Comments on "Retrospect: Psychology as a profession" by J. McKeen Cattell (1937).

Garfield, Sol L.

doi:10.1037/0022-006x.60.1.9

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 20 publications

(30 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The development of standards of practice in psychotherapy would shift the professional-paraprofessional debate from who is entitled to practice to when is a therapist considered competent. Both Garfield (1992) and Sechrest (1992), writing in the issue of the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology celebrating APA's centennial year, underscored the importance of psychologists being more oriented towards research and the production of knowledge and less orientated towards practice. The evidence on the value of paraprofessional therapists should further encourage clinical psychologists to be more concerned with addressing the many unanswered issues relating to psychotherapy and associated issues, rather than jockeying for position.…”

Section: Implications For Practitionersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Another dodo bird verdict? revisiting the comparative effectiveness of professional and paraprofessional therapists

Faust

Zlotnick

1995

Clin Psychology and Psychoth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examine major criticisms of studies comparing paraprofessionals' and professionals' therapeutic effectiveness. Such analysis does not support the contention that methodological weaknesses of the studies produced systematic biases against professional therapists. Thus, despite common beliefs to the contrary, the finding that formal training does not predict successful therapy appears sound. We discuss the implications of this finding for research, training, and clinical practice.

show abstract

Section: Implications For Practitionersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Another dodo bird verdict? revisiting the comparative effectiveness of professional and paraprofessional therapists

Faust

Zlotnick

1995

Clin Psychology and Psychoth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To use a current popular phrase, the scientist–practitioner would find him- or herself “between a rock and a hard place” in any of the scenarios presented by Rice (1997). Although the situation today is by no means ideal, scientist–practitioners maintain their unique identity in university departments of psychology, in various departments in medical schools (Garfield, 1992), in selected clinical settings, and in some other types of research-oriented organizations. The latter include the Division of Clinical Psychology and specifically the Section for a Science of Clinical Psychology, The American Association of Applied and Preventative Psychology affiliated with the American Psychological Society, the Association for the Advancement of Behavior Therapy, and some international multidisciplinary organizations.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The future and the scientist–practitioner split.

Garfield¹

1998

American Psychologist

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

able citing it, as it was being revised (and thus superseded) to appear as Greenwaid (1997) and Greenwald and Gillmore (1997a) alongside Marsh and Roche (1997). We believe that our reference to Haskell (1997) was a sufficient, appropriately documented, and scholarly representation of his interpretation of the grading-leniency literature, reliant as his summary was on the Greenwald material. Our intentionally inclusive reference to "such dubious but popular interpretations" ( Marsh & Roche, 1997, p. 1191 i.e., like those mentioned in the preceding sentence) encompasses Haskell's (1997) summary of the grading-leniency literature and Greenwald's grading-leniency work .that he cited.We subsequently outlined major weaknesses in the field studies and described other research that undermines claims that grading leniency represents a serious threat to the validity of SETs. In his revised version, Greenwald (1997) acknowledged that the critical reviews of the grading-leniency field studies "deserve serious consideration" (p. 1183), but avoided answering specific published criticisms, instead characterizing such critiques rather dismissively as "speculation." We maintain that these various weaknesses, and extensive contrary empirical evidence both new and old (see Marsh & Roche, 1997, 1998 provide a strong basis for characterizing as mere "speculation," any conclusion that reported group differences, where significant, actually represent effects of grading leniency. Following from brief comments in our postscript, Marsh and Roche (1998) document in greater detail our concerns (which have not diminished in relation to the revised versions) about Greenwald (1997), Greenwald and Gillmore (1997a), and Greenwald and Gillmore (1997b, the published version of Haskell's Greenwald & Gillmore reference). These studies draw causal conclusions from correlational data by comparing three (or four) straw-person theories with a pet theory. They are hardly "sophisticated" as Haskell (1997) claimed, and provide no "strong evidence" of grading-leniency bias.Haskell 's (1997, 1998) attempts to sideline the issue of SET validity are contradicted by his footnote, which acknowledges its centrality to his main thesis. His article relies on the dubious assumption that students in his anecdotal reports are, for whatever mysterious reason, not providing valid SETs, but are instead either exacting revenge or just plain wrong about what's good for them. It is not the nonstatistical or contextual nature of such views that defines them as "popular," but the fact that they find an uncritical, accepting audience among a segment of academics, despite flying in the face of the best available evidence and the most comprehensive and authoritative reviews.

show abstract

“…Who better to reflect again on these issues some 55 years later than Sol Garfield (1992) and Lee Sechrest (1992), whose own distinguished careers in the tradition of the scientist-professional rival those of both Cattell and Woodworth. Garfield provides thoughtful comment on both the accuracies and inaccuracies of Cattell’s predictions and reflects on the emergence of issues and problems that could never have been foreseen in Cattell’s day.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Editor’s introduction: APA’s centennial year with the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology.

Beutler¹

1992

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nineteen ninety-two marks the centennial year of the American Psychological Association (APA). It also marks the 55th anniversary of the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (JCCP; formerly titled the Journal of Consulting Psychology). JCCP is happy to join the celebration of APAs 100th year. Accordingly, in each of the regular issues published this year, we will reprint an article from the JCCP archives, each of which has been chosen either because it proved to be a signal work in directing the field or because its content aptly illustrates the progress that has been made. I have experienced great pleasure in reading the words of past masters and believe that you, too, will hail the timeliness of many of their ideas and will be amused by some of their faltering steps to develop the fledgling profession of clinical psychology.This issue of JCCP kicks offour centennial celebration with the reproduction of two articles from the first issue of the Journal of Consulting Psychology. These two articles were originally published in 1937 and were the two lead articles of the issue. Aptly, the articles were written by the leading scholars of the day in the emerging field of clinical psychology and each respectively reflected on the past and future of the discipline. To place these articles in the context of the still evolving history of the field, each article is accompanied by a comment by an eminent, contemporary scholar. Each of these commentators is a past president of the Division of Clinical Psychology, and in both cases, their own work places them as scholarly peers to those giants of the past on whose words they have been asked to comment.J. McKeen CattelFs (1937/1992) retrospective analysis of "psychology as a profession" tracks the emergence of psychology in professional practice, placing it in juxtaposition to the evolution of the APA itself. Cattell articulated in the strongest of terms the need for both a profession and a science of psychology. Similarly, Robert S. Woodworth's (1937Woodworth's ( /1992) introduction to the first issue revealed him as an optimist who believed that our tie to science would lead us to increasing competence as we separated ourselves from medical traditions and archaic beliefs.Who better to reflect again on these issues some 55 years later than Sol Garfield (1992) and Lee Sechrest (1992), whose own distinguished careers in the tradition of the scientist-professional rival those of both Cattell and Woodworth. Garfield provides thoughtful comment on both the accuracies and inaccuracies of CattelFs predictions and reflects on the emergence of issues and problems that could never have been foreseen in Cattell's day. At the same time, Sechrest observes that Woodworth's hope for a unified profession built on established competencies has yet to be realized. His comments draw attention to the contradiction between our avowed levels of expertise and knowledge, on one hand, and the areas in which we have demonstrated competencies, on the other. He maintains that we are yet to demons...

show abstract

Comments on "Retrospect: Psychology as a profession" by J. McKeen Cattell (1937).

Cited by 5 publications

References 20 publications

Another dodo bird verdict? revisiting the comparative effectiveness of professional and paraprofessional therapists

Another dodo bird verdict? revisiting the comparative effectiveness of professional and paraprofessional therapists

The future and the scientist–practitioner split.

Editor’s introduction: APA’s centennial year with the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About