On becoming a rehabilitation psychologist: Many roads lead to Rome.

Abstract

s (1998) interpretation of the Boulder model as applied to the training of rehabilitation psychologists. The authors strongly believe that there should be many acceptable paths to becoming a rehabilitation psychologist. Moreover, concerted efforts should be made to make rehabilitation psychology an academic discipline, and professional specialty, that is neither subsumed under nor merely an add-on to counseling or clinical psychology. In a recent article, Wegener, Hagglund, and Elliott (1998) offered several recommendations about the psychological identity and training of rehabilitation psychologists. Basically, they proposed that rehabilitation psychology training be based on the traditional scientist-practitioner model recommended at the First National Conference on Clinical Psychology held in 1949 in Boulder, Colorado (Raimy, 1950). They indicated that an individual wishing to become a rehabilitation psychologist should enroll in an American Psychological Association (APA)approved clinical or counseling psychology program, complete a predoctoral internship in a psychology setting and a postdoctoral internship in a rehabilitation setting, then take continuing education credits related to the rehabilitation psychology specialization. Unfortunately, the model itself is biased toward the needs of a particular group of rehabilitation psychologists (i.e., those without predoctoral training or clinical experience in rehabilitation settings). Although it is good to have people enter the field of rehabilitation psychology after they have had several years of study in counseling or clinical psychology, it is certainly not the only, nor necessarily the best, way for people to enter the field.

Rehabilitation psychology: 2020 state of the field survey.

“…At present, there is a paucity of Rehabilitation Psychology-specific education or information at the high school, college undergraduate, and graduate levels. Many Rehabilitation Psychologists tell their own personal stories of how they “fell into” the specialty via other training paths, and this has been described in the literature (Thomas & Chan, 2000). Increased emphasis on the educational and professional “pipelines” would help to address the needs of the field for future generations.…”

Meeting the Needs of Evidence‐based Practice in Family Therapy: Developing the Scientist‐practitioner Model

“…Ironically, another criticism of the scientist-practitioner model suggests that there is a lack of empirical evidence to support the model. For example, Thomas and Chan (2000) strongly advocate the viewpoint that there are many acceptable paths to becoming a psychologist and that no single approach has been demonstrated to be more effective than another in training. According to Thomas and Chan, the research literature has yet to demonstrate widespread empirical support for the model or for its usage by practitioners.…”

Full circle to Boulder: A commentary on rehabilitation psychology training.

“…For greater clarity, I have used the designations specialty model and Boulder model to differentiate between the Thomas and Chan (2000) and Wegener et al (2000) approaches to training, although I believe it is a specious distinction. Both types of programs align with the Boulder model of training in that they claim to prepare students as scientist-practitioners, and both programs assert that they train psychologists.…”

“…Boulder model graduates of psychology programs with minimal early rehabilitation training may not be sufficiently exposed to basic rehabilitation philosophy and extramedical rehabilitation practices, and apparently feel the absence of this information (see Thomas & Chan, 2000). Failing to provide rehabilitation psychology students with essential philosophical and practical approaches to rehabilitation early in their training reduces it to what Serbo-Croatians term "Defectology," their scientific name for the study and treatment of human defects.…”

“…I believe what the profession must do is to take Raimy's (1950) advice and reinforce the amalgamation of traditional psychology training programs with those primarily focused on rehabilitation. According to Thomas and Chan (2000), several specialty-model type programs started down this road some time ago. Two examples of these integration efforts can be found at Indiana University-Purdue and Illinois Institute of Technology (http://www.synt.iupui.edu/ psych/frame/3phdclin.htm and http://www.iit.edu/colleges/psych/, respectively) both of which are fully accredited by APA.…”