Directors of internships were surveyed regarding their attitudes toward preinternship clinical training and current clinical training models. Consistent with previous data, considerable dissatisfaction exists among the directors relative to university preparation in clinical skills. Interns are seen by many as not well prepared in assessment or psychotherapeutic activities. Furthermore, training in these areas is frequently seen as having failed to improve over 3 years. Nevertheless, there is little sentiment to abandon the scientist/practitioner training model in favor of either university-based PsyD programs or free-standing professional schools. These findings are discussed in the context of current issues in the training of clinical psychologists.

All schools granting the PhD in clinical psychology were surveyed in an attempt to answer the general questions, What are the current practices regarding academic training in diagnostic techniques? Are these practices different from five years ago? Seventy percent of the population responded. Former training practices were compared with current training practices. Findings indicate shifts away from training in projectives with a corresponding increase in emphasis on objective approaches. Newer programs are deemphasizing training in diagnostics in general, with marked decreases in training in projectives relative to older programs. However, a significant overall emphasis on diagnostic training in current PhD programs remains.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

The traditional, received view of science is reviewed, and an emerging alternative epistemology is discussed. Current dissatisfaction with research generated in clinical psychology is documented. To determine the extent to which research training remains tied to the traditional model of science, abstracts from all dissertations in clinical psychology from the years 1965 and 1985 were reviewed. These were sorted into categories reflecting the major research designs used. Four categories reflected traditional epistemologies, and three reflected nontraditional approaches. Comparisons between the 1965 and 1985 works revealed a slight decrease in research following traditional lines and a small but meaningful increase in research stemming from alternative epistemologies. These findings are discussed in relation to future research training in clinical psychology and the continued viability of the Boulder model. After a combined 40 years of clinical and research supervision in a Boulder-model PhD program, we have experienced an increasing dissatisfaction with the lack of relevance of most psychological research for actual clinical practice. Clearly, we are not alone in our concerns. This dissatisfaction has raised serious questions for us as to what approach we should adopt in the research training of our clinical students.Also, over time, we have become aware of a large body of literature (primarily philosophical but crossing the boundaries of many disciplines) questioning the adequacy of the traditional view of science for addressing many important questions. Many authors have loudly called for a new look at how the social sciences might reorient themselves in regard to research.The confluence of these two broad avenues of experience suggest to us that now is a fruitful time to examine what messages we at the university level are communicating to our students about how they should approach research. In particular, we wanted to know whether present research training of clinical psychologists is changing in any fundamental way from previous training; that is, is our teaching of research to clinical students reflecting the growing sense of dissatisfaction with the traditional view of science? To address this issue, we decided to compare dissertations completed by clinical students in 1965 with those currently being conducted. Our STUART M. KEELEY received his PhD from the University of Illinois in 1968. He is currently professor of psychology at Bowling Green State University. He directs an undergraduate mental health worker training program, and current research interests include critical thinking behavior in college students and cognitive patterns in depression. KENNETH M. SHEMBERG received his PhD from the University of Nebraska in 1966. He is currently professor of psychology at Bowling Green State University. His current interests include issues of clinical training and the clinical supervision of doctoral candidates. LESLIE ZAYNOR is a doctoral candidate in clinical psychology at Bowling Green State University. Her...

Academic clinical psychologists are surveyed regarding their actual and desired allocations of time across a number of activities. Results are discussed in the context of current concerns with professional clinical training.Thelen and Ewing (1970) stated, "Few controversies rage in psychology today with more vehemence and diversity of opinion than the matter of goals and program structure in the training of clinical psychologists" (p. 550). There is still great concern regarding the adequacy and nature of practical clinical training within the academic setting. This concern is reflected in many ways. For example, the American Psychological Association (APA)-sponsored conference on levels and patterns of training in professional psychology, Vail, Colorado, 1973 (Korman, Note 1) endorsed the increased development of professionally oriented training programs. Also, Shemberg and Keeley (1974) reported that clinicians training interns were dissatisfied with preinternship clinical training.It is not surprising that psychologists concerned with clinical issues would differ from many of their academic counterparts in terms of basic training strategies. This, in the context of the data cited above, raises some interesting questions regarding the activities of academic clinical psychologists. One can ask, To what extent are academic clinical psychologists engaged in professionally oriented clinical activities in contradistinction to other academic duties? One might expect that academic clinicians have little involvement with practical clinical training, relative to other university-related activities.The clinical psychologist's time in a university can be allocated to four functions: (a) teaching (undergraduate/graduate), (b) research (including MA/PhD supervision), (c) clinical activities (including supervision/private), and (d) administration. The present survey assesses how academic clinical psychologists allocate their time and evaluates their degree of satisfaction regarding this allocation. Methodology SAMPLE SELECTIONThe directors of clinical training in all PhD or PsyD programs in the United States (N = 120) were asked to provide the names of all their full-time clinical PhD or PsyD faculty members. From these names, one third of the faculty of each department were chosen at random, and a cover letter and questionnaire were mailed to 324 persons. Eight weeks later, a follow-up questionnaire was sent to nonresponders. THE QUESTIONNAIREThe questionnaire covered five areas: personal background, theoretical orientation,

Analyzed survey responses from 62 directors of clinical training. Respondents reported that many more of their clinical and nonclinical colleagues would support classical experimental and correlational methods for dissertations than would support nontraditional methods (phenomenological studies, surveys, library research, and case histories.) Directors also rated traditional methods as producing data more valuable to the practitioner than data provided by nontraditional methods. A small but meaningful number of directors reported faculty acceptance of nontraditional approaches. Results are discussed in the context of doctoral research training and current concerns about the viability of traditional views of science for clinical psychology.