SDN members see fewer ads and full resolution images. Join our non-profit community!

Update on trends in clinical psychology training

Discussion in 'Psychology [Psy.D. / Ph.D.]' started by DynamicDidactic, Dec 6, 2017.

  1. DynamicDidactic

    DynamicDidactic Ass of Prof 7+ Year Member

    803
    178
    Jul 27, 2010
    I thought this may be interesting to some on this board:

    Doctoral training in clinical psychology across 23 years: Continuity and change

     
    MamaPhD, Rivi, PsyZei and 2 others like this.
  2. SDN Members don't see this ad. About the ads.
  3. WisNeuro

    WisNeuro Board Certified Neuropsychologist Psychologist 7+ Year Member

    7,295
    5,140
    Feb 15, 2009
    Somewhere
    Actual article is paywalled, but the abstract results seem promising in some ways.
     
  4. DynamicDidactic

    DynamicDidactic Ass of Prof 7+ Year Member

    803
    178
    Jul 27, 2010
    I've attached it.
     

    Attached Files:

    Fan_of_Meehl and FreudianSlipper like this.
  5. G Costanza

    G Costanza Psychologist - UCC 5+ Year Member

    514
    544
    Jun 23, 2011
    Norcross has really been doing some excellent research over the years. Really appreciative of his work around training.
     
  6. PsyZei

    PsyZei

    8
    7
    Dec 4, 2017
    Definitely of interest, thanks for sharing about it!
     
  7. Justanothergrad

    Justanothergrad Counseling Psychologist Psychologist Faculty 2+ Year Member

    898
    491
    Mar 2, 2013
    Thanks for bringing this article to my attention.
     
  8. Peacemaker36

    Peacemaker36 2+ Year Member

    110
    75
    Jul 17, 2014
    This is a great article, thanks for passing it along. The authors do a great job describing some of the rifts in the field (and on this message board). The following paragraph could probably be used as a mission statement by some on SDN:

    "The emergence of an alternative accreditation system, the Psychological Clinical Science Accreditation System
    (PCSAS), promises to disrupt decades of accreditation by only APA. PCSAS solely accredits scientifically oriented doctoral
    and internship psychology programs and has been recognized by both the Council for Higher Education and the
    VA Administration. Among other changes within clinical psychology, PCSAS programs will likely drop their APA accreditation
    eventually (all hold both APA and PCSAS accreditation now, but have indicated their intent to drop APA). This
    move will probably create significant divisions within the training world."
     
  9. WisNeuro

    WisNeuro Board Certified Neuropsychologist Psychologist 7+ Year Member

    7,295
    5,140
    Feb 15, 2009
    Somewhere
    Woohoo, PCSAS ftw!
     
  10. perhaps11

    perhaps11 5+ Year Member

    136
    85
    Jan 11, 2012
    Another good read on this topic:
     
  11. Justanothergrad

    Justanothergrad Counseling Psychologist Psychologist Faculty 2+ Year Member

    898
    491
    Mar 2, 2013
    It'll never replace APA with it's strict focus on only clinical science PhD programs. The pool is too small to make a difference and it excludes too many major R1's (not to mention R2s) with the level of research expected- there is such a small portion of clinical/counseling PhD programs (something like 30/400?) that are eligible. Many of the well reputed schools don't have it and aren't applying for it for this reason. State aren't going to drop/replace APA accreditation because most of their state schools would cease to be able to produce licensed psychologists.

    There are just some dumb criteria. Why is their a requirement that programs have to be housed in departments of psychology? You can permanently write off most counseling programs based just this inclusion criteria and that would be a lobbying nightmare to try and dismantle a major established part of the field just to promote PCSAS as a replacement. If PCSAS expands their target and change their market some, it's more likely for them to be viable. I dont see that happening. I don't even agree with excluding PsyD, although thats due to more of the politics in some states that won't let new state-school PhDs form but will let similar training models form under the PsyD name at state sponsored schools (North Carolina). For everything it does right (focus on outcomes, etc.), PCSAS is shooting itself in the foot if it wants to ever be more than a vanity accreditation.
     
    Peacemaker36 and drwhoster like this.
  12. MamaPhD

    MamaPhD Psychologist, Academic Medical Center Psychologist 7+ Year Member

    1,656
    1,447
    Aug 2, 2010
    Not quite a "vanity" accreditation, but definitely a title that will only ever be relevant to a minority of training programs.

    While I'm all for promoting higher standards in the service of public health, I get impatient with the argument that psychology hasn't moved the needle on mental health mainly because its practitioners are so ambivalent about or anti- science. There is truth in that, but there's also the part where even a great many clinical scientists (1) lack the knowledge, skill, and/or will to address some of the most serious or pressing behavioral issues relevant to public health (eg, SMI, suicide, opioid misuse and chronic pain, etc.), and (2) have little to no understanding of healthcare delivery systems, policy, financing, etc.

    I think the accreditation issue is all part of the process of professional psychology deciding what it wants to be when it grows up, and I don't think it's a bad thing for PCSAS to be advocating for different accreditation standards. But they come off as being so focused on their signature issue (albeit a very important one) and preaching to their own choir that I'm not sure what impact they can make in the end.
     
  13. Justanothergrad

    Justanothergrad Counseling Psychologist Psychologist Faculty 2+ Year Member

    898
    491
    Mar 2, 2013
    Yeh, 'vanity accreditation' may be a bit over-critical, but if it doesn't have impacts on license and national trends because of how esoteric/'elite' it is in the field then it's little more than a back patting exercise that has gotten some attention and people get to watch. I'm really curious how advocates of PCSAS see it moving forward in the field in a feasible way. I always hear 'this could replace APA accred.' and 'this solves so many problems', but then the issues it doesn't solve or complicates don't get discussed.
     
  14. WisNeuro

    WisNeuro Board Certified Neuropsychologist Psychologist 7+ Year Member

    7,295
    5,140
    Feb 15, 2009
    Somewhere
    I'm just hoping that it spurs APA to make its accreditation more stringent. That low bar for accreditation is very low.
     
  15. Jon Snow

    Jon Snow Senior Member 10+ Year Member

    3,032
    318
    Aug 5, 2005
    I agree that some consideration should be made toward expanding its scope. I think the impetus for its creation was reactionary to practitioner-scholar trends and pseudoscience. I think they've swung to almost exclusively be interested in science. I think this is too narrow. Why not just be a division in APS, if that's the only focus?

    I think the underlying reasons for PCSAS starting are valid for clinical training in general.
     

Share This Page