The Scientist-Practitioner Model Revisited: Strategies for Implementation

Abstract

The scientist-practitioner model remains valuable in improving the treatment of individual clients and in enhancing clinical science. One deterrent to its implementation, however, is the unsuitability of traditional research methods to clinical settings. Alternative research tools are presented, namely, practical ways to collect dependent measures, specification of treatment and measures of treatment integrity, and single-subject research designs.

Abductive Method and Clinical Assessment in Practice

“…This helps the clinician to narrow down the search for plausible causes and to ensure that theories with the most research support are initially considered as possible explanations. This constraint is entirely consistent with one of the core requirements of the scientist-practitioner model: that clinical work be based on existing research findings (Nelson-Gray, 1994).…”

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Applied Sport Psychology Practice: Making the Case for a Case Study Approach

“…Single-participant designs have been championed as a practitioner-friendly alternative to evaluating interventions in practical settings (Barlow et al, 1984;Hrycaiko & Martin, 1996). Single-participant designs, however, are not unproblematic and have been viewed as time consuming, expensive, and in some cases unethical (Nelson-Gray, 1994;Smith, 1988).…”

A Legacy Neglected: Restating the Case for Single-case Research in Cognitive-Behaviour Therapy

“…However, if the criticisms of Meehl, Cohen, and others have any merit, and the dominant research tradition is incapable of delivering cumulatively effective scientific knowledge, then the field of cognitive-behaviour therapy has reason to be concerned that it has adopted this research tradition in such a wholesale and unquestioning way. This paper argues, yet again (e.g., Ballard, 1986;Barlow, Hayes, & Nelson, 1984;Bushnell, 1984;Nelson-Gray, 1994) that research and practice in behaviour therapy will benefit greatly from adopting and maintaining the use of single-case research practices as a dominant, but not necessarily exclusive, research methodology. Before doing so, however, the nomenclature used in discussing these research designs needs clarification.…”

“…statistical hypothesis testing (Hubbard, Parsa, & Luthy, 1997;Loftus, 1991) to confirm the validity of the interpretation of the data. The perpetuation of this tradition is ensured by making training in statistical analyses a required component of education for all graduate students (Aiken, West, Sechrest, & Reno, 1990), including clinical students (Nelson-Gray, 1994). Other mental health practitioners, notably psychiatrists, share this commitment to training in and use of statistics (e.g., Fava & Rosenbaum, 1992).…”