Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
134
dian regions each met their own individual needs by altering the
model to fit their requirements.
The debate regarding Canadian training models continues today.
Despite the disagreements, empirical research on the scientistpractitioner model in Canada is scant. Indeed, implementation of
science training in clinical psychology programmes has not been
systematically studied (Merlo, Collins, & Bernstein, 2008). The
paucity of empirical research is made worse because student
opinions on the matter have largely been unsolicited. Preliminary
evidence suggests that American student opinions regarding the
scientist-practitioner model vary widely, with some being staunch
advocates and others describing it as a training anachronism
(Aspenson et al., 1993). More recently, the Council of University
Directors of Clinical Psychology (CUDCP)a nonprofit organisation whose purpose is to further graduate education in clinical
psychology programmes espousing the scientist-practitioner
modelinvited American and Canadian doctoral students to participate in a survey on their experiences. The researchers administered a rigorously developed CUDCP questionnaire to 611 clinical psychology students, assessing their scientific and practical
training experiences in doctoral programmes; however, the authors
provided no indication of the percentage of Canadian respondents,
if any. Results of that study suggest that students report a fairly
balanced emphasis on science and clinical work in their programmes (Merlo et al., 2008). These two studies represent the
extent of available data on scientist-practitioner models from a
student perspective; consequently, current understanding of student perceptions of their graduate programmes in clinical psychology remains limited.
Given the paucity of empirically driven research in this domain,
the purpose of the current study was to administer the CUDCP
questionnaire to a large sample of Canadian students and therein
assess their experiences with the scientist-practitioner model. The
current study will address three specific purposes. First, the results
will broaden our understanding of Canadian clinical psychology
students training experiences. This is crucial given that the data
available in this domain from the United States is difficult to
generalise to a Canadian sample because of differences which exist
amongst clinical and counselling programmes (and the unspecified
number of Canadian participants in the Merlo et al., 2008 study).
For instance, PsyD and counselling programmes do not figure
prominently in Canada, as there is only one PsyD programme
accredited by the CPA, and only four counselling programmes
are accredited by the CPA. Second, the information will provide
students with a summation of first hand experiences with scientistpractitioner models. Currently, students may unknowingly choose
programmes that are incongruent with their goals, thereby restricting their career paths because the relative emphasis on scientific or
practical aspects in graduate programmes is not explicitly stated
prior to enrolment (D. Myers, 2007). Third, the results will inform
existing Canadian clinical psychology programmes in Canada
about their own student perceptions.
Method
Procedure
Participants (N 136) were recruited from the CPA student
listserve via email. The distribution of sex was highly skewed,
Measures
Science training questionnaire. The current study employed
a 38-item questionnaire developed by the CUDCP Board of Directors to assess current students perceptions about the quantity,
quality, and breadth of science training in their clinical psychology
doctoral programmes (Merlo et al., 2008). The authors of this
questionnaire all serve as training directors of primarily scientistpractitioner programmes. The authors developed a detailed explanation of science training to be utilised in completing the questionnaire. Given that several competing perspectives on what
consists of science trainingas defined by each individual programme exist in the literature, the authors decided to employ a
more conventional definition of science. (Merlo et al., 2008).
Prior to questionnaire development, science was defined as:
All research-related instruction and activities. Some examples are: (1)
courses in research design, methodology and statistics, and philosophy of science, (2) required participation in research projects (e.g., a
formal, empirical Masters Thesis or other research projects), (3) a
focus on using empirically supported treatments/assessment techniques in clinical work, (4) participation in research projects being
conducted by faculty members, (5) opportunities to become involved
in conference presentations and manuscript preparation, (6) grantwriting or other related experience, and (7) a focus on critical analysis
and review of the literature.
135
Results
Emphasis on Science Training: Overall Programme
and Specific Skills
The majority of students described their programs as providing
a mix of research and clinical focus. Scores ranged from 1 ( primarily clinical focus) to 5 ( primarily research focus). Approximately 47% of students reported that their programs training
emphasised clinical and research training equally, with a mean
score of 3.2. No students reported that their program had a strictly
clinical focus, whereas 5% reported an entirely research focus.
Students also described how much emphasis was placed on
seven different skill areas of traditional science training in their
programs. Results are shown in Table 1. Students typically reported that they received a good amount of training in these
specific science skills; however, more than a third (37%) of students indicated that they received a minimal amount of training in
grant writing, and almost a third (29%) reported a minimal amount
of training in research projects being conducted by faculty members. There were also statistically significant differences between
the years of education and the perceived focus on grant writing by
the programme, F(7, 119) 3.58, p .01, 2 .17. Based on
Tukeys post hoc comparisons, the first year students report receiving significantly more emphasis on grant writing than the
fourth, t(119) 3.75, p .01, r2 .11, fifth, t(119) 4.22, p
.01, r2 .13, and sixth, t(119) 3.48, p .05, r2 .09, year
students. There were no other statistically significant differences
between the groups and there were no other differences were found
based on students year of study in their program (all ps .05).
136
Table 1
Students Perceptions of the Amount of Training in Seven Science Skills
Skill
Required participation in
research projects
Involvement in conference
presentations and/or
manuscripts
Focus on critical
analysis/review of the
literature
Coursework in research
methodology, philosophy of
science, statistics, and so
forth
Focus on using empirically
supported treatments in
clinical work
Participation in faculty research
Grant writing or other related
experience
M (SD)
Minimum
maximum
scores
Mode
2(df)
1 (none)
%
2 (minimal
amount) %
3 (fair
amount) %
4 (good
amount) %
5 (great
amount) %
4.35 (0.84)
25
(3) 76.31
12
30
54
3.67 (0.92)
25
(3) 24.21
12
28
41
19
3.84 (0.87)
25
(3) 32.34
28
42
24
3.65 (0.86)
25
(3) 38.76
1%
29
46
15
3.96 (0.96)
3.09 (1.20)
15
15
4
2
(4) 64.69
(4) 17.92
1
8
7
28
21
25
37
24
34
15
2.91 (1.10)
15
(4) 45.56
39
21
26
Note. N 134. These results reflect responses to the Science Training Questionnaire (Merlo, Collins, & Bernstein, 2008).
p .01.
tant. In addition, most students indicated that they identify themselves as scientists fairly strongly (35%), very strongly (30%), or
extremely strongly (14%).
Table 2
Discrepancies Between Received Versus Desired Emphasis on Science in Various Areas of Training
Area
M (SD)
Minimum
maximum
scores
t(df)
1 (none)
%
2 (minimal
3 (fair
4 (good
5 (great
amount) % amount) % amount) % amount) %
25
25
0
0
4
3
14
18
48
54
34
24
3.95 (0.76)
3.95 (0.69)
25
25
0
0
5
2
17
19
56
60
22
19
3.57 (0.93)
3.73 (0.84)
15
15
2
1
11
8
30
23
43
54
15
14
3.38 (0.85)
3.76 (0.78)
15
25
1
0
12
6
45
26
33
52
10
16
Received research
Desired research
4.51 (0.71)
4.33 (0.72)
25
25
0
0
2
2
8
9
29
43
62
46
3.79 (1.08)
3.73 (0.90)
15
15
5
4
7
2
20
24
40
54
28
16
Note. N 134. These results reflect responses to the Science Training Questionnaire (Merlo, Collins, & Bernstein, 2008).
137
Table 3
Perceived Effectiveness of Traditional Science Training
Area
SD
Minimum
maximum
scores
Programme as a whole
Required coursework
Elective coursework
Clinical work
Research
Comprehensive exams
3.59
3.49
3.28
3.28
3.98
3.37
.78
.77
.83
.90
.76
.93
15
15
15
15
25
15
Mode
4
4
3
3
4
4
2(df)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(3)
(4)
107.45
109.10
94.87
70.03
51.71
74.63
1 (none)
%
2 (minimal
amount) %
3 (fair
amount) %
4 (good
amount) %
5 (great
amount) %
1
1
2
2
0
5
6
7
13
16
2
9
35
42
48
41
25
38
48
43
31
34
47
41
9
7
6
7
26
8
Note. N 134. These results reflect responses to the Science Training Questionnaire (Merlo, Collins, & Bernstein, 2008).
p .01.
Discussion
Science has formed the foundation of training and has retained
a position of paramount importance since the early years of clinical
psychology; it continues to be inextricably linked to the training
provided in doctoral clinical psychology programmes. The vast
majority of clinical psychology programmes in Canada espouse
the scientist-practitioner model. Even amongst programmes that do
not explicitly endorse such a model, science training is deemed to
be an essential part of graduate training. Despite pervasive endorsement of the scientist-practitioner model in Canada, there are
little data available on Canadian student opinions of the implementation of the scientist-practitioner model. The results of the
present study suggest that, in general, clinical psychology students
enrolled in Canadian programmes report feeling satisfied with the
level of science training they receive.
Consistent with previous research using a U.S. student sample
(Merlo et al., 2008), Canadian students reported that their training
was slightly more weighted toward research than clinical practise.
The overwhelming majority of Canadian students indicated that
they preferred a good amount of science training in their programmes, suggesting that most perceive science training to be an
integral aspect of their overall academic training. In addition,
Canadian students reported, with some exceptions, that both the
quality and quantity of the science training received was highly
congruous with their desired levels; thusly, it appears that training
programmes have been successful at integrating science into training to a degree that is consistent with student expectations. Al-
138
Limitations
There are limitations within the current study that are worth
noting. First, the study may have suffered from a sample bias,
given that the majority of provinces provided responses from only
two to eight students. For instance, in the case of British Columbia,
only seven respondents participated, a figure which is not representative of the number of students actually enrolled in clinical
programmes in that province. Consequently, results are difficult to
generalise for the entire province. Second, although only Canadian
student participants were solicited, no methods were employed to
confirm a participants nationality or student status; accordingly, it
is possible, though unlikely, that some of the respondents were not
students in Canadian clinical programs.
Limitations also exist with regard to the CUDCP questionnaire
itself. First, although rigorously developed, the questionnaire was
designed for American programmes espousing the scientistpractitioner model. Although Canadian programmes adhere to the
same model, it is possible that the questions may have been more
appropriate for American programmes. Moreover, the operational
definition of science that was adopted for the current study was
appropriated from the CUDCP. Thusly, it is possible that there is
divergence between American and Canadian programmes regarding what elements should be subsumed under science. Second, the
results of this study were not compared to the results of Merlo et
al. (2008). The Merlo et al. study did not exclude Canadian
participants; however, the percentage of Canadian respondents is
unknown. As a result, we feel that a direct comparison of the
countries would be inappropriate, and would not result in meaningful information. Fourth, the psychometric properties of the
CUDCP questionnaire have not been extensively assessed. Consequently, the results may not be robust. Fifth, the current data
does not provide details allowing discrimination between the additive and integrative effects of training. Future research should
attempt to explore whether these two dimensions of training can be
usefully delineated. Finally, it is possible that the current results
reflect a tautological relationship between student expectations and
Canadian psychology programs that acclaim the scientistpractitioner model. For example, students support of the Boulder
model might be a reflection of the fact that they have been
socialized into valuing research-based clinical training. Despite
these limitations, the results of this study warrant attention as they
currently represent the only explicitly Canadian data available on
this issue.
Conclusions
This study represents an important first step in determining the
status of the scientist-practitioner model in Canadian clinical psychology programmes. The research was exploratory and the results
preliminary. More information about the implementation of the
scientist-practitioner model is needed, from representative samples
of students as well as from faculty and directors of clinical training. Ultimately, it is our hope that these insights, once generated,
will be used to improve the quality of training in Canadian clinical
psychology programmes.
Resume
Le mode`le de formation scientifique-praticien est le plus courant
pour les programmes detudes superieures en psychologie clinique
au Canada. En depit dun puissant appui de par le pays au sein des
programmes de psychologie, il existe peu de donnees sur les
opinions des etudiants sur lapplication de ce mode`le. Dans la
presente etude, on a demande a` 134 etudiants de 9 provinces de
repondre a` un questionnaire de 38 items, elabore par le Council of
University Directors of Clinical Psychology, en vue devaluer
References
Adair, J. G. (1981). Canadian psychology as a profession and discipline.
Canadian Psychology, 22, 163122.
Arthur, A. Z. (1971). Applied training programmes of psychology in
Canada: A survey. Canadian Psychologist, 12, 46 65.
Aspenson, D. O., Gersh, T. L., Perot, A. R., Galassi, J. P., Schroeder, R.,
Kerick, S., . . . Brooks, L. (1993). Graduate psychology students perceptions of the scientist-practitioner model of training. Counseling Psychology Quarterly, 6, 201215.
Canadian Psychological Association. (2002). Accreditation standards and
procedures for doctoral programmes and internships in professional psychology (4th Rev.). Retrieved from, http://www.cpa.ca/cpasite/userfiles/
Documents/Accreditation/Accreditation%20Manual%20Jan08.pdf
Conway, J. B. (1984). Clinical psychology training in Canada: Its development, current status, and the prospects for accreditation. Canadian
Psychology, 25, 177191.
Davidson, P. O. (1971). Graduate training and research funding in clinical
psychology in Canada (Special Report to the Science Council of Canada,
1970). Reprinted in Canadian Psychologist, 12, 141175.
Davidson, P. O. (1981). Some cultural, political and professional antecedents of
community psychology in Canada. Canadian Psychology, 22, 315320.
139