Combined Professional-Scientific Training Programs
A final alternative training model that we will
discuss briefly involves a combined specialty in
counseling, clinical, and school psychology. This
training model assumes that (a) these specialties
share a number of core areas of knowledge and
(b) the actual practices of psychologists who
graduate from each of these specialties are quite
similar (Beutler & Fisher, 1994; Beutler, Givener,
Mowder, Fisher, & Reeve, 2004). The curriculum
in these combined training programs focuses on
core areas within psychology and exposes students
to each subspecialty of counseling, clinical, and
school psychology.
The combined training model emphasizes
breadth rather than depth of psychological knowl-
edge. However, this feature can also be seen as a
potential weakness of the model. Graduates from
this type of training program may not develop a
specific subspecialty or area of expertise by the
end of their doctoral training (Beutler et al.,
2004). Further, this model of training appears to
be better suited for the future practitioner than
for the future academician or clinical scientist
(Beutler & Fisher, 1994). Currently, there are
eight APA-accredited programs in combined
professional-scientific psychology, three of which
offer a Psy.D. degree (http://www.apa.org/ed/
accreditation/programs/accred-prof-scientific.aspx).
Graduate Programs: Past and Future
In many ways, the changes in graduate training over
the past 60 years have mirrored the marketplace for
clinical psychologists. Starting in the mid-1960s, a
shift occurred from university-based academic jobs
to jobs in private practice. Not surprisingly,
complaints about the limitations of the scientist-
practitioner model of training surfaced soon there-
after. These complaints focused primarily on the
perceived inadequacy of the Boulder model of
training for future practitioners. According to the
critics, training in clinical skills was deficient, and
faculty members were oblivious to the training
needs of future practitioners.
Out of the Vail Training Conference in 1973
came an explicit endorsement of alternative
training models to meet the needs of the future
practitioner. The alternative Psy.D. degree and
professional school model of training can be traced
to the positions adopted by those attending this
conference. Clearly, these alternative training pro-
grams became increasingly influential, as indicated
by the number of new doctorates they graduate.
In addition, some have argued in support of desig-
nating any clinical psychologist who practices clin-
ical work with a Psy.D. degree (A. E. Shapiro &
Wiggins, 1994).
However, several trends may affect the viabil-
ity and success of the various training models dis-
cussed here. First, for some time, many have
argued that there is an oversupply of practice-
oriented psychologists given market demands
(Baker et al., 2009; McFall, 2006; Robiner,
2006). If true, this may ultimately affect the num-
ber of students entering and finishing graduate
programs in clinical psychology. In recent years,
there have been many more applicants for intern-
ship positions than slots available. The net result
has been that some graduate students have not
been able to secure an internship position (recently,
as high as 25% of those that applied). For several
years now, students from practice-oriented doctoral
programs have had more difficulty securing intern-
ships than those from scientist-practitioner and clini-
cal scientist programs (Neimeyer, Rice, & Keilin,
2007). As the internship and practice-oriented
job markets tighten, the programs that primarily
train practitioners (professional schools, schools
awarding the Psy.D. degree) will likely feel the
brunt of this effect. This will be especially true
for professional schools whose economic viability
is heavily dependent on tuition fees and large
numbers of students.
Second, the managed health care revolution in
this country will likely affect the demand for clini-
cal psychologists in the future as well as the cur-
riculum in training programs (Baker et al., 2009;66 CHAPTER 3