PhD programs.

Abstract

For the first 50 or 60 years in professional psychology, the training of a doctoral-level psychologist meant receiving a PhD from a traditional university. Thus, the early history of the field was the early history of PhD training. The primary focus of this chapter is on the history of PhD programs and secondarily the attendant conflict that has plagued professional psychology from its early days: What is the relationship between science and practice in the education of doctoral psychologists performing psychotherapy? THE EARLY YEARS Various committees and groups worked to define the content, rationale, and nature of the field. As early as 1945, the subcommittee charged with helping to define the internship experience called for a detailed survey of job actualities and possibilities for the then-developing field of clinical psychology

Coverage of PhD/PsyD differences in undergraduate clinical psychology textbooks.

“…The original distinction between the degrees-the extent to which clinical versus research training is emphasized (Korman, 1974;Norcross, Castle, Sayette, & Mayne, 2004;Peterson, 1976Peterson, , 1982)-may still be prominent and well recognized, but a growing body of research identifies a long list of additional, important distinctions. Specifically, researchers have found that in general, compared to PhD programs, PsyD programs tend to accept and enroll more applicants (with lower average grade point averages [GPAs] and Graduate Record Examination [GRE] scores); operate more often in free-standing institutions rather than university departments; provide less funding (e.g., assistantships, tuition remission), yielding greater costs to students; accept a higher percentage of students who already have a master's degree; have a lower success rate placing their students in American Psychological Association (APA)-accredited predoctoral internships; have a lower average length of time to degree completion; have alumni who are more likely to pursue careers in practice rather than research or academia; and have different percentages of faculty subscribing to certain theoretical orientations (e.g., higher psychodynamic, lower cognitive-behavioral; Dornfeld, Green-Hennessy, Lating, & Kirkhart, 2012;Gaddy, Charlot-Swilley, Nelson, & Reich, 1995;Graham & Kim, 2011;Klonoff, 2011;Mayne, Norcross, & Sayette, 1994;McFall, 2006;Norcross & Castle, 2002;Norcross & Sayette, 2014;Norcross, Sayette, Mayne, Karg, & Turkson, 1998). (It should be noted here, as it is in many of the studies cited above, that there is great heterogeneity within the PhD and PsyD categories.…”