Clinical PhD Graduate Student Views of Their Scientist‐Practitioner Training

Abstract

ObjectivesThe goal of the scientist‐practitioner (S‐P) training model is to produce clinical psychologists equipped to integrate and utilize both science and practice in the clinical and research domains. However, much has been written regarding the possible shortcomings of S‐P training and whether clinical psychology graduate students are actually gaining the knowledge and skills to integrate science and practice during graduate training and beyond (Chang, Lee, & Hargreaves, 2008; Gelso, 2006; Merlo, Collins, & Bernstein, 2008; Phillips, 1993).MethodsAs such, the present study assessed ratings of satisfaction, perception of ability, and use of the S‐P training model within 653 clinical psychology graduate students enrolled in programs that are members of the Council of University Directors of Clinical Psychology.ResultsFindings suggest that students are consistently trained in the integration of science and practice and have confidence in their abilities to apply the S‐P integration to research and clinical work. However, despite understanding the ways in which science can influence practice, over one third of students reported that they rarely use science‐based decisions when informing clients of the clinical services they will be providing.ConclusionsThe implications of these results support the need for a more detailed evaluation of clinical psychology graduate students as well as the use of research‐informed practice and the process of providing clients with information they need to make informed choices about treatment.

The View of Russian Psychology Students on Whether Psychology is a Science

“…Interestingly, 30.10% of students continued to value (mostly and strongly) advice given in popular books and magazines (Item 10), supporting previous research on students' misconceptions about psychology (Amsel et al, 2009;Friedrich, 1996;Holmes & Beins, 2009). Overall, low interest in research in Russian psychology students in our study is consistent with previous research conducted on samples of Russian psychology students (Balabanov, Bednyy, & Mironos, 2007;Mironov, 2004;Rakitina, 2014;Rasskazov & Stepanova, 2009), Western psychology students (Luebbe Radcliffe, Callands, Green, & Thorn, 2007;VanderVeen, Reddy, Veilleux, January, & DiLillo, 2012), and Western academic and practicing psychologists (Boisvert & Faust, 2006;Cohen, Sargent, & Sechrest, 1986;Lilienfeld, Ritschel, Lynn, Cautin, & Latzman, 2013;Morrow-Bradley & Elliott, 1986;Safran, Abrue, Ogilvie, & DeMaria, 2011;Stewart & Chambless, 2007). It is possible that students' low beliefs in the need for psychological research and the importance of training in methodology may be linked with the fact that Russian psychology has been historically developing a science of its own guided by a strong theoretical framework not requiring experimental and mathematical explanations (Rozin, 2007(Rozin, , 2010Vygotskiy, 1983).…”

Perceptions of climate in clinical psychology doctoral programs: Development and initial validation of the Graduate Program Climate Scale.

“…In addition, students were asked questions regarding program satisfaction, perceptions of students with problems of professional competence, confidence in research capabilities, and questions regarding evaluation and feedback procedures. Participants also responded to a number of questions that are beyond the scope of the current article but have been addressed elsewhere (e.g., additional items about problems of professional competence and items discussing the science/practice focus within CUDCP-member programs; VanderVeen, Reddy, Veilleux, January, & DiLillo, 2012; Veilleux, January, VanderVeen, Reddy, & Klonoff, 2012).…”

Differentiating amongst characteristics associated with problems of professional competence: Perceptions of graduate student peers.

“…The measure was developed by the authors to assess students' perceptions of peers with problems of professional functioning. This measure was part of a larger study of student attitudes, the remainder of which is outside of the context of the current analysis (VanderVeen, Reddy, Veilleux, & January, 2010). In addition to demographic questions, participants were asked to report how many impaired peers they were aware of in their respective programs, and of these, how many they believed were identified as impaired by the faculty.…”