From the horse's mouth: A case for Combined‐Integrated doctoral training in professional psychology

Abstract

Although new to many members of the psychological community, the notion of a "combined" model of training has been in existence for nearly 30 years (Beutler & Fisher, 1994). The present article is intended to outline the benefits and advantages of the Combined-Integrated (C-I) model. Following a brief discussion of the terms "combined" and "integrated," the advantages of C-I training are discussed across five key themes: (a) the high overlap across traditional practice area training, (b) the advantages of the breadth of training offered, (c) the advantages of C-I training for the professional of psychology, (d) the pragmatic advantages of C-I training to faculty and students, and (e) the benefits of C-I training for salient constituency groups.

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

“…If we are truly training "specialists" in clinical, counseling, or school psychology, and if these areas are sufficiently and fundamentally distinct in terms of competencies that must be acquired and demonstrated (i.e., knowledge, skills, and values), it stands to reason that internship directors and employers (much less the public and policy makers) would reliably perceive substantive differences between these three "specialists" of professional psychology. Available data suggest they do not (for a discussion of these issues, see Beutler et al, 2004;Braxton et al, 2004;Crowley & Peterson, 2004).…”

“…Beutler & Fischer, 1994;Beutler, Givner, Mowder, Fisher, & Reeve, 2004;Braxton et al, 2004;Brown et al, in press;Burgess et al, in press;Crowley & Peterson, 2004;Givner & Furlong, 2003;Henriques & Sternberg, in press;Johnson, Stewart, Brabeck, Huber, & Rubin, in press;Minke & Brown, 1996;Schulte et al, in press;Shealy, 2003, in press;Shealy et al, 2002;Stewart, Shealy, & Cobb, 2001;Tryon, 2000), programs that train from this perspective had never articulated-in one time and place-what constitutes a "combined" model of training, the advantages of such a model, or its unique and timely relevance for the larger field of professional psychology. This lack of consensus has led to unnecessary confusion for prospective students and employers, the profession, accrediting processes, and the public at large, and has hindered the potential of combined and integrated approaches to doctoral training.…”

Beyond consensus: A summary of the Special Series and future of the Combined‐Integrated model

“…Following the historical context of Beutler et al, Crowley and Peterson (2004) provide a summary overview of the advantages of the C-I model in "From the Horse's Mouth: A Case for Combined-Integrated Doctoral Training in Professional Psychology. " After review of the crucial distinction between "combined" and "integrated" training (see also Beutler et al, 2004), the authors describe "five keys to combined and integrated training."…”

“…The second and related key for Crowley and Peterson (2004) derives from the inherent value of receiving broad-based training at the doctoral level. Because the C-I approach exposes students to a very wide range of perspectives, theories, populations, employment options, and professional models and mentors , students are therefore not forced to exclude professional options that may have appeal and/or represent a best fit with their unique talents and interests.…”

“…The fifth and final key considers the many advantages of a C-I model for a variety of constituency groups. For example, Crowley and Peterson (2004) note that in addition to the aforementioned benefits, students also are afforded access to multiple mentors, practica settings, and populations "in the context of a "comprehensive, integrative, and efficient training" model; theoretically, the public should be a beneficiary of such "broadly trained psychologists who have experience in multiple contexts." A more coherent model also should be readily apprehended by the public, which appears to be confused about the differences between the practice areas in professional psychology (e.g., who can do what and why).…”