as the only places that hire health psychologists are the V.A. and a few medical centers, health psychology is not a good career track. Most hospitals want to make as much money as they can so they will just hire an LPC or social worker rather than a PhD-level provider. The better areas are more high stakes, such as forensics

However, don't take our word for it, go to the "careers" section of APA.ORG and look at job requirements.

 

[Spydra]

Well if there is any truth to PsyD programs aiming to have their own accrediting body I'm not surprised. My guess is it has something to do with the APA's push to require APA internships for licensing and the number of FSPS that offer PsyD programs and are constantly on the rocks with the APA. It seems to me that the APA and PCSAS are enough and several of those schools on the PCSAS list are accredited by both so there must be similar expectations in terms of program quality.

If certain PsyD programs are having such issues with the APA (and maybe at some point PCSAS) then perhaps they need to actually improve the quality of their programs to not just meet acceptable standards, but better their graduates as well. I'm not sure how the attitude of "well fine, we'll just make our own standards!" will help them or future graduates. I also wonder, should this actually happen, if schools will be required to state if they were denied APA (or I guess PCSAS) accreditation and why. If I were a shiny new undergrad that would be very helpful info to have.

 

[erg923]

Argosy is in bed with the APA (they sponsor the convention for years now, which many of object to), not "on the rocks" with them. The are "on the rocks" with almost everybody else in the psychological community, except APA. Which, obviously, is a problem.

 

[Spydra]

While I likely share similar opinions as yours regarding Argosy, they actually weren't who I was thinking of. I was pondering programs I've looked at over the years that are constantly on APA probation and when asked about it all they do is complain about how impossible APA standards are to meet. If other schools have done it consistently for decades it clearly isn't impossible.

I was actually just doing a quick skim of the PCSAS site and it looks like they're only accrediting Clinical Psych PhD programs that have a strong research focus. This might explain why the VA and state prison systems are open to accepting graduates of these accredited programs. Hmmmm, this is all very intriguing.

 

[erg923]

While I likely share similar opinions as yours regarding Argosy, they actually weren't who I was thinking of. I was pondering programs I've looked at over the years that are constantly on APA probation and when asked about it all they do is complain about how impossible APA standards are to meet. If other schools have done it consistently for decades it clearly isn't impossible.

I was actually just doing a quick skim of the PCSAS site and it looks like they're only accrediting Clinical Psych PhD programs that have a strong research focus. This might explain why the VA and state prison systems are open to accepting graduates of these accredited programs. Hmmmm, this is all very intriguing.

PCSAS comes from, and adheres to, the clinical science training model (Delaware conference). So, no, they wont be accrediting Psy.D programs.

 

[OneNeuroDoctor]

The professional schools under the Argosy University system are all accredited and there are ten now.

 

[erg923]

The professional schools under the Argosy University system are all accredited and there are ten now.

Is that just on FYI, or was that in response to something?

 

[MCParent]

I was pondering programs I've looked at over the years that are constantly on APA probation and when asked about it all they do is complain about how impossible APA standards are to meet.

What programs are these? Most of the very large schools, even with poor match rates, seem not to have a lot of trouble getting accredited. There are lots of smaller programs, mostly in Cali I think (e.g., that one bizarre program that came up on the message boards a while ago), that do have trouble but they have nowhere near the enrollments of Argosys/Alliants/CSPPs/Adler.

 

[OneNeuroDoctor]

With medical schools following the professional clinical model with limited to no research emphasis, enrollment are in the 100 or more students admitted per year. Why does it work for medical schools and not for psychology schools?

I keep seeing the same ads for psychologists every month that go unfilled. Depending on who is asked there is either a shortage or surplus of psychologists.

Would the VA not be in Bed with APA similar to professional schools that advertise in APA? VA has the majority of predoctoral internships and requires APA accreditation but does not require accredited programs for other health services providers.

 

[Ollie123]

With medical schools following the professional clinical model with limited to no research emphasis, enrollment are in the 100 or more students admitted per year. Why does it work for medical schools and not for psychology schools?

I keep seeing the same ads for psychologists every month that go unfilled. Depending on who is asked there is either a shortage or surplus of psychologists.

Apples and oranges?
1) Medicine as a whole is broader. How many students from each of those schools ends up pursuing psychiatry? Still apples and oranges but at least a little closer.
2) Different fields and different training models. Clinical psychology was never supposed to be about just being trained to be a clinician. Its not the field is right now and its definitely not where the field is going.
3) Current reimbursement structure favors medical approaches. We can work to change that, but flooding the field isn't the way to do it.
4) Medicine has more oversight and while it is FAR from perfect, physicians (in my experience) have a tougher time getting away with the non-EBP "fluff" many psychology programs are doing these days.
5) Where are these positions located, what kind of positions are they and how much are they paying? Rural positions and those that pay horribly will always have a tough time filling. Extremely narrow specialties sometimes have a tough time finding the appropriate candidates. That doesn't say much about the overall labor supply. We've seen that argument here before, but flooding the field with practitioners is FAR from the most effective way to improve access to care in rural wyoming.

I could go on for a few more numbers, but that should get things started.

 

[erg923]

With medical schools following the professional clinical model with limited to no research emphasis, enrollment are in the 100 or more students admitted per year. Why does it work for medical schools and not for psychology schools?

This tell me you don't have an understanding of historical roots of clinical psychology, and likely have a very different definition of a psychologist than I (many of us) do. I have mentioned before that this is major source of people's disagreement on the professional school/psyd vs traditional programs.

However, I think a more simple straightforward answer to your question, and its been said over and over again is that these "professional school" program are, often, of poor quality. Less accomplished faculty, less accomplished students. Outcome stats also suggest that these programs are "off" in many ways. Again, we have had that debate dozen of times and all the data has been posted before. You have argued, as recall, that the data is wrong, and you presented a weird, nonsensical argument with language that no one could understand to explain how/why that is. Am I wrong here?

Would the VA not be in Bed with APA similar to professional schools that advertise in APA? VA has the majority of predoctoral internships and requires APA accreditation but does not require accredited programs for other health services providers.

The VA does not have a "majority of predoctoral internships." Does the VA give APA donations (such as for conferences, like Argosy?) that you are aware of but I am not. If not, I don't even understand what your point is here?

 

[erg923]

I keep seeing the same ads for psychologists every month that go unfilled. Depending on who is asked there is either a shortage or surplus of psychologists.

If you ask a person who didnt match in the cluster **** that is internship match, I would wager you would get a consistent answer.

And it goes without saying that just because a job announcement goes unfilled, that is in no way evidence of a shortage of psychologists. Jobs go unfilled for literally dozen of reasons. They could have had 100 people apply for all you know. Maybe they all turned it down? Maybe salary negotiations fell through? Ultimately, they hire somebody they want and is a good fit, right? Just because people applied doesn't mean that you HAVE to hire one of them.

 

[OneNeuroDoctor]

Not sure data stats for programs through APPIC but it is dependent on the accuracy of the program or internship and I rarely post on SDN so it could be other posters.

All I know is most of the psychologist I have contact with express extreme dissatisfaction with APA, the accreditation process, and they no longer are members of APA. Most are in line with the Practitioner Scholar model and they have no interest in research scientist model. Many of the listserv members are diametrically contradictory of what I hear on this site and believe psychologist need too be physicians and follow clinical model of training similar to MD/DO rather than research models of training. Even here on SDN there are a minority of posters who are in favor of scientist research model, but they constantly seem to believe they are correct regardless of reality.

 

[erg923]

Not sure data stats for programs through APPIC but it is dependent on the accuracy of the program or internship and I rarely post on SDN so it could be other posters.

No, it was you.

 

[erg923]

Not sure data stats for programs through APPIC but it is dependent on the accuracy of the program or internship and I rarely post on SDN so it could be other posters.

All I know is most of the psychologist I have contact with express extreme dissatisfaction with APA, the accreditation process, and they no longer are members of APA. Most are in line with the practitioner Scholar model and. They have no interest in research scientist model. Many of the listserv are diametrically contradictory of what I hear on this site and believe psychologist need too be physicians and follow clinical model of training similar to MD/DO. Even here on SDN there are a minority of posters who are in favor of scientist research model, but they constantly seem to believe they are correct regardless of reality.

Uh, I assume you mean the scientist-practitioner model and the clinical science model?

Regardless, dissatisfaction with APA is widespread. If you are in a facility that is in no way affiliated with academic institutions and has no interest in training students and associated training issue, then I am not surprised. But I think THAT attitude is a problem. Hence, I favor training models that put emphasis on this aspect of a psychologist's identity.

Psychology=STUDY of the mind. I have never heard a psychologist advocate taking the science aspect out of psychology. That seems dumb.

 

[OneNeuroDoctor]

The Vail Model is the practitioner scholar model and the Boulder Model is the scientist practitioner model. Research Scientist is the prior models before Vail and Boulder. Some PhD follow either the Vail or Boulder Model but most PsyD follow the Vail model.

 

[erg923]

The Vail Model is the practitioner scholar model and the Boulder Model is the scientist practitioner model. Research Scientist is the prior models before Vail and Boulder. Some PhD follow either the Vail or Boulder Model but most PsyD follow the Vail model.

Is this just an FYI or in response to something?

 

[OneNeuroDoctor]

Preference of training may be dependent upon model you were trained in:

The Boulder and/or the Vail model: training preferences of clinical psychologists.

AuthorsNorcoss JC, et al. Show all Journal
J Clin Psychol. 1989 Sep;45(5):822-8.

Affiliation
Abstract
This study examined the preferences of Division 12 members (N=442) for doctoral training models (Boulder,Vail, equally Boulder and Vail) as a function of the respondent's own training program and current professional activities. Fifty percent favored the Boulder model, 14% the Vail model, and the remaining 36% both equally. However, as expected, preferences varied reliably according to one's doctoral training: Only 7% of the psychologists trained in a strong Boulder tradition preferred the Vail model, while only 10% of those trained in a strong Vail tradition favored the Boulder model. Current activities also were related systematically to training preference. These results argue for a more informed and restrained dialogue on the issue, which should be guided by the light of data rather than the heat of passion.

PMID 2808741 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Related CitationsShow all

 

[erg923]

Preference of training may be dependent upon model you were trained in:

The Boulder and/or the Vail model: training preferences of clinical psychologists.

AuthorsNorcoss JC, et al. Show all Journal
J Clin Psychol. 1989 Sep;45(5):822-8.

Affiliation
Abstract
This study examined the preferences of Division 12 members (N=442) for doctoral training models (Boulder,Vail, equally Boulder and Vail) as a function of the respondent's own training program and current professional activities. Fifty percent favored the Boulder model, 14% the Vail model, and the remaining 36% both equally. However, as expected, preferences varied reliably according to one's doctoral training: Only 7% of the psychologists trained in a strong Boulder tradition preferred the Vail model, while only 10% of those trained in a strong Vail tradition favored the Boulder model. Current activities also were related systematically to training preference. These results argue for a more informed and restrained dialogue on the issue, which should be guided by the light of data rather than the heat of passion.

PMID 2808741 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Related CitationsShow all

I dont understand what point this is suppose to be proving or informing? That you favor things that you chose to do?

Whats next, football players prefer football to basket weaving....? Shocking.

 

[erg923]

You are well aware of the data on this issue, as you have tried to counter it and explain it away over and over. So, if you want to take the advice of the last sentence of that article, I would encourage it. Post the data and we can talk more.

 

[OneNeuroDoctor]

Is this just an FYI or in response to something?

There are different models of training and preferences. This in no way means one is right and the other is wrong as each has pluses and minuses. This is no new argument as it was even an area of focus back in the 80's. Current day research may have significantly different outcomes than Norcross 1989 study.

 

[OneNeuroDoctor]

I like this concept of combining Boulder and Vail models as in MS training following Boulder and PhD/PsyD and postdoctoral training following the Vail model.

PubMed
Clear input Search
Old wine in new bottles.

Authors
Stricker G.
Journal
J Clin Psychol. 2005 Sep;61(9):1101-3.

Affiliation
Comment on
J Clin Psychol. 2005 Sep;61(9):1033-54.
Abstract
The matrix model as described by C.R. Snyder and T.R. Elliott (this issue, pp. 1033-1054) is presented as an alternative to the Boulder model of training. In fact, it appears to be a reconceptualization of clinical psychology, and this newer vision of the field might best be implemented within a Boulder model format. The extensive requirements that are developed would best be approached through changes in postdoctoral rather than doctoral education. Interestingly, professional schools, despite being disparaged, may be the most likely place for this model to take root.

(c) 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
PMID 15965923 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Full text: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Previous
Citation 5 of 123
Back to results Next
Related CitationsShow all
Can a matrix make a training model?: "no." Let's not throw out the Boulder model.
Clinical training for the next millennium.
The end of clinical psychology as we know it? A response to Snyder and Elliott's four level matrix model.
Sharing open secrets in training future generations of clinical psychologists.
Matrix model of clinical psychology: applause or the sound of one hand clapping?
Standard PubMedNIH/NLM NCBI Copyright Help

 

[erg923]

Correct. Not "right" and "wrong." One is preferable to the other when training psychologists. Note we have different definitions of "psychologist" as I stated before.

I am not sure what the cons are to scientist-practitioner model itself. I think individual programs can mess it up if the lean on science to the neglect of clinical training, but otherwise the model strives to train students in both. If done right, it creates strong clinicians who can think like scientists because they do science. I'm not sure what the problem (con) is with that.[/QUOTE]

 

[OneNeuroDoctor]

Correct. Not "right" and "wrong." One is preferable to the other when training psychologists. Note we have different definitions of "psychologist" as I stated before.

I am not sure what the cons are to scientist-practitioner model itself. I think individual programs can mess it up if the lean on science to the neglect of clinical training, but otherwise the model strives to train students in both. If done right, it creates strong clinicians who can think like scientists because they do science. I'm not sure what the problem (con) is with that.

[/QUOTE]

Preferences are highly subjective and empirical or evidenced based may also be highly subjective. Clinical acumen or interpretations are necessary dependent upon individual differences. It is not an either/or but a combined approach is necessary when working with the Human Mind and Human Behavior. Psychology training is an evolving process, and practitioner scholars may embrace sciences equally or as much as scientists practitioners.

 

[erg923]

Correct. And the role of the psychologist is changing from one of service delivery agent to one of a supervisor and disseminator of clinical psychological science. This is in addition to being a practitioner. Thus, the logical way forward is to stop training people to only be one of those, right?

If one chooses to only do one of those after graduate school, that's fine. But we have responsibility to train a new generation of psychologists in the changing healthcare market and the changing role in which we play in it.

I think your confinement in CMHC that has no interest in research or training (by your own admission) likely blinds you to some of these issues.

 

[WisNeuro]

It's hard to "embrace science" when one had never been trained in how to do or evaluate it.

 

[erg923]

Again, different models skew these statistic to favor PhD model and EPPP is mostly general psychology. APPIC match is misleading due to imbalance and only 50% APA sites.

Again, Statistic lie!!!

Norm referenced for determining quality of programs may give misleading numbers and this is no conspiracy! Student growth using ipsative measures tend to yield more accurate predictors of quality of programs. Again...PhD bias is a self serving bias based in fantasy, and not necessarily reality. Human factor engineering as in differential program characteristics may not be reduced to black/white or PhD/PsyD as broadly based differential components due to external validity characteristics of overlapping components exist among and between PhD and PsyD programs. Therefore, confounding and extraneous variables influence outcome variables and may be misleading. There are too many similarities among PhD and PsyD training that does not provide an adequate pretest-post test paradigm to adequately differentiate between the two training models with post test of APPIC match rate and EPPP performance without obvious results being inference to confounding factors.

The second paragraph is what you wrote in response to data that was presented regarding professional school training vs traditional scientist practitioner model programs on July 13. I still don't know what this means.

So, opinion is subjective, so you dont want to debate it that way. Yet you don't really want to talk about data on the issue either, as the Norcross, et al article you posted suggested should be done, right? Because, apparently, "statistics lie?" So, I guess I am about confused. Perhaps you could clarify?