On the process and outcome of graduate training in clinical psychology: Where do we want to go, how will we get there, and who will join us?

Abstract

The study by Ilardi et al. (this issue) follows a tradition of evaluating clinical Ph.D. programs by the number of graduates engaged in clinical versus research activities. The separation of outcomes into these two categories reflects difficulty in the field defining meaningful integrations of science and practice. We suggest that this difficulty arises regularly in the experiences of clinical graduate students, and that the process of graduate education is ripe for systematic study. An analogy is drawn between psychotherapy research and graduate training leading to a focus on links between individual student and program differences, educational processes, and varieties of educational outcomes.

Filling the Gaps of Graduate School Training: Perceived Relevance and Efficacy of the New School Psychology Bulletin

“…As predicted, differences in research interests emerged as a function of career goals. Consistent with previous findings (Parker & Detterman, 1983;Perl & Kahn, 1986) and speculations (Addis & Jacob, 2000), individuals pursuing careers solely in clinical work reported less current interest in research and were more likely to view research as a means of graduating, rather than something that they were genuinely interested in. Clinically-oriented individuals were also less likely to view the NSPB as effective in providing valuable skills in publishing and peer review, and less relevant for the training of clinical psychologists.…”

“…It is worth noting that the APA puts emphasis on combined practical and experimental training, and views student involvement in research activities as an important factor in APA accreditation (APA: Committee on Accreditation, 2005). However, although many psychology programs claim to offer a scientistpractitioner model, establishing a program that provides students with a balance of science and practice has proven to be difficult (Addis & Jacob, 2000;Bernstein & Kerr, 1993;Maher, 1999). Parker and Detterman (1986) conducted a survey among clinical psychology graduate students and found substantial support for a specialized clinical or research-oriented model, rather than that of a scientist-practitioner.…”

A model and method for “making” a Combined‐Integrated psychologist: Equilintegration (EI) Theory and the Beliefs, Events, and Values Inventory (BEVI)

“…Such a perspective is consistent with the call from John Norcross (Castle & Norcross, 2002;Norcross, 2003) for C-I programs to explicitly endorse an integrative model, and is highly congruent with the work of leading psychotherapy and training "integrationists" in our profession and field (cf. Addis & Jacob, 2000;Beutler, 1999;Castonguay, 2000;Halgin, 1999;Norcross, 2002;Norcross & Beutler, 2000;Wolfe, 2000). In practice, this integrative vision acts as a lens of sorts through which all facets of doctoral-level education and training in professional psychology-practice areas, theories, presenting problems, professional settings, and populations served-should be seen.…”

“…More specifically, the integrative "half" of EI Theory is derivative of (a) decades of work within the therapy outcome and process literature; (b) the growing chorus of voices noting that the complexity inherent in training professional psychologists, assessing clinical status, and facilitating clinical change cannot be understood and negotiated via a single theoretical orientation, therapeutic method, or mental health profession; and (c) the view that different subfields (e.g., abnormal, biological, clinical, cognitive, counseling, cultural, developmental, family, personality, political, and social) have information and perspectives that should be considered by educators, practitioners, and researchers with an interest in these phenomena (cf. Addis & Jacob, 2000;Beutler, 1999;Castonguay, 2000;Curtis, 1991;Goldfried & Norcross, 1995;Halgin, 1999;Kowalski & Leary, 1999;Lambert, 2001;Lampropoulos, 2000;Muran, 2001;Neimeyer & Raskin, 2000;Norcross, 1986Norcross, , 2002Norcross & Beutler, 2000;Ochsner & Lieberman, 2001;Prochaska & Norcross, 1999;Roth & Kulb, 1997;Seligman, 1995;Shealy, 1995Shealy, , 2002Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2001;Strupp, 1986Strupp, , 1996Wachtel, 1997;Wolfe, 2000;York & Cooper, 2001).…”

Empirically Supported Treatment endeavour: A successful future or inevitable debacle?

“…Due to the seemingly rigid boundaries between research and clinical practice, however, dissemination of useful and supported intervention strategies fails to be implemented within the clinical arena. Investigators argue that dissemination of evidencebased clinical decision making and empirically supported treatments is unsuccessful due to several factors, including that packaged psychotherapy products are not always viable to practising clinicians, that efficacy data in different contexts continue to be scanty, that suitability of products to clinicians has not been conclusively determined, and that the hierarchical approach from research to practice for treatment dissemination is unacceptable to practising clinicians (Addis, 2002;Addis & Jacob, 2000;Addis & Waltz, 2002). Hunsley et al (1999b) recommend that practice guidelines be implemented whereby global suggestions for application of procedures, rather than specific techniques, become increasingly utilised among service deliverers.…”