Using PHD/PsyD title in state not licensed in

Therapulse.ai - The AI Scribe for Mental Health
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
ikibah

ikibah

MSW student
10+ Year Member
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
162
Reaction score
62
I've noticed there are a few therapists out there who are PsyD and LCSW. However in many cases I've noticed that their LCSW is for the state they are practicing in while their Psyd is not (or vice versa) yet they still call themselves John Doe Psyd, Lcsw even though only one of those titles holds to be true in that state. Is this legal? or once someone is licensed in one state the title Psyd or lcsw can still be used anywhere?
Members don't see this ad.
 
This is from the APA ethics code. The bolded portion is quite clear, but allows for wiggle room. Obviously, they ca use the title doctor, but need to be clear that they are NOT a licensed psychologist

5.01 Avoidance of False or Deceptive Statements
(a) Public statements include but are not limited to paid or unpaid advertising, product endorsements, grant applications, licensing applications, other credentialing applications, brochures, printed matter, directory listings, personal resumes or curricula vitae or comments for use in media such as print or electronic transmission, statements in legal proceedings, lectures and public oral presentations and published materials. Psychologists do not knowingly make public statements that are false, deceptive or fraudulent concerning their research, practice or other work activities or those of persons or organizations with which they are affiliated.
(b) Psychologists do not make false, deceptive or fraudulent statements concerning (1) their training, experience or competence; (2) their academic degrees; (3) their credentials; (4) their institutional or association affiliations; (5) their services; (6) the scientific or clinical basis for or results or degree of success of, their services; (7) their fees; or (8) their publications or research findings.
(c) Psychologists claim degrees as credentials for their health services only if those degrees (1) were earned from a regionally accredited educational institution or (2) were the basis for psychology licensure by the state in which they practice.
 
Last edited:
erg923 said:
This is from the APA ethics code. The bolded portion is quite clear, but allows for wiggle room. Obviously, they ca use the title doctor, but need to be clear that they are NOT a licensed psychologist

5.01 Avoidance of False or Deceptive Statements
(a) Public statements include but are not limited to paid or unpaid advertising, product endorsements, grant applications, licensing applications, other credentialing applications, brochures, printed matter, directory listings, personal resumes or curricula vitae or comments for use in media such as print or electronic transmission, statements in legal proceedings, lectures and public oral presentations and published materials. Psychologists do not knowingly make public statements that are false, deceptive or fraudulent concerning their research, practice or other work activities or those of persons or organizations with which they are affiliated.
(b) Psychologists do not make false, deceptive or fraudulent statements concerning (1) their training, experience or competence; (2) their academic degrees; (3) their credentials; (4) their institutional or association affiliations; (5) their services; (6) the scientific or clinical basis for or results or degree of success of, their services; (7) their fees; or (8) their publications or research findings.
(c) Psychologists claim degrees as credentials for their health services only if those degrees (1) were earned from a regionally accredited educational institution or (2) were the basis for psychology licensure by the state in which they practice.
Click to expand...

There you go OP. You can't get better than straight from the APA.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
As has been mentioned, the use of "Psy.D." is fine, given that they've earned the degree (and I'd make the argument that it's better than folks who're LCSWs with a Ph.D. in a non-applied field such as "general psychology" who then call themselves "doctor"). Psy.D./Ph.D. isn't a title, it's an academic degree that's either earned or not.

What you might be confused about is use of the term "psychologist," which is protected in (nearly) all states to folks licensed at the doctoral level.

Related tangent: I'm still torn on folks who aren't licensed at the doctoral level introducing themselves as "doctor" to patients, as this creates confusion regarding their true qualifications.
 
I'm not fully licensed yet (passed EPPP but still have to do an oral), but I do NOT hesitate to call myself doctor. Obviously, my signature on documents denotes my provisional licensure status in my state (and all my stuff is still cosigned). But I would be interested to hear your argument for why I should not be refereed to as doctor by colleagues, the court, and patients.
 
Last edited:
erg923 said:
I'm not fully licensed yet (passed EPPP but still have to do an oral), but I do NOT hesitate to call myself doctor. Obviously, my signature on documents denotes my provisional licensure status in my state (and all my stuff is still cosigned). But I would be interested to hear your argument for why I should not be refereed to as doctor by colleagues, the court, and patients.
Click to expand...

I probably should've been more clear. I take issue with folks who, as I mentioned earlier in my post, have a doctoral degree in a semi-related (or completely unrelated), non-applied field calling themselves "doctor" when working with patients. This, in my opinion, can be particularly egregious if the person is licensed to practice at the masters level, as it seems to be a way of attempting to obfuscate their true credentials.

For folks who are in the process of applying for licensure, I have absolutely no problems with them referring to themselves as "doctor ____."
 
ikibah said:
I've noticed there are a few therapists out there who are PsyD and LCSW. However in many cases I've noticed that their LCSW is for the state they are practicing in while their Psyd is not (or vice versa) yet they still call themselves John Doe Psyd, Lcsw even though only one of those titles holds to be true in that state. Is this legal? or once someone is licensed in one state the title Psyd or lcsw can still be used anywhere?
Click to expand...

I dont even understand what you are saying? As long as they don't call themselves a psychologist there is no issue with this from a legal or ethical point of view. Social Workers also follow the ethical codes for their association and their license board, not the APA. Instead of posting on a forum why dont you actually follow the ethical guides from APA and address the concern with your colleague in a professional manner?
 
Settle down there tiger...i don't think this person is in the profession yet and was just curious. I think this area can get fuzzy, depending on exactly how people are portraying/categorizing themselves.
 
NCSP said:
I dont even understand what you are saying? As long as they don't call themselves a psychologist there is no issue with this from a legal or ethical point of view. Social Workers also follow the ethical codes for their association and their license board, not the APA. Instead of posting on a forum why dont you actually follow the ethical guides from APA and address the concern with your colleague in a professional manner?
Click to expand...

lol, have a bad day bud?
 
I know this is an old thread but I am curious about this as licensing boards don't always have the answer. When someone states they have a PhD or PsyD or EdD, they are stating they have a doctorate degree. This is an academic title. For example, I am a clinical social worker and am required to always use LCSW after my name so potential clients know (even though they rarely know) what profession I am licensed in. I have been working on a PhD in clinical social work for 4 years but have decided to switch to a PsyD. I don't plan on becoming licensed as a psychologist, however. I am interested in the program mainly for learning purposes. From what I have gathered, it WILL BE LEGAL to put PsyD after my name as well as LCSW as I will have earned the PsyD - I will have a doctorate in clinical psychology.

I do see, however, where the confusion comes in. For whatever reason, psychologists are not required to list their license. They can just list PhD or PsyD similar to physicians listing MD after their name. I am not sure why I have to list my license and other professions don't. I can see, then, how this could lead to confusion and some might think I am a psychologist even though I don't advertise to be so. I discussed this with my board as well as a psychologist whom is a mentor and it was suggested that I add to my paperwork, once I have the PsyD, that I have a doctorate in psychology but am not a licensed psychologist. I should go on to explain that I am licensed as a clinical social worker. Additionally, this is a conversation I would have with each client that walks in my door. This would absolutely clear up any potential confusion. I so believe very strongly in transparency and informed consent. I hope this helps those that have similar questions. As always, seek the advice of your board and an attorney that understands these issues. Better to be safe than face a lawsuit.
 
Shrink,
You have the right idea. You have the right to earn a doctorate in whatever you want. And you have the right to promote that you have a doctorate and that you are an LCSW. I dont think anyone on here has a problem with that, or with your approach. In fact, I applaud you for having such transparency and planning to always have that conversation with patients.

However, there is no shortage of people that intentionally blur this line with the exact same qualifications as you. They say "Im a doctor. Sure, I'm not licensed as a doctor, but I'm licensed as an LCSW and I'm proud of that. Plus, I have that education level so why not tell my patients about being a (and here's where the mistake is made) Psychologist."

I, too am a fan of transparency. I think that whatever your license is, you should use that title. So I'm a PhD psychologist. Let's say I go out and take a weekend seminar as a consultant/realtor/[insert something else]. The following week, I wont use Bmedclinic, Ph.D., Licensed Clinical Psychologist / Realtor/Consultant/etc as a title in a clinical setting. That's just inappropriate. That's a kinda silly example, but the point is that I'm not in that clinical capacity as a realtor or a consultant and the state doesnt license me to operate in that setting as a realtor, I'm there as a psychologist. It's at best irrelevant to advertise I'm a realtor, and worst case, misleading and in the gray area as far as ethics go.

I've posted before that I know a private practice owner who I like interpersonally. He's licensed at the masters level (forgot what exactly, NCC?) and also has a doctorate. He has one plaque in his office that says Psychologist. No where on his vita does it say psychologist, etc. And he knows he's not a psychologist, so why have that plaque out if he's not intentionally misleading clients, right?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Essentially, anyone using the term "psychologist" in a clinical setting is stating their licensure level/status, as the term is protected to doctoral-level providers in just about every state (if not every state, other than for some grandfathered folks). Still, I've started seeing more and more folks include LP after their name, or including "licensed psychologist" or something similar in their signature block.

In the end, it's all about transparency and doing your best to avoid confusion. If someone who's not licensed at the doctoral level but has a doctorate in a related area of study includes PhD/PsyD after their name, I'd say it's incumbent on them to explicitly state below their name "licensed XX." In the example of an LCSW, it might seem redundant to do so when also including the LCSW credential, but we can't assume that the average client/patient knows what LCSW means, and/or that they don't assume the person is a psychologist because of the listing of a doctoral degree.
 
I tend to agree with everything in this thread about how we should not misrepresent ourselves as an ethical standpoint and that there is a great deal of important for the reputation of the field. And, I can't help but wonder how much it matters from the standpoint of the clients we work with. We seem to be assuming that people understand the differences between the types of degrees, between types of doctors (psychologist versus psychiatrist, etc), and all the other shades of grey. I think we should be honest and that we should represent ourselves as having the degrees and licensures that we hold, sure, but honestly- is this more for our ego or for the actual, effective welfare clients?*

My experience has always been that the number of clients who actually understand license differences is very minimal. I'm not sure a majority of confusion related variance could be said to stem from the regular poor representation of licenses; it seems more likely its from the general misinformation circulating in the culture about psychology/psychotherapy/etc that causes the greater issue.

*And yes, I understand it can be, and often is in my view, both of these things.

Fly et al (2007) and Flynn et al (1999) make the point pretty convincingly to me that us trying to instill ethics onto trainees doesn't work. Our fight to get people to be honest in the field seems a likely uphill one given this. Perhaps the better, and more useful, campaign is one of public education of decreasing MH stigma, promoting awareness of types of therapy and that Freudian analysis is not anywhere near a contemporary standard of practice, and increasing awareness of what types of therapists/doctors might be able to best serve needs along with why.

Idealistic, I know.
 
Agreed that some of the transparency issues may be semantic, but with so much misunderstanding about what it is that different mental health practitioners actually do (even amongst other healthcare providers), that's one reason why I feel like keeping those lines well-defined and explicit is important. In order to understand and appreciate what each person does, you first need to know what each person is.

Although I also agree that concurrent public education would be a good thing. I've actually heard a few veteran-specific radio ads in my area recently, which is a step in the right direction.
 
WisNeuro said:
That nonsense is flowing both ways and has been ever increasingly de-railing threads.
Click to expand...
If he was polite and stopped engaging in invalidating and shaming behavior, all of my posts would be on topic. I would encourage everyone to help him be a more appropriate resource given his wealth of knowledge and life experiences.
 
WisNeuro said:
Yes, and responding to such with the exact same thing is the exact way to accomplish that. I must have missed that specific bit of the literature.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's the exact same thing. I'm pointing out problematic behavior. You're the one derailing the conversation at this point. See, I'm pointing out problematic behavior.
 
You are pointing out "problematic" behavior in a condescending way, while also implying some sort of psychopathology. Not only is it not helpful, it reflects poorly on us as a profession to those who visit these boards from outside of our profession.
 
WisNeuro said:
You are pointing out "problematic" behavior in a condescending way, while also implying some sort of psychopathology. Not only is it not helpful, it reflects poorly on us as a profession to those who visit these boards from outside of our profession.
Click to expand...
And what you're writing is helpful in what way? 5 wrongs don't make a right.
 
Can we please get the conversation back on track?
 
I'm glad you did. Feel free to do it with others as well. Good to see you got into the spirit of it. Keep it up!
 
All the tigers should settle down.
 
I think another issue is that there are more similarities than differences between what each mental health professional is licensed to do. As an LCSW, the only thing I am not licensed to do that a psychologist is is psychological testing. So when people seek out psychotherapy, the differences they see will be more in theoretical orientation versus professional association. I had a therapist when I was in my early twenties that was a psychologist. I had one later that had a masters degree although I don't remember which license, and my current analyst is a psychiatrist. Look at the Beck family. Aaron Beck is a psychiatrist, Judith Beck a psychologist, and Daniel Beck a clinical social worker. They all pretty much do the same thing - Cognitive Therapy - although Aaron Beck may rx and Judith may perform psychological testing.
 
I have read nothing in state regulations that list administration, teaching, supervision, etc. as being part of a psychologist's scope of practice. Social workers can do these things too.
 
Shrink1982 said:
I have read nothing in state regulations that list administration, teaching, supervision, etc. as being part of a psychologist's scope of practice. Social workers can do these things too.
Click to expand...

I think the point was that this is a standard part of training for a psychologist from a reputable program, but not SOP for a social work program. It's about actually having the background training in it. Also, in some hospital settings (such as the VA for example) you have certain "privileges" in the hospital for which you need to have the documented training to be able to do. This is something that is becoming more and more standardized.
 
PSYDR said:
Mental health specific training without licensure.

LMSW: 1 year
Psychiatry: 3 years (unless specialized)
Psychology: 5 years (unless specialized)

Also Do/PhD student indicates one is in a physician scientist program.
Click to expand...

I really feel like it's disingenuous to compare these in this manner. No reason to just pick on the MSW folks when this is true for any MA or MS. Also, for any master's provider we cannot practice independently at graduation.

It's basically another 2-3 years for ALL masters' level before we are licensed independently. I believe psychiatrist and psychologists can, right? Well except maybe residency or post-doc year? How does that work for you all?

Also, I'm guessing you mean years of Practicum? Not just mental health training in general right? Also confused why you used the LMSW? That's not a clinical licensure in most states. Were you using that for a point or? I'm an LMSW and it's just a generalist in our state.

I'm not LCSW = PhD by any means, I just want you all are to use accurate terminology/time frames if you are going to take the time to look down on us mid-levels 🙂.

I do completely agree with Wisneuro's post. I don't think, in general, most people understand the depth of PhD training. In practice people see "I can do some of the same things as you in some capacity" and the extrapolate that "it's just as good."
 
Last edited:
You are correct that I conflated lmsw with msw. Sorry.

Iirc, the MSW has a year of general theory and a year of clinical track. The MA in psych/counseling has 2 years of coursework.

If you want to include time to indecent practice, psychologists have 5 years education plus one year internship plus one year residency while MSWs have 1 year specific training and 1.5 years residency. MA have 2 years specific plus 2 years supervised, state dependent.

I can't see how stating the educational requirements constitute picking on or looking down on a profession.
 
PSYDR said:
You are correct that I conflated lmsw with msw. Sorry.

Iirc, the MSW has a year of general theory and a year of clinical track. The MA in psych/counseling has 2 years of coursework.

If you want to include time to indecent practice, psychologists have 5 years education plus one year internship plus one year residency while MSWs have 1 year specific training and 1.5 years residency. MA have 2 years specific plus 2 years supervised, state dependent.

I can't see how stating the educational requirements constitute picking on or looking down on a profession.
Click to expand...

Mmm indecent practice eh? Ha, I know it was an autocorrect, it just cracked me up.

I don't think you are really looking down on mid-levels, thus the smiley face. They way you outlined the MA or MS in psych requirements make it look like an MA or MS is more rigorous than an MSW program in general, when I don't believe that the case. I believe it is more dependent on program than degree.

The MSW has a foundation year and a concentration year, but it's not fair to label it one year of "general theory" and one year of a clinical track. Anymore than it would be fair to label an MA's first year only "general theory." MA and MS both have developmental theory classes and some MA have "how to run your business" and administrative type classes. Honestly, it varies so much by state and program that I'm sure what you quoted for independent practice is true in some state, but in most states the requirements end up being very similar. For example, in my own state, MSW to LCSW requires 4000 supervised hours. My state is an outlier though, it is one of the highest hour requirements nationwide, most states require anywhere from 3000 - 4000. For LPCs and LMFTs in my state, the requirement is 1500 hours. This may seem like a huge difference, but in practice it equals out to 2-3 years full time therapy for both degrees, depending on caseload.

Here until recently LPCs in my state could graduate from programs that have as little as 45 hours. Now they have to have 60 hours (same as MSWs), but those extra 15 hours include such titles as "social and cultural foundations," and "Lifestyle and career foundations." I would not classify those as clinical personally. Also, their practicum before graduation is a minimum of 300 hours. But to compare hours you have to make sure you're looking at total hours or clinical face-to-face hours. In reality, the 300 is probably close to my our 1000 minimum because MSW can count some paperwork as part of our 1000.

TL: DR -- No you do not have the requirements correct (in general -- I'm sure there is a state out there where that is the case).
 
PSYDR said:
I can't see how stating the educational requirements constitute picking on or looking down on a profession.
Click to expand...

I can't speak for Goobernut, but I get a little tired of that conversation because people who "...state the educational requirements..." always manage to turn two years of grad school plus 2-3 years of supervised practice into one year of school while turning what is considered a 4 year degree (although I do understand 5 is more realistic) into 10 years of school plus 15 years of special this that or the other thing. The years are broken up that way for the MSW (foundation - clinical), but I wouldn't consider theory, introductory practice courses (still practice oriented, just lays the 'foundation' for the clinical year), and courses on research, program evaluation, and policy to be irrelevant or less-than, so it's not the throw-away-year people like to portray it as when the continually point out it's only the "foundation" year. Meanwhile, these same people present all PhD curriculum as though you undergo 6 years of pure clinical coursework. By the end of the conversation, MSWs have a GED and a certificate they won at Chuck E. Cheeses with a minimal amount of tickets. Nobody would argue that an MSW and a PhD are comparable or whatever is being argued when it's brought up, things just get a little silly after these threads go on too long.
 
wesleysmith said:
I can't speak for Goobernut, but I get a little tired of that conversation because people who "...state the educational requirements..." always manage to turn two years of grad school plus 2-3 years of supervised practice into one year of school while turning what is considered a 4 year degree (although I do understand 5 is more realistic) into 10 years of school plus 15 years of special this that or the other thing. The years are broken up that way for the MSW (foundation - clinical), but I wouldn't consider theory, introductory practice courses (still practice oriented, just lays the 'foundation' for the clinical year), and courses on research, program evaluation, and policy to be irrelevant or less-than, so it's not the throw-away-year people like to portray it as when the continually point out it's only the "foundation" year. Meanwhile, these same people present all PhD curriculum as though you undergo 6 years of pure clinical coursework. By the end of the conversation, MSWs have a GED and a certificate they won at Chuck E. Cheeses with a minimal amount of tickets. Nobody would argue that an MSW and a PhD are comparable or whatever is being argued when it's brought up, things just get a little silly after these threads go on too long.
Click to expand...

Although I agree that posters do tend to downplay the post-masters supervised experience requirement while up-playing psychology's, I'd like to point out that the PhD is actually 5 years minimum--internship is a pre-PhD requirement. There are a few 3+1 (4 year) programs, but most people in them take 5+ anyway, and one one of them s Midwestern, so, yeah... 😉. I'd say that 5 is more modal for PsyDs, 6 is more modal for PhDs. Some balanced PhDs really push for 5, though.

Every MSW program I know of requires prac in both years, so it seems like they get two years of clinical experience in grad school. Does the CSWE have requirements for direct contact/F2F hours?
 
futureapppsy2 said:
Every MSW program I know of requires prac in both years, so it seems like they get two years of clinical experience in grad school. Does the CSWE have requirements for direct contact/F2F hours?
Click to expand...

I looked for an easy answer to this question, and I did not find one. I didn't look super hard though hah. My guess is that the CSWE does not have a simple answer to this because MSW concentrations are overseen by each school. MSW does have a community practice track, which would not require the same type of face to face hours that direct practice or a clinical track would have. That being said, I had a 20 page contract that my field instructor and I wrote together, according to a predetermined outline that put very specific leaning goals in about 20 different categories. So my contract was tailored towards therapy and integrated practice. I am guessing that not every school does it this way. Maybe another MSW will have something else to add?

As I understand it, the CSWE outlines competencies for MSW graduates and each MSW program is allowed to tailor their programs to meet students needs as long as those competencies are met. Clinically focused programs will meet those competencies in a clinical setting.

Now after graduation, each state has a licensing requirement for how many of those hours are face-to-face. Which I'm guessing you probably already surmised 🙂

I'm not trying to present a "social work is perfect" case here, we definitely have our problems. But seriously, I doubt they have more (or even less than) than MA/MS psych programs do. Or the psych field In general. I'm an older graduate and one of the reasons I "defected" and went with social work for a master's degree are the licensing issues (to include educational standards) with psych and counseling masters degrees. It is a hot mess in several parts of the country.
 
Last edited:
wesleysmith said:
I can't speak for Goobernut, but I get a little tired of that conversation because people who "...state the educational requirements..." always manage to turn two years of grad school plus 2-3 years of supervised practice into one year of school...

...By the end of the conversation, MSWs have a GED and a certificate they won at Chuck E. Cheeses with a minimal amount of tickets.
Click to expand...

I whole-heartedly agree. I mean it's so funny... It's like people forget you can't get an MSW through an FSPS like you can a master's in counseling. Oop and the online counseling degree is even accredited through CACREP. But yet, somehow, it's generally MSW Programs with low standards for clinical practice...
 
When you state that MSW's only get one year of clinical training but psychologists get five, you are wrong. Both years are clinical, however the first is naturally more general than the second. Similarly, psychologists don't spend all five years in clinical courses. Especially in PhD programs, there is a lot of research that is involved which does not count as clinical training. If you are going to minimize MSW training to clinical courses only, please do the same for psychology programs as well.

The APA ethics code does not apply to an LCSW. I really don't think most clients are going to assume one is a psychologist if they list PhD or even PsyD. For one, there are PhD programs in clinical social work and many clinical social workers have PhD's. PhD isn't the property of psychology. I do see how PsyD can be a little tricky as it means "Doctor of Psychology." However, as I said, I don't think most clients realize this or even care. I had a patient last week ask for an rx for depression which was long after I mentioned I am a licensed clinical social worker. The alphabet soup doesn't matter to clients. I have never had a client come to me and say "oh, I thought you were a psychologist." Never has happened. Some think I rx meds though, lol.
 
Also, you might actually read the scope of practice for an LCSW before you comment on what they can and cannot do. One becomes good at consulting, being an administrator, etc. from experience. Not from a few classes. LCSW's have a fairly broad scope of practice with the caveat that they have training in what they are doing. Same with psychologists. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. I can legally do testing but would never do it. Even with a PsyD, I don't want to do it and feel that falls under the category of psychology even though my state doesn't agree. I feel the same way about meds. That should be left to the domain of medicine and advanced nursing practice. Not someone with a masters degree in pharmacology.
 
AcronymAllergy said:
As has been mentioned, the use of "Psy.D." is fine, given that they've earned the degree (and I'd make the argument that it's better than folks who're LCSWs with a Ph.D. in a non-applied field such as "general psychology" who then call themselves "doctor"). Psy.D./Ph.D. isn't a title, it's an academic degree that's either earned or not.

What you might be confused about is use of the term "psychologist," which is protected in (nearly) all states to folks licensed at the doctoral level.

Related tangent: I'm still torn on folks who aren't licensed at the doctoral level introducing themselves as "doctor" to patients, as this creates confusion regarding their true qualifications.
Click to expand...

I disagree with you. Many clinical social workers have a PhD. Are you saying they should not be permitted to refer to themselves as "doctor" because they are licensed at the master's level? That makes no sense. Doctor is independent of a license. Now, if they have a doctorate in English, it seems to be in poor taste but I still don't see anything misleading. They are, in fact, a doctor. As long as the clinician makes it clear what their license is (which doesn't necessarily help as patients don't know the scope of practice of an LCSW versus an HSPP versus a psychiatrist). Besides, if you refer to yourself as Dr. Doe, many patients will assume you are a medical doctor. They don't know what degrees psychologists have.

I ALWAYS have and ALWAYS will use LCSW not only because it is required but I am proud of my license. It took a lot of work to get it. In my paperwork, I list I am a licensed clinical social worker and provide the state definition. I list the things I may be able to do for the client and the things I cannot. Which means, I don't do testing and I don't rx meds. There is nothing else that is strictly prohibited (and as I said in an earlier post, I can do testing but choose not to as I would have no idea what I was doing).

People get too hung up on the doctor title. Maybe because this is a forum for students, it is more of an issue but I have not witnessed this kind of arguing in the real world. When I first began reading posts on here a few years ago, I assumed psychologists and clinical social workers got along terribly. It gave me a skewed vision of reality. In the real world, I have not witnessed any of the nonsense that happens on these forums. Professionals respect each other as peers. No one goes around acting pissy because they have a PhD and someone without one is working in a similar position. I work for a large group practice with all mental health professionals and this kind of stuff just doesn't occur. If a master's level therapist gets a PhD (and we have a few) it is celebrated not ridiculed. It is like comparing who's package is bigger than who's......
 
Shrink1982 said:
I disagree with you. Many clinical social workers have a PhD. Are you saying they should not be permitted to refer to themselves as "doctor" because they are licensed at the master's level? That makes no sense. Doctor is independent of a license. Now, if they have a doctorate in English, it seems to be in poor taste but I still don't see anything misleading. They are, in fact, a doctor. As long as the clinician makes it clear what their license is (which doesn't necessarily help as patients don't know the scope of practice of an LCSW versus an HSPP versus a psychiatrist). Besides, if you refer to yourself as Dr. Doe, many patients will assume you are a medical doctor. They don't know what degrees psychologists have.

I ALWAYS have and ALWAYS will use LCSW not only because it is required but I am proud of my license. It took a lot of work to get it. In my paperwork, I list I am a licensed clinical social worker and provide the state definition. I list the things I may be able to do for the client and the things I cannot. Which means, I don't do testing and I don't rx meds. There is nothing else that is strictly prohibited (and as I said in an earlier post, I can do testing but choose not to as I would have no idea what I was doing).

People get too hung up on the doctor title. Maybe because this is a forum for students, it is more of an issue but I have not witnessed this kind of arguing in the real world. When I first began reading posts on here a few years ago, I assumed psychologists and clinical social workers got along terribly. It gave me a skewed vision of reality. In the real world, I have not witnessed any of the nonsense that happens on these forums. Professionals respect each other as peers. No one goes around acting pissy because they have a PhD and someone without one is working in a similar position. I work for a large group practice with all mental health professionals and this kind of stuff just doesn't occur. If a master's level therapist gets a PhD (and we have a few) it is celebrated not ridiculed. It is like comparing who's package is bigger than who's......
Click to expand...

I'll give it some more thought, but my take is that a person should use the title of the level at which they are licensed when working with patients. If someone introduces themselves as "doctor" to a patient when they have a Ph.D. in English, I would say that's misleading and could be seen as tacitly misrepresenting one's credentials. In social situations, sure, call yourself whatever you'd like. But standards are obviously different when working with patients.

For a Ph.D. in social work, it's not particularly egregious to refer to oneself as "doctor" with patients. However, the responsibility then falls on the shoulders of the professional to explain what they're a "doctor" in. As for me, I realize that the title typically means folks will assume you're an MD/DO, which is why I always inform my patients at the outset of our appointments what I am and what I do, and I explicitly state that I'm not a medical doctor.

And I generally agree that I haven't often seen a lot of conflict between various providers within a "real world" clinical setting. However, it does occur, and I don't see anything wrong with a particular profession standing up for themselves so to speak, whether it be psychologists, social workers, physicians, nurses, or anyone else. And when a profession sees colleagues possibly practicing outside the scope of their training, I again see nothing wrong with pointing this out.
 
Last edited:
Shrink1982 said:
When you state that MSW's only get one year of clinical training but psychologists get five, you are wrong. Both years are clinical, however the first is naturally more general than the second. Similarly, psychologists don't spend all five years in clinical courses. Especially in PhD programs, there is a lot of research that is involved which does not count as clinical training. If you are going to minimize MSW training to clinical courses only, please do the same for psychology programs as well.

The APA ethics code does not apply to an LCSW. I really don't think most clients are going to assume one is a psychologist if they list PhD or even PsyD. For one, there are PhD programs in clinical social work and many clinical social workers have PhD's. PhD isn't the property of psychology. I do see how PsyD can be a little tricky as it means "Doctor of Psychology." However, as I said, I don't think most clients realize this or even care. I had a patient last week ask for an rx for depression which was long after I mentioned I am a licensed clinical social worker. The alphabet soup doesn't matter to clients. I have never had a client come to me and say "oh, I thought you were a psychologist." Never has happened. Some think I rx meds though, lol.
Click to expand...

Depends on the program and the research. In my program, we began seeing clients in our first or second semester, so we did actually receive 5-7 years (depending on when one completed internship) of clinical training before graduating. Most folks seem to begin seeing clients/patients in year 2, which again would probably give them 4-5 years' worth of clinical training, plus whatever they do on postdoc.

As for research, there's of course clinically-oriented research that could certain "count" as clinical training, although folks wouldn't list those hours on their APPIC application as such. But with an outcome study, for example--simply because you're systematically tracking variables doesn't mean the work you're doing isn't clinical, as you're still working with patients and receiving appropriate supervision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Psycho Bunny
Questions about the doctoral thesis in a PHD/PsyD program?
Replies
18
Views
1K
Doctor Eliza
Doctor Eliza
megamaramon
PhD/PsyD Providing supervision
Replies
6
Views
860
SomeGreatNotion
S
J
Post Doc in IL PsyD
Replies
18
Views
960
psych.meout
P
P
PhD/PsyD Advice for Peds or Child Hospital Internships?
Replies
5
Views
578
Therapist4Chnge
T
M
PhD/PsyD NYNJADOT Externship 25-26 Interview Offers
Replies
3
Views
2K
psychology46374387
P
Top