  |
|
|
|
I would like to first welcome back all of my forensic psychology subscribers and frequent readers. It has been quite some time since I have presented new editorials in this section due to contractual changes at Suite101 that had to be addressed. Essentially all the details have been dealt with and my regular monthly editorials will appear on the 7th of each month. For those who have followed my writings over the last few years thank you for returning, and for those new to my section on Suite101, welcome.
Note: While this editorial may appear on the surface to be of a primarily clinical nature it arises from concerns that exist within both the purely clinical and the clinical-forensic realm of graduate psychology education. The primary definition of clinical psychology - PhD training has primarily underscored the ideals of the scientist-practitioner model of clinical training. An individual is seen as most appropriately trained for a future in clinical psychology if they are educated in both the applied clinical aspects of their profession and also the experimental research aspect that it is built upon. Ideally, this model has clear benefits at producing a professional that is both clinically prepared for the environment they work within and academically able to advance their discipline by experimental investigation. It is then that with this clearly sound model, the purely clinical-oriented Doctorate of Psychology (PsyD) degree’s are beginning to proliferate in educational institutions within the United States (and are potentially appearing within Canada as well). To understand the nature of the shift one must consider the changes that have occurred within the field. Many clearly feel that the move towards PsyD education is one motivated purely by an individual’s intention to avoid the research oriented aspects of the Clinical PhD. While there is most certainly individuals who do enter PsyD programs to avoid the experimental/dissertation, I would argue that the increased attractiveness of PsyD programs may be due to a change in the nature of the Clinical PhD. Clinical PhD programs have, in my opinion, shifted the nature of their focus away from a balanced scientist-practitioner model and towards a predominantly experimental framework. If an individual compared the clinical training aspects of today with those of twenty or thirty years ago they would see a dramatic shift away from a broad applied clinical experience. In fact, some institutions seem to providing only basic training in one therapeutic school of thought, combined with experience in only an extremely low number of psychometric methods of assessment. Go To Page: 1 |
|
|
|
