Jump to content

Talk:Clinical psychology/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Can we add history (i.e. Univ. of Pennsylvania, etc)? Thanks Usertalk:Dpr

humansitic psychology

some points of concern in the section "humanistic psychology" (HP):

1. use of the word "reaction" in the opening sentence. it sounds, in short, behavioral, like a unmediated stimulus. the early thinker made very strong choices about humansitic psych. i think a more fitting word would be respond, as in "response-able"

2. A final sentence reads: "The mission of the humanistic psychologist is to point the individual in the direction of these resources." Roger's CCT is non-directive in its basic principles: the CCT does not direct, but reflects and supports, provides a clearing where the client can then recognize his or her own capacity for choice.

Please discuss.

Psychiatry vs. psychology article?

I'm going to be posting this around at a few of the affected articles, but I was thinking of creating a separate article comparing psychiatry and psychology and counseling in general. I think there is a lot of confusion in the world as to the differences and similarities and Wikipedia could be a great resource to come to for those who aren't professionals in these related fields.

Kind of an example, psychiatrists carry a MD doctorate whereas psychologists & clinical psychologists carry a PhD doctorate. Perhaps we could explain differences in training and specialties. (ie you'll find more psychologists counseling marriages then psychiatrists, but you'll find more psychiatrists treating mental illnesses then psychologists.)

Anyway, I wanted to create this article and perhaps link to it on many of the related articles. Thoughts??? Chupper 20:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Something comparing this would be great, because, as you say, there is a lot of confusion. Some people don't even recognize that psychologists and psychiatrists often use the same kind of methods.
---G. 21:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I've given it more thought and I'm thinking maybe an article titled "Mental Health Professionals" not only comparing ology and iatry but maybe therapists, etc. I've seen a lot of people not giving enough credit to each - some say psychologists dont have MD's so they aren't really doctors (even though a PhD and MD are both doctorates, same level in the academic world) and I've also heard some people say psychiatrists don't know anything about therapy and only use medicine to solve mental problems (also quite inaccurate). Maybe I'll get started on this article soon... Chupper 22:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

History paragraph moved

I moved the history bit to the top of the article. Also, I added "Other scientific perspectives" - feel free to edit. The "scientific" bit is of course important, considering the diverging unscientific opinions on this subject out there. Narssarssuaq 21:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I've revised and somewhat expanded the history section EverSince 20:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

"Clinical Psychology" is not a restricted phrase

This message is in reference to a recent edit by Frater5. In America, as per adminstrative law in most states, a person cannot call themselves a "licensed psychologist" unless they have passed the license that is specifically based upon a doctorate and has been given that title.

But "clinical psychology" is not a restricted term. "Clinical psychology" is the phrase that describes all forms of psychology that occur in a clinical setting - that is, with a patient or client. Psychotherapy is just one of many processes that can be performed in the field of clinical psychology.

The APA, one of many private, professional membership organizataions, has suggested and lobbied for the the term "Psychologist" to have a legally restricted use in licensing. You can see this in the WP article on the American Psychological Association article. Many state licensing boards have worded licensing regulations accordingly. That is not the case with the phrase "clinical Psychology." Counselors and psychotherapists also engage in the practice of psychology within a clinical setting - that is "Clinical Psychology". Steve 17:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Counselors and psychotherapists also engage in the practice of psychology within a clinical setting - that is "Clinical Psychology" ... not according to the APA and almost all state licensing boards. The fact that one is working in a clinical setting doesn't mean the clinician is practicing Clinical Psychology. It is a specific area of expertise, whose practice generally requires a doctorate. From the APA:
Psychologists in independent practice or those who offer any type of patient care, including clinical, counseling, and school psychologists, must meet certification or licensing requirements. All states and the District of Columbia have such requirements. Licensing laws vary by state, but generally require a doctorate in psychology, completion of an approved internship, and 1 to 2 years of professional experience...
Look more closely at that quote: "Psychologists ... must meet certification or licensing requirements. All states and the District of Columbia have such requirements. Licensing laws vary by state, but generally require a doctorate in psychology..." Note that the subject of the sentence is Psychologists. In that context, meaning licensed psychologists. The sentence is about licensing requirements for licensed psychologists and does not restrict the phrase "clinical psychology." Also, you said, "...and almost all state licensing boards." I do not know of a single licensing board that restricts the use of the phrase "Clinical Psychology". The full regulations are on-line for many states - take a look. Steve 20:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The American Board of Professional Psychology recognizes professional achievement by awarding diplomas primarily in clinical psychology, clinical neuropsychology, and counseling, forensic, industrial and organizational, and school psychology. Candidates need a doctorate in psychology, 5 years of experience, and professional endorsements; they also must pass an examination. (from here)
The American Board of Professional Psychology (ABPP - http://www.abpp.org) is a private organization that can only speak for its members. All that it is doing is spelling out, for those who wish to acquire an ABPP certification, what is needed. It doesn't, and can't, restrict clinical psychology to those with a doctorate. ABPP does not have the statutory authority to make a phrase restricted. Steve 20:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
and
In the U.S., the doctoral degree is generally recognized and accepted as the education credential for license eligibility to practice independently as a clinical psychologist. (from here)
That quote is from an APA FAQ page and it is the answer to this question: "What are the qualifications to become licensed as a psychologist in the U.S.?" Again, this is about licensed psychologists - not a restriction on the use of the phrase "clinical psychology". The APA is a private organization that competes with other organizations for membership and it lobbies as a special interest on behalf of its members. It does not have the authority to restrict a phrase - it can only make that suggestion to those governmental bodies who do have that authority. Steve 20:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
and
An earned doctorate from a Clinical Psychology program represents the basic entry level for the provision of Clinical Psychology services. (from here).
They are just plain wrong in this case. Maybe they failed to state a context of "For licensed psychologists, an earned doctorate..." Or, maybe it is just wishful thinking or sloppy use of words. But they are wrong. Anyone who has a valid license to diagnose and treat mental disorders can practice clinical psychology. The APA's pronouncements do NOT have the force of law. Steve 20:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I understand you want to make Clinical Psychology a general term, but in the US, it just isn't. –Frater5 (talk/con) 19:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
It is not me who is trying to "make Clinical Psychology a general term." It already is and has been a simple English phrase for a long time. We have accredited universities that graduate people with degrees in "Clinical Psychology" - it is a subject area. There are Master's level licenses in every state whose successful applicants diagnose and treat mental disorders - Which is "Clinical Psychology." It is improper to tell all of these people that they are no longer doing what their degree and license gives them a right to do because a professional membership organization made up of licensed psychologists might like to restrict the use of that phrase (depending upon how one interprets that last quote) even though they haven't the authority to do more than make suggestions. In the absence of laws restricting the use of that phrase, it becomes POV to push the point of view of the APA over that of common usage. Steve 20:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
"Clinical Psychology" is an area of practice that requires a doctorate in the US. No matter how much you want to generalize the term, it doesn't change the fact that to practice "clinical psychology", you need a doctorate. This name isn't merely descriptive, but is technical. I'm not "pushing" APA's point of view with this information, I'm reporting the facts. Go to any university psychology professor and ask, "what degree do you need to practice clinical psychology" and you will hear "a doctorate." That is the common usage of the word, which is accepted within the field. Someone with a Masters cannot get a license to practice clinical psychology. To claim otherwise is not ethical. –Frater5 (talk/con) 21:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
You are wrong. Show me any regulation from any state in the U.S. that prohibits a holder of a valid Master's level license from practicing clinical psychology. What in the world do think all of those thousands and thousands of people are doing? I don't have to "ask a university professor" - I have taught at an accredited university and I have practiced clinical psychology under a valid master's level license and I am not "unethical." And I deeply resent your accusation. A master's level practitioner is prohibited from advertising their services as a licensed psychologist. That is because the use the term has restrictions that are a part of law and the individual would be making a false claim regarding their license. That is not the case with the phrase "Clinical Psychology" - you are doing a grave injustice to all of the therapists and counselors - properly licensed - that are seeing patients in a clinical setting to address psychological issues. I say again, find a single law on the books in any state that makes "clincal psychology" restricted. Until you have a citation like that, you should quit pushing the APA POV and you should be more respectful than to call me "unethical". Steve 21:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

criticisms/controversies

I started a section on this, similar to those on similar pages. Just didn't seem right without it. EverSince 19:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Theoretical Orientations

In the UK, the three main therapeutic models are cognitive-behavioural, psychodynamic and systemic (family therapy and social constructionist approaches). See here, for example: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/clinical-health-psychology/Pages/AcademicInfo.htm It might be helpful to have a section on systemic approaches, though this may then mean discussing international differences in clinical psychology models and training. Londonmatty20 13:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Counseling is part of Clinical Psychology

I have replaced the following 3 sentences to clear up the distinction between counseling and clinical psychology (counseling is one of many theraputic practices that fall under the heading of clinical psychology) and to include the different licenses that practice clinical psychology. I also eliminated the statement about counseling mostly being used by high-functioning individuals - during my internship and latter in my practice, I saw both high and low functioning individuals.

In America, clinical psychologists are mostly defined as having completed a doctoral-level education from an accredited university, usually as part of a training program leading to either a Ph.D. or Psy.D. degree, [1] while in other countries different levels of training qualify, ranging from the doctoral-level DClinPsy in Britain to an appropriate undergraduate degree in Brazil. Although the line between clinical and counseling psychology is somewhat fuzzy, counseling psychology has traditionally been more concerned with high-functioning people and various problems of everyday life or adjustment issues whereas clinical psychology deals with more severe or chronic forms of psychopathology. Despite the unclear distinction, most educational programs in these areas offer distinct training models for "counseling" and "clinical" psychology.

Steve 20:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

No, clinical and counseling are considered similar but not the same. There are no Masters programs in Clinical Psychology. But I'll be fair...if you can find a single authoritative source for Masters-level training leading to the licensed practice of Clinical Psychology, I'll relent and offer an apology. Until then, I've removed the paragraph (below). Psykhosis 21:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I have a Masters degree in Clinical Psychology from an acredited university whose program led to licensing. I replied on your user-talk page. Steve 22:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
In the United States the practice of clinical psychology can also be performed by individuals licensed under a Masters degree. They undergo supervised, postgraduate training similar to but several years less than that required for licensed psychologists. With most Masters level licenses, the training and the practice focus more on treatment and less on research.

On the Training Section

I saw the request for more info on training in an edit summary and responded. I have added more detailed information on the licensing and training for masters level practitioners.

The same kind of info should be available for the doctoral level. Because the courses taken are very similar for doctoral programs, I suggest that the course decriptions should probably be merged into a common paragraph but with a few sentences that explain the differences in total semester hours, the additional requirement of a dissertation and the emphasis on research that is part of the doctoral degree. That way a generalized description of the courses could work for all licensing levels. Steve 20:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Steve, would you be willing to reformat the Masters training info into bullet form, like the doctorate list above it? I think the paragraph form is a bit difficult to read. Also, I think it would be useful to have info about the usual number of units and other requirements, like a thesis. I can do this, but you probably know more than me about Masters programs. Psykhosis 20:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Sure, no problem. Give me a couple of days. Best Wishes, Steve 23:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Coherence therapy is not a major orientation

Although it might be a fine mode of therapy, "Coherence therapy" isn't a major orientation. This entire article isn't on psychotherapy, and so isn't a proper place to list the dozens of therapies being practiced. For the sake of succinctness, we need only to address those models that have had a major impact on the field, to give the reader a general introduction to the scope of practice. Perhaps we need a link at the top of the section to the psychotherapy article... Psykhosis 16:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Coherence therapy, founded by Bruce Ecker and Laurel Hulley in the 1990's, is an experiential, constructivist modality based in the view that all psychological symptoms are produced for a coherent purpose by some aspect or position within the client's psyche. The therapy is focused on discovering, integrating and transforming these positions. The coherence therapist guides the client to experience for him/herself the deep inherent worth and purpose of the symptom. Once the client has discovered the emotional truth of the symptom, it is written down to be read and contemplated until it is well integrated into the client's conscious self. Often this is all that is necessary for the symptom to cease. In other cases, the therapist facilitates the client to experience both the emotional truth that requires the symptom and another incompatible truth at the same time. This is called a transformative juxtaposition.

GA status

This article has been tagged for well over a month but still hasn't been cited, and still contains lists that amount to original research. Is anyone working on citing the article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Tagged for almost six weeks, no response, delisted GA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Archived

Another talk page archive. Left the GA discussion because someone really should tackle that project. —Ash(talk) 02:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

licensing

Original Text:

Unlike the PhD, which is a third level academic degree, the MSW is considered a professional degree (a second level university degree) and is sufficient for basic licensure in most states. < ref >http://www.aswb.org/lic_req.shtml< /ref >

After a cursory review of the site indicated in the original link source, the closest I found to matching this statement is the following:

Can I obtain a license with a non-social work degree?
With a few exceptions, no. There are a few states that offer “associate” type licenses for people without social work degrees (check requirements in the online comparison guide), but those exceptions are extremely limited. For the most part, you must have a degree in social work (BSW or MSW) to obtain a social work license. < ref >http://www.aswb.org/SWL/faqs.asp#NonSWDegree< /ref >

suggesting a full rewrite on this, with the new link source. --Vorik111 (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfinished sentence?

What does "To date, medical psychologists may prescribe psychotropic medications in Guam, New Mexico, and Louisiana and military psychologists." mean? Is it meant to continue "... and military psychologists may prescribe <such-and-such>."? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.122.27.39 (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The image File:DSM-IV-TR.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reason why all references have to be to the Plante book?

There are other texts from authors with a wider research and clinical experience than Plante. Introduction to Clinical Psychology (6th ed) by Nietzel, Bernstein, Kramer and Milich is one example. Ajoykt (talk) 16:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The Plante reference is one out of 89 references in the reference list, so your section header about "all references" seems rather bizarre. Some of the other 88 references, such Compas & Gotlib, are cited more often than the Plante reference. Your attempt to remove a published reference to a widely used text by a reputable publisher (now in its 3rd edition) without a clearly stated reason seems odd. It seems especially interesting in view of your recent proposal that the author's biopage on WP be merged into a separate topic. If the Neitzel et al citation has added value beyone the Plante citation (which isn't necessarily the case - books by committee are sometimes hard to read), it can be cited in addition. -- Presearch (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Misuse of sources

This article has been edited by a user who is known to have misused sources to unduly promote certain views (see WP:Jagged 85 cleanup). Examination of the sources used by this editor often reveals that the sources have been selectively interpreted or blatantly misrepresented, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent.

Please help by viewing the entry for this article shown at the page, and check the edits to ensure that any claims are valid, and that any references do in fact verify what is claimed.

I searched the page history, and found 4 edits by Jagged 85 (for example, see this edit). Tobby72 (talk) 16:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Clinical psychology/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kaypoh (talk · contribs) 06:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Many citation needed tags.
  • Why a whole one paragraph section for salary and employment information? Find references and merge into larger section. Or remove.
  • Why a list of journals?
  • List in Professional practice section, convert to prose

Sorry I have to fail this. Add references, address content problems, then nominate again.

--Kaypoh (talk) 06:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Clinical psychology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

American centric

This article describes clinical psychology as it developed in the USA and the training there. That ought to be clarified further and the development and training in other counties could be added. USA was important in the historical development but the article should cover the rest of the world too. Ernestrome (talk) 10:11, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Clinical psychology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Clinical versus statistical prediction

Hi all. I'm planning to insert a paragraph under "assessment" on clinical and statistical prediction. Something along the lines of that seen here Paul E. Meehl#Clinical versus statistical prediction. Vrie0006 (talk) 03:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Clinical psychology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

ABPP specialization list was incomplete

The ABPP specialization list on the main page was incomplete. Here is the original list:

The full list can be found on ABPP's website http://www.abpp.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3285. Missing from the above list are "clinical neuropsychology pediatric subspecialty", "clinical psychology", "cognitive and behavioral psychology", "counseling psychology", "geropsychology", "group psychology", "police and public safety psychology", "rehabilitation psychology".

I would propose either the whole list or no list be included. I vote no list because the whole list is too long and too specialized (e.g., just one organization, only relevant in US), for lack of a better word, for the main clinical psychology page.

I agree that the list isn't necessary. —PermStrump(talk) 17:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Clinical psychology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Clinical psychology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Clinical_psychology/Archive_1&oldid=1136616800"