Richard E. Dimond

A Proposed Education and Training Model for Clinical Psychologists.

The question of the most appropriate and efficient model for the training and education of clinical psychologists has plagued the field since at least 1947 (Shakow, Hilgard, Kelley, Luckey, Sanford & Shaffer, 1947). Attempts to answer this question have resulted in numerous conferences (Hoch, Ross & Winder, 1966) attended by sincere and dedicated clinicians who have put forth valiant efforts tothis end. These conferences have resulted in the Boulder Model of training and have most recently culminated in the controversial Vail Conference (APA. 1973) which endorsed a professional training paradigm. In addit ion, individual c l in ical psychologists have offered suggestions which range from innovative programs (Peterson, 1968) to innovative professional roles for the clinician (Rotter, 1973). Unfortunately for students of clinical psychology, these efforts have not resulted in the unified, efficient and responsible programs of education which might have been expected to eventuate from so much discussion. Most clinical psychology programs, at both the doctoral and the masters level, are little more than groups of discrete course offerings culminating in an internship and perhaps sprinkled with practicum experiences along the way. The causes of such a situation may be traced to a mult ip l~ci ty of factors. For example, the tendency for academic and professional psychologists alike to perceive training and education as following either the Boulder or the Professional Model has resulted in training programs with varying and shifting emphases. This condition is difficult to tolerate when one IS in the role of student. Equally upsetting to students are professors who promote a specific theoretical position and derogate all others, or who teach research esoteria to which they are particularly committed. This situation generally leads to a vast accumulation of solid psychological content and fact, but seldom to pragmatic understanding or skills. In short, students of clinical psychology, and perhaps other areas of psychology as well, find themselves confronted by a program which lacks unification in its approach to the field. In addition, it may not possess the latitude to tolerate and encourage varied interests, and simultaneously it may be inconsistent in emphasis and unresponsive to the needs of the marketplace. The only specific direction many students find, as a result, is obtained in their final year of education or in their internship setting. It is the purpose of this paper to suggest that this state of affairs need not exist. It is felt that unity, latitude, consistency and responsitivity can be better achieved in our universities no matterwhich model of training (academic or professional) is chosen.

Popular opinion is not empirical data

ConclusionIt is not the purpose of this paper to defend psychiatric diagnosis; the reliability, validity, and the process itself have been found lacking in many respects (Zigler & Phillips, 1961) and it is becoming increasingly difficult to justify the current system. Rather, the purpose of this paper has been to examine the claims and conclusions concerning psychiatric diagnosis as presented in Rosenhans article, “On Being Sane in Insane Places.” As has been pointed out, this study has methodological and logical difficulties which render its conclusions, as stated, invalid or questionable in nature.The currentzeitgeist is in favor of criticizing psychiatric and psychological thinking and practice in relation to mental illness. It is suggested that there is no such thing as mental illness (Szasz, 1960), that diagnosis is useless (Sarbin, 1967), that symptoms are socio-psychological in nature (as if this makes them less real), and that self-fulfilling prophecy accounts for the current overcrowding in mental hospitals. All of these things may be true. Or, they may be erroneous assumptions. Certainly, they are factors which mental health professionals must consider. However, this consideration must be careful, objective, and analytic in nature in order to avoid the “bandwagon effect.” It is hoped that his paper may contribute to a more evaluative demeanor on the part of all mental health professionals.