On psychological identity and training: Boulder is better for rehabilitation psychology.

Abstract

This article addresses issues of training in applied psychology, generally, and rehabilitation psychology, specifically. The long-term success and growth of rehabilitation psychology will depend, in part, on how the field answers the following questions: How do rehabilitation psychologists define their area of competence? How is this competence to be achieved? A review of recent literature suggests that rehabilitation psychology has yet to resolve fully the fundamental issues of a young subspecialty: identity, training, and long-term direction. We maintain that the scientist-practitioner model should continue to be the framework for training future rehabilitation psychologists. Furthermore, subspecialty and crossdiscipline training should be completed following core training in an appropriate specialty of psychology (i.e., counseling or clinical).Rehabilitation psychology relates to and draws from the knowledge, experience, and skills of diverse areas psychology. In training, practice, and research, psychologists working in rehabilitation benefit from the information, ideas, and expertise of psychologists from other areas and professionals from other disciplines. The diversity obtained from within psychology and from interaction with other disciplines enriches the subspecialty of rehabilitation psychology. However, rehabilitation psychologists must remain cognizant of their unique contribution to rehabilitation efforts and of their ethical responsibilities to practice within their areas of competence. Rehabilitation psychology is facing profound challenges, spurred by the changing health care environment, increasing competition for clinical and research monies, workforce issues, and psychology's ongoing debate regarding training models. Rehabilitation psychology's ability to effectively address the inevitable 21st-century issues such as prescription privileges and hospital staff membership may well determine its future viability as a scientifically based, professional subspecialty of psychology. A review of recent literature

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

“…Contrary to Wegener et al's (1998) position, Shontz and Wright (1980) contended that rehabilitation psychology encompasses a distinctive body of theory, research, and problem-solving approaches that cannot be gained by merely completing an internship in a rehabilitation setting. They suggested that rehabilitation psychology is "a field that requires exposure to a systematic course of study and research training and is an important area of specialization in psychology" (p. 919).…”

“…By contrast, most studies have failed to demonstrate that mental health professionals with graduate training (e.g., doctoral-level clinical and counseling psychologists) are superior to paraprofessionals in providing counseling and psychotherapy (Berman & Norton, 1985;Durlak, 1979;Hattie, Sharpley, & Rogers, 1984;Neitzel & Fisher, 1981). Although Wegener et al (1998) cited two similar studies (Elliott et al, 1988(Elliott et al, , 1993 to discount the value of coursework in rehabilitation counseling, we would certainly not use the same logic to conclude This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.…”

“…One of the most disturbing aspects of the position taken by Wegener et al (1998) is the implication that rehabilitation psychologists need to possess an ABPP diploma in order to substantiate the specialization:…”

“…(Wegener et al, 1998, pp. 24-25) Actually, the medical-training analogy used by Wegener et al (1998) may not be a particularly appropriate one because in medical school all students receive coursework and exposure to all specialization areas before receiving the MD degree. By contrast, students in APA-approved clinical and counseling psychology programs may have limited exposure to rehabilitation coursework or populations before receiving the PhD degree.…”

“…Therefore, it would appear that the majority of the rehabilitation psychologists are originally trained as clinical psychologists not in school of education settings. Despite the relatively large number of clinical psychologists in the field, recent studies byCook, Andrew, and Faubion (1998) andThomas, Chan, Comegys, and Lynch (1995) indicated that a significant percentage of the most prolific researchers in rehabilitation psychology are strongly identified with rehabilitation counseling, rehabilitation psychology, or counseling psychology, and many of them are trained in departments housed in schools or colleges of education.On a related note,Wegener et al (1998), in their discussion of the training recommendations proposed byOlshansky and Hart (1967),Pape and Tarvydas (1993), andStubbins (1989), presented a very selective review of the literature on the relative effectiveness of master's-level rehabilitation counseling students versus doctoral students in APA-approved counseling programs, clinical psychology programs, or both. For example, studies byEberly, Eberly, and Wright (1981),Elliott, Byrne, Byrd, MacNair, andWerth (1993), andElliott, Frank, andBrownlee-Duffeck (1988) were cited to demonstrate that (a) rehabilitation counselors possess some attitudinal biases toward persons with disabilities, (b) doctoral students in APA-approved clinical and counseling psychology programs do not possess expected biases, and (c) rehabilitation counseling students may overestimate the nature of affective problems among people with disabilities in comparison to doctoral students in APA-approved programs.…”