The Scientist-Practitioner Model: Now More Than Ever

The scientist-practitioner model has been fundamental to the field of professional psychology for over 50 years. Although other training models have been offered in an attempt to improve training or meet other needs, we view many of the changes suggested by these models as consistent with the original intent of scientist-practitioner training. We argue that the reciprocal effects of science and practice within this model, if appropriately integrated, remain an excellent fit for integrating science and practice and enhancing the quality of both the practice and science of psychology. We address some of the problems with how the model has been implemented and offer recommendations for ways to enhance science and practice integration. Finally, we describe some of the mechanisms we have used to put these principles into practice in our counseling psychology training program.     

Integrating scientist and practitioner training in counseling psychology: Practicum is the Key

Recently, revitalized interest has been shown in the scientist-practitioner approach to training counseling and other applied psychologists. The counseling practicum is proposed as potentially the most influential and effective forum in which students can learn to integrate science and practice within the counseling psychology training sequence. A series of recommendations are presented for the more effective integratin of training in science and practice through students' clinical preparation experiences in general and the counseling practicum in particular.     

Human science and counselling psychology: Closing the gap between research and practice

In this article, the case is made that human science-or ‘qualitative research’ as it is now popularly known–promises to be a better way of closing the gap between research and practice in counselling psychology than has been provided by the natural science approach to the discipline as instantiated in the Boulder model of the scientist-practitioner. Like the practice of counselling psychology, human science focuses on subjectivity and stresses the achievement of an understanding as opposed to the demonstration of truth; it stresses collaboration with participants rather than a subject-object dualism; and it emphasizes holism in contrast with fragmentation. Some practicalities entailed in the conduct of human science in counselling psychology are discussed.     

The Boulder Model in Academia: Struggling to Integrate the Science and Practice of Psychology

For many professionals, the Boulder model captures the ideals of clinical psychology. Unfortunately, it can be extremely difficult to integrate science and practice in many work settings. The present paper provides several recommendations for encouraging the scientist-practitioner model in academia. Faculty can strive to integrate teaching, research, and clinical services in weekly activities. First, it is important for the professional to retain a strong and clear focus on clinical psychology, without straying into allied fields. Second, it is essential for anyone who works in academia to learn to juggle many different activities that demand the professional’s time. Third, it is important to maintain a consistent focus on specific areas of interest in order to cultivate them into domains of expertise. Fourth, it is helpful to appreciate the synergism whereby work in one area can enhance the other domains. Fifth, it is helpful to integrate several activities into one multi-purpose task. Finally, it can be useful to view professional involvement in many different activities that could help to advance the field.     

Nathan Warren Perry Jr. (1932-2007)

This obituary is about Nathan Warren Perry Jr., who was a visionary dedicated to the integration of science and practice who helped clinical health psychology mature as a science and a profession. Though he may have left psychology behind, he left psychology ahead of where it was when he entered the field. He also left a legacy of institutionalized values and programs, as well as the contributions from faculty, students, and patients whose lives he impacted. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2008 APA, all rights reserved).     

Scientist versus Practitioner–An abridged meta-analysis of the changing role of psychologists

This study investigated factors of conflicting expectations and roles of the current psychology practitioners, as well as how these factors were associated with the founding principles of the scientist-practitioner model. Data were gathered from ten published journal articles and then interpreted using an abridged meta-analysis methodology. Results revealed: (a) the scientist-practitioner model needs to adapt to survive, preferably with the aim of becoming more versatile; (b) The majority of graduate level clinical psychology training programs are based on a flawed version of the scientist-practitioner model, which renders the training inadequate and ineffective; (c) The identity of clinical psychology should remain firmly grounded in mental health care, and so not encroach on the territory of any other psychological divisions. Implications of these findings and suggestions for psychology practitioners are also discussed.     

TOWARDS AN INTERNATIONAL PROFESSION OF CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY: AN ANGLO-SWEDISH PERSPECTIVE

Previous reviews of the international trends in the development of clinical psychology as a profession have identified the United Kingdom and the Nordic States as countries where the role of the psychologist is approximating that in North America. The article presents a review of the historical and current influences on the development of clinical psychology in the United Kingdom and in Sweden. In Europe, where clinical psychology is mainly a Health Service profession rather than a private practice, independence of the management and medical responsibility of the psychiatrist has become more of a key issue. Of the two major ‘schools’ of clinical psychology, identified in Britain with the behavioral approach of the Maudsley Institute of Psychiatry and the psychodynamic approach of the Tavistock Clinic, the behavioral school tended to dominate in Britain until the 1970s. In Sweden, the psychodynamic approach importing many of the aspects of British Object Relations Theory, gained ascendence. This resulted in a split between the more academic form of clinical psychology in Sweden, which had produced research of international importance (e.g. the role of psychological factors in stress-related illness), and professional education in psychology with its emphasis on psychotherapeutic training. Whereas in Britain, during the 1970s, clinical psychology broke away from psychiatry, became more eclectic, and entered the general medical and health areas, these changes failed to take place in Sweden. On the other hand, private practice amongst psychologists in Sweden has shown a dramatic increase during recent years and there are now some clear trends towards eclecticism in the education of psychologists. The issue of medical responsibility remains unresolved in Sweden. That British clinical psychology has reached more progressive and cordial professional relationships in this respect may be, in part, due to the status of the scientist-practitioner role that the initial behavioral emphasis achieved. The major contributions of and trends in British and Swedish clinical psychology are discussed with a view to identifying international trends.     

Psychological Assessment Training in Clinical Psychology Doctoral Programs

We surveyed American Psychological Association–accredited clinical psychology doctoral programs' (n = 83) training in psychological assessment—specifically, their coverage of various assessment topics and tests in courses and practica, and whether the training was optional or required. We report results overall and separately per training model (clinical science, scientist-practitioner, and practitioner-focused). Overall, our results suggest that psychological assessment training is as active, or even more active, than in previous years. Areas of increased emphasis include clinical interviewing and psychometrics; multimethod, outcomes, health, and collaborative or therapeutic assessment; and different types of cognitive and self-report personality tests. All or almost all practice-focused programs offered training with the Thematic Apperception Test and Rorschach compared to about half of the scientist-practitioner programs and a third of the clinical science programs. Although almost all programs reported teaching multimethod assessment, what constitutes different methods of assessing psychopathology should be clarified in future studies because many programs appear to rely on one method—self-report (especially clinical science programs). Although doctoral programs covered many assessment topics and tests in didactic courses, there appears to be a shortage of program-run opportunities for students to obtain applied assessment training. Finally, we encourage doctoral programs to be familiar with (a) internships' assessment expectations and opportunities, (b) the professional guidelines for assessment training, and (c) the American Psychological Association's requirements for preinternship assessment competencies.     

Paul Meehl as methodologist-philosopher of science: the formulation of metascience

Paul Meehl's contributions to methodology and the philosophy of science extend well beyond his widely known writings in such areas as construct validity and statistical significance testing. I describe one of Meehl's less well-known, but potentially most important, methodological undertakings: his work on metascience, or the science of science. Metascience could ultimately revolutionize our conceptualizations and understanding of science and provide considerable help to practicing scientists and scientific endeavors, including efforts to advance the development and appraisal of theories in psychology.     

Science in Mental Health Training and Practice,With Special Reference to School Psychology

The first words in the inaugural version of the American Psychological Association Ethical Standards of Psychologists (1953) declared, “Psychology is a science” (p. v). Professional ethics for all of the mental health disciplines support science (and objectivity) for knowledge and practice. Using school psychology as an example, consideration is given to the presence of science and research in the scientist-practitioner, professional practitioner, and psychoeducational training and practice models. Although none of the three models truly ignores a commitment to science, the potential Achilles heel comes from the individual practitioner who fails to rely on science in planning, implementing, and evaluating interventions. Similarly, idiosyncratic preferences within training programs could lead to a diminution of science in the curriculum.     

Graduate psychology students' perceptions of the scientist-practitioner model of training

Since its inception over forty years ago, there has been considerable controversy regarding the viability of the scientist-practitioner model for training professional psychologists. The present study utilized a combination of qualitative and quantitative research methods to assess graduate psychology students' (n=24) perceptions of this training model. Counselling, clinical, and school psychology students participated in semi-structured interviews and were administered the Vocational Preference Inventory, Form B (Holland, 1977) and the Scientist-Practitioner Inventory (Leong & Zachar, 1991). Data were analyzed using a combination of grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) and additional qualitative data analytic approaches (Miles & Huberman, 1984). A number of patterns were observed between students' perceptions and feelings about the scientist-practitioner model and their definition of science, career interests, and shaping experiences. Implications for the future training of professional psychologists are discussed.     

Twenty Years of the Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings: We Hope You Will Enjoy the Show

The 20th anniversary of the Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings is celebrated by highlighting the scientist-practitioner philosophy on which it was founded. The goal of the Journal—to provide an outlet for evidence-based approaches to healthcare that underscore the important scientific and clinical contributions of psychology in medical settings—is discussed. The contemporary relevance of this approach is related to the current implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care and its focus on accountability and the development of an interprofessional healthcare workforce; both of which have been foci of the Journal throughout its history and will continue to be so into the future. Several recommendations of future topic areas for the Journal to highlight regarding scientific, practice, policy, and education and training in professional health service psychology are offered. Successfully addressing these topics will support the growth of the field of psychology in the ever evolving healthcare system of the future and continue ensure that the Journal is a key source of professional information in health service psychology.     

Redefining the science-practice relationship and professional training.

A revised conception of the relationship between psychological science and professional practice is proposed in the light of postmodern changes in perspectives on knowledge. Positivistic science, which has dominated the traditional interpretation of scientist-practitioner training, is considered from a constructivist point of view to be only one possible foundation of psychological knowledge. It is argued that the knowledge base of the profession should be derived with diverse methods and from multiple sources, including the knowledge of practice. The mutuality of science and practice is emphasized. An evolving framework for understanding the epistemology of practice, based on cognitive psychology, is presented. Emphasis on broadened choices of research methods, the development of reflective skills, and better linkage between teaching in the domains of research and practice are urged. Suggestions for research related to scientific training and the knowledge processes of practice are offered.     

Clinical Expertise: A Preliminary Attempt to Clarify Its Core Elements

The recent emphasis on evidence-based practice revolves around an integration of three domains: client characteristics, relevant research, and clinical expertise. Unfortunately, most reports focus on the examination of current research, while few guidelines exist for clarifying or developing expertise in clinical psychology. Although expertise is more advanced than competence, basic clinical competence can set the foundation for the development of more sophisticated skills. It is best to strive for narrow domains of expertise instead of global ratings of a professional as an “expert”. Five criteria are proposed for evaluating, developing, and maintaining clinical expertise: (1) the professional must possess a terminal degree in the field, (2) the professional has accumulated multiple years of clinical experience in the direct provision of clinical assessment, psychological testing, or psychological treatment, (3) the professional has attained advanced credentials in a specific area of psychology, (4) the professional is visible in the professional community at a national level, and (5) the professional has demonstrated evidence of superior clinical skills in a specific application of psychology. Together, these five criteria help to objectify the evaluation and cultivation of clinical expertise in psychology. Because each criterion is weak and flawed if used alone, it is recommended that multiple criteria are used in combination to define clinical expertise.     

Power and Action in Critical Theory Across Disciplines: Implications for Critical Community Psychology

Although critical scholarship and community psychology share similar aspirations, the links between them remain unexplored and under-theorized. In this article we explore the implications of critical scholarship in various specialties for the field of community psychology. To understand the contributions of critical scholarship to a theory of power and action for social change, we conducted a systematic analysis of a ten-year period of publications in seven journals associated with the critical scholarship tradition. We created precise criteria for the concepts of power and action and applied them to the publications. Results indicate an interesting paradox at play. Whereas community psychology is more action oriented than critical scholarship, its actions fall short of challenging institutionalized power structures and the status quo; and whereas critical scholarship is more challenging of the status quo than community psychology in theory, it has failed to produce viable actions that challenge the status quo. We discuss the implications of this state of affairs for the development of a more critical community psychology.     

FEMINIST CONTRIBUTIONS TO COUNSELING PSYCHOLOGY

In this article we first identify and provide evidence for feminist contributions to counseling psychology in four broad areas. These are policy and leadership in the field, theory and research, training and practice, and recognition of feminist scholarship and contributions by women. In view of the evidence, we conclude that feminist perspectives are irrevocably changing the field of counseling psychology by stimulating the rethinking of its premises and models with regard to normal development and by developing new approaches to inquiry and practice.     

Comments on "Distinguishing science from pseudoscience in school psychology:" Evidence-based interventions for grandiose bragging

The purpose of this article is to provide some perspectives on Lilienfeld, Ammirati, and David's (2012) paper on distinguishing science from pseudoscience in school psychology. In many respects their work represents an intervention for "grandiose bragging," a problem that has occasionally occurred when various non-evidence-based or discredited interventions receive sensationalized positive endorsement for adoption in school psychology practice. In this paper, the implications of the Lilienfeld et al. work are discussed within the context of the scientist-practitioner gap, scientific thinking and evaluation of scientific thinking, and negative results research. The authors have advanced our thinking on evidence-based practices in school psychology and education.     

Authorship and Publication Practices in the Social Sciences: Historical Reflections on Current Practices

An historical review of authorship definitions and publication practices that are embedded in directions to authors and in the codes of ethics in the fields of psychology, sociology, and education illuminates reasonable agreement and consistency across the fields with regard to (a) originality of the work submitted, (b) data sharing, (c) human participants’ protection, and (d) conflict of interest disclosure. However, the role of the professional association in addressing violations of research or publication practices varies among these fields. Psychology and sociology provide active oversight with sanction authority. In education, the association assumes a more limited role: to develop and communicate standards to evoke voluntary compliance. With respect to authorship credit, each association’s standards focus on criteria for inclusion as an author, other than on the author’s ability to defend and willingness to take responsibility for the entire work. Discussions across a broad range of research disciplines beyond the social sciences would likely be beneficial. Whether improved standards will reduce either misattribution or perceptions of inappropriate attribution of credit within social science disciplines will likely depend on how well authorship issues are addressed in responsible conduct of research education (RCR), in research practice, and in each association’s ongoing efforts to influence normative practice by specifying and clarifying best practices.     

Pavlovian george windholz (1931–2002): An exemplar of scholarly “observation and observation” and a critical contributor to psychology,and hence to behavioral neuroscience

Although most members of the Pavlovian Society properly focus their efforts on empirical research, the scholarly, critical conceptual contributions of some individuals are also relevant to progress in psychology and behavioral neuroscience. This paper discusses the contributions of the late George Windholz (often in collaboration with Peter Lamal) as: (a) a historian of Pavlov’s life, and work; (b) an analyst of priority issues in psychology as a science; (c) a refuter of myths perpetrated by psychology texts. These contributions provide an example of the scholarly form of the motto “observation and observation,” where the data used to test hypotheses comprise original documents (often in languages other than English) examined by the historian’s critical eye.     

Meeting the Needs of Evidence-based Practice in Family Therapy: Developing the Scientist-practitioner Model

Effective models of clinical training have been and continue to be a primary topic of discussion in the field of family therapy, particularly given the needs of evidence-based practice. This article outlines the major historical and contemporary struggles of one such model of clinical training and practice: the scientist-practitioner model. Throughout the article, the principles of the scientist-practitioner model and evidence-based practices are compared and contrasted. Suggestions for overcoming the contemporary challenges faced by the scientist-practitioner in a family therapy practice or in an educational environment are discussed.