Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ethical Considerations in the Application of the Scientist–Practitioner Model for Psychologists Conducting Intervention Research

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper explores the scientist–practitioner model as a paradigm for psychologists involved in treatment research, as it has been instrumental in defining the field of clinical psychology as a science-driven profession. The principles and standards of the APA Ethics Code (Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct with the 2010 Amendments. Retrieved June 3, from, http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx 2010) are used as the foundation to guide scientist–practitioners as they navigate unique ethical dilemmas and issues that arise when engaging in the simultaneous pursuit of research and clinical endeavors. Specific ethical issues will be discussed, including conflicts of interest, the process of informed consent, relationship boundaries, and boundaries of competence. Recommendations are made for optimizing outcomes for clients and professionals using this model, including adherence to established informed consent procedures and treatment research protocols, as well as collaboration with those not invested in the outcome of research and clinical endeavors. Solutions are proposed as a means of maintaining the principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence, fidelity and responsibility, and integrity in the ethical practice of treatment outcome research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Albee, G. W. (2000). The Boulder model’s fatal flaw. American Psychologist, 55, 247–248. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.2.247.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • American Psychological Association. (2010). Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct with the 2010 Amendments. Retrieved June 3, 2010, from http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx.

  • Baker, D. B., & Benjamin, L. T. (2000). The affirmation of the scientists-practitioner: A look back at Boulder. American Psychologist, 55, 241–247. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.2.241.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Belar, C., & Perry, N. W. (1992). National conference on scientist–practitioner education and training for the professional practice of psychology. American Psychologist, 47, 71–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beutler, L. E. (2004). The empirically supported treatments movement: A scientist–practitioner’s response. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 11, 225–229. doi:10.1093/clipsy.bph076.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bronner, N., Franczak, M., & Dye, C. (2001). Knowledge transfer, policymaking and community empowerment: A consensus model approach for providing public mental health and substance abuse services. Psychiatric Quarterly, 72, 79–102. doi:10.1023/A:1004814220940.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castonguay, L. G., & Muran, J. C. (2015). Fostering collaboration between researchers and clinicians through building practice-oriented research: An introduction. Psychotherapy Research, 25, 1–5. doi:10.1080/10503307.2014.966348.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Castonguay, L. G., Youn, S. J., Xiao, H., Muran, J. C., & Barber, J. P. (2015). Building clinicians-researchers partnerships: Lessons from diverse natural settings and practice-oriented initiatives. Psychotherapy Research, 25, 166–184. doi:10.1080/10503307.2014.973923.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Corey, G., Corey, M., & Callanan, P. (2011). Issues and ethics in the helping professions. Independence, KY: Cengage Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crane, D. R., & Hafen, M, Jr. (2002). Meeting the needs of evidence-based practice in family therapy: Developing the scientist–practitioner model. Journal of Family Therapy, 24, 113–124. doi:10.1111/1467-6427.00206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drury, N. (2006). The delicate scientist practitioner. ANZJFT Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 27, 177–186. doi:10.1002/j.1467-8438.2006.tb00720.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etherington, K. (1996). The counsellor as researcher: Boundary issues and critical dilemmas. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 24, 339–346. doi:10.1080/03069889608253018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frank, G. (1984). The Boulder Model: History, rationale, and critique. Professional Psychology, 15, 417–435. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.15.3.417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frankfort-Nachimas, C., & Nachimas, D. (2000). Research methods in the social sciences (6th ed.). New York: Worth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, N., & Crawford-Wright, A. (1999). Research as therapy, therapy as research: Ethical dilemmas in new-paradigm research. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 27, 205–214. doi:10.1080/03069889908256265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horvath, A. O., & Bedi, R. P. (2002). The alliance. In J. C. Norcross (Ed.), Psychotherapy relationships that work. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, J., & Mehr, S. (2007). Foundations and assumptions of the scientist–practitioner model. American Behavioral Scientist, 50, 766–771. doi:10.1177/0002764206296454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kendall, P. C., Gosch, E., Furr, J. M., & Sood, E. (2008). Flexibility within fidelity. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 47, 987–993. doi:10.1097/CHI.0b013e31817eed2f.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Koerner, K., & Castonguay, L. G. (2015). Practice-oriented research: What it takes to do collaborative research in private practice. Psychotherapy Research, 25, 67–83. doi:10.1080/10503307.2014.939119.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lane, D. A., & Corrie, S. (2007). The modern scientist–practitioner: A guide to practice in psychology. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maddux, R. E., & Riso, L. P. (2007). Promoting the scientist–practitioner mindset in clinical training. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 37, 213–220. doi:10.1007/s10879-007-9056-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, D. J., Garske, J. P., & Davis, M. K. (2000). Relation of the therapeutic alliance with outcome and other variables: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Counseling and Clinical Psychology, 68, 438–450. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.68.3.438.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McCrae, C. S. (2005). Through the scientist–practitioner’s lens. PsycCRITIQUES. doi:10.1037/05010322.

  • Miller, F. G., Rosenstein, D. L., & De Renzo, E. G. (1998). Professional integrity in clinical research. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280, 1449–1454. doi:10.1001/jama.280.16.1449.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Overholser, J. C. (2007). The Boulder model in academia: Struggling to integrate the science and practice of psychology. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 37, 205–211. doi:10.1007/s10879-007-9055-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pellegrino, E. D. (1992). Beneficence, scientific autonomy, and self-interest: Ethical dilemmas in clinical research. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 4, 361–369. doi:10.1017/S0963180100006551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petersen, C. A. (2007). A historical look at psychology and the scientist–practitioner model. American Behavioral Scientist, 50, 758–765. doi:10.1177/0002764206296453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, D. R. (2000). Scientist–practitioner or scientific practitioner? American Psychologist, 55, 251–252. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.2.252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, L. W. (2002). Ethics and mental illness research. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 25, 525–545. doi:10.1016/S0193-953X(01)00014-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rupp, D. E., & Beal, D. (2007). Checking in with the scientist–practitioner model: How are we doing. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 45, 35–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sales, B. D., & Folkman, S. (2000). Ethics in research with human participants. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samstag, L. W., Batchelder, S., Muran, J. C., Safran, J. D., & Winston, A. (1998). Predicting treatment failure from in-session interpersonal variables. Journal of Psychotherapy Practice and Research, 5, 126–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shakow, D. (1945). Training in clinical psychology: A note on trends. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 9(5), 240–242. doi:10.1037/h0057192.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, D. S. (2002). Renewing the scientist–practitioner model. Psychologist, 55, 247–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spece, R. G., Shimm, D. S., & Buchanan, A. E. (1996). Conflicts of interest in clinical research and practice. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoltenberg, C. D., & Pace, T. M. (2007). The scientist–practitioner model: Now more than ever. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 37, 195–203. doi:10.1007/s10879-00709054-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tanner, P. L., & Danielson, M. L. (2007). Components necessary for the preparation of the scientist–practitioner. American Behavioral Scientist, 50, 772–777.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tryon, G. S., & Kane, A. S. (1995). Client involvement, working alliance, and type of therapy termination. Psychotherapy Research, 5, 189–198. doi:10.1080/10503309512331331306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yanos, P. T., & Ziedonis, D. M. (2006). The patient-oriented clinician–researcher: Advantages and challenges of being a double agent. Psychiatric Services, 57, 249–253. doi:10.1176/appi.ps.57.2.249.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Counseling, Clinical, and School Psychology, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, 93106, USA

    Anahita Navab, Robert Koegel, Erin Dowdy & Ty Vernon

Authors
  1. Anahita Navab
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert Koegel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Erin Dowdy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ty Vernon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anahita Navab.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Navab, A., Koegel, R., Dowdy, E. et al. Ethical Considerations in the Application of the Scientist–Practitioner Model for Psychologists Conducting Intervention Research. J Contemp Psychother 46, 79–87 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10879-015-9314-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10879-015-9314-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation