Comments on: Psychological snake oil? http://trueslant.com/wrayherbert/2009/10/02/psychological-snake-oil/ Health, politics, romance--it all comes down to psychology Wed, 02 Mar 2011 21:47:47 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Todd Essig http://trueslant.com/wrayherbert/2009/10/02/psychological-snake-oil/comment-page-1/#comment-31 Todd Essig Fri, 09 Oct 2009 00:48:49 +0000 http://trueslant.com/wrayherbert/?p=121#comment-31 As a practicing clinical psychologist, and a psychoanalyst to boot, there is much to like and dislike about this development. A Flexner Report for psychology would be terrific. Grad schools are clearly sending out far too many graduates. I think last year there were only enough internships for about 70% of applicants. But before we get an actual Flexner Report both researchers and practitioners need to do a much better job working together. As you quote (t)herapists’ “lack of adequate science training … leads them to value personal clinical experience over research evidence.” At the same time, researchers lack of clinical experience leads them to overestimate the value and generalizability of the work they do. One of my first jobs was working for a "hard science" schizophrenia researcher. My job was to visit all the wards at several hospitals and interview patients for inclusion in the study. Maybe 1 in 100 who had all the necessary symptoms also did not have any history of alcohol, drugs, domestic violence, child abuse, and other exclusionary criteria. It is likely most clinicians would never see a schizophrenic patient who fit the criteria for this research. I'm looking forward to reading the report and seeing what the APS proposes. As a practicing clinical psychologist, and a psychoanalyst to boot, there is much to like and dislike about this development. A Flexner Report for psychology would be terrific. Grad schools are clearly sending out far too many graduates. I think last year there were only enough internships for about 70% of applicants. But before we get an actual Flexner Report both researchers and practitioners need to do a much better job working together. As you quote (t)herapists’ “lack of adequate science training … leads them to value personal clinical experience over research evidence.” At the same time, researchers lack of clinical experience leads them to overestimate the value and generalizability of the work they do.

One of my first jobs was working for a “hard science” schizophrenia researcher. My job was to visit all the wards at several hospitals and interview patients for inclusion in the study. Maybe 1 in 100 who had all the necessary symptoms also did not have any history of alcohol, drugs, domestic violence, child abuse, and other exclusionary criteria. It is likely most clinicians would never see a schizophrenic patient who fit the criteria for this research.

I’m looking forward to reading the report and seeing what the APS proposes.

]]> By: Tweets that mention Wray Herbert - Full Frontal Psychology – Psychological snake oil? - True/Slant -- Topsy.com http://trueslant.com/wrayherbert/2009/10/02/psychological-snake-oil/comment-page-1/#comment-27 Tweets that mention Wray Herbert - Full Frontal Psychology – Psychological snake oil? - True/Slant -- Topsy.com Fri, 02 Oct 2009 21:23:02 +0000 http://trueslant.com/wrayherbert/?p=121#comment-27 [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Peter Brown. Peter Brown said: Wray Herbert - Full Frontal Psychology – Psychological snake oil ... http://bit.ly/F7iRm [...] [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Peter Brown. Peter Brown said: Wray Herbert – Full Frontal Psychology – Psychological snake oil … http://bit.ly/F7iRm [...]

]]> By: Caitlin Kelly http://trueslant.com/wrayherbert/2009/10/02/psychological-snake-oil/comment-page-1/#comment-23 Caitlin Kelly Fri, 02 Oct 2009 16:33:55 +0000 http://trueslant.com/wrayherbert/?p=121#comment-23 I understand the need to control credentialling, but we both know (?) that even the most-degreed therapists can still offer atrocious treatment if they're book-smart but unethical or not very helpful. I hate to admit it, but I've met some doozies over the years, and great ones remain rare, bless 'em. I understand the need to control credentialling, but we both know (?) that even the most-degreed therapists can still offer atrocious treatment if they’re book-smart but unethical or not very helpful. I hate to admit it, but I’ve met some doozies over the years, and great ones remain rare, bless ‘em.

]]> By: Wray Herbert http://trueslant.com/wrayherbert/2009/10/02/psychological-snake-oil/comment-page-1/#comment-22 Wray Herbert Fri, 02 Oct 2009 16:15:35 +0000 http://trueslant.com/wrayherbert/?p=121#comment-22 PsyD programs are less selective (dozens in each class vs fewer than 10 in most good PhD programs).They are easier, because most don't require a lot of difficult science courses. They are actually more expensive, and don't give nearly as much financial aid; enough people are willing to pay their own freight. The point of the new report is that consumers have a right to know if their therapist has been trained in rigorous science-based practice, or something else (art, craft, intuition?). The new accredidation system would accredit only scientifically grounded PhD programs (which is not all PhD programs either). The hope is that the worst programs of all kinds will close down, but some will continue, and consumers will be able to choose a therapist based on training. Right now, if someone with a serious emotional or mental disorder walks into a psychologist's consulting room at random, he/she has no idea if that therapist will be offering treament based on plausible ides about human behavior, or voodoo. I will post the link to the entire report, which also spells out the therapies that have been scientifically tested and found effective, including: CBT for depression and PTSD, exposure therapy for OCD, family therapy for schizophrenia, couples therapy for addictive disorders, and so on. MSWs can also choose to offer these tested interventions, but this program doesn not deal with MSW trining. PsyD programs are less selective (dozens in each class vs fewer than 10 in most good PhD programs).They are easier, because most don’t require a lot of difficult science courses. They are actually more expensive, and don’t give nearly as much financial aid; enough people are willing to pay their own freight. The point of the new report is that consumers have a right to know if their therapist has been trained in rigorous science-based practice, or something else (art, craft, intuition?). The new accredidation system would accredit only scientifically grounded PhD programs (which is not all PhD programs either). The hope is that the worst programs of all kinds will close down, but some will continue, and consumers will be able to choose a therapist based on training. Right now, if someone with a serious emotional or mental disorder walks into a psychologist’s consulting room at random, he/she has no idea if that therapist will be offering treament based on plausible ides about human behavior, or voodoo. I will post the link to the entire report, which also spells out the therapies that have been scientifically tested and found effective, including: CBT for depression and PTSD, exposure therapy for OCD, family therapy for schizophrenia, couples therapy for addictive disorders, and so on. MSWs can also choose to offer these tested interventions, but this program doesn not deal with MSW trining.

]]> By: Caitlin Kelly http://trueslant.com/wrayherbert/2009/10/02/psychological-snake-oil/comment-page-1/#comment-21 Caitlin Kelly Fri, 02 Oct 2009 15:53:09 +0000 http://trueslant.com/wrayherbert/?p=121#comment-21 Why are the PsyD degrees so popular? Less time/school/expensive to attain? Where do MSWs and CSWs fit into this? Many of them work as therapists. Do you think limiting all practicing psychologists to admission through a Phd is a good idea? I can see it for research, but for clinical practice? Why are the PsyD degrees so popular? Less time/school/expensive to attain? Where do MSWs and CSWs fit into this? Many of them work as therapists. Do you think limiting all practicing psychologists to admission through a Phd is a good idea? I can see it for research, but for clinical practice?

]]>