An Empirical Examination of Doctoral Training Models in Clinical Psychology in the United States Katherine E
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Loma Linda University TheScholarsRepository@LLU: Digital Archive of Research, Scholarship & Creative Works Loma Linda University Electronic Theses, Dissertations & Projects 8-2018 An Empirical Examination of Doctoral Training Models in Clinical Psychology in the United States Katherine E. Dautenhahn Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarsrepository.llu.edu/etd Part of the Clinical Psychology Commons, and the Medicine and Health Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Dautenhahn, Katherine E., "An Empirical Examination of Doctoral Training Models in Clinical Psychology in the United States" (2018). Loma Linda University Electronic Theses, Dissertations & Projects. 494. http://scholarsrepository.llu.edu/etd/494 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by TheScholarsRepository@LLU: Digital Archive of Research, Scholarship & Creative Works. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loma Linda University Electronic Theses, Dissertations & Projects by an authorized administrator of TheScholarsRepository@LLU: Digital Archive of Research, Scholarship & Creative Works. For more information, please contact [email protected]. LOMA LINDA UNIVERSITY School of Behavioral Health in conjunction with the Faculty of Graduate Studies ____________________ An Empirical Examination of Doctoral Training Models in Clinical Psychology in the United States by Katherine E. Dautenhahn ____________________ A Dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Clinical Psychology ____________________ August 2018 © 2018 Katherine E. Dautenhahn All Rights Reserved Each person whose signature appears below certifies that this dissertation in his/her opinion is adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree Doctor of Philosophy. , Chairperson David A. Vermeersch, Professor of Psychology Adam L. Aréchiga, Professor of Psychology Holly E. R. Morrell, Associate Professor of Psychology Janet L. Sonne, Adjunct Professor of Psychology iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to first and foremost thank all of my committee members for their help, mentorship, and flexibility as I embark on this project. In particular, I would like to thank Dr. Vermeersch, whose constant encouragement, considerable experience as a director of clinical training, and knowledge of the literature has been crucial for helping me think through the distinctions between training models. I would also like to thank Dr. Morrell for her mentorship, unwavering support throughout the years, and guidance from the planning to the implementation of this project. Finally, I would like to thank God for the opportunity to be able to propose this dissertation and for all the opportunities and experiences that have brought me to this point in my life and career. iv CONTENT Approval Page .................................................................................................................... iii Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ iv Table of Contents .................................................................................................................v List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... vi List of Abbreviations ........................................................................................................ vii Abstract ............................................................................................................................ viii Chapter 1. Review of the Literature .........................................................................................1 2. Methods..................................................................................................................19 Participants and Procedures .............................................................................19 Measures ..........................................................................................................20 Background Information ............................................................................20 Indicators....................................................................................................21 Admission Criteria ...............................................................................23 Faculty Modeling .................................................................................23 Structural Factors .................................................................................23 Reasoning/Epistemology .....................................................................24 Student Factors.....................................................................................25 3. Results ..................................................................................................................27 Admission Criteria ...........................................................................................27 Faculty Modeling .............................................................................................29 Structural Factors .............................................................................................29 Reasoning/Epistemology .................................................................................30 Student Factors.................................................................................................32 4. Discussion ..............................................................................................................33 References ..........................................................................................................................46 v TABLES Tables Page 1. Program Characteristics ........................................................................................20 2. Items Grouped into Categories .............................................................................22 3. Logistic Regressions Predicting Training Models .................................................28 4. Actual Frequencies for Categorical Indicators .....................................................31 vi ABBREVIATIONS DCT Director of Clinical Training EBP Evidence-Based Practice vii ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION An Empirical Examination of Doctoral Training Models in Clinical Psychology in the United States by Katherine E. Dautenhahn Doctor of Philosophy, Graduate Program in Clinical Psychology Loma Linda University, August 2018 Dr. David Vermeersch, Chairperson Since as early as 1908, psychology as a discipline has grappled with how to integrate research and practice into the field’s professional identity. To further define the area of expertise of a psychologist, three main models of clinical training have been proposed: the scientist-practitioner model, the practitioner-scholar model, and the clinical scientist model. Despite clinical psychology’s universal claim for empirical moorings, the debate about the foundation of training in clinical psychology has remained primarily theoretical. The purpose of this study is to expand upon the limited research exploring the differences between training models to empirically determine which factors significantly predicted training models. To answer this question, a series of logistic regressions were run to determine if training models could be predicted by program admission criteria, faculty modeling, structural factors, differences in epistemological stance, and student factors. Results indicated admission criteria, faculty modeling, and structural factors significantly predicted training models. Results and implications for future research and clinical practice are discussed. viii CHAPTER ONE REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Since as early as 1908, when Henry Goddard integrated a clinically oriented internship into the Vineland Institute’s research lab, psychology as a discipline has grappled with the question of how to integrate both research and practice into the field’s professional identity. To answer this question and further define clinical psychologists’ area of expertise, three main models of clinical training have been proposed: the scientist- practitioner model (i.e., Boulder Model), the practitioner-scholar model (i.e., Vail Model), and the clinical scientist model. In each of these models, psychologists have taken unique positions on psychologists’ roles and training factors such as engagement in research, clinical involvement, faculty modeling, admission criteria, and the relationship between research and practice. Although the scientist-practitioner model was the first proposed and remains the most popular model, considerable debate has continued throughout the years regarding the intersection between clinical training and research (McFall, 1991; Peterson, 1997). Despite clinical psychology’s universal claim for empirical moorings, the debate about the foundation of training in clinical psychology has remained primarily theoretical. The purpose of this study is to expand upon the limited research exploring the differences between training models to empirically determine which factors significantly predicted training models. To better understand the current training models in clinical psychology, it is important to first consider the larger historical context and the needs each model was designed to meet. Before the Second World War, the primary domain of psychologists was confined to psychometrics, testing, research, and teaching