Back to our future? The Consensus Conference and Combined‐Integrated model of doctoral training in professional psychology

Abstract

Is it possible and advisable for the profession of psychology to articulate and endorse a common, generalist, and integrative framework for the education and training of its students? At the Consensus Conference on Combined and Integrated Doctoral Training in Psychology, held at James Madison University in Harrisonburg, VA (USA), May 2 to 4, 2003, participants from across the spectrum of education and training in professional psychology ultimately answered "yes." This article, the first in this special series on the Consensus Conference and Combined-Integrated (C-I) model of doctoral training in professional psychology, essentially provides an overview of the conference rationale, participants, goals, proceedings, and results. Because the other 12 articles in this series all reference the Consensus Conference and C-I model, this overview provides a good starting point for understanding what occurred at the conference, what it means to educate and train from a C-I perspective, and what the potential implications of such a model might be for the profession of psychology.

A history of Combined‐Integrated doctoral training in psychology

“…This conference attempted to distill and identify a common set of characteristics and principles that distinguish the combined training model from more conventional ones. And indeed, participants were able to agree that a C-I program intentionally combines at least two of the practice areas and provides intentional exposure to multiple theoretical orientations, practice settings, and parameters of practice, including a variety of populations served and problems addressed across the life span, using the full spectrum of relevant procedures (see Shealy et al, 2004).…”

“…The JMU conference, which arose after development of the CCIDPIP (see Bailey, 2003), 3 was attended by the directors of all 10 APA-accredited programs, representatives from the APA, the Association of Professional Psychology Internship Centers (APPIC), the National Council of Schools of Professional Psychology (NCSPP), the National Register of Psychologists, the Council of Directors of School Psychology Programs (CDSPP), the Council of Counseling Psychology Training Programs (CCPTP), the International Association of Applied Psychology, and the Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards (ASPPB) (see Shealy et al, 2004).…”

“…Within the next 15 years, only the University of California-Santa Barbara (1990) and Florida State University (1995) sought and were awarded accreditation. Since then, however, the ideas embodied in this designation have caught on, and six other "combined"-now called Combined-Integrated (C-I) programs-have been accredited (see Shealy, Cobb, Crowley, Nelson, & Peterson, 2004). (For disparate reasons, the programs at Peabody (now Vanderbilt) and at Virginia are no longer accredited in the combined category.)…”

“…The number and variety of programs seeking accreditation as combined programs have expanded in recent times to the extent that there now is a newly formed professional organization representing the interests of these programs and their students [i.e., the Consortium of Combined-Integrated Doctoral Programs in Psychology (CCIDPIP), pronounced "kid pip"] (see Bailey, 2003;Givner & Furlong, 2003;Shealy et al, 2004; www.jmu.edu/ccidpip). The establishment of CCIDPIP represents the organizational "coming of age" of programs combining and integrating two or more professional practice areas (i.e., clinical, counseling, and school psychology) within a single program and degree.…”

Justifying the Justification Hypothesis: Scientific‐humanism, Equilintegration (EI) Theory, and the Beliefs, Events, and Values Inventory (BEVI)

“…Henriques & Sternberg, 2004;Shealy, 2004;Shealy et al, 2004;Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2001). For one, a plausible model or theory is needed to account for the acquisition and maintenance of beliefs and values across a wide but representative spectrum of what can be believed, from the sort of extreme religious and political ideology that can justify terrorist attacks, to basic beliefs about etiology that lead one to prefer a particular way of intervening with clients.…”