Translating Science into Clinical Practice

  • Thomas L. Sexton
  • Christopher W. Hanes
  • Jeremy C. Kinser
Reference work entry


In this chapter, we propose a developmental framework of competencies for the integration of science and practice. We believe a shortcoming of traditional competency models stems from the tendency to view science and practice as distinct entities that need to be linked rather than addressing their dialectical relationship. We argue that competencies for translating science into practice must acknowledge the inexorable link between the two. To accomplish this conceptual shift, we articulate the knowledge, attitudes, and skills necessary to define competencies pertinent to the realization of the scientist-practitioner. Four primary attitudes outlined include scientific mindedness, curiosity about how things work/what works, acceptance of ambiguity, and embracing the dialectical nature of science and practice. Core domains of knowledge identified include an understanding of scientific methods, familiarity with clinical intervention research, understanding the role of evidence based practice, and specification of clinical practices. We also propose skills necessary for the translation of science into practice. Skills include assessing scientific findings, consuming research through a levels of evidence lens, practicing research based clinical intervention protocols, and becoming a local scientist. We believe these three domains encompass both basic and expert competencies that are necessary for learning, developing, and functioning as a profession within the scientist-practitioner paradigm.


American Psychological Association Clinical Question Core Attitude Cognitive Behavioral Technique Sociocultural Variable 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Alexander, J. F., Robbins, M. S., & Sexton, T. L. (2000). Family-based interventions with older, at-risk youth: From promise to proof to practice. Journal of Primary Prevention, 42, 185–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander, J. F., Sexton, T. L., & Robbins, M. S. (2002). The developmental status of family therapy in family psychology. In Liddle, H. A., Santisteban, D. A., Levant, R., & Bray, J. (Eds.), Family psychology: Science-based interventions (pp. 17–40). Washington, DC: APA.Google Scholar
  3. Alexander, J. F., & Sexton, T. L. (2003). Functional Family Therapy: A mature clinical model for working with at-risk adolescents and their families. Handbook of Family Therapy. New York and Hove: Brunner-Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. American Psychological Association. (2005a). Policy statement on evidence-based practice in psychology. Retrieved January 10, 2009 from
  5. American Psychological Association. (2005b, July). Report of the 2005 presidential task force on evidence-based practice. Retrieved January 10, 2009, from
  6. American Psychological Association. (2007, June). Assessment of competency benchmarks work group: A developmental model for defining and measuring competence in professional psychology. Retrieved January 10, 2009, from
  7. Aos, S., & Barnoski, R. (1998). Watching the bottom line: Cost-effective interventions for reducing crime in Washington. RCW: Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 13.40.500.Google Scholar
  8. Belar, C. D., & Perry, N. W. (1992). The national conference on scientist-practitioner education and training for the professional practice of psychology. American Psychologist, 47(1), 71–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bieschke, K. J., Fouad, N. A., Collins, F. L. Jr., & Halonen, J. S. (2004). The scientifically-minded psychologist: Science as a core competency. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 60(7), 713–723.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Benner, P. (2001). From novice to expert: Excellence and power in clinical nursing practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  11. Chambless, D. L. (1996). In defense of dissemination of empirically supported psychological interventions. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 3(3), 230–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chambless, D. L., & Hollon, S. D. (1998). Defining empirically supported therapies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66(1), 7–18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Committee on Training in Clinical Psychology (1947). Recommended graduate training program in clinical psychology. American Psychologist, 2, 539–558.Google Scholar
  14. Jones, J. L., & Mehr, S. L. (2007). Foundations and assumptions of the scientist-practitioner model. The American Behavioral Scientist, 50(6), 766–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kaslow, N. J. (2004). Competencies in professional psychology. American Psychologist, 59, 77–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kaslow, N. J., Borden, K. A., Collins, F. L. Jr. Forrest, L., Illfelder-Kaye, J., Nelson, P. D., et al. (2004). Competencies conference: Future directions in education and credentialing in professional psychology. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 60(7), 699–712.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kaslow, N. J., Rubin, N. J., Bebeau, M. J., Leigh, I. W., Lichtenberg, J. W., Nelson, P. D., et al. (2007). Guiding principles and recommendations for the assessment of competence. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38(5), 441–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kazdin, A. E. (1997). A model for developing effective treatments: Progression and interplay of theory, research, and practice. Journal of Child Clinical Psychology, 26(2), 114–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kazdin, A. E. (2006). Arbitrary metrics: Implications for identifying evidence-based treatments. American Psychologist, 61(1), 42–49.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kazdin, A. E. (2008). Evidence-based treatment and practice: New opportunities to bridge clinical research and practice, enhance the knowledge base, and improve patient care. American Psychologist, 63(3), 146–159.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lambert, M. J., Burlingame, G. M., Umphress, V., Hansen, N. B., Vermeersch, D. A., Clouse, G. C., et al. (1996). The reliability and validity of the outcome questionnaire. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 3(4), 249–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Paul, G. (1967). Outcome research in psychotherapy. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 31, 109–118.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Percevic, R., Lambert, M. J., & Kordy, H. (2004). Computer-supported monitoring of patient treatment response. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 60(3), 285–299.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Raimy, V. (Ed.) (1950). Training in clinical psychology. New York: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  25. Rodolfa, E., Bent, R., Eisman, E., Nelson, P., Rehm, L., & Richie, P. (2005). A cube model for competency development: Implications for psychology educators and regulators. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 36(4), 347–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sackett, D. L., Rosenberg, W. M. C., Gray, J. A. M., Haynes, R. B., & Richardson, W. S. (1996). Evidence based medicine: What it is and what it isn’t. British Medical Journal, 312(7023), 71–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sexton, T. L., & Alexander, J. F. (2002). Family-based empirically supported interventions. The Counseling Psychologist, 30(2), 238–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sexton, T. L., Alexander, J. F., & Mease, A. L. (2004). Levels of evidence for the models and mechanisms of therapeutic change in family and couple therapy. In Lambert, M. J. (Ed.), Bergin and Garfield’s handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (5th ed., pp. 590–646). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  29. Sexton, T. L., Coop-Gordon, K., Gurman, A. S., Lebow, J. L., Holtzworth-Munroe, A., & Johnson, S. (2007). Evidence-based treatments in couple and family psychology: Report of the Task Force on Evidence-based Treatments in Family Psychology. Division 43, Family Psychology American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  30. Sexton, T. L., Ridley, C. R., & Kleiner, A. J. (2004). Beyond common factors: Multilevel – process models of therapeutic change in marriage and family therapy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 30(2), 131–149.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Spruill, J., Rozensky, R. H., Stigall, T. T., Vasquez, M., Phillips Bingham, R., & de Vaney Olvey, C. (2004). Becoming a competent clinician: Basic competencies in intervention. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 60(7), 741–754.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stricker, G. (2002). What is a scientist-practitioner anyway? Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58, 1277–1283.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Stricker, G., & Trierweiler, S. J. (1995). The local clinical scientist: A bridge between science and practice. American Psychologist, 50(12), 995–1002.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tracey, T. J. G., & Glidden-Tracey, C. E. (1999). Integration of theory, research design, measurement, and analysis: Toward a reasoned argument. The Counseling Psychologist, 27(3), 299–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Walker, B. B., & London, S. (2007). Novel tools and resources for evidence-based practice in psychology. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 63(7), 633–642.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wampold, B. E. (2001). The great psychotherapy debate. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  37. Wampold, B. E., & Bhati, K. S. (2004). Attending to the omissions: A historical examination of the evidence-based practice movement. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 35, 563–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Westen, D., Novotny, C. M., & Thompson-Brenner, H. (2004). The empirical status of empirically supported psychotherapies: Assumptions, findings, and reporting in controlled clinical trials. Psychological Bulletin, 130(4), 631–663.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas L. Sexton
    • 1
  • Christopher W. Hanes
    • 1
  • Jeremy C. Kinser
    • 1
  1. 1.Indiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations