Counseling Psychology’s Ambivalent Relationship with Master’s-Level Training

Abstract

Inspired by efforts by those who seek to redefine the practice of psychology as a master'slevel specialty, the authors examine counseling psychology's heightened ambivalence regarding master's-level training. First, they present a historical review of this issue. Next, they discuss current social and political pressures that, they suggest, have resulted in renewed tensions in the training of master's-level practitioners for the field of counseling psychology. They conclude with specific recommendations regarding the manner in which counseling psychology should (a) train master '-level providers, (b) attempt to document the added value doctoral training, and (c) politically respond to this issue.Within the American Psychological Association (APA), the master'sversus doctoral-level issue has traditionally been conceptualized as a debate regarding the allocation of responsibilities. Although the field of psychology has at times varied in its stance, there is a great deal of consistency with the position that (a) master's-level professionals should work under the supervision of psychologists and be assigned duties commensurate with their education and (b) that the doctorate is the requisite degree for the title of psychologist and independent practice (APA, 1947; APA Committee on Subdoctoral Education, 1955). Consequently, for many psychologists, distinctions between doctoral-and master's-level professionals seem self-evident: The psychologist is the primary provider of psychological services, and the person with a master's degree is a supervised extender of these services.Within the subspecialty of counseling psychology, a more specific debate transpired that focused on defining appropriate roles, responsibilities, and

Effective training in clinical and counselling psychology: Not as simple as it sounds

“…Christenson and Jacobson (1994) suggested that we consider what training specific types of interventions require. Rather than provide extensive and general training, perhaps we need to consider what amount and kind of training is "good enough" to provide a specific treatment (McPherson, Pisecco, Elman, Crosbie-Burnett, & Sayger, 2000). In thinking about what training is necessary to develop skills in particular forms of intervention, we need also to think about how long a training period is required.…”

“…Is this a reasonable suggestion, and if so, for what purpose would advanced training be necessary? McPherson et al (2000) implied that the basic value of postgraduate training is its bestowal of prestige. In the American context, they suggested that if masters-level trained practitioners obtain full licensure, this would "redefine the practice of psychology as a subdoctoral profession, establish an indifference to the distinctiveness of doctoral training for psychological practice, and devalue the scientist-practitioner training model" (P. 688).…”

Postgraduate Research Experience Questionnaire: reliability and factor structure with Master’s in Nursing graduates

“…2001, Hardwick & Jordan 2002, AACN 2005). However, core elements have been found that are not only generic to nursing but also to other Master’s programmes in the social and behavioural sciences, arts, engineering and education (Atkins & Redley 1998, Cervero 2000, McPherson et al. 2000Cabrera et al.…”

Quality of Master’s Education

“…Contributing to the ambivalent relationship of counseling psychology to master's training, McPherson et al (2000) noted that in 1947, APA recommended the discontinuation of master's degrees for "lower level" psychological work. In contrast, however, in 1955 the APA Committee on Subdoctoral Education endorsed a two-year master's curriculum to address the surge of need for psychological services following World War II.…”