Talk:Doctor of Psychology

Untitled

The background section on this page is filled with glaring inaccuracies. It shows signs of clear bias towards Psy.D and misleading claims against Ph.D training with no empirical support. Suggest that this be rewritten using data rather than opinion.

Major clean up on 19 April 2011 - I have cleaned up and rewritten this whole page. I have added sources and removed promotional claims and comparisons to most other degrees. Please review the work that I have done and suggest additional changes. 24.12.12.43 (talk) 17:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I have removed information on non-doctoral clinical psychology training problems around the world. These should be included in the page for [Clinical Psychology]. --Dcroberts (talk) 06:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The revisions I completed on 19April 2011 (see unsigned note above) seem to have stood the test of almost a year. Therefore I propose that a lot of the debate material here (which doesn't relate to the current page) be cleaned up. Many of the debates below are not germane to the current condition of the webpage.--Dcroberts (talk) 06:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

---

According to my text book, the vail conf was in 1973, not 75...posted by adam freeman. adam.freeman@wmich.edu

Concur. This article would be better moved. V. Joe 20:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The way that the article is written makes it seem like the Doctor of Psychology program only confers the title of "doctor" outside the United States. Is this accurate? DenimForce2.0 14:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I know that the title of doctor is used for PsyD people inside the US, but don't have a reference for it. 169.234.242.185 (talk) 21:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

What is the status of PsyD sorts of degrees outside the US? There is a challenge that this article is written from a US perspective, but if the PsyD does not exist outside the US (does it?) that challenge would not make sense. (That is, if it is a US issue, then it perforce must have a US perspective. Is there a non-US PsyD? I have never met one and I work with a lot of non-US psychologists. 169.234.242.185 (talk) 21:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

In other countries there are comparable degrees with similar names. In the U.K., for example, the degree is often abbreviated as DClinPsych, DClinPsy or ClinPsyD. For example, here is the information on the DClinPsy degree from Kings College London: http://www.iop.kcl.ac.uk/virtual/?path=65 Here is the information from the University of Manchester, which abbreviates the degree as ClinPsyD: http://www.phdportal.eu/students/browse/programme/19508/clinical-psychology-clinpsyd.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.12.43 (talk) 22:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• • There exists and article on the British version of this degree (the DClinPsych), should these two articles be better coordinated? Or should a section be included in this article that compares it to the D.Clin.Psych.?

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2019 and 10 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Valegria, Galaxy8900, Melissacherry.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Please Remove False APA statements

According to the APA 46 of the 50 states in the U.S. do not require APA accreditation for licensure. Those that do have this requirement, state that equivalency to an APA accredited program established by the applicant is sufficient to secure licensure. In fact the APA does not determine whether or not an applicant is licensed by the state in which he or she works. Therefore, I propose that the following sentences in the introduction be edited to reflect these facts facts:

"An individual who earns a doctorate in clinical psychology, educational psychology or counseling psychology from an American Psychological Association (APA) accredited program may become licensed to diagnose and treat mental disorders, conduct psychological testing and complete psychological evaluations, and provide psychotherapy and psychopharmacology.

For non-clinical doctorates in psychology, programs are not accredited by the APA and there is no license to practice..."

Thanks. nightwatchdog@hotmail.com June 3, 2013

Edit: I removed the erroneous and fictitious entries myself 6/11/2013.

References

PhD versus PsyD

I do not contest that a PsyD may not have the research background that a PhD may have, but a source for that would be nice.

My issue is with the implication that the PsyD has a stronger clinical background that a PhD. Further, it is stated, albeit not exactly directly, that there is a difference in clinical competency between the two degrees. It all smacks of weasely statements that require citations to support.

Roodog2k 17:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The 2 sentences you've highlighted are also vaguely contradictory. The first says relative emphasis, whereas the second is about absolute emphasis. Coming from a non-US perspective, I'm only familiar with that. There, the clinical component is the same regardless of MA/MSc & clinical diploma, PsyD, or PhD & clinical diploma. Slightly more contentiously, one could argue that if the PhD research is on a clinical topic (which it need not be), then that may make for a better clinician. --Limegreen 21:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur. There is more contradiction when you contrast the clinical ability of PsyDs vs PhDs regarding licensing. The bar for obtaining a license is the same, so, one could assume (in the absense of any other information) that the PsyD and PhD would be equally capible clinicians. Roodog2k 17:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

UnholyGhost (talk) 13:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)UnholyGhost: Although the licensure bar for clinical training is identical for both Ph.D. and Psy.D. graduates, it by-definition provides guidelines as to the minimal amount of training the APA deems acceptable. Review of Psy.D. coursework, as outlined in various school-brochures, will reveal that the Psy.D. student trains many more hours in clinical practice, while the Ph.D. student trains many more hours in research and related academic subjects. If you are not scrambling to emerge from foreclosure and other financial woes many of us have been rewarded with as a result of our years of poverty-level living, you are more than welcome by all of us (I am sure) to study this in a rigorously quantitative manner. You want a reference? Make it! My family is hungry and I am broke. So far, that's my financial reward for breaking my back to acquire my degree. Regardless, both Psy.D. and Ph.D. graduates take an average of seven to ten years to complete their degrees (a ref. exists; by all means, please find it if you're not trying to find a postdoc). Regardless, this massive investment of training-time has been officially recognized by the APA and so moved it (that takes a lot) that it released a statement (look it up on apa.org) that the postdoc-requirement is obsolete, leading to the closure of many such training programs. Sadly, most states still require the postdoc for licensure, forcing the PhD or PsyD graduate to apply, in spite of the APA's benevolent conclusion, to many postdoctoral fellowship programs in the hope that s/he can finally get licensed. The competition is fierce now that there are fewer sites that are willing to offer postdoctoral supervision. In the end, our training (PhDs and PsyDs) from program-entry to licensure takes longer than that of most neurosurgeons, with none of the financial rewards. Finally, the archaic and partisan denigration of one degree or another harms our profession. It may satisfy some old-school adherents, but it does nothing to further our professional interests as well as our basic need to pay our astronomic academic debts and engage in the pedestrian activity of putting bread on our tables. As is, our profession is fighting for its life in the managed-care arena: It is far cheaper to employ midlevel psychotherapists (i.e., those with terminal master's degrees), so that is what managed-care by and large does. The golden era of psychologist as undisputed psychotherapist has been terminated by the money-vs.-health- conscious health conglomerates. MDs and DOs (both holders of prof. degrees, granted), have for the most part realized that their bickering about the merits of their respective training undermines their respective professions. And would it be so that clinical psychology had the "aura" and financial kickbacks of medicine. We've got miles to go before we blissfully sleep as a profession (while not @ work, of course): Our profession is evolving. We, I humbly submit, have much better things to do than putting "the other" path to the clinical doctorate down to the ground. I do not have the ref., but all of us remember the peer-reviewed article that demonstrated that Ph.D. grads in clinical psychology have a modal publications-number of zero. We all know that the mode, while a legit statistical "device," suffers from severe limitations. First, a minority of Ph.D. grads in clinical psychology do go on to academic careers such as university/college tenure-track ones, and they publish so as not to perish. Second, we also know that an even smaller minority of Psy.D. grads (I'm one of them) publishes in peer-reviewed journals just like Ph.D. grads do. It is sad that we, to borrow a cliched-but-so-true expression, do not yet all get along, if just begrudgingly. In the end, after all the tomatoes and eggs have been flung, nobody outside our profession cares about our guild issues. If they notice them, they find us laughable and head (if necessary) to the nearest LPC/LCPC/LCSW/LICSW/LMFT for some therapy. We're undermining the future of our profession, and I beg us all to please stop! We're committing mass suicide.

rm weasel statements

Ok, made some edits, this is why:

• changed professional to clinical -> A researcher is professional. One can be involved in the professional practice of psychology as a researcher. I think its clearer to use clinical here.

• change to explicitly -> Its a direct quote fro the source.

• remove competency -> There is no evidence that demonstrates that any given PsyD is any more competent than a PhD.

Roodog2k 18:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

Expressions like "But such an argument holds little water", "long since proven themselves indispensable to humankind.", "Trained as clinicians and leaders in the field, Psy.D.'s provide informed, collaborative care at the highest standards" aren't exactly neutral, enyclopedic expressions.

I would suggest most of this article is in dire need of being completely rewritten.

—Felix the Cassowary 17:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree to some extent and changed the quotes you added. "Such an argument holds little water" is out. As evidenced by our discussion here though, it does spark "debate" which replaced those words. My logic here is that it's commonly accepted that medicine is important to society... (I for one wouldn't argue the necessity for medicine too much; if you're bleeding and it won't stop, you'd do well to get yourself to a medical doctor, am I right?) Anyway, I left that part in but re-worded it it to bring it to more of a neutral state. Took out "highest standards" too and re-worked the sentence just a bit; currently American psychologists (and this is about the Doctor of Psychology degree, a US degree) are generally required to have either Ph.D's or Psy.D.s, they're trained to be supervisors, trained to take a leadership position, and trained to work collaboratively with first professionals in other areas of healthcare. It seemed reasonable enough for me since this last paragraph seems to reference BOTH of the two highest clinical psychology degrees in the US while emphasizing the Doctor of Psychology degree, which after all is the topic of the article. I disagree that the whole article needs to be re-written, speaking at least from an American perspective about this American degree; you should have seen it a few months ago, as I guess we can all gather by reading previous posts. On the other hand, there's always room for improvement I suppose. The "Clinical Psychologist" article seems to have references for the major areas of theoretical orientation... could those be repeated here I wonder? --Amy332 (talk) 03:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

US Department of Education does not classify Psy.D. as equivalent to M.D., Ph.D., etc.

I added a "Failed Verification" tag to the section that claims that the Psy.D. is equivalent to the M.D., Pharm.D., and other degrees.

When I followed the citation that was given I was taken to a page discussing NSF's "Survey of Earned Doctorates." The Psy.D. was mentioned in this page only in this sentence:

The most common research doctorate degree is the Ph.D. Doctorate recipients of professional doctorate degrees such as M.D., D.D.S., J.D., D.Pharm., and Psy.D are not included in the survey.

To say that Psy.D. recipients were not included among respondents of a survey does not endorse the Psy.D. as equivalent to the degree held by those people who are respondents of the survey.

Ehb (talk) 19:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I have also now added a paragraph that explicitly states that the Psy.D. is NOT the equivalent of the MD, JD, EdD, or PhD, as designated by the US Department of Education (which I take to be the highest authority on Education in the US).

Ehb (talk) 19:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Now that I have added a paragraph explaining that the Psy.D. is not equivalent to certain other doctorates (along with a verifiable citation), I have removed the contradictory and unverifiable paragraph saying that these degrees are all equivalent.

Ehb (talk) 19:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Making the change without discussing it here is unacceptable. This is a contested source, it is in current discussions between the US Department of Education and the APA. The American Psychological Association states that the PhD and the PsyD are both terminal doctoral degrees. Finding one source that states otherwise is not a conclusive reason to make a drastic change to this article. If you have an agenda about the PsyD versus PhD degrees you should discuss it here and seek input before a radical revision to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.12.43 (talk) 07:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Both being "terminal" doesn't mean equal. The Master of Fine Arts is a terminal degree but is not a doctorate. I don't have an agenda other than improving wikipedia. By suggesting that I have an agenda I feel you are not assuming good faith (see WP:AGF). (Do you perhaps have an agenda?) Furthermore, I think it's entirely acceptable to make a change without discussing something in advance (see WP:BOLD). Ehb (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not true. Your one source for this claim is USNEI, but they state in their information page that the purpose includes, "To honor the diversity and autonomy of the U.S. education system, and the spirit and letter of international educational agreements to which the United States is a party, by serving exclusively as an information center and not as a policymaking body on credential recognition, admissions, or mobility issues, which by U.S. law and practice are reserved to other competent authorities." http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ous/international/usnei/edlite-disclaim.html This is not a valid source to claim that the PsyD is not a full doctorate. 24.12.12.43

Oh, but National Science Foundation (which is the older citation) IS a valid source? How are they better suited than the USNEI? Ehb (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Rather than reverting to the original version (which is flawed and fails validation) why didn't anyone improve the old version?!!Ehb (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

From WP:V: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it. I was fully within policy to remove material that failed verification. However, to restore material that is not verifiable fails the burden of evidence, so I think the person who restored the old material made an error in restoring unverifiable material!!! If a better source cannot be found for the paragraph that was restored I will remove it again as it is NOT VERIFIED and does not meet wikipedia standards.Ehb (talk) 15:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I am the editor who reverted. I reverted because a large claim needs some discussion and it is best to revert to current status and discuss before making any changes. I would agree with removing the claim that the degree is the equivalent of any other doctorate. It would be hard to prove that any two PhDs are equivalent, and this sort of claim is wrong and cannot be supported. I am working on cleaning up the whole article right now. It is a biased mess, with a lot of unsupported claims and loaded adjectives. I'll try cleaning it up and then step aside and see what you think. How's that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.12.43 (talk) 16:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. Please note that the USNEI may be a "contested" source among the editors of the Psy.D. page, but on the Doctor of Education page the USNEI is used as one of several sources to validate the claim that the Ed.D. degree is equivalent to a Ph.D. in education. If an editor here feels that the USNEI source is not appropriate for the Psy.D. page, I would suggest that they should also go edit the Ed.D. page and give the same reasons over there. Otherwise, it would seem that people are only trusting sources when they confirm a particular belief and casting doubt upon the source when it contradicts their belief :) (confirmation bias). Ehb (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

(new user name but I'm the editor in the discussion above) I called the USNEI office at Dept of education today and spoke with two people about this list. They couldn't tell me who placed PsyD in that category but will get back to me, I'm told. I would suggest, based on the words of the USNEI webpage, that the EdD page should not be making the claim for equivalence. I know little about the EdD degree, though, so I hesitate to edit that page. But I would support someone removing that claim. Perhaps the argument should be made to remove any and all claims of degree equivalence in Wikipedia articles. Trying to make claims about comparison of degrees requires an agreed upon criteria which may be impossible. (For example: Is a Dutch doctorate equivalent to an American online PhD? Certainly not. Is a D.B.A. equivalent to a D.P.H.? Who knows? How would you evaluate this claim?) So, yes, based on this problem with equivalence and on what the USNEI say about their ratings on their website, I would suggest that the claims on the EdD page should be deleted. Dcroberts (talk) 19:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Part of the problem here is the APA itself. It seems to be making the claim that the PsyD is a degree equivalent to the M.D. (for example, here: http://www.apa.org/education/grad/faqs.aspx?item=6). This isn't a reason to make this claim here, as I would argue that all of these arguments about degree equivalence need to go away, but it is worth mentioning that the APA is one of the groups making the claim. Dcroberts (talk) 19:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Doctor of Psychology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110811131932/http://www.argosy.edu:80/colleges/american-school-professional-psychology/ to http://www.argosy.edu/colleges/american-school-professional-psychology/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Doctor of Psychology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.asppb.org/HandbookPublic/before.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111016040458/http://www.doh.wa.gov/hsqa/professions/psychology/licensure.htm to http://www.doh.wa.gov/hsqa/Professions/psychology/licensure.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120125002559/http://www.du.edu/gspp/degree-programs/clinical-psychology/overview/ to http://www.du.edu/gspp/degree-programs/clinical-psychology/overview/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.argosy.edu/colleges/american-school-professional-psychology/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141107001416/http://www.forest.edu/ad-req-psyd.aspx to http://www.forest.edu/ad-req-psyd.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141107004226/http://www.mspp.edu/admissions/apply/psyd.php to http://www.mspp.edu/admissions/apply/psyd.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)