Curriculum and training reform in clinical psychology: Improving the integration of science and practice

Current graduate curricula do not fully grapple with and take advantage of the dialectical interplay of science and practice that is at the core of the scientist—practitioner (Boulder) model. This article addresses factors that interfere with the realization of the Boulder model and offers suggestions for curriculum reform. It emphasizes the importance of both science and practice, as well as the merit of both nomothetic and idiographic approaches to clinical training. The article discusses how academic politics often interfere with the incorporation of empirically supported treatments or assessment methods into training programs. Even when evidence-based approaches are a part of the curriculum, the challenges continue. Because empirically supported treatments are almost always associated with treatment manuals that rely on categorically defined diagnostic categories, they may inadvertently discourage idiographic functional analyses and the appreciation of underlying change principles. In addition, in light of the fact that many, if not most, students eventually pursue applied careers and because science-based interventions and assessment methods are currently underused by clinicians in the field, it is argued that clinical training should receive more recognition in scientist—practitioner programs. Programs should be mindful of the need to prepare a certain subset of interested students for scientifically based careers in applied settings. This article also highlights the importance of educating and training students in communicating and disseminating science-based clinical psychology to nonacademic psychologists and health professionals from other disciplines.