CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY SCIENCE PRACTICE
AND DIVERSITY ANDREW PRACTICE
QUESTIONS AND DETAILED SOLUTIONS
◉ why so much tension bw the two camps.
Answer: that tension reflects the fact that each camp often views the
other in terms of a caricature
these caricatures are an outgrowth of years of debate over the best
way to train clinical psychologists
what was originally a join science practitioner model has
degenerated to the point where many clinical psych doctoral
students get little training to think and behave like scientists
-in the worst cases, they are taught to devalue science in favor of
clinical experience
this leaves us with two camps, each seeing the other as misguided
◉ A middle path.
Answer: each side of the debate has much to offer the other
that is why clinical psych adopted the SP model in the first place
but with the reframing of the science aspects of training as
irrelevant to most doctoral students since they plan to be
practitioners, the field has suffered
,◉ Evidence based practice.
Answer: current approach emphasized by APA
clinicians are to base their practice on:
-empirical evidence
--both research findings and data gathered systematically on the
patient in question
-their own clinical experience
-client preferences
but should these sources be given equal weight?
◉ how can faulty reasoning and pseudoscience in clinical
psychology and related fields cause harm to individual clients?.
Answer: iatrogenic effects
opportunity cost
◉ iatrogenic effects.
Answer: direct harm: harm induced inadvertently through treatment
◉ why is training to think like a scientist so important?.
Answer: numerous statements are made by mental health
professionals and popular experts regarding the causes of
psychopathology as well as methods for its assessments and
treatment
,-some of these assertions are verifiably true but the validity of many
other statements is unknown and many are verifiably false
similarly, many unproven methods for the assessment and treatment
of clinical problems are offered by clinical psychologists and other
mental health professionals
-some of these may actually be effective but many others are
ineffective or even harmful
◉ opportunity cost.
Answer: indirect harm: clients may waste their time and money on
treatments that are ineffective
-that costs them the opportunity to devote those resources to a
better alternative (one with empirically demonstrated efficacy)
◉ Of the false statements and unproven methods, some are benign
but many, if not most, have serious potential to cause harm to:.
Answer: individual clients
clinical psychology and other related mental health professions
society
◉ how can faulty reasoning and pseudoscience in clinical
psychology and related fields cause harm to clinical psychology and
mental health professions?.
, Answer: false claims raise doubt about all mental health
professionals which may lead the public to assume that all mental
health processionals are quacks and to avoid seeking services.
this is another path to indirect harm to individuals
-it may make people LESS likely to see services that would have
helped had they sought them
◉ how can faulty reasoning and peudoscience in clinical psychology
and related fields cause harm to society?.
Answer: all tax players help to pay for mental health services and
even harmful treatments consume a portion of the available
financial services.
people making claims on individuals that are not supported by
evidence or even contrary to existing evidence (this can mean very
serious errors resulting in prison for innocent people and guilty
people are set free erroneously)
i.e. cost of lost productivity when effective treatments exist but
aren't used
◉ The staggering costs of mental d/os.
Answer: direct costs: cost of treatment: best at $55 bill a year in the
US
AND DIVERSITY ANDREW PRACTICE
QUESTIONS AND DETAILED SOLUTIONS
◉ why so much tension bw the two camps.
Answer: that tension reflects the fact that each camp often views the
other in terms of a caricature
these caricatures are an outgrowth of years of debate over the best
way to train clinical psychologists
what was originally a join science practitioner model has
degenerated to the point where many clinical psych doctoral
students get little training to think and behave like scientists
-in the worst cases, they are taught to devalue science in favor of
clinical experience
this leaves us with two camps, each seeing the other as misguided
◉ A middle path.
Answer: each side of the debate has much to offer the other
that is why clinical psych adopted the SP model in the first place
but with the reframing of the science aspects of training as
irrelevant to most doctoral students since they plan to be
practitioners, the field has suffered
,◉ Evidence based practice.
Answer: current approach emphasized by APA
clinicians are to base their practice on:
-empirical evidence
--both research findings and data gathered systematically on the
patient in question
-their own clinical experience
-client preferences
but should these sources be given equal weight?
◉ how can faulty reasoning and pseudoscience in clinical
psychology and related fields cause harm to individual clients?.
Answer: iatrogenic effects
opportunity cost
◉ iatrogenic effects.
Answer: direct harm: harm induced inadvertently through treatment
◉ why is training to think like a scientist so important?.
Answer: numerous statements are made by mental health
professionals and popular experts regarding the causes of
psychopathology as well as methods for its assessments and
treatment
,-some of these assertions are verifiably true but the validity of many
other statements is unknown and many are verifiably false
similarly, many unproven methods for the assessment and treatment
of clinical problems are offered by clinical psychologists and other
mental health professionals
-some of these may actually be effective but many others are
ineffective or even harmful
◉ opportunity cost.
Answer: indirect harm: clients may waste their time and money on
treatments that are ineffective
-that costs them the opportunity to devote those resources to a
better alternative (one with empirically demonstrated efficacy)
◉ Of the false statements and unproven methods, some are benign
but many, if not most, have serious potential to cause harm to:.
Answer: individual clients
clinical psychology and other related mental health professions
society
◉ how can faulty reasoning and pseudoscience in clinical
psychology and related fields cause harm to clinical psychology and
mental health professions?.
, Answer: false claims raise doubt about all mental health
professionals which may lead the public to assume that all mental
health processionals are quacks and to avoid seeking services.
this is another path to indirect harm to individuals
-it may make people LESS likely to see services that would have
helped had they sought them
◉ how can faulty reasoning and peudoscience in clinical psychology
and related fields cause harm to society?.
Answer: all tax players help to pay for mental health services and
even harmful treatments consume a portion of the available
financial services.
people making claims on individuals that are not supported by
evidence or even contrary to existing evidence (this can mean very
serious errors resulting in prison for innocent people and guilty
people are set free erroneously)
i.e. cost of lost productivity when effective treatments exist but
aren't used
◉ The staggering costs of mental d/os.
Answer: direct costs: cost of treatment: best at $55 bill a year in the
US
