A history of Combined‐Integrated doctoral training in psychology

Abstract

The history of doctoral training in psychology is reviewed, with special emphasis on the development of training models for applied psychology. Among applied psychology doctoral programs, most label themselves as being one of the three currently recognized practice areas: clinical, counseling, and school psychology; however, since the 1970s, APA also has accredited "combined" programs. The history of the development of the combined model is traced, including information from the programs themselves about the manner in which each evolved. Recently, new interest in the combined category -or Combined-Integrated (C-I) as these programs wish to become known-has emerged, and an organization representing these programs has formed. The C-I model is described, and the potential that the model may serve as a template for the future of professional training in psychology is discussed.

Back to our future? The Consensus Conference and Combined‐Integrated model of doctoral training in professional psychology

“…If we are truly training "specialists" in clinical, counseling, or school psychology, and if these areas are sufficiently and fundamentally distinct in terms of competencies that must be acquired and demonstrated (i.e., knowledge, skills, and values), it stands to reason that internship directors and employers (much less the public and policy makers) would reliably perceive substantive differences between these three "specialists" of professional psychology. Available data suggest they do not (for a discussion of these issues, see Beutler et al, 2004;Braxton et al, 2004;Crowley & Peterson, 2004).…”

“…The first of these was essentially that the C-I model basically returns us "to our roots" (J.J. Sachez-Sosa, personal communication, May 2, 2003). That is, as Beutler et al (2004) and illustrate, the profession of psychology did not deliberately set out to build a "house divided" along the lines of clinical, counseling, and school psychology; rather, these practice areas evolved out of historical, social, political, and economic events and circumstances that called for the development and application of psychological knowledge and expertise within a wide array of domains (Beutler & Fisher, 1994). From this perspective, our response as a profession has been more reactive than proactive to these legitimate social and public needs, which are expanding still.…”

“…Beutler & Fischer, 1994;Beutler, Givner, Mowder, Fisher, & Reeve, 2004;Braxton et al, 2004;Brown et al, in press;Burgess et al, in press;Crowley & Peterson, 2004;Givner & Furlong, 2003;Henriques & Sternberg, in press;Johnson, Stewart, Brabeck, Huber, & Rubin, in press;Minke & Brown, 1996;Schulte et al, in press;Shealy, 2003, in press;Shealy et al, 2002;Stewart, Shealy, & Cobb, 2001;Tryon, 2000), programs that train from this perspective had never articulated-in one time and place-what constitutes a "combined" model of training, the advantages of such a model, or its unique and timely relevance for the larger field of professional psychology. This lack of consensus has led to unnecessary confusion for prospective students and employers, the profession, accrediting processes, and the public at large, and has hindered the potential of combined and integrated approaches to doctoral training.…”

From the horse's mouth: A case for Combined‐Integrated doctoral training in professional psychology

“…In fact, a central purpose of the CCIDPIP is to better articulate what C-I training does and does not mean (see Consortium of Combined and Integrated Doctoral Programs in Psychology, n.d.; Shealy, Cobb, Crowley, Nelson, & Peterson, 2004). Although these discussions are ongoing, some preliminary definitions can be articulated (see also Beutler et al, 2004). First, "combined" and "integrated" are not the same thing.…”

“…The term " Professional-Scientific" was selected, although acknowledged as cumbersome, to reflect the focus on training across disciplines, training practitioners (as at least one program goal), and training within a traditional academic unit. The title of "Combined Professional-Scientific Psychology" remained until 2003, when the Consortium of Combined-Integrated Doctoral Programs in Psychology (CCIDPIP) petitioned APA to change the name more simply to "CombinedIntegrated" or C-I (for a more complete review of the history of C-I training, see Beutler, Givner, Mowder, Fisher, & Reeve, 2004).…”