digplanet beta 1: Athena
Share digplanet:

Agriculture

Applied sciences

Arts

Belief

Business

Chronology

Culture

Education

Environment

Geography

Health

History

Humanities

Language

Law

Life

Mathematics

Nature

People

Politics

Science

Society

Technology

The Scientist–Practitioner Model, also called the Boulder Model,[1] is today, a training model for graduate programs that aspires to train applied psychologists with a foundation of research and scientific practice. It was initially developed to guide clinical psychology graduate programs accredited by the American Psychological Association (APA).

David Shakow created the first version of the model and introduced it to the academic community. From the years of 1941 until 1949, Shakow presented the model to a series of committees where the core tenets developed further. The model changed minimally from its original version because it was received extremely well at all of the conferences. At the Boulder Conference of 1949, this model of training for clinical graduate programs was purposed. Here, it received accreditation by the psychological community and the American Psychological Association.[2]

The goal of the scientist-practitioner model is to increase scientific growth within clinical psychology in the United States. It calls for graduate programs to engage and develop psychologists' background in psychological theory, field work, and research methodology. The Scientist-Practitioner Model urges clinicians to allow empirical research to influence their applied practice; while simultaneously, allowing their experiences during applied practice to shape their future research questions. Therefore, continuously advancing, refining and perfecting the scientific paradigms of the field.[3]

History[edit]

After World War I, returning veterans reported decreased life satisfaction after serving. This was primarily due to the lack of clinical psychologists available to treat victims of "shell-shock" (now known as post traumatic stress disorder). At this time, psychology was primarily an academic discipline, with just a few thousand practicing clinicians.[4] The Second World War also influenced the development of the Boulder Model by fueling the growth of clinical psychology. Psychiatrists in the US military requested help from psychologists in efforts to treat "psychological and psychiatric casualties the war was producing" (p. 426).[3]

In order to increase life satisfaction for World War II veterans the federal government increased funding to clinical psychology graduate programs and created the GI Bill.[3] As a result, after the war Psychology graduate programs flourished with applicants and resources. The field's increasing popularity called for action, by the academic community, to establish universal standards for educating graduate psychologists.[3] Although the model has not been as prominent in industrial/organizational (I/O) psychology, Campbell[5] acknowledged that the model later influenced I/O psychology (see page 447).

Development[edit]

David Shakow is largely responsible for the ideas and developments of the Boulder Model. On May 3, 1941, while he was chief psychologist at Worcester State Hospital, Shakow drafted his first training plan to educate clinical psychology graduate students during a Conference at The New York Psychiatric Institute, now referred to as Shakow’s 1941 American Association for Applied Psychology Report.[2] In the report, Shakow outlined a 4-year education track:

  • Year 1: establish a strong foundation in psychology and other applied sciences
  • Year 2: learn therapeutic principles and practices needed to treat patients
  • Year 3: internship, gain supervised field experience
  • Year 4: complete research dissertation.

Overall, the report aimed to help clinical graduate students perfect their abilities to complete diagnoses, therapy, and scientific research.[2] The report was endorsed and recommended its review to the American Association for Applied Psychology(AAAP). Later in the year, the AAAP accepted the recommendation and planned a conference to address training guidelines for graduate programs.[2] The following year the Penn State Conference was held with 3 subcommittees containing representatives from educational institutions, health establishments, and business/industry. These measures were taken to ensure that the final model was not biased towards Shakow's profession, although only minute changes were made to his original model.[2]

In 1944, a conference was held at the Vineland training school to reexamine Shakow's report. The American Association for Applied Psychology integrated into the American Psychological Association. Meanwhile, increased demand for professional psychologists prompted the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) and the Veteran Administrative (VA) to increase funding for clinical psychology graduate programs. With more resources at hand, APA president, Carl Rogers asked David Shakow to chair The Committee on Training in Clinical Psychology (CTCP). This committee's primarily responsibility was to decide upon an effective model for education at the graduate level.[2]

Shakow's revised report was published in the Journal of Consulting Psychology in 1945 titled Graduate Internship Training in Psychology.[2] Shakow presented his published report to the CTCP and received minimal critic. So, the committee submitted his report to the APA for approval.[6] The APA endorsed Shakow's training model and published it in the American Psychologist declared as the set agenda for an upcoming conference discussing training methods in clinical graduate programs. By December, the report was known as "The Shakow Report."[6]

The CTCP members made site visits and evaluations of universities who had clinical graduate programs. At a joint meeting of the USPHS and the CTCP, a six-week conference was suggested to discuss reported inconsistencies in current clinical training programs. The conference would be sponsored by the APA and would be granted $40,000 in financial backing by the USPHS.[6]

In January 1949, a planning meeting for the upcoming conference was held in Chicago by members of the CTCP and representatives from the APA board of directors. Here, details including the conference's name, attendants, and location were decided upon. The planning committee of 1949, agreed to name the conference, The Boulder Conference on Graduate Education in Clinical Psychology, and invited participants from a variety of disciplines. The conference would be held at the University of Colorado at Boulder, thereby allowing participants to attend the proceeding annual meeting of the APA scheduled in Denver.[2]

Boulder Conference[edit]

The Boulder Conference met from August 20 till September 3 in 1949. A total of 73 committee members attended the conference representing fields of academic and applied psychology, medicine, and educational disciplines. This conference's goal was to agree upon a standard training plan for clinical psychologists. The Shakow Report was on the agenda, and was received with unanimous support. Due to this consensus the Shakow report is now referred to as the Boulder Model.[2]

This model aims to teach clinical graduate students to adhere to the scientific method when executing their applied practices. To master this techniques, the model states that graduate students need to attend seminars and lecture to strengthen their background in psychology, complete monitored field work, and research training. Ultimately, most psychologists specialize in either research academia or applied practice, but this model argues that having sufficient knowledge in the entire field will enhance a psychologist’s ability to perform their specialty.[3]

Criticisms[edit]

Despite the Boulder Model's observable success in training graduate psychology students, it was met with mounting criticism after its installment in 1949. The debate over the Boulder Model's value centers around two main critics:

  • The Boulder Model is that it lacks validity, meaning that the Boulder Model does not actually help graduate students become better scientists and practitioners.
  • The skills needed for practice in clinical psychology versus those needed for research are not compatible. This could possibly drive off bright students who wish to focus their degree around their strengths and interests[7]

Criticisms continued to accumulate until 1965 at the Chicago Conference. Here, it was recommended that clinical graduate programs restructured their training methods for students who wanted to focus their careers on applied practices. This idea was reinforced by the Clark Committee of 1967. The committee developed the practitioner-oriented model for clinical graduate programs, and presented it at the Vail Conference in 1973. This model was accepted readily to coexist with the Boulder Model which is still used by many psychology graduate programs today.[3]

Core tenets[edit]

Core tenets of the today's model included in the current Boulder Model:[8]

  • Giving psychological assessment, testing, and intervention in accordance with scientifically based protocols
  • Accessing and integrating scientific findings to make informed healthcare decisions for patients
  • Questioning and testing hypotheses that are relevant to current healthcare;
  • Building and maintaining effective cross-disciplinary relationships with professionals in other fields
  • Research-based training and support to other health professions in the process of providing psychological care;
  • Contribute to practice-based research and development to improve the quality of health care.

References[edit]

  1. ^ Association, American (2007). Getting in. Washington: American Psychological Association. ISBN 1-59147-799-9. 
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h i Baker, David B.; Benjamin Jr., Ludy T. (2000). "The Affirmation of the Scientists-Practitioner: a look back at boulder". American Psychologist (American Psychologist) 55 (2): 241–247. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.2.241. PMID 10717972. 
  3. ^ a b c d e f Frank, G., (1984). The Boulder Model: History, rationale, and critique. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 15(3), 417–435. doi = 10.1037/0735-7028.15.3.417
  4. ^ Munsey, Christopher (2010). The Veterans who Transformed Psychology 41 (10). American Psychological Association. p. 54. 
  5. ^ Campbell, J. P. (2007). Profiting from history. In L.L. Koppes (Ed.), Historical perspectives in industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 441-457). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  6. ^ a b c Peterson, Christopher; Park, Nansook (2005). "The Enduring Value of the Boulder Model: upon this rock we build". Journal of Clinical Psychology (Journal of Clinical Psychology) 61 (9): 1147–1150. doi:10.1002/jclp.20154. PMID 15965936. 
  7. ^ Albee, George W. (2000). "The Boulder Model's Fatal Flaw". American Psychologist (American Psychologist) 55 (2): 247–248. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.2.247. PMID 10717973. 
  8. ^ Shapiro, David S. (2002). "Renewing the scientist-practitioner model". Psychologist 15 (5): 232. 

Further reading[edit]

  • Hayes, S. C., Barlow, D. H., & Nelson-Gray, R. O. (1999) The scientist practitioner research and accountability in the age of managed care (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
  • Soldz, S., & McCullough, L. (Eds). (1999). Reconciling empirical knowledge and clinical experience: The art and science of psychotherapy. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

External links[edit]


Original courtesy of Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist–practitioner_model — Please support Wikipedia.
This page uses Creative Commons Licensed content from Wikipedia. A portion of the proceeds from advertising on Digplanet goes to supporting Wikipedia.
1449 videos foundNext > 

The Scientist Practitioner Model

gives a basic understanding of the prinicples of the scientist practitioner model used in training psychologists.

SPU - Industrial/Organizational Psychology Program Part 1

What is the Scientist-Practitioner Model? The increasing diversity and rapid pace of today's workplace has made industrial/organizational psychology one of t...

SFASU Doctoral Program for School Psychologists

The Ph.D. program meets the standards set forth by the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) and the Texas State Board of Examiners of Psycholo...

2011 Katzell Award Winner Alice Eagly

Alice Eagly- Winner of the 2011 Raymond A. Katzell Award in I-O Psychology. Raymond A. Katzell was always a strong proponent of the scientist-practitioner mo...

Julian Rotter and The Locus of Control

Julian Rotter and Locus of Control Duration: 28 minutes First broadcast:Monday 23 April 2012When, as a Psychology student, Claudia Hammond read about Locus o...

Master of Arts (MA) in Counseling Psychology

The mission of the MA in psychology with an emphasis in counseling psychology program is to provide its participants with the knowledge and skills necessary ...

Beidel, Abnormal Psychology

Deborah Beidel, Cynthia Bulik, and Melinda Stanley take a scientist-practitioner-educator approach and help students see and understand the connection betwee...

A Day in the Life - Steve, APRN, MSN (Family Nurse Practitioner)

Get to Know Steve, RN, APN, in the Campaign's New "A Day in the Life" Video Steve is a Family Nurse Practitioner in a rural area of Montana. His patients at ...

Antioch New England Clinical Psychology (PsyD) Program

Antioch University New England's practitioner-scholar program prepares reflective clinicians who undertake multiple roles in their professional careers. Our ...

Elder Kathryn "The Scholar Practitioner" (made with Spreaker)

Source: http://www.spreaker.com/user/min.dwightlewis/elder_kathryn_the_scholar_practitioner.

1449 videos foundNext > 

We're sorry, but there's no news about "Scientist–practitioner model" right now.

Loading

Oops, we seem to be having trouble contacting Twitter

Talk About Scientist–practitioner model

You can talk about Scientist–practitioner model with people all over the world in our discussions.

Support Wikipedia

A portion of the proceeds from advertising on Digplanet goes to supporting Wikipedia. Please add your support for Wikipedia!