The economic value of psychology in Australia: 2001

Abstract

Word Length: 6707 Submitted to the Articles section of the journal, With primary relevance to the general profession The economic value 2 AbstractThe purpose of this paper was to update the Guldberg & Sivaciyan (1995) estimates of the value of psychology based on 1991 figures. In addition, this paper expands the scope of their work by including comparisons of other related professional groups (those with tertiary training in psychiatry, mental health nursing, social work, counselling, occupational therapy, and human resources). Economic modelling indicated that psychology contributes $8.6 billion to the National economy -some 500% more than in 1991, and more than all other related professional groups combined. However, psychology incomes in most sectors have marginally decreased in real terms, and still lag 9.2% behind related professionals. The number of individuals trained in psychology has also risen dramatically to at least 37,978. Many of these individuals (17,364) have only a bachelor degree, and experience a higher rate of unemployment than both their higher qualified peers in psychology, and the national average for individuals with the same level of qualification. The ongoing lack of Federal funding for professional higher degrees, and the training guidelines of the Australian Psychological Society are likely to lead to rises in the cost of postgraduate education in the coming years. There is nonetheless a substantial economic advantage to students undertaking professional higher degrees in psychology. The implications for the profession of psychology are discussed.

Australian clinical psychology training program directors survey

“…Staff and students may thus be disadvantaged because professional doctorates require considerable more input than Masters degrees, but do not get the infra-structure support that a PhD attracts. However, as indicated by Patrick (2005), doing the professional doctorate program rather than a Masters degree appears to have financial advantages for most students on completion of the program. The increased professionalisation may also be important to the profession of psychology more generally.…”

“…There is also a financial problem with increasing student numbers in programs. Patrick (2005) demonstrated that ''Even with a larger number of students, a larger Masters programme could not generate a revenue-to-cost surplus given the APS guidelines to maintain a minimum student/staff ratio' ' (p. 154). Increasing student numbers without increasing fees would thus be a false economy.…”

International Perspectives on Psychotherapy

“…The trend for public health settings to employ clinical psychologists in case manager positions that do not utilise their specialist skills further undermine the identity and status of clinical psychology (Lancaster & Smith, 2002). Furthermore, the 4+2 pathway to registration as a psychologist may well have contributed to lower perceived status of psychologists among other health professionals (Patrick, 2005). There have been numerous calls for clinical psychologists to become the specialists in the provision of psychological services, and adopt the responsibilities that this leadership role suggests including greater involvement in health policy development, increased engagement with (and education of) other health professionals, and the consolidation of all clinically-focused areas of practice under the specialist title of clinical psychology (Helmes & Wilmoth, 2002;Hunt & Hyde, 2013;Lancaster & Smith, 2002).…”

Issues in training in clinical psychology in Australia: Interplay between training goals and legal standards of practice

“…Legally unregulated therapists may be regarded as a danger to the public (Service, 2004), but stronger evidence than claims from regulated professions is required before such conclusions can be drawn, for obviously there are equal dangers from improperly trained, regulated therapists. It is also arguable that the continuation of the 4-year model has led to comparatively modest levels of remuneration for psychologists in some States and to lower perceived status among healthcare professionals (Patrick, 2005).…”