On Friday, December 4th, NPR’s Science Friday podcasts a debate about a new accreditation system for talk therapists.

On the surface I can’t help but agree with the premise that practitioners need to use the best science available, but this debate revealed there was a lot of subjectivity involved in whether a new accreditation system would motivate that. First the accreditation system wasn’t for the practitioners, it was for the trainers or “leaders” of practitioners, not the therapists themselves.  Second the debate seemed to be all about PhD versus PsiD or Doctor of Psychology programs.  The PhD program seems to be designed for researchers and professors, and PsiD for clinical psychologists.  (If I think of the therapists that I have used, I think most have been PhDs, but you know I’m not really sure.  So this debate is useful this way.)

The tone of the debate reminded me of the tone of economists. It seems like the field produces people that are told to sound certain of their positions, and not let any doubt creep in. This seems to be a symptom of the soft sciences. If you listen to a physicist talk they always seem to be filled with more unanswered questions than answers.

I can easily imagine that the approach to teaching practitioners is different that the approach to teaching researchers and fellow academics (did I reveal my bias?).

How solid is the science behind clinical psychology? A group of practitioners suggests a new accreditation system for clinical psychological research training programs may be necessary to help ensure that the methods used by clinical psychologists are up-to-date and backed by scientific research. Not everyone agrees that approach is warranted, however.

Panel interviewed: Richard McFall (Indiana U), Bruce Wampold (U of Wisc), Diane Chambless (U of Penn).

Listen to the podcast. There is a listen arrow in the upper right corner of the Science Friday page.

Related Posts:
Do Psychologists Reject Science?