Hello.
Here's a good explanation of the key features of the Boulder and Vail
models:
"The 1949 conference on training held in Boulder, Colorado,
established the 'scientist-practitioner' model of training as the
dominant one for the next twenty years. This model states that
clinical psychology (and later, other applied areas of psychology) is
a specialty within the broad domain of the discipline. As such, this
model has been largely interpreted as meaning that a clinical or other
applied psychologist should be trained both in the broad methods (e.g.
research methods; statistics) and knowledge base of psychology, and in
the specific skill sets needed for psychological practice. It should
also be noted that in the US, building upon the tradition of a liberal
arts general undergraduate education, professional training in
psychology was exclusively at the graduate, post-bachelor, level.
...
By the 1974 Vail conference, members declared that American psychology
had expanded sufficiently to warrant the creation of programmes for
scientists, professionals, and scientist-professionals. They formally
endorsed the professional training model and stated that 'where
primary emphasis in training and function is upon direct delivery of
professional service and the evaluation and improvement of those
services, the Doctor of Psychology degree is appropriate. Where
primary emphasis is upon the development of new knowledge in
psychology, the Ph.D. is appropriate' (Korman, 1974, p443)"
source: PSY.D. TASK FORCE, hosted by cpa.ca
http://www.cpa.ca/PsyDreport.html
Here's information about the arguments used for creation of the Vail
Model:
"In 1949, birth was given to the Boulder model for doctoral training
in Clinical Psychology. The training goal of this model was the
scientist-professional approach. However, in the mid-1960s and early
1970s, criticism of the Boulder model started to mount. Integration of
the scientist and practitioner stances was said to not be occurring
and student dissatisfaction was rising. Research activities were low,
with 10% of the psychologists generating most of the scientific
information, while the modal number of research studies by clinical
psychologists was zero. A 1973 conference produced the Vail Model with
the training goal of producing a professional person with specialized
skills. In contrast to the Boulder model, the Vail model did not
dictate specific courses, except for developmental psychology. The
Vail model also recognized the need for a more diverse background in
the human condition. Thus, background in sociology,
anthropology, and related fields was considered appropriate. "
source: HUMAN SERVICES CONCENTRATION, hosted by css.edu
http://www.css.edu/depts/psy/hsc/toc-hsc.htm
"The Vail conferees endorsed different principles, leading to an
alternative training model (Peterson, 1976, 1982). Psychological
knowledge, it was argued, had matured enough to warrant creation of
explicitly professional programs along the lines of professional
programs in medicine, dentistry, and law. These professional programs
were to be added to, not replace, Boulder-model programs. Further, it
was proposed that different degrees should be used to designate the
scientist role (PhD) from the practitioner role (PsyD--Doctor of
Psychology). Graduates of Vail-model professional programs are scholar
- professionals: the focus is primarily on clinical practice and less
on research."
source: "Appreciating the PsyD: The Facts," hosted by psichi.org
http://www.psichi.org/pubs/articles/article_171.asp
"The need for direct education and a practice-oriented degree emerged
in the 1960s when only PhD programs were available, and students
interested in practice careers had to deceive their professors to gain
admission, says Peterson. More psychology practitioners were needed,
he says, but there was no degree available to people who wanted to
practice only, and not do research.
'You used to have to pretend you liked doing research,' says Nancy
McWilliams, PhD, a Rutgers instructor. 'You did it for the meal
ticket.'
In the 1960s, an APA committee on the scientific and professional aims
of psychology, chaired by Kenneth E. Clark, PhD, argued that the
hybrid scientist-practitioner programs weren't accommodating many
students who wanted strong professional programs. They appealed for a
more practice-oriented degree."
source: "The degree that almost wasn't: The PsyD comes of age," hosted
by APA.org:
http://www.apa.org/monitor/jan00/ed1.html
search strategy:
"boulder model", "vail model", psychology, clinical
I hope this helps. |
,
0 Comments
)