Talk:Clinical psychology/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Input needed: is this article ready for peer review?

It seems like this article is getting close to being worthy of an "A ranking". Before sending it for Peer review, I would really like others to take a close glance and see how it compares with The perfect article. I think the history section needs references (anyone willing to add some?). Does anyone see anything else...? Psykhosis 20:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km², and pounds -> lb.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.^[?]
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?]
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Avoid misplaced formality: “in order to/for” (-> to/for), “thereupon”, “notwithstanding”, etc.
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?] Thanks, ffm ^yes? 21:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Appropriate scope and focus

Wow this article has come a long way in a short time. Is there any issue to avoid duplicating content most directly related to psychotherapy, to focus only on clin psych context? Could the focus on clinical psychology and clinical psychologists be tightened generally...e.g. victor frankl picture but he was psychiatrist i believe, Carl Rogers picture but not clinically trained I do'nt think, more called a psychotherapist? Picture of Prozac & DSM but these more psychiatric/medical things, in origin/design/ownership. I know they're all strong influences of course and DSM and ICD widely used by many clin psychs. Also a random minor point, the "clinical" part of the term, could its relevance/meaning be specified more? i.e. originally referred to something practiced in clinics, by "clinicians"? but actually it often isn't? Would it be true to say it actually kind of means the psychology of (especially as it relates to psychological help for) mental disorder or serious/dysfunctional mental distress? EverSince 10:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You bring up some good points... I don't think we can have an article without covering the basics of psychotherapy. True, some of it is in the Psychotherapy article, but I believe this is one of those times when it is warranted—remember, Wikipedia isn't paper. I think the professional background of historical figures isn't of much import...Freud was a neurologist and Witmer did no psychotherapy at all...yet they are key figures in clinical psychology. The goal, rather, is presenting the essential theories and practices that make up our profession today.

I also agree that defining clinical psychology is difficult...I got in a few arguments about it. The final issue is the fact that this is an encyclopedia...its job is to reflect what's out there, not just what we personally think. For example, I personally think that the practice of "clinical" psychology is restricted to those with a doctorate; but I have to concede that the US has many Masters graduate programs in "clinical psychology" and that the field is in flux. We have to reflect what exists in citable references, and I believe that what we have does that pretty accurately. Psykhosis 14:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I do disagree about the pics. The Witmer one is appropriate of course and I think the group therapy one is great. But I think the rest overall give an impression that isn't so much clinical psychology as assorted mental-health-related miscellany. Plus at the end there's a list of notable figures who influenced clin psy, why not a list of notable actual clin psychs, including current ones? Perhaps the DSM pic could be replaced with a diagram or something illustrating a dimensional model or something. The Rorshach pic - controversial, most associated with psychoanalysis, widely accepted as poorly evidenced and with limited usage - could be replaced with a pic of a common standardized self-report questionnaire or something. The notable inluential figure pics could be replaced with notable clin psych pics.

I do feel the psychotherapy section goes into too much historical detail, info that can be found on (or could be very usefully moved to) linked pages by those interested. I mean there's so much current stuff to cover that isn't really yet - including not just in terms of interventions but also in terms of models by which clin psychs research and conceptualise problems and derive interventions (e.g. the many varying cognitive behavioral models of the cause or maintenance of this or that disorder.). And I think it needs to address not just the details of interventions but crucially how they are used by clin psychs as opposed to others, and depending on what, and how prevalently they are used by clin psychs.

I agree about the defining being challenging, and my point was to more fully explain the term and actual practice in an encylopedic fashion. Don't think it's a big issue, is probably best left to just trying out edits I think. EverSince 00:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

In virtually every clinical psychology program out there, students are being taught the fundamentals of psychotherapy as developed by Freud, Ellis (and Beck), and Rogers. All other things aside, their ideas and practices form the modern therapeutic foundation of our field as it exists today. For the other pics, remember, their job is illustrative...the Rorshach, while a questionable tool, is still widely used and is recognized by many readers, thus helping to make the section more understandable. Likewise, the DSM, while disliked by many psychologists (and myself), is nevertheless the dominant tool used in diagnosis today. None of this is to say that other pics couldn't be added...I'm very open to other ideas.

The psychotherapy section is, IMO, appropriate and necessary at near it's current length. Since therapy is, essentially, what clinical psychologists are mostly concerned with, it deserves a full treatment. Moreover, the individual sections, outside the big three, provide a general outline of the scope of theory. To neglect this would be a disservice to those readers trying to find out what it is we do.

If you can find some good sources and come up with some paragraphs about research and application of psychotherapy, I'd be thrilled. We definitely need a research section.

For the purpose of my question, I'm also seeking input on making the article FA-worthy. Any comments about that would be welcome. Psykhosis 00:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Psykhosis, I agree that a general outline of the theories is relevant and that historical context is important. I sense we might be obliquely agreeing that some of the extensive detail on historical related figures and influences could be replaced by more directly relevant information - however, you unfortunately seem to be wanting to put the onus on me to achieve this rather than all of us. I do resassert that the whole article is fundamentally in need of differentiating more clearly between clinical psychology (ists) and psychotherapy(ists), not just in the pics but in the content. If your last point is intended to imply that my comments are not relevant to improving the class of this article, I disagree.

The Rorshach is more illustrative of psychoanalysis than modern clinical psychology, and is not widely used across the range of mainstream clinical psychology, and therefore is misrepresentative to choose as the pic to illustrative clin psych assessment. I will seek to replace it with pic of a more generally used standardized questionnaire, unless any objection.

I never said the DSM pic shouldn't be there for reasons of like or dislike. The DSM pic certainly belongs on the psychiatry page, and perhaps the American Psychiatric Association page. I'm going to put it there. The usage of the DSM has to be covered well in relation to clinical psychology also, of course, but the book itself is psychiatric in production and publication, and so rather than duplicate that pic here again I believe it would be better to illustrate something more specifically representative of clinical psychology - perhaps a table comparing the categorical and dimensional approaches - so I will replace the DSM pic with something like this in due course unless objections. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EverSince (talk • contribs) 14:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

I sense we might be obliquely agreeing that some of the extensive detail on historical related figures and influences could be replaced by more directly relevant information —no, I don't agree....I think what's there is fully relevant and fundamental to an understanding of clinical psychology.

you unfortunately seem to be wanting to put the onus on me to achieve this rather than all of us... I am putting nothing on you... you may choose to add something or not. I am not as informed about research as others might be, so I assume that someone else would do a better job than me. It doesn't matter to me who does it...if no one does, then eventually I probably will.

I do resassert that the whole article is fundamentally in need of differentiating more clearly between clinical psychology (ists) and psychotherapy(ists), not just in the pics but in the content—I appreciate your articulation, but I think that psychotherapy is a fundamental aspect of clinical psychology...I think you would have a very difficult time finding reputable sources in the literature that suggest otherwise. At the same time, if you want to add a section that reflects writing out there which draws the kind of difference you are wanting to make, I think that would be relevant to this article.

The Rorshach is more illustrative of psychoanalysis than modern clinical psychology —actually, it is still taught in a large number of clinical psychology programs. Moreover, it is what it is...it is a clear example of a projective assessment tool used by clinical psychologists. To suggest otherwise is simply not supportable.

Regarding the DSM...do you practice clinical psychology? Are you aware that the vast majority of clinical psychologists in America use it to diagnose clients? True, many do so only because insurance companies require it, but that doesn't change the fact that it is the central model used in the field. Again, to suggest otherwise isn't supportable.

You have some very strange ideas, I think, about clinical psychology. Be that as it may, you are welcome to add cited edits that support your contentions. Psykhosis 16:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Psykhosis, you said that you thought the psychotherapy section was about a suitable length, but that you would welcome paragraphs on psychotherapy research and application. It appeared, therefore, that something would have have to give. I guess you meant only a few very short additional paragraphs to cover that whole topic, and I guess I was trying to hard to seek consensus rather than adversarial positions.

You have now repeatedly misconstrued specific points I've made, and replied as if I was making a different (POV or unsupportable) point. You have done this even when I've specifically stated I was not making that very point. I note that you have not addressed the specific points that I did actually make about the DSM, or the Rorshach, or clinical psychology(ists) and psychotherapy(ists) not being terms for the same thing (even if there is a lot of overlap of course) and also that you haven't specifically stated objection to my intentions re the pics.

Given that I have not stated the "very strange ideas" you seek to attribute to me, that statement appears as an unfounded and personalised criticism. Some of your other comments are getting personal - please avoid this because it is against Wikipedia policy and spirit, as another editor has pointed out to you. Given your entirely uncompromising view that every bit of the psychotherapy section is "fully relevant and fundamental", I see no point in discussing this with you further. Without addressing the specific issue in the separate discussion below, I now have to concur with Steve's points about rigidity and near-insults. We need some way to achieve consensus on the focus and scope of this article, without this EverSince 17:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll repeat...if you have actual referenced information or images to offer, then do so...I'll be interested in discussing them with you. I don't agree that the items in the article are somehow inappropriate to it...they are well-referenced from sources based in clinical psychology. If you can offer different opinions in other clin-psy references, you are welcome to incorporate them...THAT is the spirit of Wikipedia. I haven't stopped you from adding material...by all means do so, as long as it is referenced. I cannot agree to remove the images or information about Freud, Ellis, Rogers, the Rorschach or the DSM, because they are clearly central topics of the field (as amply evidenced by the cited literature). I'm sorry if that makes me seem "rigid", but your arguments for downplaying or removing them have not been persuasive. If you want to make categorical changes to what's there, you will need to come up with a very compelling reason to do so...until now, you have failed to do so. Psykhosis 19:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I note that you are now claiming that your views on appropriate focus and imagery are supported by the article's 30-odd references, whereas mine are not. This is quite a claim. Just to leave this clear, the psychotherapy section and imagery etc in question were all introduced in to the article by Psykhosis.

Hmm...I think I see the problem. You are thinking in terms of "views" and I'm thinking in terms of printed information. Wikipedia isn't about the personal views of individual editors—it is about offering summations of existing knowledge. The information I've written is backed by citations per the requirements of this encyclopedia. You haven't offered any encyclopedic information, so I couldn't have said, as you claim, that your "views" are not supported by referenced...you haven't offered anything to reference. Just to leave this clear, I've said openly that I would welcome such information from you. Psykhosis 15:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

PS. The original psychotherapy section, then called simply "The Big Three" was introduced 3 May 2006 by Frater5. After that, editors who have added to that section include Theguyinblue, 152.163.100.72, Narssarssuaq, Carson Lam, 24.195.155.213, 71.125.155.209, 162.84.149.208, 24.247.9.47, 66.9.35.83, SteveWolfer, and Postcrypto. Clearly this section has been a group effort. Psykhosis 16:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I also note that you appear to have moved the location of my comments on this talk page without asking or informing me. In doing so you have changed the context of my original post, which was in actual fact a reply to your request for input, making it appear as if independently posted in a separate section, which you have made it appear that I created. This is despite the fact that I specifically stated that I disagreed at a possible implication by you that my comments were not relevant to the quality of this article. Psykhosis, do you realise that this is against Wikipedia guidelines, and is misleading to readers, and offensive to me? EverSince 23:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I also note that you appear to have moved the location of my comments on this talk page without asking or informing me. —To be more precise, I added a section header so that it would have it's own logical space. This debate isn't related to the original section, which is about making the article technically ready for GA-status. You started a new topic...all I did was name it for the sake of convenience, an action perfectly within my rights. You are working very hard to make me look bad. I'm sorry that you choose to spend your time doing that rather than adding to the article, but that's your choice to make. Good luck with all your endeavors. Psykhosis 15:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not "trying" to make you look bad, I'm responding in a calm and reasonable way to your claims and actions. Both myself and another editor appear to have been very respectfully and calmly asking you, repeatedly now, to show more appreciation for the viewpoints of others. It is your view that our discussion was not related to the quality status of this article - you are entitled to that view. But you simply are not within your rights to split off replies into a separate section created by yourself, changing the context and meaning of them in doing so (and not even providing an edit comment to explain this). Steve said he felt you were talking to him as if you owned this article; I feel you are currently acting as if you own this talk page. I'm going to ask for some help from admins or someone with resolving this, when I work out how to. So we can all get on with improving the article in the usual Wikipedia way. EverSince 19:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I've asked for a [Third Opinion] - tried to give a neutral description. Hopefully this can help us establish a consensus to move foward on. EverSince 19:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Psykhosis, I just noticed you inserted additional comments in to the above discussion, inbetween two paragraphs of mine. Please avoid this as it is confusing/misleading and is generally frowned upon.

In response to those, I don't know how long you spent detailing who had contributed to the psychotherapy article, but my comment was simply because I saw this edit comment: "(cur) (last) 19:32, 29 December 2006 Psykhosis (Talk | contribs) (Adding a psychotherapy section)". Obviously this was a misleading comment.

Your comment about views versus printed information is misleading. You vaguely claimed that, in some unspecified combination, the references currently in the article support everything you've said on this talk page, and therefore you do not have to specifically justify your claims. On the other hand, according to you, I have to support my claims with specific references. This is not a level playing field. I disagreed with your unreasonable contention that the 30-odd references (which are cited in support of specific statements within the text, not overall focus or imagery in the context of Wikipedia), support your viewpoints on the best overall focus and imagery, but not mine. The onus is on both of us equally to specifically back up claims we make on this talk page (which may include pointing to specific parts of the existing text). If we accept this equally, then I am happy to start this. Although we have a problem that often, above, you haven't actually specifically addressed or disagreed with the specifical factual points I've made, but rather just raised other issues and said my case is not convincing (to you, you might have added).

I see you have been 'pairing' down part of the psychotherapy section, despite having resolutely disagreed above with my wish to do this - on the grounds that all of the section was absolutely central and fundamental. EverSince 11:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

What exactly do you want from me? If you want to edit the article, then edit it...you don't need my permission, and if you add or eliminate something that I seriously disagree with, then we can find a compromise (as I've done on several occasions with Steve). You didn't say before..."what do you think about taking out the first CBT paragraph because..." —If you had, I would have considered it and probably agreed (obviously). However, all your textural suggestions have been vague, insinuating that the psychology section "be replaced by more directly relevant information"...a position I disagree with. I've said to you before and I'll say again—if you want to incorporate information that presents a different viewpoint than what is in the article, then do so, as long as it is referenced. Otherwise, please stop assuming bad faith on my part. Psykhosis 15:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

If you think I've been trying all this time to gain your permission to edit this article then you've completely missed the point to the detriment of both your and my time and energy. I have tried to engage with you because: "When there are disagreements, they are resolved through polite discussion and negotiation, in an attempt to develop a consensus" and "When making large scale removals of content, particularly content contributed by one editor, it is important to consider whether a desirable result could be obtained by working with the editor, instead of against him or her - regardless of whether he or she "owns" the article or not". Do you realise this? We started discussing the appropriate focus and imagery of this article, which could have been quickly and sensibly resolved, but you repeatedly disagreed with absolutely every single thing I said I would like to do or was intending to do. These were, contrary to your claim now, specific suggestions about replacing certain of the images and some of the focus on historical and "influences" information in the psychotherapy section and in the list of notable influential figures. Given your repeated unsourced points of disagreement, and rather than risk a futile edit war that excludes other editors and clouds the article, and in line with Wikipedia guidelines, I have asked for a third opinion. I'm not clear what your problem is with this or why you now accuse me of assuming bad faith (which can in itself be an assumption of bad faith), as opposed to my simply and calmy (despite extreme provocation and wasting of time) trying to point out your unreasonable claims and actions against Wikipedia guidelines. Please do not feel the need to keep repeating your assertion that I am permitted to edit and source the article, because this goes without saying and I do it all the time - on a level playing field - and, as I pointed out, you haven't actually indicated how your preferred focus and imagery is actually currently sourced whereas mine isn't EverSince 19:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me reread your initial paragraphs... okay, here are the main suggestions I see:

• "...to avoid duplicating content most directly related to psychotherapy, to focus only on clin psych context".
  • My essential answer: Psychotherapy is within, and is in fact central to, a clinical psychology context (Compass & Gotlib. 2002. Introduction to Clinical Psychology.)....as such, the article would be seriously handicapped without addressing it. This is based on the fact that most clinical psychology texts are dominated by psychotherapeutic topics, the vast majority of clinical psychologists practice psychotherapy at some point in their career, and that improving the lives of people via psychotherapeutic interventions is a core concern of clinical psychology. So, I fundamentally disagree with this suggestion. At the same time, if you want to add referenced material that offers a different perspective, you are welcome to incorporate it.
• Disliking of many images
  • The portraits: Your arguments for why the individuals shown should not be included (e.g. "Carl Rogers [was] not clinically trained I don't think, more called a psychotherapist") do not compare with the immense influence they have had on the practice of clinical psychology. In other words, their influence is far more relevant than their initial training or their professional titles. So, I must disagree with this suggestion as well. At the same time, you are welcome to add images of more contemporary clinical psychologists if you can find any available for use (not an easy task...I had to talk to Roger's daughter to get the rights to his photo).
  • The DSM/drug images: as argued, the DSM is the central tool that U.S. clinical psychologists use for diagnostics, and having an image of it is relevant. However, if you can find an equally relevant image to illustrate the diagnosis section, I'm open to suggestions. The drug image is relevant for that section, not only as an illustration of the psychiatry information given in that section, but because it is reflective of the kind of medication some clinical psychologists prescribe in a few states. In other words, it is illustrating two points in the section, and is therefore highly relevant.
  • The Rorschach: as argued, it is one of the most common tests given by clinical psychologists today and has over 200 books and 2000 articles written about it (Handbook of Psychological Assessmen, G. Groth-Marnat, 2003, p.407), so having a pic of it is highly relevant. Further, as argued, people recognize it, so it is a good way to illustrate the section. Again, if you can find an available image to add to the section, I have no objections.
• "...the "clinical" part of the term, could its relevance/meaning be specified more?"
  • I agreed with you on this. You are more than welcome to add clarifying, referenced information.

The rest of the conversation is either derivative of these basic points or complaints about me. While I am not obligated to agree with your suggestions, I have read them, considered them, and politely given what I think are compelling reasons why I disagree where I do. At the same time, I've repeatedly made it clear that I would welcome new referenced information if you had it. I'm sorry that you are displeased that I don't agree with some of your suggestions, but I really don't know what more I could do in this situation. Psykhosis 20:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe you've just done this, after just appearing to agree with the third opinion - which was to cool off and let others have their say. These are not "small clarifying points" as your edit comment indicates, but a complete re-run of the whole discussion with your preferred quotes and slants, adding defences of your points and making new arguments. I just don't know what to say. I refuse to get dragged back in to the whole debate with you so I guess all I can say is that your points all effectively miss the point, including about the Rorshach - as I have now come to expect.

Once others have had their say in the third opinon section, I will address points there in a more balanced and non-distorted way. EverSince 21:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I am requesting, for the second time, that you stop assuming bad faith on my part (e.g. accusing me of willful distortion, breaking agreements, "slants", etc.) Psykhosis 21:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's move this discussion below, where hopefully this can be resolved. Everyone involved needs to make an extra effort to assume good faith. -- Pastordavid 21:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I never said "willful". EverSince 22:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The discussion in this section has moved to the consensus section below. - The preceding comment was added by Psykhosis

Peer review request

A request has been made for peer review despite the above concerns about the basic focus and appearance of this article being unresolved. Agreement that this article is ready go down the formal peer review route was not obtained. The peer review page says that content or neutrality disputes should first be listed at Requests for comment, which might be appropriate given that the third opinion didn't materialize. I have also already made a request for informal mediation. Can I ask you, Psykhosis, to retract - in the spirit of co-editing and consensus in which Wikipedia articles are meant to develop - your peer review request until these foundational issues have been addressed properly (even if you personally believe they are not important or problematic) as per peer review guidelines? EverSince 15:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You have had several weeks to make or suggest specific edits and to obtain 3rd party opinions. I even offered a simple, non-biased model for you to articulate discrete suggestions. None have been forthcoming, outside of the one edit made in the lead. Considering the lack of activity from other editors regarding your objections for the last four weeks, I went ahead and asked for peer review....if those reviewers see the same problems that you do, then they will mention them. However, I firmly believe the article is robust and reflects the topic accurately and fully based on the literature (see the reference list...there are many articles and books that discuss clinical psychology, which is where the "foundational issues" have been drawn from; I'll say it once again—if you find information in those items or other unlisted and relevant sources that contradicts what is in the article, then you are encouraged to integrate that information into the article). The images illustrate their topics well and the article data are relevant, accurate, and well-sourced and cited. I fully invite you to ask other editors, perhaps picked from the Psychology project member list, to read your objections and to add their opinions to the peer review. Psykhosis 19:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your determination to raise the status of this article and your firm beliefs (though I don't know why there is such a rush). The reason I haven't tried to make the changes I would like to make (and currently feel excluded) is because I wasn't able to constructively agree anything in discussion with you and so have been trying to follow procedures for dispute resolution. You can offer models (which you did at a time meant for the third opinion to be heard) or encourage and invite me to do this or that, but Wikipedia pages provide guidelines, and they apply to everyone involved. It is particularly unreasonable of you to hold me responsible for delays in the Wikipedia 3rd opinion/mediation processes.

My point about delaying peer review still stands then, but directed to whoever may look to undertake it. The basic broad issues pending mediation, to allow them to be properly and fairly addressed, relate not just to this page but to the best way for Wikipedia to cover certain content over a number of related pages, including psychotherapy and psychiatry. EverSince 14:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Despite all this talk back and forth and your insistence that there is a major dispute, it seems to come down to you not liking some of the images and wanting less info in the psychotherapy section. I've invited you to suggest discrete changes in both areas, and you haven't given any. If you think other images or data would work better, suggest them or just make the edits. Either way, this limbo that we are in doesn't justify keeping the article from being peer-reviewed. Psykhosis 17:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall insisting how major it is and I don't agree with that characterisation of the issues. I do appreciate your suggestions to enable things but since there was previously disagreement with every edit suggestion I made then I did request informal mediation. That request has now been taken up so I hope we can now efficiently and fairly resolve this EverSince 12:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is very well written and could probably be at FA status very soon. I've read over the talk page and, though emotions seem to be running high, I don't see any current major disputes. The issues that do exist all seem very minor and should probably just be a recommendation line item on a peer review. The peer review should most definitely go forward. I'll peer review it as soon as I get a chance. After everything is addressed following the peer review I would be happy to add in a nomination for a FA (if you want). I know sometimes those nominations go a little more smoothly if someone not working on it does the nomination. Chupper 15:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the outstanding issues can be seen as "very minor" (e.g changing the basic focus of article and overlap with other pages). If they were then I'd just make the changes - but Psykhosis objected and didn't seem to see them as minor. I appreciate that you haven't been involved with this page but you've related to Psykhosis regarding the mental health professional page and been invited by Psykhosis to take part in the peer review. I wouldn't say emotions are necessarily running high now, incidentally, just that certain issues need, and are now in, mediation EverSince 16:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok... I do say minor because the article seems very well written, and the changes proposed, from the perspective of my sometimes dumb brain, seem trivial to immediate future enhancements. I appreciate that you haven't been involved with this page but you've related to Psykhosis regarding the mental health professional page and been invited by Psykhosis to take part in the peer review. Sorry, I'm confused what you are getting at here. Do you just mean thanks for my involvement in the MHP page, or I have bias because I've dealt with Psykhosis in the past, or I should or shouldn't review this article??? (Peer review already complete) Chupper 15:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

List of influences

There is a section for therapy models with one called "Postmodern" - I haven't done any editing in there, but I see a real lack of discussion on the major shifts in viewpoint represented by those who picked up "Systems" theories - i.e., stating that if you didn't work with the entire system you could never achieve success - this was the beginning of family therapy. Narrative therapy and constructivist views came from the same roots - evolving out of the systems approach (see Haley's references to Bateson). The emphasis on communications from the point of view of language in particular gave rise to NLP. So you can see why I put Jay Haley into that list - he stands as the point where conventional, neo-Freudian or Existential or Humanistic psychology splits in a major way to give birth to systems, narrative, NLP, etc. (Steve)

Actually, I still don't see how Haley can be said to have made an impact on the field of clinical psychology. He studied under some interesting people and has done a lot of teaching, but what has he actually added to further the field? (Psykhosis)

Your list is very heavy in Freudian and neo-Freudian names. I can't stand the orthodox Behavioralists, but they ought to have a representative in there - like Watson. After all they are the ancestor that modern day cognitivists want to forget. (Steve)

Any list of important psychologists will be heavy in Freudian names, because to date they've been the predominant groundbreakers. I am not Freudian at all, so the list doesn't reflect my own position, but that of history. I can state the major impact each of those people had on the field. I agree that the list could use a behaviorist or two. (Psykhosis)

I see things a little differently. I see major intellectual threads that differ in important ways. Freud started a major thread that remains important to this day. But others changed their underlying model so much as to be an entirely new thread - examples of these are: Existentialism, Behavioralism, Cognitive, Humanism, Systems, Communications theory (which is how I lump NLP and Narrative, for example), Transpersonal. Where are the systems people in the list? Steve 23:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is how I think these areas are now represented:

• Freudian/Psychodynamic: Alfred Adler, Erik H. Erikson, Anna Freud, Sigmund Freud, Karen Horney, Otto Kernberg, Melanie Klein, Heinz Kohut, Harry Stack Sullivan, Donald Woods Winnicott
• Existentialism: Viktor Frankl, Rollo May, Fritz Perls, Otto Rank, Irvin Yalom
• Cognitive/Behavioral: Aaron Beck, Albert Ellis, Marsha Linehan, Joseph Wolpe
• Humanism: Carl Rogers (who are other major influences here?)
• Systems: Milton Erickson, Haim Ginott (who are other major influences here?)
• Transpersonal: Stanislav Grof, Carl Jung
• General: Mary Ainsworth, Albert Bandura, John Bowlby, Hans Eysenck, Abraham Maslow
• Other: Wilhelm Reich (somatic), Morita Shoma (Eastern), Lightner Witmer
• Communications—I don't know what you mean by this. Narrative Therapy is postmodern and NLP is a practice not generally recognized by the field.

Keep in mind that several of these people fit in multiple categories (like Maslow and Rank). Further, I haven't claimed the list is complete...it certainly could use more names. However, we should be judicious in picking out people who have truly made a large-scale impact. Psykhosis

I WAS being judicious. Looking at your comment above here are some thoughts that come to mind:

• I wouldn't have put Perls in Existentialism - better in Humanism, or Experiential and
• Maslow fits better (according to academic sources) in Transpersonal - but I would put him with Rodgers as a humanist.
• When I say "Communications" I'm describing a school of theories who all share the concept that language is the key to dysfunction and to treatment (Narrative therapy, Coherence therapy, Solutions-Focused Therapy, and almost everything Milton Erickson did - he wasn't a Systems person, and NLP (which might be very fuzzy as a theory has lots of research generated as techniques - they set the standard in "reframing"), Haim Ginott goes under communications even though he wasn't postmodern.
• Transpersonal also has its new age side - Ken Wilber
• There are also evolutionary psychology and social psychology (which is really Bandura's home)
• Under Systems you should have Gregory Bateson, Jay Haley, and a list of Family Therapy Theorists - that whole school of thought owes its existence to Systems Theory: Murry Bowen, Jay Haley, and others. I'd be happy to make more entries on the page but having you delete them is discouraging. Steve 04:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

As far a putting Branden into the list, his pioneering work in Self-Esteem (and in the philosophy of psychology) which started in the late fifties made changes still rippling through the approaches to motivation, development and treatment. He was ahead of the recognized "Positive Psychology" advocates in the theory and practice of positive psychology by decades. Before Branden you could hunt through the index of books on psychology and find little to no reference to self-esteem. (Steve)

Branden is another example of someone interesting, but who has not made a major impact on the field as a whole. But perhaps I'm wrong...anyone want to chip in on this one? (Psykhosis)

We certainly disagree on this one. Are you saying that self-esteem is of no importance in the field of psychology? I could do you no greater favor, psychologist to psychologist, than to recommend reading the first few chapters of "The Psychology of Self-Esteem" for the philosophy of psychology (I've never seen the equal anywhere else) and "The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem" for a powerful model of positive psychology therapy. Steve 23:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that self-esteem is of no importance in the field of psychology? This is the kind of debating approach that gets you in trouble, I think. Ironically, I actually think that "self-esteem" is a vague and poorly constructed concept, and that Bandura's concepts about self-efficacy are of far greater import for clinicians. Be that as it may, while Branden's publication might be a popular self-help book, his works have not really made a major impact on the field as a whole. However, I'm willing to be persuaded...can anyone offer evidence of his import on the field? Psykhosis 02:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Branden's "Psychology of Self-Esteem" is not a self-help book. Part one is pure philosophy of psychology. Part two is about self-esteem as a psychological need. I have found over fifty cites in just one look at Scholar.Google. "The six Pillars of Self-Esteem" showed 74 cites. But those numbers are nothing - Self-Esteem has over 19,000 cites and Branden is the one that started the interest in it, developed it, and remains the recognized expert in the field. The Wikipedia article on self-efficacy is pretty bad. What it defines as self-efficacy is a close copy to what Branden said, but decades earlier, except that Branden's description of Self-esteem described two aspects - efficacy and worth. He was the first to recognize that dual nature of self-esteem. The description of self-esteem on that Self-efficacy page is not very good. Steve 04:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes people get all politically correct or religious on making lists like that when what is needed is a more factual, encyclopedic account of history. Steve 21:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more...it is guiding my own editing. Let us work to keep the article unbiased and factual. Psykhosis 22:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Cutting through it

Steve, you are clearly passionate about your beliefs and your practice, and you've brought up several points that persuaded me to change what I edited in this article. However, I think you would profit from learning more about Wikipedia, so that your passion doesn't get in the way of good encyclopedic writing. I highly recommend reading the Manual of Style and the article on bias. Learning both will save you a lot of headaches in the future.

Nothing personal, Psykhosis, but there are times where what you write in your comments strikes the reader as condescending - to the point of being insulting. Suggesting that someone go off and study this or that is one of those cases. It leaves one asking themselves, "Did he mean to insult me? Is he trying to be helpful and just doesn't realize that he was rude? "Or, is this just a way to have his way?" And you went way beyond just implying an ignorance on my part. You implied that I have a bias that informs my writing in ways that violate WP Policy. I believe it is much better to not get personal when there is another way to go and it is better not to make accusations of something in a general fashion - if you need to make an accusation it should be specific, include a quote or link to the evidence. As long as we are giving advice (an awful thing to do) here is how I would word such an accusation, "George, at this location (link goes here), I think the words, "quote-goes-here" might not be NPOV." It is specific enough to research and answer, it is not a personal attack. It leaves the person's edit in place long enough for them to correct or remove it. It is respectful and protects the collaborative environment that generates Wikipedia content. Steve 19:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is a quick tip...unless the issue is Google itself, a search engine is not evidence of relevance. I can find even more search results for Ann Landers, but I'm not going to put her on the list. If you want your people on the list (or really anything in an article), and others disagree with their importance or relevance, you need to make a good argument for them based on relevant sources...ie. sources from the relevant literature (in our case, books and peer-reviewed journals on clinical psychology). To this end, I highly recommend reading the article on verifiability. And speaking of Google, their Book Search is very useful for finding printed material. If you can find a recent book on Systems Therapy with Bateson's or Haley's name listed as prominent, major contributors, I'll gladly admit I was wrong and welcome them to the list.

Psykhosis, what I wrote was "Scholar.Google" - just a short-cut to seeing some of the scholarly entries for a name or search term. Had I used regular Google the numbers would have been much, much higher but not as relevant. There is no "Systems Therapy"; it is "Systems Theory" - you can look up Gregory Bateson's contributions just by typing his name into Wikipedia's search box - same with "Systems Theory". It is a theory that Family Therapy owes its conception to and most of the PostModern schools. Also, this is something you might want to hear. When you say something like, "I'll ...welcome them to the list" it gives the impression that you 'own' the page. And, as a practical point, if you nit-pick or rewrite everything a person contributes, and delete much of what they enter, it generates ill-will and is harmful to the collaborative environment. I have seen many things that you have written that I would have worded differently but I always remember that this entire structure of Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and we need to be more respectful of one another. And to let others feel welcome and make contributions. Steve 19:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

By all means, keep me on my toes and question me when you think appropriate. At the same time, please learn how to appropriately handle disputes and how to argue for your contested additions. It will help us create better articles in the end. Psykhosis 14:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

So, you can see from my comments above, that I've taken the section heading of 'Cutting through it' to heart. Your way of phasing things in these comments often feels very condescending almost insulting, like above where you imply I don't know how to handle disputes. Your tendency to change or delete nearly every entry I make is unpleasant and not welcoming. I have not done any of these thing to you and have been appreciative of your accomplishments. I hope you understand how much less you would have accomplished if someone were deleting most of your entries, demanding sources for everything you enter, and making condescending remarks towards you in the talk pages. Your first efforts on this page appeared to have some clumsy wording and you had some facts wrong. I pointed out the factual errors politely, and submitted to your requests for proof (on your talk page if I remember right). I was right to ignore your wording because you kept going back and polishing, again and again, till you have very well written entries. It is a shame you won't accord others such the same common curtesy. Clinical psychology is a very large area and one person, especially if they have not been involved in it for many decades or in very many of its different areas is likely to have blind spots - that is why a collaborative effort is beneficial. Steve 19:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

If your intention is just to have your own way, than I've wasted my time. But if your purpose really is to create better articles, then you will take seriously that you could handle some of these things better and appreciate the feelings of other editors and attempt to see things from their perspective.

You mention dispute resolution. One principle I try to follow is to not criticize things until I have examined them myself. I try not to delete someone else's entry and then demand that they put up a source. Instead I go look to see if their entry has merit. This has the added benefit that I learn more and if it does become a dispute I won't be the fool, disputing an area in which I don't know what I'm talking about. If my quick research say the entry is wrong, then I take my evidence to the person - that is a sign of respect and it is more likely to increase their knowledge without making them feel attacked. After that, if there is a disagreement I delete and ask for a source. That, my friend, is a better way to resolve disputes - especially since it creates fewer of them and they tend to be less emotionally charged. Steve 19:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Cutting through it, part 2

Condescending or not, becoming familiar with the Manual of Style, verifiability, and bias is a good idea for all editors, and I offer that advice to you because your writing shows evidence that you haven't become familiar with them yet. I will indeed continue to delete material that does not meet high encyclopedic standards...the burden is on you—as well as myself and all editors—to provide good material from relevant references. At the same time, as I've shown on several occasions, I'm always willing to be corrected (as in the case of clinical psychology MA programs...I was wrong and happily wrote the initial section on it myself). On the topic of dispute resolution, I think you are confusing normal editing procedures with actual disputes. You might find the article on Civility useful (you will note that despite your accusation of condescension, I have always been civil with you and others, and even though I might question information, I do not label, attack, or insult individual editors). I also suspect that you might be taking my edits personally...they aren't, period. In the end, if you want me to not delete or edit your additions, then you need to be prepared to add material that meets the standards set forth in WP:TPA. Psykhosis 20:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I have never said you were not civil. I pointed out that condescension was present in your communications to me and that it felt insulting. I said that it was not good for Wikipedia because it harmed the collaborative environment. I didn't say you ever stepped outside of civility when being condescending and insulting - you haven't. You still make accusations without giving some kind of evidence ("your writing shows evidence that you haven't become familiar with them yet.") If you don't show an example of what you are saying it is just a condescending insult (delivered very civily). You say that you do not label, attack or insult other editors. Well, yes and no. You most certainly are civil and don't attack them or ever do any name calling. But the insult comes from making accusations that have no specifics offered as examples. If I said "George's writing shows he doesn't understand npov" it would be up to me to give an example where he did this. That is the difference. As to the taking it personal, I can only say that you continue to say that I'm ignorant of editing style, civility, bias/npov, and the wikipedia goals expressed in The Perfect Article. You say I am confusing normal editing with dispute resolution. No, I'm not. The word dispute and resolution also have normal English meanings. I also think you remain unaware of how unaccepting you are of any view point but yours in the article. Falling back on the WP Policy of verifiablity isn't an answer to my point about your acting as if you 'owned' the article.

You have worked with me before you should know that I'm not a nut-case and that I am knowledgable in the area of clinical psychology, and that I approve of your contributions and intentions (apart from our current disagreement). I would have expected greater understanding, more respect and less ridgity on your part. Steve 21:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess I didn't cut deep enough. Steve, you and I both have the authority to remove information that we deem inappropriate to an article. I removed one name because his works don't seem to be comparable with the others on the list...if we were to list every person who ever wrote a referenced book, the list would be gigantic. If you believe I'm wrong, as you seem to, then I'm willing to be corrected (as I've proven already). Simply saying that his book has lots of references isn't enough...you need to provide some kind of evidence that he himself made a major impact on the field. If you do, I'll gladly welcome the name (I've done a little web research on him, BTW, and am more convinced than before that he doesn't belong on the list). On all the other items...I don't know you. I have no idea who you are or what you are like in person. I only know your contributions. Based on those, I think you would seriously benefit from becoming familiar with the articles I pointed out. If that makes me condescending, then I'll accept that, because those articles are the backbone of keeping this site excellent. Moreover, if you did become highly familiar with them, you would have a far better idea of my "viewpoint" within this article. As long as you think this has anything to do with me promoting my own personal agenda, then you do not understand what I'm doing here or what Wikipedia is about. Read those articles, then get back to me...I'm confident that we will then be able to move on and keep making this article even better. Psykhosis 01:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Psi

This is an "a-bit-useless" comment. Maybe the Greek letter Psi picture on the top of the article should be changed. As far as I know about the topic, this symbol refers to the whole psychology, not only clinical. According to me, we should find a picture that is more representative. (a couch?) What do you think about that? Frédérick Lacasse 00:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Or a picture of a self-help book. Clincal psychologists have written more of them then there are scholarly works on psychology (I just made that up, but it's probably true.) Maybe a picture of Psi on a couch? Just kidding. I like the Psi - but I don't care what image is used - I think all the visual changes user Psykhosis has made do improve the page. Steve 00:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, i do not care so much me too, i was wondering if somebody had a better idea. I won't remove the picture myself. Anyways, i guess it doesnt change the article's quality. Frédérick Lacasse 01:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Edits to the article

My entry of Branden was deleted and I was asked to come up with sources. I'll put them forth, with my reasoning. I do this here to permit discussion (not because of WP Policy, which would allow me to simply enter the edit and cite my source) but in hopes of restoring good will among editors.

That Branden has been one of the earliest to do a substantial amount of writing on self-esteem is beyond dispute (just look at the number of books he has written on self-esteem and their publication dates). In an earlier comment it was implied that self-esteem might be too vague of a concept or that Branden might only be a 'self-help' author. I have a respected, valid, verifiable source to substantiate the following statement: Self-esteem is an important topic for clinical psychology and Branden has made major contributions.

Christopher J., Ph.D. Mruk,. Self-Esteem Research, Theory, And Practice: Toward a Positive Psychology of Self-Esteem. New York: Springer Publishing Company. ISBN 0-8261-0231-X.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

The book has been recommended reading for advanced psychology courses at the university level (at Universities other than the one Dr. Mruk is associated with).

Christopher J.Mruk, Ph.D. is a professor of clinical psychology with practical experience in many different clinical settings. He was the director of the counseling center at St. Francis College and he has taught clinical psychology at Firelands College of Bowling Green State University. He has trained and supervised clinicians. He has researched and published in the field of self-esteem. He is currently a consulting psychologist to Firelands Community Hospital of Sandusky, Ohio.

Page one, Dr. Mruk states, "Even a cursory database search of PsychINFO will reveal... more than 23,215 articles, chapters, books that directly focus on self-esteem as a crucial factor in human behavior." and later, "In fact, Rodewalt and Tragakis (2003, p. 66) stated that "self-esteem is one of the 'top three covariates in personality and social psychology research,'..."

Page 114 of the third edition is just one of many that detail the depth of Branden's work in self-esteem. Branden is referenced on pages 4, 19, 20, 34, 42, 43, 100, 114, 128, and 146. Steve 22:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You are conflating Branden with the topic of self esteem. It is a logical fallacy to say that because Branden wrote on self esteem and then other people wrote on it that somehow he is a vital influence on the field as a whole. The issue isn't "self esteem" but Branden...you need to provide some evidence that he himself, via is own works, made a substantial impact comparable with the folks currently on the list. If you can come up with any published source, even one, that provides evidence of his importance, I'll return the name myself. Psykhosis 01:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe I did just what you request. Dr. Mruk's references to Branden when discussing self-esteem are quite explict - Branden occupies pages of description. Steve 01:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I asked for a reference and you gave me one. While I still maintain that his contributions are nowhere near that of the others on the list, you seem to think he is worth all of this conversation. I find it odd that you are so passionate about adding him...but I'm too worn out talking about this to care anymore (which is kinda sad, actually). I really wish you would reconsider, for the sake of keeping the article as relevant and accurate as possible. Psykhosis 03:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

3rd Opinion

Hello all, I have come to this talk page via your request for a third opinion. As I have read through the talk page, your dispute seems primarily to be about behavior on the talk page and only secondarily about the content of the article (please correct me if wrong).

My initial impression is that both sides have stopped assuming good faith, and perhaps need to take a break from the article -- at the very least, need to tone down the rhetoric. I understand why Psykhosis moved the comments by EverSince, and there is not technically anything wrong with that. However, refactoring should be avoided in the middle of an active discussion, especially if it means moving someone else's comments.

It seems, more than anything, that everyone needs to cool off a bit. If you need to make major edits to the article, work for a consensus that involves more than just the two of you (I'd be happy to help with that). Try not to quibble over minor edits -- if it is egregiously wrong, someone else will revert it.

I hope this is helpful. I have this page watchlisted and am happy to continue this discussion. -- Pastordavid 18:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Good observations...no disagreement here. Psykhosis 19:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adding your comments. I would say the dispute was primarily about the content of the article. I've just outlined the issue I have with this in the scope section above, before I saw your comment here. I would be extremely relieved to have some additional comments on this from you or anyone else, for the sake of consensus, whether it agrees with my views or not. I am glad Psykhosis appears to now agree that this is a good thing to try to achieve.

It has also become about behavior on this talk page - not just moving my reply in to a completely different section as if it wasn't a reply (in itself I don't actually care, but this was done not in the context of a neutral technical move but after implying that my points, originally described as good points but now resolutely disagreed with, were irrelevant to the quality grading of the article, which I specifically disputed) but repeatedly, imo, misrepresenting and refusing to engage with points and suggestions being made to try and achieve consensus. EverSince 19:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I can only say that Psykhosis has here agreed to work for consensus, so lets start form there and assume good faith. One moment, and let me post below. -- Pastordavid 20:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Working toward consensus

Lets line out the items in question first, because the first thing needed is to agree about our disagreements. Working from what is posted above in the talk page, the content disputed are as follows:

1. The extent to which this article should/should not overlap Psychotherapy.
2. Images of the DSM / Drugs.
3. Use of Rorschach Image.
4. Use of Portraits.

This may be a little simplified, but I am a simple person. If you agree that these are the essential points of the content disagreement, leave a note below. If disagree, leave a brief explanation of where I got it wrong below. -- Pastordavid 20:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I think that's essentially it. The overlap issue not being about denying that psychotherapy is a core part of clinical psychology, but about keeping the focus on that clinical psychology context and on clinical psychologists, rather than historical detail and related influences and people EverSince 21:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Next Steps Once we agree on what we disagree about, the next step will be to address each point in turn. There are, essentially, two options there: (1) a straw poll, to determine where consensus is, or (2) I could just offer my opinion as an outside editor. I am fine either way, and leave it in your hands to let me know which would work best for you and the article. I will check back here either later tonight or tomorrow. -- Pastordavid 21:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind. A problem now is that Psykhosis has had another long say above on his viewpoints, making additional arguments and adding new information. I can provide counter-points and alternative sources, for example on the Rorshach in mainstream clinical psychology practice today, but I'm not sure if you want this here? And I'm exhausted by all this anyway. Maybe if you or others provided opinions I could do this later if necessary... EverSince 22:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I have seen what is going on in the discussion above. I am focusing my attention here, as the conversation above stalled out before I arrived. As for sourcing, etc, I don't know that we are there yet. -- Pastordavid 22:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, that sounds OK. EverSince 22:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Pastordavid, I feel it would be beneficial to have a third opinion on those four basic issues still if possible, despite the metaphysics below. I'd also incidentally like to clarify whether it is your opinion that the issue of the scope and focus of the article is not relevant to its quality grading; it seems from the guideline pages that it is relevant. EverSince 21:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Epistemological framework

It might be useful to create a framework to discuss these core issues. I myself find many of EverSince's suggestions and arguments to be vague and confusing, so this might provide a way to make things more concrete, so we all are on the same page.

While these things might seem obvious, let's list them out so we know where we are. With this in mind, here are some fundamental axioms along with derived questions:

1. Only information that is relevant to clinical psychology should exist in this article. Question: Is there information relevant to clin-psy that is not now in the article but should be?
2. Information that is indirectly related to clinical psychology may be mentioned, but should be minimized and linked. Question: Is there current info that is indirectly related but treated as fully relevant that should be minimized? Likewise, is there relevant info that is being treated as only related and should be expanded?
3. Information that is irrelevant, erroneous, confusing, redundant, extraneous, or better explained elsewhere (e.g. detailed info on research validity) should be corrected, improved, or omitted. Question: Is there info currently that violates any of these? If so, should it be edited or deleted?

I further recommend that issues be detailed and explained in bullet-point format, followed by an "Agree/Disagree" label for discussion. For example, I recently edited out a small paragraph in the CBT section. So, I might have said this:

• The first paragraph of the CBT section should be mostly eliminated with some info incorporated into the next paragraph (namely the references to Cognitive psychology and Behaviorism). Reason: it is better addressed in the CBT article and isn't necessary to understand the fundamental theory of CBT as presented in the main paragraph.
  • Agree. Contributors can add their agreement to the suggestion here.
  • Disagree. Contributors can add their disagreement to the suggestion here.
  • Neutral. Contributors can add their neutral comment here.

My hope is that this will make sure we are discussing discrete and well-articulated suggestions so to minimize confusion. Psykhosis 02:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Masters Level Psychologist Licenses

Psykhosis, there are a number of places in the article where it either says or implies that a doctoral level degree is required to be a licensed psychologist. Not true any more. I thought you would rather make those changes yourself. The trend appears to be that more and more states are opening the title up to Masters level grads. Only 11 states allow unsupervised but that is out of 27 states that allow the licensee to practice as a psychologist (or similar title).

This is the quote I copied from the source you used in the reference you added about supervision.

"Recently, three new states have gained independent practice status for masters psychologists and numerous other states are moving forward or considering legislative initiatives."

"Eight states already license masters psychologists to practice independently"

Licensure Information

Steve 22:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You and I seem to be reading the data on that page differently. Based on the link above, I count 24 states that give psychology licenses to Masters-only graduates—meaning 26 do not—and 39 states do not allow for independent practice. Further, the MA licenses are not as a "Psychologist" but for licenses like MFT and LPC... in fact, the page lists them specifically. True, three have the word "psychologist" in the title, but they are modified with words like "assistant" or "associate". The article would be highly misleading to suggest that both MA and doctoral graduates can practice as licensed "psychologists". While that might change one day, right now it simply isn't true. Psykhosis 23:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

PS. I have to admit that the details about supervision are vague. I have contacted the ASPPB to get clarification or more info. Psykhosis 00:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is a very careful reading of the page. The page is a little confusing. First it says, "...there are currently twenty-five states which license masters level psychologists..."

It goes on to say, "Recently, three new states have gained independent practice status for masters psychologists and numerous other states are moving forward or considering legislative initiatives." We don't know from this page if those 3 are listed or included in the 25 just mentioned.

But it gets a little more confusing. If you actually count the states in the lists the number is higher. There are only 24 different states listed in the long list. But it is missing Indiana which is in the list of 6 states with unsupervised level school psychologists. That makes 25. Add Pennsylvania (see paragraph below) and that is 26. It indicates that there are more states like Pennsylvania so we are talking about 27 or more.

"Eight states already license masters psychologists to practice independently under various titles of licensure..."

"At least six states have unsupervised practice for masters level school psychologists..." That makes 14 unsupervised masters level psychologist states. Then tt also says, "There are also many independently licensed masters in psychology from states like Pennsylvania...already licensed masters in psychology retain their independent practice licenses." Note that Pennsylvania isn't one of the states listed. So that makes it more than 15 states with unsupervised practice as a kind of psychologist.

I see that they mostly use something other than "Psychologist" as the license title. They use names with various modifiers like "Psychological Associate", "Licensed Senior Psychological Examiner" or "Psychologists-Masters", etc.

But notice that they are using the word "Psychologist" explicitly and without any modifier in West Virgina. And they use "School Psychologist" in Virgina, and Indiana. The states make the laws and they don't have all nice and neat about it. The APA suggested the word be restricted and most states did restrict it but here are 3 that didn't and others that used the word but with modifiers. Steve 02:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Just because this one organization calls them "psychologists" doesn't mean it reflects the licensing titles or the opinions within the larger field. You argue against your own position by admitting that all but three states restrict the title to doctorate-level graduates, and the few others use it with modifiers. At best this would support a brief mention, not a global assertion that MA and Doctorate level clinicians can practice under the same license and title... to suggest otherwise is simply not honest. I know you are passionate about this, but the data out there simply doesn't support your position this time. Psykhosis 02:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Psykhosis, I'm not arguing 'for' anything. And it isn't an 'organization' it is a couple of states that have licenses that say 'psychologist'. This article started with a strong bias against master's level clinical psychology. You didn't even think there was such a thing. It is much better now.

I don't want anything except for the article to reflect what is real and true. The truth is that lots of states make up lots of different names for all their different licenses and the names don't always make sense. Here is what does make sense: 1) There are doctoral level licenses, and 2) there are masters level licenses, and 3) both are valid for doing clinical psychology, and 4) They are different licenses with different requirements (no matter what they are named).

I do NOT want the article to say masters and doctoral level licenses are both the same license or the same title (except for those few states, and in those few states they just stupidly used the same word - it isn't the same license.)

I'd appreciate it if you quit telling me about my passions, stop putting words in my mouth and quit implying I'm dishonest. You obviously don't know what my position is. All I want for you to do is to quit trying to shrink or edit away every thing about masters level licenses. And stop acting as if you were the only person that knows anything about clinical psychology. If you look at the numbers there are nearly three times as many people practicing clinical psychology under masters level licenses than under a doctoral level license. All I want is for this to stop being some kind of pissing contest where doctoral level is supposed to sacred and masters level people are treated like poor relatives - just put the facts in. Steve 05:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't want anything except for the article to reflect what is real and true. —Then this is something we have in common. This article started with a strong bias against master's level clinical psychology.—The article doesn't say that MA training is bad or inadequate or inferior...it is only trying to report the facts of training and licensing. I admit confusion about continued supervision, and I'm seeking more information on that. You didn't even think there was such a thing. —actually, I still don't. Yet, I'm willing to report things that exist in the field...there really are MA clin-psy programs and to ignore that would be equally inaccurate. You obviously don't know what my position is.—With due respect, I'm concerned with accuracy in the article. You've corrected me on several points, and I appreciate that...I'm open to being wrong.

If you look at the numbers there are nearly three times as many people practicing clinical psychology under masters level licenses than under a doctoral level license. —This is where we diverge... you seem to want "clinical psychology" to be like the word "medicine"...as a catch all for all mental health professionals. While there are aspects of that in the historical use of the word, the great majority of definitions of the word in print and academia now use it to refer to doctoral level practitioners working with serious psychological issues. It is reasonable to say that there are MA programs that are trying to change this, but that doesn't mean the change has happened. Here is another way to think about it...clinical psychologists, with extra training, can prescribe some meds in two states, and there is a push for more. But it would not be accurate to imply that psychologists have prescription privileges in general. I think that a mention that there is a nascent movement to include MA-level practitioners into the "psychologist" fold is reasonable. But to imply more than that is not reflective of how things are in the field.

...just put the facts in... Check. Psykhosis 14:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

"the great majority of definitions of the word in print and academia now use it to refer to doctoral level practitioners working with serious psychological issues" - This is where you are wrong. This is where the article's bias comes from. There are over 500,000 masters level licensed people currently practicing psychology in clinical settings - including working with the most serious psychological issues. This has been a fact for a long time - it is not a new thing. Because a small number of people in academia want to change that and try to redefine things or because you find an erroneous definition doesn't change those facts. You can't use the word "psychology" one way in your sentence and then pretend that is has a totally different meaning for the title of this article. You have an obligation to recognize the truth of that. If you continue to treat licensed masters level people like they don't belong, I'll rewrite the article the way it should be - putting the focus on the work done and making the doctoral and masters level just a part of the licensing section. Steve 17:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This is frustrating because I'm not sure how to resolve this. You seem to be reading words that aren't in the article. By all means, continue to fact check me....but I'm not sure where I've written anything about MA-level practitioners "not belonging". I understand that you interpret the term "clinical psychology" as being more or less synonymous with anyone delivering mental health services. However, that is simply not how the term is generally used in practice....distinctions are made between clinical psychologists, counselors, etc. Until very recently, although the definition was wide, it was understood to apply to doctorate training only. (For these last two points, see U.S. DOL, APA divisions, A very typical university summary, the Psych Web career section, and too many other published sources to mention). That is starting to change...it hasn't changed yet, as reflected in licensing titles, most accrediting orgs, and the majority of university psychology departments. So, I come back to the same thing...it is worthy of a mention, but not a full integration, just as we shouldn't say clinical psychologists can prescribe medicine just because they can in 2 states. Fortunately, there are ways to work this out. I would fully welcome a referenced section on this very subject...perhaps in the training section. I have actually looked for a reference briefly, but I couldn't find anything in the literature...perhaps you could have better luck if you wanted to try. Psykhosis 18:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

You said, "I'm not sure where I've written anything about MA-level practitioners 'not belonging'..." At first you deleted them altogether. More recently you said they could only work under supervision of a licensed psychologist.

There is no valid way to understand the phrase "clinical psychology" as being other than the practice of psychology in a clinical setting. All attempts to go on from there and say that it is ONLY done by people licensed with a doctoral degree is wrong. It is wrong because it ignores the difference between 'license' and 'discipline' or 'field'. It is wrong because it ignores what psychiatrists do. It is wrong because it ignores what therapists, counselors, and social workers that are in a clinical setting do. It ignores that all of the mental health workers are often doing exactly the same work a person licensed as a psychologist is doing. You seem to be mistaking the phase 'clinical psychology' as a kind of person or people. It is not. It is a field. That is a separate thing from the people that practice in the field.

Here is the lead sentence from one of the pages you point at above, "CLINICAL AND COUNSELING PSYCHOLOGY are two of the largest and most popular fields in psychology." They understand that clinical psychology is a field.

You also continue to expand the importance of the APA beyond where it should be. Remember I applaud many of their initiatives but I also recognize the fact that they are a special interest group whose members are in economic competition with others and that one of the key purposes for the APA is to lobby governments and public opinion on behalf of their 7,038 members (clinical members as of 2005). They are a biased source of information in this context. But even so, the page you gave a link to has the word 'psychology' all over it in ways that imply 'field' or 'discipline'.

Some things exist before we give them a name. Clinical psychology was being done by Freud and others before the phrase was coined. It doesn't matter that there is a small movement in academic circles to be like a dog in the manger and to steal an entire field by mis-defining it. It is what it is. Everyone of the sites you gave links to above use the term 'psychology' in the page to represent a discipline - a field - a professional activity - as well as to use it when referring to doctoral degrees and to licenses. I don't know what more to say if you can't recognize that the word is used in two different ways in two contexts. It is a logical fallacy to drop context or inappropriately switch contexts. A psychologist is a person, often that word is used in a context that refers to degree and/or license title. Psychology is a study, a practice, a field, a discipline - no matter who is a legitimate practitioner.

You said, "distinctions are made between clinical psychologists, counselors, etc." Yes, that is a distinction that is based upon license - they are all working in a clinical setting doing psychology. When you say clinical psychology was "understood to apply to doctorate training only" that is wrong. Because there are over 500,000 clinicians doing psychology with a masters level licenses. And they understand themselves as working in a clinical setting and doing psychology. Steve 20:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Edits to the lead

I recently took out this lead (below). It has become too long and there is a lot of information that is either redundant, debatable, or better served in the main body. See below for my main questions.

Clinical psychology is the study and application of psychology for the purpose of understanding, preventing, and relieving socially and psychologically based distress or dysfunction, and to promote subjective well-being, objective physical health, with an outlook to personal, familial and occupational development. A Clinical Psychologist aims to help people achieve their best and to indicate how they might adapt to or change their life circumstances. In many countries it is a regulated profession with public health care funding.

Clinical Psychology also addresses moderate to severe disorders such as depression and anxiety and chronic health problems such as unremitting pain from injury or illness. Most clinical interventions proceed on the basis of a diagnosed mental disorder using the treatment protocol recommended for the diagnosis and backed by research into its treatment effect. Treatment can only occur with informed consent even where the client is directed to comply with a care and treatment program. That is a duty of care.

[...]

Although different countries require various educational qualifications to practice clinical psychology, [...] Australia has nationally accredited licensing for funded service provision within Medicare. [...]

Clinical psychology includes a wide range of practices, including research, psychological assessment, teaching, consultation, forensic testimony, and program development and administration. Central to clinical psychology is the practice of psychotherapy, counseling and coaching which aims to show and teach clients effective ways of improving subjective well-being, mental health, and life functioning. This is achieved by facilitating change of distressing or detrimental thoughts, feelings, or behaviors, both within themselves and in their significant relationships.

Although there are dozens of individual forms of psychotherapy, and significant practitioner variation within each form, three major orientations have been: psychodynamic, cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), and humanistic. The evidence on the effect of psychotherapy suggests 1. that the theory of change held by the client is more influential than the theory of the practitioner, and 2. that no one method is superior to another in its treatment outcome. Partly as a consequence, there is a growing movement to integrate these and other approaches to resulting in a more eclectic practice. This occurs alongside the movement toward interdisciplinary research in all fields of science.

Clinical psychologists can be found working with individuals, couples, children, older adults, families, small groups, and communities. They may work individually or in multi-disciplinary teams involving other professions for example social work, psychiatry and clinical dietician.

• I have never read that the goal of clin-psy is the promotion of "objective physical health." Clin-psychologists are not medical doctors, and it could be misleading to suggest that people with health problems should seek out a psychologist.
• A Clinical Psychologist aims to help people achieve their best and to indicate how they might adapt to or change their life circumstances. Too much detail...also, "achieve their best" is too vague. The rest is better addressed in the psychotherapy section.
• with public health care funding. Again, this is too detailed for the lead. Perhaps we need a section on the financial aspects of the field and getting treatment.
• Clinical Psychology also addresses moderate to severe disorders... Again, this paragraph is better addressed in the main body.
• Australia has nationally accredited licensing for funded service provision within Medicare. This is a somewhat confusing sentence. The paragraph is addressing basic educational requirements, i.e. what degree is needed to practice clinical psychology?
• Central to clinical psychology is the practice of psychotherapy, counseling and coaching which aims to show and teach clients effective ways of improving subjective well-being, mental health, and life functioning. This is a bold statement that doesn't seem well-supported in the literature. Can you offer a clinical psychology source that states that clinical psychologists offer "counseling" (as distinct from psychotherapy) or "coaching"?
• This is achieved by facilitating change of distressing or detrimental thoughts, feelings, or behaviors, both within themselves and in their significant relationships. Better addressed in the main body.
• The evidence on the effect of psychotherapy suggests 1. that the theory of change held by the client is more influential than the theory of the practitioner, and 2. that no one method is superior to another in its treatment outcome. Same...integrate within the main body, and cite your literature source.
• They may work individually or in multi-disciplinary teams involving other professions for example social work, psychiatry and clinical dietician. Hm...this isn't bad...I'm putting it back.

Psykhosis 00:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your careful editing and thoughtful explanations. I might come back to this article with sources and another world view of ClinPsy. However, removing evidence based practices and cogntive science for a start, puts me in a different practice of clinical psychology that that represented here. I think to continue would be relatively fruitless for me so I shall gracefully retire from this page invest my time in other spots on wikipedia and psychwiki.--Ziji 07:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The issue isn't having alternative points of view, but working within Wikipedia standards. If you decide to jump back in the water, you would be well-served by becoming familiar with the Wikipedia Manual of Style, and especially WP:BETTER, WP:VERIFY, and WP:CITE. Considering the current level of development of this article, adhering to these standards becomes more of a priority. If you feel like you want to add information, but aren't motivated to master the large amount of style elements, you are welcome to offer suggestions on the talk page and ask others to integrate them into the article. Psykhosis 19:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggested change

First section, fifth paragraph reads:

Clinical psychology includes a wide range of practices, such as research, psychological assessment, teaching, consultation, forensic testimony, and program development and administration.[3] Central to clinical psychology is the practice of psychotherapy, which aims to help clients improve subjective well-being, mental health, and life functioning by changing distressing or detrimental thoughts, feelings, or behaviors. Although there are dozens of individual forms of psychotherapy, the three major orientations include psychodynamic, cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), and humanistic, although there is a growing movement to integrate these and other approaches resulting in a more eclectic practice...

I'm thinking that too many practices are listed: are teaching and forensic testimony and administration really in clinical psychology? They don't fit either of the definitions at the top of the lead. Psychology, yes, but not clinical psychology. The other thing is that the 'growing movement' is NOT to integrate the theories, that is impossible since they have mutally exclusive basic premises, but rather to adopt techniques from other theories but not the theory itself. Same minor, but important, change to wording is needed at the bottom of the section on "History of Psychotherapy" Steve 09:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well sure clinical psychologists can teach, do forensic work, and administrate programs. From the APA Div12 page: "Clinical Psychologists are involved in research, teaching and supervision, program development and evaluation, consultation, public policy, professional practice, and other activities [...] Clinical Psychologists also engage in program development, evaluate Clinical Psychology service delivery systems, and analyze, develop, and implement public policy on all areas relevant to the field of Clinical Psychology." When it comes to forensic work, notice the wording: "forensic testimony." It is not uncommon for clinical psychologists to appear as expert witnesses, especially in their role as testers.

The issue of integration is tough. I would argue that while the major orientations are distinct, many psychologists and programs are indeed mixing aspects of those theories together...for example, using the relational components of humanism to form a strong alliance, using psychodynamics to understand underlying issues, and using CBT to change thoughts. So, would you be satisfied if the sentence stated that there is a movement to integrate various methodologies? Psykhosis 15:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Psykhosis retires

I am finished with this article. I have added to it as much as I can. I honestly believe it represents the topic very well, although there are certainly other useful things that could go in there, such as info on Eastern perspectives and future projections of the field. However, other people have major objections with it. To them I say: have at it. It's all yours...gut it, bloat it, do what you will. I will be sad to see it go through such changes, but I no longer have the energy or the time to fight for it. On the positive side, the process of writing for this article has given me a lot of opportunities to discover new things about my field. To EverSince, I say that I think your view of clinical psychology is too narrow, and to Steve I say that your's is too broad. But you may now make any edits you want without my interference. I only request one thing: please cite your sources. Psykhosis 17:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no changes I am interested in making. You claim that EverSince has too narrow a view of the subject and that mine is too broad. Yours, of course is just right. I hope you will focus on some of what you heard as feedback and complaints from others during this project. You have an unfortunate tendency to go forward as if only you could be right and that it would be impossible for others to ever be right. You insist on having things your way and make people prove points where no one is doing that to you. Yet you don't seem to notice this discrepancy where you treat others different from how others treat you. It makes it very hard to work with you, to collaborate. But I guess you ignoring or rationalizing this as you read it.

Having said that, I want to complement you on the job you did. The article is excellent and that is due to your efforts. Steve 18:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe your work is high-quality and well-sourced, Psykhosis, as others is also, and it should by no means be gutted etc. But everyone's contributions on Wikipedia are subject to co-editing and alternative views and sources, as difficult as that can be sometimes (I know). I don't think we should make personal judgements about overall views people have of the field, we can all be too close to things sometimes and need to pace things but I believe neither you nor Ziji nor I nor anyone should feel or be excluded EverSince 18:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I should add that I can only assume from what you've said here that you're withdrawing from the informal mediation, please correct if not or you change your mind. I realise the mention of "gutting" was probably a very negative reference to the question of whether or not to move some content. As proposed in the informal mediation before your post here, I do feel that issue should have a balanced open hearing and will try to address that again soon. EverSince 09:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a curious reciprocal process of inclusion/exclusion, approaching/withdrawing for a wikinewbie like me. I want to jump back in the water as you Psykhosis have invited. BUT I hesitate to start again reading of your losing "the energy or time to fight for it". Does this page have to be a fight over broad or narrow, right or wrong, in or out? I think the breadth of clinical psychology around the world will be unified when thought of as a Cognitive science. As such it has the ability to be inclusive, since no one discipline can possibly comprehend all of the "processes underlying the acquisition and use of knowledge" especially in a clinical setting. May I again add my support and willingness to help in bringing the East into this article and the not insignificant influence of the common law duty of care that continues to shape our research and practice in the West.--Ziji 10:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

A general answer: My object in this article has always been to reflect the field as it is, specifically as addressed in the literature. This is a central principle of Wikipedia and one that I have used to guide my edits. One of the problems in this article is the idea that I am fighting against other people's ideas and viewpoints. I have not and would not. I have fought to make sure that edits reflect the literature, not my own opinion. I cannot make this clear enough: not everything in this article are things I agree with or support (e.g. MA-level programs in clin-psy, the Rorschach, psychoanalysis as a viable therapy, and more). See, it isn't about what I like, but what the literature reflects. There are lots of books and journals that address clinical psychology, and that is where I have drawn my information. What I "fight" is material that isn't sourced or reflected in the literature. What I "fight" are edits that do not meet Wikipedia's standards as given in the Manual of Style. When people have offered a source on things I disagree with, I have happily welcomed it. However, I no longer have time for it. So, yes, I am withdrawing from mediation, since you are now free to edit the article as you will. I now leave you to it... remember, it's all about VERIFICATION. Psykhosis 19:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I hear you - 'any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source'. Style on the other hand may take me a while.--Ziji 20:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Broadening the definition of clinical psychology?

I think of an unusual defintion like: "Clinical Psychology is the application within Psychology of cognitive science to treatment and to treatment research in clincial settings." Even a superficial reading of cogntive science and ToK will indicate both the significance of increasings its breadth, and that it could include every known psychotherapy approach and therapy research from behaviourist, biofeedback, EFT and energy therapies, EMD*R, somatic or body centred psychotherapies, through strategic and family systems interventions, couples therapy, NLP and to psychoanalysis and yes, (arggghh) CBT and DBT, to which I groan. Because the common element in all of them is thought - attention, memory, perception, language and action. Thought seems to me a practical unifying principle and the science of it is interdisciplinary. Clinical Psychology has a place in that sun. Without a movement in this direction I fear it may become just another brand fighting over flavors. It might then make an interesting historical study in the sociology of professions, left behind by advances in bran (sic) science.

One benefit of joining cognitive science might then be the possibility of differentiating between therapy, counselling, psychoeducation, philosophical enquiry, coaching and mentoring (to name a few) in a way that honours the unique history and contribution of clinical psychology to those fields AND their contribution to ours. See my comments about the presence of each of these processes in micromanaging the development of a treatment program/ therapy relationship from commencement to conclusion.

On that basis clinical psychologists might then be able to speak a common language drawn from embodiment and Eco-somatics. Utopian, I know.--Ziji 20:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the relationship between clinical psychology and cognitive science is interesting. There are issues about the range of cognitive science too, like the extent to which emotions or psychosocial dynamics are incorporated. As a general rule Talk Pages should stick to discussing improvements to the article; perhaps this could be addressed in the article in some way... incidentally I agree about the article addressing 'Eastern' perspectives more - it does already mention the use of 'mindfulness' techniques in CBT EverSince 10:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Ziji, it would be inappropriate to mention "cognitive science" in this article. Clinical psychology is a division of psychology - not cognitive science. It would be going off track, perhaps for the purpose of supporting cognitive science, which would not appropriate to the encyclopedia article. Steve 19:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I do agree actually that a POV about subdivisions shouldn't be incorporated, partly for the range issues I mentioned, but some do argue things like this, and of course psychology as a whole is recognized to have undergone something of a 'cognitive revolution' which at one extreme involves links between clin psy and cog sci (sometimes via cog psych and sometimes directly) EverSince 16:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Steve and EverSince for your kindness and wisdom. I will leave cognitive science out of it whilst watching Ilardi and Feldman's approach to integration with interest. My aim is to improve this article by broadening the definition of clinical psychology from the outset and doing some Boundary-work along the way. May I draw your attention to the defintion of clinical psychology on the psychology page and the subsequent discussion. That version of clinical psychology targets health problems rather than psychologically-based distress or dysfunction - a different emphasis? My comment is not only about consistency between the articles but also If one were to take 'Psychology' as the subject described on that main page, then counselling and social psychology would be included in the knowledge applied by clinical psychology. Is the difference between those branches of psychology and Clinical just a matter of the degree of presenting pathology? My practice of clinical psychology is eclectic, integrating more than just Psychology applied to personal 'well being' but also to marital and family well being and to health problems as represented by Critical psychology and critical health psychology. Is there room in this clinical psychology article for that kind of breadth of defintion - one that seems to start from the evidence that brain is embodied and body is embedded in the environment?--Ziji 12:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

To clarify what I wanted to say about cognitive science, I do personally think it can be included as an influence/aspect of modern clinical psychology, given sources supporting this, but just that any points included should be NPOV not personal argumentation. Regarding the breadth in general, as I understand it the article should describe and reflect the common definition(s). Since this seems to vary (including by country), the article should describe the variation in usage. The first paragraph need only describe the basic common meaning, however, with detail/qualifications/nuances coming later (Guide to Layout). Any notable sourced points falling within that can potentially be included. Of course potentially a huge range of things are 'included in the knowledge applied by clinical psychology". I certainly agree that family-based work etc (more broadly, a systemic or psychosocial approach) is a major part of clinical psychology; some aspects of this are already included in the article. EverSince 09:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you eversince, that is clear. I have made my first move to broaden the definintion in the first paragraph. I'll wait and read the edits that it may give rise to, before going further.--Ziji 11:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Peer review

Just wanted to remind everyone that the peer review for this article is still open. I've just read that the editor that requested it has retired from contributing to this article. If no other editor here is going to jump in and acknowledge the suggestions being made there, I respectfully suggest closing it. Cheers :-) Raystorm 13:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm ok with that myself. Lots of issues there to address. I see you've raised some about the psychotherapy content that are similar to ones I've been trying to address here for a while. It does seem that some information about psychotherapy is most suitable for the psychotherapy page, while this page can focus on psychotherapy as viewed/practiced/researched/developed in clinical psychology/by clinical psychologists. EverSince 15:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I closed the peer review. Steve 16:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I did find there was too much info on psychotherapy on this article even though a link to its main article was provided. The most serious issue however is the History section, which in my opinion is missing some very basic and important stuff. I hope you all are able to bring this article up to shape, and that the suggestions at the peer review were helpful towards that end. :-) Cheers Raystorm 21:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

If there's no alternative suggestions, I'll make some changes to the psychotherapy content in line with these suggestions in due course. EverSince 16:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I like the changes you suggested and made. DPeterson^talk 15:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I've had a go at rejigging the psychotherapy stuff as per points I've raised and those raised in peer review. I've tried not to lose anything but add it to psychotherapy instead, which was very tedious. I don't know if this entirely meets the comments made about this in the peer review. I think there is still very much a need for the psychotherapy content, and its sources, to be more specifically focused on the practice in clinical psychology not just about the therapies in and of themselves. I've tried to add some more international perspective. EverSince 15:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC) (p.s. thanks)

I've tried to extract briefly some of the outstanding points raised in the peer review (please add any others I may have missed), so it can be seen here what may need to be improved:

"The criticisms section does not treat opposing ideas (even those within the psychology community) very fully. A short paragraph on each of the existing bullet points would improve the article immensely."

"Adding evidence based practices and principles, which are a sine qua non of Clinical Psychology"

"issues in the sociology of professions...the lack of any reference to this field in the Clinical Psychology article might make it read like another self serving promotion of a professional body"

"Way too U.S-centric. A bold suggestion -take off the entire training section. Same for licensure section" "an Eastern perspective is desperately needed for this article to reach FA or GA status." "Perhaps this article could stand to have a more "global" perspective."

"The impact of insurance companies and their policies on reimbursing for treatment on the field needs to be included in the recent history section"

"Behaviourism deserves a bit more than a small paragraph in the History section. Also, you have to mention experimental psychology and its links with clinical psychology."

"List of journals should be included in a subarticle."

EverSince 15:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I see one very large omission. A major focus of clinical psychology is psychotherapy and to a large extent, the history of clinical psychology is also the history of psychotherapy. When the section on psychotherapy was moved to that page, the history was lost. Now all that is left is a tiny paragraph at the bottom of the history page that has one sentence about cognitive behavioral, one sentence about all other therapies, and one sentence making an assertion about a consensus for the biopsychosocial model that might be true in the UK or New Zealand but not the rest of the world. This is a major out-of-balance view of clinical psychology. Nearly half a million people - just in the US - are professional therapists, doing clinical psychology. The history of what they do, the variety of theoretical orientations and how they arose is not told. The History section needs a rewrite that gives that perspective and that balance. Steve 18:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Steve. Firstly I think you've overlooked some of the psychotherapy content re-addressd in the history section where assessment practice joined by psychotherapy practice - mentioning psychodynamic therapy, behaviorism, cognitivism and humanism, and the boundary issues. And then the points about CBT, systemic/psychosocial and other approaches towards the end. The final sentences says 'some' consensus 'towards' a biopsychosocial model. I did also add info earlier in that section on ways in which certain countries have developed culturally-variant models of theory and practice. Of course please do feel free to add more or different perspective and balance to the history section on any issues.

I was wondering if you would raise the psychotherapist issue, either before or after I edited. When you say psychotherapy is a major focus of clinical psychology, of course I totally agree and I'm sure no one would disagree. When you say the history of psychotherapy is the history of clinical psychology to a large extent, and that anyone professionally practicising psychotherapy (and qualified? qualifications in psychology?) is de facto doing clinical psychology (a clinical psychologist?) - this does stand out to me as a particular claim and point of view that needs looking at. As I've said before, I do personally see a valid point in that view (that relates to the peer review point about the sociology of professions) and think it should be reflected in the article, but at the same time, in the usual usage as I understand it, clinical psychology is not generally described as including being a psychotherapist alone. In any case, of course, the history of psychotherapy is very much covered on the page on psychotherapy which is wikilinked in several places - how do you think the psychotherapy content of these two pages should differ, if at all? This is not to deny of course that there are blurred distinctions between clinical psychology, psychotherapy and counseling - perhaps less so in the UK and more so in, say, Japan - do you have any specific info or sources on the clarity of distinction as usually made in the US or elsewhere? I don't want to get too hung up on terminology but there are also a lot of other aspects at the center of current clinical psychology as commonly viewed which are not yet really covered here or elsewhere. EverSince 19:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not following what you mean by "...clinical psychology is not generally described as including being a psychotherapist alone." Freud, who was not a licensed psychologist, and who practiced before the phrase 'clinical psychology' was coined, was none the less doing 'clinical psychology' when he, alone, was analyzing a patient in his office (e.g., clinic). I assume we agree on that - so I'm confused about your meaning. Steve 01:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I meant alone in the sense of only EverSince 03:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Steve and EverSince, it may be of some using re-reading this item in the Archive of previous discussions, though American based, it may apply globally. It is that clinical psychology is not a legally restricted phrase for the purpose of licensing and refers to the practice of psychology in a clinical setting, of which psychotherapy is but one application. Is psychotherapy a major focus of clinical psych in every country in the world?--Ziji 12:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the very start of the history section should have more on the psychological threads that were brought together into a recognized field of clinical psychology. I guess it could outline the more psychological methods developed in the 19th century, although dominated by psychiatric physical methods (in the West at least). And certainly into 20th century the development of experimental psychology and behaviorist approaches, and the development of psychodynamic approaches. Did you have this kind of thing in mind or something else? EverSince 10:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Biopsychosocial model

Normal and abnormal development are multi-determined. ClinPsych works with the whole person. Thomas G. Plante in his book 'Contemporary Clinical Psychology' (1999) portrays the field through its history, scientific underpinnings, and theoretical orientations. He examines clinical psychology from an integrative biopsychosocial perspective. The wikipedia article on the biopsychosocial model refers to its use in clinical psychology. Just to take one of many University PhD courses in Clinical Psychology, that at University of Massachusetts Boston, the program emphases are sociocultural, ethnic, minority issues AND a biopsychosocial model. Is there a problem in defining clinical psychology in Wikipedia using that model?

If not, then 'psychologically-based' dysfunction becomes biopsychosocially based dysfunction or as in my previous edit (currently removed), 'psychologically experienced' dysfunction - since that is what we work with. From a legal negligence point of view it would likely be a breach of the duty of care not to consider a person's distress in its biopsychosocial context for example, treating someone for a psychosis without checking if they have worked in an indistry that exposes them to heavy metal poisoning, treating one for chronic pain ignoring an umambiguous physical cause.--Ziji 22:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You said, "Normal and abnormal development are multi-determined. ClinPsych works with the whole person." That is a theoretical model and deserves a hearing in the appropriate article. But Clinical Psychology as an article is the umbrella to many theoretcial orientations and some of them do not see development that way. Clinical Psychology 'looks' at the whole person, but only works with psychology (e.g., physical or financial well-being are usually referred out.)

Scope of practice under all of the licenses, apart from the psychiatrist, prohibits diagnosis or treatment outside of the psychological realm. Taking a history, gathering background relative to symptoms, these fall within the call of duty you mention. Then referring the patient for treatment of physical ailments. Therapists have been considering the patients whole-person for a long time without the biopsychosocial model that you are pushing, but for understanding, not treating.

I mistakenly thought I had explained why I removed your edit to the defintion. I know I typed it in, right here. But I guess I didn't click the 'Save' button. Here is what I thought I had left as a message for you: Biopsychosocial is not in general usage, which it should be to be in this definition. It also is not in total accord with all of the various theoretical models legitimately practicted in clinical psychology. It also broadens the definition of clinical psychology beyond the proper scope and focus. I also returned the word 'subjective' in front of 'well-being' - that is needed because the therapist is not working on the client's financial well-being, for example. Again, it is about an appropriately tight focus. I apologize for not leaving the explanation here as intended. But it is not proper to use the article on Clinical Psychology as a platform for popularizing the Biopsychosocial model, Embodiment, Eco-Somatics, or Cognitive Science. They need to stay in their own articles. Steve 23:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Steve, very clear - but 'pushing' I don't think so. Not my favourite model. Boundary-work in search of a boundary object; article improvement and discussion is what I am about. To have the biopsychosocial model recognised as one 'in general usage' in clinpsych, should I cite more and international references in addiiton to those above in support or would one eminent Clnical Psych do? Could you guide me to the professional Journal/s or School that are the final authority on 'in general usage'. You and EverSince are graciously giving me a post graudate training in tight professional demarcation, one that has hardly touched my clinical practice in 35 years. Thank you.--Ziji 01:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Ziji, your sarcasm was delivered so politely that I almost missed it. I notice that you didn't address the issue that this model conflicts with existing psychological theoretical models - thereby defining them out of clinical psychology. I could also point out that is entirely unnecessary since the existing definition is both accurate and sufficient. When I said 'pushing' I was referring to the fact that your addition redefines clinical psychology in a way that makes new 'rules' about how clinical psychology needs to be done. 'Pushing' a theoretical model that all practices would need to recognize. That's not the purpose of the definition. Steve 03:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Steve, you might think I was a Canadian I am so polite. My apologies for my pleading, which can easily be read as sarcasm but was not intended as such. Rather I was seeking the limits of this term 'general usage', which I gues is somewhere defined in WP:NOT or related pages? I am delighting in our correspondence and I accept your view - for the time being.--Ziji 08:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Changes to the intro paragraphs

I'd like to alter the intro paragraphs somewhat - I think the lead sentence should at least mention psychological/mental disorder - this is surely a very basic issue about the focus of much of clin psych. I guess this would have to wikilink to 'mental illness', even though that's a more medical term that many clin psych's wouldn't prefer. And I think a particular quote shouldn't be there in the intro, but rather the general view should be outlined. I'll do this unless any objections or other suggestions. EverSince 12:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused about what it is you want to change. The lead sentence contains this phrase, "psychologically-based distress or dysfunction" - is that what you would remove and replace with "psychological/mental disorder"? I'm also not clear on what you mean by removing a quote and "the general view should be outlined". Currently the main definition is followed by the origin of the phrase and then by the APA definition. Maybe I'll be able to see what needs improvement after I understand what you are proposing. Steve 17:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I too would like to change the intro and have attempted to broaden it beyond general usage in discussions above to include, for instance psychologically experienced distress, but with no success. That 'for instance', is a not insignificant and an implicit inclusion of environment and culture in the intro. I think the quote from the APA is ineligant, ponderous and could go elsewhere. Better still a European voice would provide balance. I want the definition of clin psych as the "practice of psychology in a clinical setting" (previously alluded to in this discussion) to be the opening sentence - that then includes all of Psychology that can be applied or researched in a clinical setting, without offending those who would include or exclude controversial aspects of Psychology not in general use worldwide.

I note your reminders of key points drawn from the peer review listed above, that are yet to be addressed - not the least of which are Eastern influence, the framework of critical psychology and the sociology of profession and the influence of each country's legal system on clinical practice and research. I want to begin all of those but feel completely hamstrung by the intro, by edits of my edits, by inconsistencies between pages that refer to the Clinical Psychology article and the article itself (for instance the Psychology definition of Clin Psych and Clin Psych's defintion) AND by the difficulties I have in balancing the maze of well thought out rules of wikipedia (some linked at the head of my talk page).

I would like to discuss how the general usage rule is applied in this context. I think the late H. L. Mencken would enjoy it, but there are only a few voices on this discussion page. What are the rest of you thinking?--Ziji 23:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I also wanted to address the intro in order to then help implement some of those peer review points. I do agree about the quotation, it's not NPOV or usual practice to introduce a subject in that way (but I don't think it's a bad quote and it could be paraphrased as a basis for further edits). I don't know what I think about psychologically-experienced vs psychologically-based. The intro is meant to be as basic and accessible for the lay reader as possible. I guess I'd go for something like "the application of psychology to (clinically significant?) mental distress, dysfunction or disorder." Perhaps we should just edit away at it now and see if it stabilizes on something.

Maybe the article needs a section on "the definition and scope of clinical psychology" given such varied and nuanced issues and boundaries. I would also be glad if there more contributions. EverSince 00:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Re psychologically based - there is a set of unverified assumptions in depicting psychological distress/dysfunction as psychologically based, when the distress presented in a psychology clinic is first in the person's experience and not necessarily with the understanding on what it is based, or the breadth of that base. To a psychoanalytically oriented clinpsych that basis may be intrapsychic, whereas to a family therapy informed clinpsych it may be based in contemporary external family communication patterns; to a clinpsych workng for a construction company it may be based in the conditions under which the distressed person works and to one working in an opressed minority group it may be based in the conditions imposed by the dominant culture. But to all of those clients/patients the distress is first experienced and then assessed in a clinic and then later the basis of it more clearly defined, understood and acted upon--Ziji 01:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to say I agree with that point. It's also true that helping people cope with chronic pain (somatic pain) is an important focus of clinical psychology. Someone like the clinical psychologist [David Smail] writes very powerfully on the issue of where the problem is experienced but where it is actually located, but still uses just the term 'psychological distress'. So personally I think both the more complicated phrases should be avoided in the intro, but the issue should be clarified. I see you've made some edits so I'll go ahead too, please feel free to revise anything again. EverSince 09:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I still think the application of psychology in a clinical setting is comprehensive and simple and have put it back. I agree that psychological distress is clearer and have replaced mental distress with it. I have added links to Profession and also to Social Psychology. The latter may be controversial as a source for clinpsych but who in and outside of the profession was not influenced directly or indirectly by knowledge of the Stanley Milgram experiments in understanding the problems of expert authority, designing ethical clinical psych treatment protocols and developing an esprit de corp within the hierachy of a clinic? The influence of socpsych goes to the core of understanding the reciprocal interactions that support both psychological ease and distress--Ziji 22:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think 'clinical setting' has some problems too but I'm OK to leave it. I find bibliotherapy too specific compared to psychoeducation, I'll try another revision. I agree social psychology has certainly been an important influence - but along with numerous other areas. Experimental psychology was intended to be highlighted as the historically most direct driving force, I'll try to clarify. EverSince 11:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I just saw your edit and on reflection I think psychoeducation is far better than bibliotherapy. I'm sorry to see social psychology go, but pleased sociology is in. I will think about your revisions and edit if the spirit moves me. I am more at ease with this intro than any other previous to it.--Ziji 11:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes bit contradictory my edits re the socials oh well. I've made a few more reworkings and stopping for now, I feel fine with how it's basically going now too, don't know about others. EverSince 12:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi EverSince. I have expanded the Clinic article to address some of our concerns about clinical setting and linked the latter to it. Please add or edit as you will.--Ziji 04:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ziji, nice little article that one. My worry about the "clinic setting" was really that clin psychs in reality often work in hospital inpatient wards, or universities, or undertake some work in situ in communities or homes etc. EverSince 12:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC) p.s. I just disambiguated Clinical which previously just redirected to medicine!

That's an excellent observation. The word "clinical" has more to do with the fact that work is being done with a client/patient - for their benefit - than with where it is being done. The name must have arisen from the medical side where one went down to the clinic to see patients (leaving the lab, or office). Steve 18:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The article isn't getting better

I think the article is getting worse not better. I'm sorry if that hurts anyones feelings. I've not been opposing or correcting any changes that are being made because it was clear that my input wasn't wanted, and, frankly, I just lost heart. But someone needs to say something. You now have ancient eastern traditions "informing" modern clinical practices - whatever that means - with no explanations or any sources given. And for God's sakes, Ayurveda was Hindu, not Buddhist! Steve 05:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The start of the history section clearly needs rewording, NPOV'ing and sourcing now. I hope you will consider helping do that. I was leaving it for a while to see the basic issues that were covered, and going to go back to it, with a source. Is there anything else in particular? I can only say I feel your input is wanted. I was only just saying above that you should (of course, in the usual way) feel free to revise or revert things, and was just asking for clarification re the particular psychotherapy issue you had. EverSince 09:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC) p.s. (two p.s's) when I said in the above section that maybe we should just edit and see - I meant we all. And, the point about Ayurveda - I didn't add that to the history section but it looks to me that the Buddha point was probably meant to be separate to the Ayurveda point. EverSince 14:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Feelings not hurt nor a target. You don't need to invoke God to make a change to the edits. Steve your input is wanted, our conversations a delight. I won't tackle you on the challenge of Hinduism and Buddhism's shared history but the full stop between Ayurveda and Buddhism I had hoped was clear. I think the article is much improved. Still only three voices in these changes. What are the rest of you thinking?--Ziji 09:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Steve. I like the differentiation of 'not about clinical psychologists but clinical psychology' - much more inclusive of the practice rather than the profession, which answers one of my other concerns that it read as potentially self serving of the profession. Thank you.--Ziji 22:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ziji. It was much, much worse in the beginning. There were lots of people that weren't seeing past the licensing title and were maintaining that only licensed psychologists could do clinical psychology. They just didn't grasp the concept of a discipline. Same thing went on for a while at the psychology article. Much of it comes from U.S. academia's attitude. There is much less focus on critical thinking and classical knowledge and much more on certification and exclusion of all who don't accept all the PC proclamations. Like a giant trade school with an attitude. And they seem to support a new kind of rhetoric - win arguments by declaring all opponents not eligible for debate. I agree that it still reads too much like it is an article on American Licensed Psychologists practicing CBT under APA guidelines. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SteveWolfer (talk • contribs) 22:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

Hi Steve - it sounds like you have all had a helluva time getting the article to this level. I assume from what you are saying that we can expect further visits from CBT hagiographers. The lack of classical training and critical thinking is a significant impediment here in Australia as well. When you have time I would really appreciate you having a look at Clinical Psychology - Eastern & Middle Eastern Influences and addiing or editing as you see fit.--Ziji 22:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ziji, I'd be happy to look, but I have no knowledge in that area so I probably won't have any changes. Steve 01:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"Pre-history" of clinical psychology

There's a relatively clear history of clin psych that dates to when the term and practice were first recognized around the start of the 20th century. Giving a brief summary of preceding influences seems cloudier. Sources (e.g. from main England & Wales charity MIND) tend to cover anything vaguely related to mental health. With something like the history of psychiatry which I previously worked on, it's a bit easier because it can be restricted to medical models and physicians (including Rhazes).

I think the "pre-history" here probably needs to be restricted to just a very basic outline of the general psychological approach (as it can now be described) to mental distress/disorder in "ancient/middle/enlightenment" times in East and West. With the more recognisably modern psychological approaches developing through the 19th century perhaps. There are clear links for more on the general history of psychology or psychotherapy of course. EverSince 10:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I've had a go at a quick rewording, with an imperfect source, keeping to the basic themes introduced recently which personally I think were going in the right direction (including East & West). Obviously can be improved still, but as I recall there wasn't previously any mention of anything pre-Witmer. EverSince 13:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is already 66kb long and getting longer. Pre-history of clinical psych could be in a separate section and pointed to as a 'main article' on eastern influences, which would then give room for exploring that inflence on the founders of clinical psychology and in its current practice. There are other sections which could be dealt with in the same way to reduce the size of this beast, for example the section on Training and Licensing--Ziji 09:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Training and Licensing

I agree the Training and Licensing should be summarized more, with details on a separate page if necessary. And, as mentioned in peer review, shouldn't be solely dedicated to American/bit of British. I don't think it should be detailing here all those related (US) qualifications about "Psychologist", "Marriage and Family Therapist (MFT)", "Licensed Professional Counselor (LPC)" etc and "Licensed Psychological Associate. (LPA)", "Psychological Technician (Alabama), Psychological Assistant (California), Licensed Clinical Psychotherapist (Kansas), Licensed Psychological Practitioner (Minnesota), Licensed Behavioral Practitioner (Oklahoma), or Psychological Examiner (Tennessee)."

Also not sure if the list of people considered "Major influences" is ideal, kind of out on its own with no context/sources. At the same time, the article doesn't really mention many of the major recognized clinical psychologists. I guess a solution, along the lines of Chupper's work on mental health professional and recently psychiatrist, is to have a separate "clinical psychologist" page to detail professoinal qualifications and people. I'm gonna mostly take a break from this subject for a while though. EverSince 09:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I think a separate article or page on qualifications would be best. This would allow for sufficient detail to be included without cluttering up this article. DPeterson^talk 14:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

How about 3 new pages titled something like: Clinical Psychology - Training; Clinical Psychology - Licensing and duty of care; Clinical Psychology - Eastern and Middle Eastern influences?--Ziji 21:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Could the first two pages be made one? That wouldn't be too long an article, would it? So, if there were a link from this page to the new ones, that would be great. DPeterson^talk 22:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Only way to find out is to do as you suggest and see how big a combined page gets. There's new material to be added about the impact of common law on the research and practice of clinpsych, which I thought to add to Licensing. Training will only get bigger if other country persepctives than US and UK are added. I might get around to do the Australian one but not high on my priorities The new pages should be clearly linked to this one.--Ziji 22:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I have made that move but have not checked if the references releveant to the page are all there from the bottom of the clin psych page.--Ziji 21:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Training and Licensing Amendment

In the UK there are currently no protected 'psychologist' titles. Indeed there are people using the title 'psychologist' who have no training in BPS accredited or unaccredited psychology courses at any level. The term clinical psychologist, counselling psychologist etc can be used perfectly legally by any member of the public for any purpose. There have been recent discoveries of clinical psychologists working in the NHS ( one for over 12 years!!!) with no psychology training at all! They were taken to court and convicted, not for use of the title, but for lying about their qualifications and misrepresentation.

Clinical psychologists are also not required to be licensed in the UK. There is no license that we apply for or maintain in order to continue practicing. In fact a large number of clinical psychologists are not a member of any professional body whatsoever. It is not a requirement that we are members of the British Psychological Society in order to enroll on our bachelors or doctoral training, but it is a requirement that we meet the BPS criteria for the Graduate Basis for Registration before being accepted on to doctoral training.

The current state of affairs rests with statutory regulation being a possible but distant future. The government are reluctant to create more regulatory authorities (such as the General Medical Council) and would prefer to encourage self-regulation by psychologists. The compromise was to contain psychologists under the Health Professions Council but this proved to be completely unsatisfactory and ineffectual. So clinical psychology remains completely unregulated, unlicensed and all titles are unprotected.

I hope this has been of some use. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.168.2.94 (talk) 08:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

I will move a copy of this accross to the Training & Licensing page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ziji (talk • contribs) 10:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

It is also the case, though, that far and away the majority of UK-qualified clinical psychologists undertake a BPS-certified undergraduate degree (or conversion qual), then a fairly standardized BPS-certified University/National Health Service doctoral (DClinPsy) course, and then register with the BPS to be publically listed in their regulated charter, in order to be able to call themselves a "Chartered Clinical Psychologist" (so effectively a protected title and registration process in common use) and to be employed by the major organizations, namely the National Health Service. Seems to be going towards the generic title of "psychologist" being protected soon (e.g. BPS Statutory Regulation - Frequently Asked Questions and perhaps Europe-wide qualifications and regulations (EFPA) EverSince 14:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Worth adding to the Training page I think?--Ziji 23:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

OK well I've made some revisions here that seemed to be needed here - can add them there, can I check is there a particular reason for that separate page to be on training and licensing of clinical psychologists, rather than clinical psychologists? (as there is for psychiatrists and mental health professionals?) EverSince 12:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC) p.s. noticed a reference named "compass" seems to be missing here, so that the 4 times it is used don't actually give any citation details. Just had a quick look in the first page of the history but couldn't see it, anyone know?

Not sure if I understand but my reason for separate page was the clinpsych page is too long and this limits the sapce for other countries to add their training licensing practices.--Ziji 23:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, to be more direct, I do also think there's a need for a separate page for extra details on this, but was just thinking that calling it "Clinical psychologist" might be more encyclopaedic, and more consistent with the pages on psychiatrist and mental health professional (which seem to serve basically the same function re. further details on training/licensing/practice, although currently quite US/UK-focused). Just wanted to check the view on that and if could alter the title. EverSince 13:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Eversince. Indeed the original title I chose was Clinical Psychology - Training & Licensing but someone moved it to its current titled page, previous page a re-direct and problem is each word starts capitlaized. Could be Clinical psychology - training and licensing? Feel free to change it as you will, back to the original title or anything more encyclopedic. Steve tells me he's taking a break from editing, having been watching 75 pages. He has work to do on his book. I will miss his smarts on this page. Did you notice that sentence in the intro from him "They themselves may be a licensed psychologist, a social worker, a therapist, a counselor, a psychiatric nurse or a psychiatrist." Neat inclusiveness.--Ziji 09:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps another issue with a more specific title is that it may not apply to all countries (e.g. not all have licensing procedures)? I may have a go at retitling when time/energy, given that you are potentially OK with it and could always change it again of course.

May Steve rest in peace, in the non-dead sense. I did notice that sentence and wondered about it. It's kind of hard to disagree, and I don't really in a sense, but at the same time it seems like a slightly unusual usage, and if you take any of these things to the broadest extreme would you not also have to include lay people as potentially practicing clinical psychology, or psychiatry, e.g. if they help friends do CBT or whatever with the help of a book? Which isn't necessary untrue in a sense - but then again these approaches are generally seen as whole 'packages' that take years of specialized training to get a whole grasp on, and which are practiced from that broad foundation, and the term is generally recognized in that sense. What do you think? EverSince 12:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Title as you see fit my dear. I haven't a clue what the licensing procedures are in my neighbouring SE Asian countries. I don't think Steve will be resting if you read the scope of his book on my talk page. The sentence is indeed unusual and could well prove controversial as you have indicated and for example, how about the software driven, over the internet therapy that has among the best outcomes with panic disorder and OCD. (I think it's run off one of the English University sites once associated with HJ Eysenck - I can chase it down if you're interested.) That surely is clinical psychology but the computer is not yet a clinical psychologist but is an expert system soon with AI. The power of Steve's sentence is that article is about the practice of clinical psychology, not the specific profession. I suspect a lot of arguments about the article have been on that divide. As you know I am against a page self-serving of the profession, which will go the way of all professions if it doesn't adapt to change or broaden its base.--Ziji 21:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

May Steve work in peace, then, and rest his eyes from all that watching. I do strongly agree about not just assuming profession-serving definitions (which could actually mean advancing a narrow or broad definition, depending on a person's profession). I did suggest a separate article on clinical psychologist partly for that reason. But I think the solution is that controversial or unusual points of view should be sourced, especially if highlighted in the intro. It's one thing for editors to analyse the term "clinical psychology" and say that logically it must mean this or that, but that's in danger of being original research, and really we need a source showing that the term is notably used in that way, which may vary by country. I'm not really sure, particularly, but I can't get that bothered about the issue either... EverSince 13:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)