Annotated Bibliography PSY 502: Professional Issues in Psych

Annotated Bibliography PSY 502: Professional Issues in Psych
A Sample Answer For the Assignment: Annotated Bibliography PSY 502: Professional Issues in Psych
Title: Annotated Bibliography PSY 502: Professional Issues in Psych

Annotated Bibliography PSY 502: Professional Issues in Psych

As you see in the assignment description of the essay, you are required to cite the text chapter Training and Practice Issues-2.pdf Actions , one supplemental material, and two peer reviewed articles from your own research. Remember to utilize all available library tutorials on how to conduct a literature review and how to find peer reviewed research sources: https://lib.asu.edu/tutorials An annotated bibliography is similar to a reference list, except that each reference includes a brief summary of each article or other source that is included. You must summarize the articles in your own words. You also must be sure to read the entire article and give a summary of the entire article. Do not give into the temptation of reading and summarizing only the abstract of the article. • • Click HERE Links to an external site. for a longer, general explanation of an annotated bibliography and what it should entail. Click HERE Links to an external site. to see how to be sure to properly format your annotated bibliography in APA format, and to see an example annotated bibliography in APA style. Point Breakdown: The required text chapter is included. This source is properly summarized. A full, properly formatted APA-style citation is included: 3 points At least one relevant source from the course supplemental materials is included. This source is properly summarized. A full, properly formatted APA-style citation is included: 3 points At least two relevant articles from peer-reviewed journals are included. These sources are properly summarized. A full, properly formatted APA-style citation is included: 4 points Rubric Annt Bib Annt Bib Criteria This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcometext chapter This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcomesupp material This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcomepeer reviewed articles Total Points: 10 Ratings Pts 3 pts Excellent The required text chapter is included. This source is properly summarized. A full, properly formatted APA-style citation is included. 2.75 pts Very Good Almost all of the criteria for a score of “excellent” are met. 2.5 pts Good Most of the criteria for a score of “excellent” are met. 2.25 pts Fair Required text is included but not properly summarized and/or properly cited. 1.5 pts Poor Citation is missing and source is not properly summarized. 0 pts Missing 3 pts Excellent At least one relevant source from the course supplemental materials is included. This source is properly summarized. A full, properly formatted APA-style citation is included: 2.75 pts Very Good Almost all of the criteria for a score of “excellent” are met. 2.5 pts Good Most of the criteria for a score of “excellent” are met. 2.25 pts Fair A supplemental material is included but not properly summarized and/or properly cited. 1.5 pts Poor Citation is missing and source is not properly summarized. 0 pts Missing 4 pts Excellent Two peer reviewed articles are included. These sources are properly summarized. A full, properly formatted APA-style citation is included for each article. 3.75 pts Very Good Almost all of the criteria for a score of “excellent” are met. 3.5 pts Good Most of the criteria for a score of “excellent” are met. 3.25 pts Fair Articles are included but not properly summarized and/or properly cited. 1.75 pts Poor Citations are missing and sources are not properly summarized. 0 pts Missing 3 pts 3 pts 4 pts � ro Borrower: RAPID:AZS Call #: RC467 .N54 2021 ~ Lending String: Location: C Patron: 0 ro ~ iiiiiiiiiiO …0 .~ !!!!!!!!!!!! ~ ~ Cl) ~ � ~ ~ ~ ~ Volume: Issue: MonthlY ear: Pages: – Article Author: iiiiiiiiiiO iiiiiiiiiiO iiiiiiiiiiO !!!!!!!!!!!! iiiiiiiiiiO iiiiiiiiiiO iiiiiiii !!!!!!!!!!!! ~ ~ Journal Title: Introduction to clinical psychology: bridging science and practice. iiiiiiiiiiO 0 (W) It) U z CO I- ::E “C ~ ..J ns :,:j Shipping Address: NEW: Main Library Fax: This material may be protected by Copyright Law (Title 17 U.S. Code). ~ I Charge Maxcost: Article Title: Training and Practice Issues 0 ~ UMBC Library Stacks Folio On Shelf Imprint: ILL Number: !19074785 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 15 Training and Practice Issues in Clinical Psychology Contents Professional Training [478] Professional Regulation Professional Ethics [486] [490] Professional Independence [497] Professional Multicultural Competence The Future of Clinical Psychology [503] [509] Chapter Preview issues within petence. Based on historical and current forces in models for profes- the field, we also make predictions about where regulation, clinical psychology is heading in the future. This chapter describes professional clinical psychology, sional training, including professional professional independence, and multicultural ethics, com- We hope that the previous chapters have made it obvious that clinical psychologists take professional integrity very seriously. The field has changed significantly over the past 125 years, but the goals of helping people and furthering scientific understanding have remained intact for clinical psychologists worldwide. Relatively recent changes in the field, including the increasing need for mental health services, the proliferation of managed-care systems, expanding possibilities for prescription privileges for clinical psychologists, the focus on multiculturalism and diversity, and the intense focus and debate about evidence-based practice, all suggest that clinical psychology has entered a new era. The field looks very different today than it did just 30 years ago, and we expect it to continue changing over the next 30 years. The story of the changes taking place in clinical psychology has many subplots because the field has been shaped by several overlapping developments. Here, we focus on developments related to five main issues: 1. Professional training. What training does one need to become a clinical psychologist, and what are the options for obtaining it? 2. Professional regulation. What are the mechanisms for ensuring that a clinical psychologist possesses requisite skills and meets at least the minimum requirements to function professionally? 3. Professional ethics. What principles guide clinicians in determining the ethical standards for their profession? How is unethical behavior handled? 4. Professional independence. What is the relationship between clinical psychology and other mental health professions? 5. Professional multicultural competence. How has the field changed with regard to diversity and the need for multicultural competence? 477 478 I Training and Practice Issues in Clinical Psychology Professional Training Section Preview In this section, we discuss the historical and current of the doctor of psychology (Psy.D.) degree, and forces that have affected professional training in the clinical psychology. of A recent internship crisis is also discussed. These include a number establishment of various training models. national conferences on training, the development As described in Chapter 2, the first four decades of the 20th century saw little progress in the creation of advanced training in clinical psychology. For clinicians of that period, experience was not only the best teacher, it was practically the only one. It was not until the late 1940s that clinical psychology found a David Shakow (1901-1981) The Shakow Report set an early standard for clinical psychology training and remains, with surprisingly few exceptions, a standard against which modem clinical programs can be evaluated. (Source: Dipper Historic/ Alamy Stock Photo.) unique opportunity to establish its identity, expand its functions, and elevate its status. During and after Wodd War II, there was a dramatically increased need for mental health professionals (including clinical psychologists) who could work with combat veterans and their families, so when the Veterans Adrninistration and the U.S. Public Health Service announced that they would provide support for the training of graduate students in clinical psychology, clinicians focused their attention on what that training should involve. One of the most influential of these clinicians was Dr. David Shakow, chief psychologist at the W orchester State Hospital in Massachusetts, and leader of an AP A Committee on Training in Clinical Psychology that was charged with formulating a recommended clinical training program. The committee prepared a report entitled “Recommended Graduate Training in Clinical Psychology,” which was accepted by the American Psychological Association in September 1947 and published that same year in the AP A’s main journal, the American Psychologist (American Psychological Association, 1947). Of the many recommendations in the Shakow report, the three most important were that: 1. A clinical psychologist should be trained first and foremost as a psychological scientist, not just as a clinician. 2. Clinical training should be as rigorous as the training for nonclinical areas of psychology. 3. Preparation of the clinical psychologist should be broad and directed toward assessment, research, and therapy. The Shakow report suggested a year-by-year curriculum to achieve these goals in a 4-year time frame. Many of today’s clinical training programs Professional Training are based on that schedule, but it now usually takes about 6 years for students to complete all their training for a Ph.D. in clinical psychology, including the internship (Norcross & Sayette, 2018). The need for extra years arises because most programs require students to complete a master’s thesis (usually in the second year), some require full proficiency in statistics and research methods, and many require courses in specialty areas such as human diversity, substance abuse, health psychology, clinical child psychology, sexual problems, and neuropsychological disorders. The greatest impact of the Shakow report was to prescribe the special mix of scientific and professional preparation that has typified most clinical training programs ever since. This recipe for training-described as the scientist-professional model-was officially endorsed at the first major training conference on clinical psychology, which was held in Boulder, Colorado, in 1949 (Raimy, 1950). The Boulder Conference The Boulder Conference on Training in Clinical Psychology was convened with the financial support of the Veterans Administration and the U.S. Public Health Service, which asked the AP A to name the universities that offered satisfactory training programs, and to develop acceptable programs in universities that did not have them. Because the Boulder participants accepted the recommendations of the Shakow Report for a scientist-professional model of training, Shakow’s plan became known as the Boulder model. Participants at the Boulder Conference further agreed that there should be a mechanism for monitoring, evaluating, and accrediting clinical training programs and internship facilities. As a result, APA formed an Education and Training Board and a Committee on Accreditation that was charged with these tasks. That committee (now called the Commission on Accreditation) published training standards that clinical training programs have to meet in order to be accredited. The 2009 edition of these standards was called Guidelines and Principles for Accreditation of Programs in Professional Psychology (American Psychological Association, I 479 2009), and applied to general training in clinical, counseling, and school psychology. As of 2017, however, the APA Commission on Accreditation began using a new system, called Standards of Accreditation for Health Service Psychology (SoA; American Psychological Society, 2018f). The SoA does not list required courses and specific training experiences, but focuses instead on ensuring that accredited training programs are capable of graduating psychologists whose competencies will enable them to provide high-quality health-care services (Belar,2014). Currently, clinical training sites are visited by an AP A accreditation team about every 5 to 7 years, though the maximum interval can be 10 years. The results of accreditation site visits are published each year in the American Psychologist and can also be found online at the website of the APA Commission on Accreditation (www.apa.org/edJaccredit ation/programs/clinical.aspx). As of 2018, there were 405 active APA -accredited doctoral programs, 244 (60%) of which were in clinical psychology, 76 (19%) in counseling psychology, 70 (17%) in school psychology, and 15 (4%) in combined programs (American Psychological Association, 2018g). There are many other doctoral training programs that operate without APA accreditation, either because the program has not requested a site visit or because approval has not been granted after a visit (see Chapter 16 for more information about the importance of APA accreditation). The Boulder model remains the pivotal point for discussions of clinical psychology training today, but ever since its birth in 1949, some clinicians have not been happy with it. A number of alternative training models have been considered in several subsequent conferences, including the 1955 Stanford Conference (Strother, 1956), the 1958 Miami Conference (Roe et al., 1959), the 1965 Chicago Conference, and two especially important ones at Vail, Colorado in 1973 (Korman, 1976), and at Newark, Delaware in 2011 (Shoham et al., 2014). The Vail Conference With grant support from the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), the 1973 Vail Conference 480 I Training and Practice Issues in Clinical Psychology brought together representatives from a wide range of psychological specialties and training orientations, including graduate students and psychologists from various ethnic minority groups. Conference participants concluded that clinical psychological knowledge had advanced to a point that justified going beyond the Boulder model to create training programs with an emphasis on preparing students mainly for clinical practice. The conferees therefore officially recognized practice-oriented training as an acceptable model for departments of psychology that defined their mission as preparing graduate students to deliver clinical services. These “unambiguously professional” programs were to be given status equal to that of their more traditional scientist-professional counterparts. Thus began the new Doctor of Psychology degree, now known as the Psy.D. degree, which we describe later (Stricker, 2011). One of the most controversial of the Vail recommendations was that, like Ph.D.s, people trained at the master’s level should also be considered professional psychologists. The M.A. proposal was short-lived, as the APA voted that the title of psychologist should be reserved for those who have completed a doctoral training program. This policy remains in effect today, but it has come under intense attack as the number of M.A. psychology graduates continues to grow and as many states have allowed master’s-level clinicians to practice independently. Indeed, as described in Chapter 1, master’s-level clinical, counseling, and school psychology programs accept a higher percentage of applicants than doctoral-level programs do. Furthermore, three times as many students graduate with master’s degrees as with Ph.D.s (American Psychological Association, 2016a; Kohout & Wicherski, 2010). the training. of professional psychologists since the Vail conference. There was also a desire to reduce growing tensions between scientists and practitioners over numerous training and organizational issues. The participants passed 67 resolutions, the most important of which was that accredited clinical psychology training programs must expose their graduate students to a standard core of psychological knowledge, including research design and methods; statistics; ethics; assessment; history and systems of psychology; biological, social, and cognitive-affective bases of behavior; and individual differences (Bickman, 1987; see also a special issue of the American Psychologist, December 1987). The Delaware Conference The most recent training-related conference took place at the University of Delaware in October of 2011. It was convened in part because many clinical scientists felt that today’s clinical students are not being sufficiently prepared to address four key areas of clinical science, namely: (a) basic mechanisms of psychopathology; (b) intervention development; (c) efficacy and effectiveness research; and (d) the science of dissemination and implementation (Shoham et al., 2014). As mentioned briefly in Chapter 1, the upshot of the conference has become known as the Delaware Project. Its goals are to generate state-of-thescience training resources and recommendations relevant to knowledge generation across all stages of intervention development, not just to define a single standard model of clinical training. In other words, unlike the results of most other training conferences, the Delaware Project is aspirational rather than prescriptive and regulatory (Onken et al., 2014). You can learn much more about the Delaware Project at its website (www.delawareproject.org) . The Salt Lake City Conference The 6th National Conference on Graduate Education in Psychology was held in 1987, at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City. It was convened for several reasons, including the need to evaluate several changes that had taken place in Clinical Psychology Training Today What does training in clinical psychology look like after all these conferences, discussions, debates, and arguments among clinicians, Professional Training educators, and students? There is no easy answer because training can vary, but we can provide a general summary. First, the scientist-practitioner model has proven to be a tough competitor and is still reflected in more clinical psychology training programs than any other model (Klonoff, 2011). However, in light of conference recommendations, changes in APA accreditation guidelines, and the advent of accreditation offered through the Academy of Psychological Clinical Science (described below), many programs that favor the scientistpractitioner model are struggling to find the best way to train clinical psychologists so that their practical skills are well integrated with a solid foundation of scientific knowledge. Partly in reaction to what he saw as the continued disconnect between science and practice, Richard McFall (1991) wrote a “Manifesto for a Science of Clinical Psychology,” which highlighted the need for all practice to be research based. He argued that “scientific clinical psychology is the only legitimate and acceptable form of clinical Richard McFall His “Manifesto for a Science of Clinical Psychology” led to the founding of the Academy of Psychological Clinical Science. As of 2020, Academy members included 66 doctoral programs and 12 internship sites; you can see the latest list at the APCS website. (Source: With permission from Richard McFall.) I 481 psychology” (p. 76). Three years later, in 1994, McFall and other empirically oriented clinical psychologists formed the Academy of Psychological Clinical Science (APCS). Consistent with its empirical research focus, the Academy is housed within the Association for Psychological Science (APS) rather than the more practiceoriented American Psychological Association. The Academy, which is made up of graduate training programs committed to clinical science, was created in response to concerns that recent developments in health-care reform and licensure and accreditation requirements threaten to erode the role of science and empirical research in the education of clinical psychologists. Academy-accredited programs are committed to training students in interventions and assessment techniques based on empirical research evidence like that summarized in Chapter 7. Many of the faculty in these programs, and in other research-oriented clinical programs, became increasingly concerned by what they saw as a lack of rigor in the APA accreditation system’s standards for what constitutes scientific clinical research. They were also concerned that the long list of requirements that students must fulfill for a program to maintain AP A accreditation made it difficult for students to dedicate as much time to research as would be desirable. As a result, a subset of Academy member departments developed an accreditation system that was both more research-oriented and based more on educational outcomes rather than on meeting certain requirements. The result was the Psychological Clinical Science Accreditation System (PCSAS; Baker, McFall, & Shoham, 2009). The first clinical training program was accredited by PCSAS in 2009 and today there are 39, along with seven more that are being reviewed for accreditation. You can see the latest list at http://pcsas.org/. As of 2020, all of the programs accredited by PCSAS have also maintained their APA or CPA (Canadian Psychological Association) accreditation, but a number of programs have indicated that they may not seek to renew their AP A accreditation when it comes time for a reaccreditation review. Whatever they decide, it is clear that member programs of the Academy, the programs 482 I Training and Practice Issues in Clinical Psychology in the United States, at Adelphi University. Then, in 1970, the first freestanding, non-universitybased professional school of psychology was established as the California School of Professional Psychology (CSPP), with campuses in Los Angeles and San Francisco (Benjamin, 2005). Some practice-oriented programs are still housed in university psychology departments, but many more are to be found in freestanding professional schools of psychology. At some freestanding schools, including the CSPP, students can study for a Ph.D., but most of them offer only the Psy.D. degree. The Psy.D. programs offered at most professional schools provide training that concentrates on the skills necessary for delivering a range of assessment, intervention, and consultation services. In most cases, a master’s thesis is not required, nor is a research-oriented dissertation, although some Dr. Varda Shoham (1948-2014) was a champion of the kind of written, doctoral-level report is usually clinical science model. She worked tirelessly to promote required. Psy.D, graduates are more likely than this model through service in the Society for a Science Ph.D. graduates to be employed in independent of Clinical Psychology, the Academy of Psychological practice, managed care, and other health service Clinical Science, and the Psychological Clinical Science settings (Norcross & Sayette, 2018). Accreditation System. (Source: Supplied with permission by Michael J. Rohrbaugh, PhD) The number of APA -accredited Psy.D. programs continues to grow. As of 2019, there were 93 of them (American Psychological Association, accredited by the PCSAS system, and their faculty 2019b). This is far fewer than the 312 APAare playing critical roles in moving the field of accredited Ph.D. programs, but Psy.D. programs clinical psychology toward a more scientific, enroll far more students than do practice-oriented, evidence-based orientation (McFall, 2012). research-practice, or research-oriented Ph.D. programs (Norcross, Ellis, & Sayette, 2010). Because of these larger enrollments, more students are graduProfessional Schools and the Doctor ating each year from Psy.D. programs than from of Psychology (Psy.D.) Degree Ph.D. programs (Sayette, Norcross, & Dimoff, As suggested by the existence of two different 2011). One reason why Ph.D. programs tend to accreditation systems, the last several decades have fewer students is that, unlike Psy.D. programs, have seen the creation of graduate programs with they tend to provide Significant financial aid to differing philosophies about how to train clinmost or all of those they admit (Norcross, Ellis, & icians (Norcross, Kohout, & Wicherski, 2005). Sayette, 2010). Another reason is that, compared to Some emphasize training in clinical science more Ph.D. programs, Psy.D. programs tend to admit than clinical practice, others take the opposite students with lower mean grade point averages approach, and still others try to balance the two. (GPA) and Graduate Record Exam (GRE) scores As we mentioned in Chapter 2, proposals to (McFall, 2006; Templer, 2005). emphasize practice over research in clinical There is a great deal of heterogeneity among psychology training appeared as early as 1917. Psy.D. training programs (Norcross et al., 2004), However, it was 1951 before the first universityso it is difficult to make general statements about based professional school of psychology appeared them. However, there are a number of troubling Professional Training I 483 thus provides about equal emphasis on research features associated with freestanding Psy.D. proand application to practice. This model is grams that are not as prevalent in university-based common in traditional university Ph.D. proPsy.D. programs. For one thing, the higher acceptgrams and in some professional schools. ance rates and lower admission criteria at free• The practitioner-scholar model, which follows standing schools reflect their status as profitthe Vail conference recommendations and thus making organizations, where, compared to universtresses human-services delivery while placing sities with tighter fiscal controls, it is easier for proportionately less emphasis on scientific mismanagement of funds to occur. Such mismantraining. This model is most commonly seen in agement contributed to the 2019 collapse of Argosy professional schools and many Psy.D. programs. University, one of the largest professional schools of psychology in the United States, many of whose programs had previously been offered through the As you might expect, graduates of the practitionerscholar model spend the least time doing clinical American School of Professional Psychology. research, while graduates of clinical scientist proRegardless of where Psy.D. programs are housed, their students are slightly less likely-91.3 vs. grams spend the most time in that activity (Cherry, 94.7%-than those of Ph.D. programs to be Messenger, & Jacoby, 2000; McFall, 2012). This pattern raises serious concerns among clinical sciaccepted into APA -accredited internship programs entists, who argue that the training provided by (Association of Psychology Postdoctoral and Internships Centers, 2019). Graduates of Psy.D. professional schools does not prepare graduates to properly evaluate the quality of the clinical research programs also tend to score lower than Ph.D. prothey read. These critics point out that clinicians’ gram graduates do on the Examination for Profesability to identify high-quality research designs sional Practice in Psychology, a licensing exam opens the surest path to advancing their knowledge described later in this chapter. Psy.D. graduates and promoting evidence-based clinical services are also less likely to qualify for a specialty diploma (McFall et al., 2015). from the American Board of Professional For their part, advocates of professional school Psychology (also discussed later). In short, gradutraining have concerns about research-oriented ates ofPsy.D. programs, especially those from protraining. They point out, for example, that only grams housed in freestanding professional schools, about half of the faculty who teach graduate stuare less likely overall to have the most distinguished dents in Ph.D. training programs are engaged in career outcomes. So although there are some strong clinical work themselves, even though most of them Psy.D. programs, given their variability, prospective have a license to do so (Himelein & Putnam, 2001; students must be careful to select one whose graduMeyer, 2007). So practice-oriented clinicians worry ates tend to experience good outcomes. that research-oriented programs provide their graduate students with too little appreciation of, Clinical Psychology Training Models or training in, the realities of clinical practice. In short, advocates of the clinical scientist As described in Chapter 1, three main models of model want clinical psychology to develop as a clinical psychology training have emerged from research specialty focused on investigating the conferences such as those held in Boulder and origins, assessment, and treatment of psychoVail (Klonoff, 2011): pathology. Those advocating the practitioner• The clinical scientist model, which grew out of scholar model want the field to develop as an applied profession devoted to clinical service. the Academy of Psychological Clinical Science Ironically, most clinicians think that the approach and places heavy emphasis on scienscientist-practitioner model is a good idea, at tific research. This model is most commonly least in theory (Grus, McCutcheon, & Berry, followed in university settings. • The scientist-practitioner model, which follows 2011). In practice, however, clinical psychologists often fail to integrate science and practice in their the Boulder conference recommendations and 484 I Training and Practice Issues in Clinical Psychology day-to-day work, partly because the incentive systems operating in their workplaces make such integration difficult. For instance, university psychology departments seldom offer support or incentives for clinical faculty who wish to work with clients in a part-time private practice or in a nonprofit clinical setting (Overholser, 2007, 2010), and it is increasingly difficult for clinical psychologists without postdoctoral experience to become licensed while holding an academic position (DiLillo et aI., 2006; Kaslow & Webb, 2011). Conversely, few independent practice clinicians have the time or resources to conduct the kind of research that is published in scholarly journals (Overholser, 2010). These differing reward structures can reinforce attitudes and behaviors that further split the field into practitioners and researchers. So it seems that the Boulder model is a good idea that has been difficult to fully implement (Belar, 2000; Grus, McCutcheon, & Berry, 2011). Evaluating Clinical Psychology Training Philosophical differences aside, what do we know about the comparative clinical effectiveness of graduates from the various training models! Not much. Most of the research comparing different training models focuses on the time students or professionals spend in various activities, where they are employed, how much they publish, or how they view the training they received. There is scant information about whether different training models ultimately lead to different outcomes in treating clients. This situation is unfortunate, because the ultimate goal of clinical psychology training is to produce scientists and practitioners whose work will reduce the burden of mental disorders (Levenson, 2017). We believe that clinical training programs should be evaluated not in terms of specific courses or requirements, but in light of whether they produce clinicians who are competent at performing the professional functions that their work demands. We think that in teaching these technical competencies, training programs should emphasize assessment and treatment methods that have been supported by empirical evidence; they should not offer training in methods or services that have not garnered such support. Indeed, to us, the key elements in training are teaching graduate students how to: (a) evaluate and choose assessment and treatment methods on the basis of high quality research evidence; and (b) directly evaluate the effectiveness of the treatment being provided to each client. Outcome monitoring at the individual client level is especially important when there is minimal applicable research evidence. We believe that if clinical training moves too far from its foundation in psychological science and teaches therapy techniques, assessment methods, and other professional skills without regard for their empirical support, clinical psychologists will become narrowly specialized practitioners for whom research is of only passing interest. If that happens, clinical psychology will become a poorer science and, ultimately, a weaker profession. The Internship Imbalance No matte