𝔖 Bobbio Scriptorium
✦   LIBER   ✦

Some critical observations on twenty-first century graduate education in clinical psychology

✍ Scribed by Gerald C. Davison


Publisher
John Wiley and Sons
Year
2005
Tongue
English
Weight
61 KB
Volume
61
Category
Article
ISSN
0021-9762

No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.

✦ Synopsis


Abstract

A number of issues raised in the C.R. Snyder and T.R. Elliott article, “Twenty‐First Century Graduate Education in Clinical Psychology: A Four Level Matrix Model” (this issue), are critically examined: the role of interpersonal and societal factors in understanding the human condition, the desirability of breadth in both undergraduate and graduate education, political and scientific issues in prevention research and application, problems in the use of randomized clinical trials for evaluating psychotherapy, and the efficacy–effectiveness debate in therapy research. © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Clin Psychol.


📜 SIMILAR VOLUMES


Graduate education in clinical psycholog
✍ Ronald F. Levant 📂 Article 📅 2005 🏛 John Wiley and Sons 🌐 English ⚖ 51 KB

## Abstract This comment focuses on a topic that is implied but not explicated in C.R. Snyder and T.R. Elliott's article (this issue): The biopsychosocial model. I begin by discussing the status of health care, taking up in turn its tremendous problems and the negative effects of a system built on

Twenty-First century graduate education
✍ C. R. Snyder; Timothy R. Elliott 📂 Article 📅 2005 🏛 John Wiley and Sons 🌐 English ⚖ 194 KB

## Abstract Clinical psychology is positioned to play key roles in mental and physical health issues of 21st century America. In this regard, however, the present Boulder model of educating clinical psychologists is not preparing our graduates to meet the diverse demands of either today's or tomorr

Reconciling the rift: Improving clinical
✍ Lorie A. Ritschel 📂 Article 📅 2005 🏛 John Wiley and Sons 🌐 English ⚖ 50 KB

## Abstract Most graduate programs in clinical psychology adhere to and reportedly are satisfied with the scientist–practitioner model of training. In the present commentary, I take the position that this model must be updated to reconcile the rift that currently exists between the scientists and t