Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Ten Criteria to Qualify As a Scientist-Practitioner in Clinical Psychology: An Immodest Proposal for Objective Standards

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

Abstract

The term ‘scientist-practitioner’ has never been defined in clear or objective terminology. Detailed criteria may help to guide new generations of clinical psychologists to live by the ideals of the Boulder model. Ten criteria are proposed for evaluating the scientist-practitioner in clinical psychology across three domains: scholarship, clinical practice, and the integration of science and practice in psychology. The scientist-practitioner remains active in scholarly works, making regular contributions to the field. These contributions are visible at a national level of impact, and they extend beyond teaching. The scientist-practitioner remains active in the clinical practice of psychology, conducting face-to-face work with clients on regular basis, even if it involves a rather modest time commitment. The clinical services reflect standard clinical practices and extend beyond the supervision of others. The scientist-practitioner strives to integrate the science and practice of psychology. This integration centers around evidence-based practice, and can be seen when scholarship examines issues relevant to mental illness and its treatment.

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

  • American Psychological Association, Committee on Training in Clinical Psychology. (1947). Recommended graduate training program in clinical psychology. American Psychologist, 2, 539–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Psychological Association, Division of Clinical Psychology. (1991). The definition and description of clinical psychology. The Clinical Psychologist, 44(1), 5–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Psychological Association, Presidential Task Force on Evidence-Based Practice. (2006). Evidence-based practice in psychology. American Psychologist, 61(4), 271–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, D., & Benjamin, L. (2000). The affirmation of the scientist-practitioner: A look back at Boulder. American Psychologist, 55, 241–247.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Barrom, C., Shadish, W., & Montgomery, L. (1988). PhDs, PsyDs, and real-world constraints on scholarly activity: Another look at the Boulder model. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 19(1), 93–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belar, C. (2000). Scientist-practitioner ≠ science + practice: Boulder is bolder. American Psychologist, 55(2), 249–250.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Belar, C. (2008). Changing educational needs of psychologists. Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, 15, 12–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Belar, C., & Perry, N. (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., Williams, R., Wakefield, P., & Entwhistle, S. (1995). Bridging scientist and practitioner perspectives in clinical psychology. American Psychologist, 50, 984–994.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bieschke, K., Fouad, N., Collins, F., & Halonen, J. (2004). The scientifically-minded psychologist: Science as a core competency. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 60, 713–723.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Boisvert, C., & Faust, D. (2006). Practicing psychologists’ knowledge of general psychotherapy research findings. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 37(6), 708–716.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter, J. (2002). Integrating science and practice: Reclaiming the science in practice. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58, 1285–1290.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Drabick, D., & Goldfried, M. (2000). Training the scientist-practitioner for the 21st century: Putting the bloom back on the rose. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 56, 327–340.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Freedheim, D., & Overholser, J. C. (1997). Training issues in clinical psychology. In J. Matthews & C. E. Walker (Eds.), Basic skills and professional issues in clinical psychology (pp. 243–264). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldfried, M. (1984). Training the clinician as scientist-professional. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 15(4), 477–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldfried, M., & Wolfe, B. (1996). Psychotherapy practice and research: Repairing a strained alliance. American Psychologist, 51(10), 1007–1016.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Halpern, D., Smothergill, D., Allen, M., Baker, S., Baum, C., Best, D., et al. (1998). Scholarship in psychology: A paradigm for the twenty-first century. American Psychologist, 53, 1292–1297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haynes, S., Lemsky, C., & Sexton-Radek, K. (1987). The scientist-practitioner model in clinical psychology. In J. McNamara & M. Appel (Eds.), Critical issues, developments, and trends in professional psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 1–29). New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Himelein, M., & Putnam, E. (2001). Work activities of academic clinical psychologists: Do they practice what they teach. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 32, 537–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howard, G., Cole, D., & Maxwell, S. (1987). Research productivity in psychology based on publication in the journals of the American Psychological Association. American Psychologist, 42(11), 975–986.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jex, S. (2002). Organizational psychology: A scientist-practitioner approach. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, J., & Mehr, S. (2007). Foundations and assumptions of the scientist-practitioner model. American Behavioral Scientist, 50(6), 766–771.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanfer, F. (1990). The scientist-practitioner connection: A bridge in need of constant attention. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 21(4), 264–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kazdin, A., Kratochwill, T., & Vandenbos, G. (1986). Beyond clinical trials: Generalizing from research to practice. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 17(5), 391–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kendall, P., & Beidas, R. (2007). Smoothing the trail for dissemination of evidence-based practices for youth: Flexibility within fidelity. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38(1), 13–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lambert, M., & Hawkins, E. (2004). Measuring outcome in professional practice: Considerations in selecting and using brief outcome instruments. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 35, 492–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levant, R., & Hasan, N. (2008). Evidence-based practice in psychology. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 39(6), 658–662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maddux, R., & Riso, L. (2007). Promoting the scientist-practitioner mindset in clinical training. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 37(4), 213–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathie, V., Carlson, J., Johnson, D., Buskist, W., Davis, S., & Smith, R. (2004). Expanding the boundaries of scholarship in psychology through teaching, research, service, and administration. Teaching of Psychology, 31(4), 233–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matson, J., Malone, C., Gonzalez, M., McClure, D., Laud, R., & Minshawi, N. (2005). Clinical psychology PhD program rankings: Evaluating eminence on faculty publications and citations. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 26, 503–513.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McCabe, O. (2004). Crossing the quality chasm in behavioral health care: The role of evidence-based practice. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 35(6), 571–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McFall, R. (2006). Doctoral training in clinical psychology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 2, 21–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, D. (2007). Implication of the scientist-practitioner model in counseling psychology training and practice. American Behavioral Scientist, 50(6), 789–796.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norcross, J., Klonsky, E., & Tropiano, H. (2008). The research-practice gap: Clinical scientists and independent practitioners speak. The Clinical Psychologist, 61(3), 14–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Donohue, W., & Halsey, L. (1997). The substance of he scientist-practitioner relation: Freud, Rogers, Skinner, and Ellis. New Ideas in Psychology, 15(1), 35–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Overholser, J. C. (2003). Where has all the psyche gone: Searching for treatments that focus on psychological issues. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 33(1), 49–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Overholser, J. C. (2004). The four pillars of psychotherapy supervision. The Clinical Supervisor, 23(1), 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Overholser, J. C. (2007a). The Boulder model in academia: Struggling to integrate the science and practice of psychology. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 37, 205–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Overholser, J. C. (2007b). The central role of the therapeutic alliance: A simulated interview with Carl Rogers. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 37(2), 71–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Overholser, J. C. (2008). Advancing the field of psychotherapy through innovation and integration in scholarly works. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 38, 97–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Persons, J. (1991). Psychotherapy outcome studies do not accurately represent current models of psychotherapy. American Psychologist, 46(2), 99–106.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Persons, J., Bostrom, A., & Bertagnollo, A. (1999). Results of randomized controlled trials of cognitive therapy for depression generalize to private practice. Cognitive Therapy and Practice, 23, 535–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petersen, C. (2007). A historical look at psychology and the scientist-practitioner model. American Behavioral Scientist, 50(6), 758–765.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, R., & Trierweiler, S. (1999). Scholarship in psychology: The advantages of an expanded vision. American Psychologist, 54(5), 350–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raimy, V. (1950). Training in clinical psychology. New York: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, A. O. (1981). Of rigor and relevance. Professional Psychology, 12, 318–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, D. (2002). Renewing the scientist-practitioner model. The Psychologist, 15(5), 232–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spence, J. T. (1987). Centrifugal versus centripetal tendencies in psychology. American Psychologist, 42(12), 1052–1054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, P., Roberts, M., & Roy, K. (2007). Scholarly productivity in clinical psychology PhD programs. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 14, 157–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stricker, G. (2000). The scientist-practitioner model: Gandhi was right again. American Psychologist, 55, 253–254.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vakoch, D., & Strupp, H. (2000). The evolution of psychotherapy training: Reflections on manual-based learning and future alternatives. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 56(3), 309–318.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vespia, K. (2006). Integrating professional identities: Counselling psychologist, scientist-practitioner and undergraduate educator. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 19(3), 265–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vespia, K., & Sauer, E. (2006). Defining characteristics or unrealistic ideal. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 19(3), 229–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wampold, B., & Bhati, K. (2004). Attending to the omissions: A historical examination of evidence-based practice movements. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 35(6), 563–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zachar, P., & Leong, F. (2000). A 10-year longitudinal study of scientist and practitioner interests in psychology. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 31(5), 575–580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I want to thank the following people for thoughtful, helpful, supportive, and critical comments on these issues and earlier drafts of this paper: Bob Butler, Jim Yokley, Julia DiFilippo, Susan Knell, Nicole Peak, Abby Braden, Patti Watson, Lauren Fisher, Katie Brooks, and Christina Vasilev.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Case Western Reserve University, 10900 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH, 44106-7123, USA

    James C. Overholser

Authors
  1. James C. Overholser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James C. Overholser.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Overholser, J.C. Ten Criteria to Qualify As a Scientist-Practitioner in Clinical Psychology: An Immodest Proposal for Objective Standards. J Contemp Psychother 40, 51–59 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10879-009-9127-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10879-009-9127-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation