Title Confusion

[Grenth]

---

Members don't see this ad.

The recent thread on what's my title made me wonder about this situation.
At the school I earned my MA MFT at (which had a lot of issues and was why I was so careful choosing a PhD program to advance to this fall) there are a couple of faculty who referred to themselves as psychologists, but do not hold a psychologist license. In one case the professor has a PhD in counselor education and an MFT and a LMHC license and in another case the professor has a PsyD and has an inactive psychologist associate license and an active MFT license. Both of these faculty see clients regularly outside of their academic work, and advertise as psychologists. As far as I can tell the term psychologist is protected under state law to those with a psychologist license.
Is this just a minor quibble or should I address this with someone/some entity? I don't feel comfortable talking to the faculty directly about it.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Using the term "psychologist" in an academic setting is often (at least in the reading of states' laws that I've done) allowed if one holds a doctorate in psychology. Using it while working with clients, if not licensed as a psychologist, may be in violation of state laws. Either way, the individual with a doctorate in counselor education seems to be stretching things by using the title in any capacity, based on the information provided.

I'd read the regulations for the specific state, and then consider your options RE: reporting it to a regulatory board.

 

[Grenth]

Using the term "psychologist" in an academic setting is often (at least in the reading of states' laws that I've done) allowed if one holds a doctorate in psychology. Using it while working with clients, if not licensed as a psychologist, may be in violation of state laws. Either way, the individual with a doctorate in counselor education seems to be stretching things by using the title in any capacity, based on the information provided.

I'd read the regulations for the specific state, and then consider your options RE: reporting it to a regulatory board.

Thank you for the reply. The state law says this
" it is unlawful for any person to whom this chapter applies to represent himself or herself to be a psychologist without first obtaining a license as provided in this chapter. A person represents himself or herself to be a psychologist when the person adopts or uses any title or any description of services which incorporates one or more of the following terms: "psychology," "psychological," "psychologist," or any term of like import."

then it says this

"This chapter shall not apply to:
Any person teaching, lecturing, consulting, or engaging in research in psychology but only insofar as such activities are performed as a part of or are dependent upon a position in a college or university"

The private practices of these individuals are not affiliated with the university, so are they still covered? Additionally as they are marriage and family therapy department faculty under a non-psychology college, would that exemption even apply? I'd consult with someone local, but I don't have any connections in the psychologist world there.

I'm not sure if it's worth bothering the regulatory board over? I don't want to be overzealous if this is just a technical thing.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I don't read it as indicating that they have to be affiliated with a psychology department specifically to use the title in research settings/activities, just that their work has to be academically-related. So at least for the individual with a doctorate in psychology (i.e., the PsyD), he/she seems to be fine in using the psychologist title in academic pursuits.

However, RE: the private practices, it seems they're in violation of the statute. Regardless of what degree(s) they hold, they aren't licensed as psychologists, and so would appear to be prohibited from using that title in clinical settings.

 

[CheetahGirl]

The recent thread on what's my title made me wonder about this situation.
At the school I earned my MA MFT at (which had a lot of issues and was why I was so careful choosing a PhD program to advance to this fall) there are a couple of faculty who referred to themselves as psychologists, but do not hold a psychologist license. In one case the professor has a PhD in counselor education and an MFT and a LMHC license and in another case the professor has a PsyD and has an inactive psychologist associate license and an active MFT license. Both of these faculty see clients regularly outside of their academic work, and advertise as psychologists. As far as I can tell the term psychologist is protected under state law to those with a psychologist license.
Is this just a minor quibble or should I address this with someone/some entity? I don't feel comfortable talking to the faculty directly about it.

The state law says this
" it is unlawful for any person to whom this chapter applies to represent himself or herself to be a psychologist without first obtaining a license as provided in this chapter. A person represents himself or herself to be a psychologist when the person adopts or uses any title or any description of services which incorporates one or more of the following terms: "psychology," "psychological," "psychologist," or any term of like import."

RE: the private practices, it seems they're in violation of the statute. Regardless of what degree(s) they hold, they aren't licensed as psychologists, and so would appear to be prohibited from using that title in clinical settings.

I agree. How astute of you, Grenth!

IMO both are misrepresenting themselves as psychologists. They can certainly call themselves "doctor," because they earned doctorates (e.g., PhD in counselor education, and PsyD) but if they have not earned or maintained the status of licensed psychologist, they may not call themselves one. Kind of a blow to the ego, if they get called out on it, but if they are professors in a university/school/program, they should maintain ethical and professional standards and not exemplify inaccuracy.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Yup…that is sketchy.

 

[ikibah]

Thank you for the reply. The state law says this
" it is unlawful for any person to whom this chapter applies to represent himself or herself to be a psychologist without first obtaining a license as provided in this chapter. A person represents himself or herself to be a psychologist when the person adopts or uses any title or any description of services which incorporates one or more of the following terms: "psychology," "psychological," "psychologist," or any term of like import."

then it says this

"This chapter shall not apply to:
Any person teaching, lecturing, consulting, or engaging in research in psychology but only insofar as such activities are performed as a part of or are dependent upon a position in a college or university"

The private practices of these individuals are not affiliated with the university, so are they still covered? Additionally as they are marriage and family therapy department faculty under a non-psychology college, would that exemption even apply? I'd consult with someone local, but I don't have any connections in the psychologist world there.

I'm not sure if it's worth bothering the regulatory board over? I don't want to be overzealous if this is just a technical thing.

This is interesting seeing it worded like that. I wonder if this causes issues for masters level therapists with PsyD's who don't call themselves psychologist but put the "PsyD" title after their name. After all PsyD does stand for doctor of psychology.

 

[DrMikeP]

My state recommends you first contact the person and inform them of the issue before notifying the board. depending on what state they were licensed in they may not be aware, not that it's an excuse but if the person has a doctorate then it would be professional courtesy.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

 

[smalltownpsych]

If they are not licensed psychologists and they are advertising in writing that they are then that is extremely deceptive and in most states illegal. I would think that the board should be notified of this infraction.