The high cost of health care is no secret. Revamping clinical psychology could be one way to make the system more efficient—while also helping psychologists better serve their patients, according to a recent report from the Association for Psychological Science. The report details an accreditation system that has been in development for two years, which will certify training programs that focus on scientifically validated treatments and instruct their students in the scientific method. The system would also create a “seal of approval” to show prospective patients that a psychologist received such an education, the report says.
“Many of the people being trained today aren’t trained to understand and apply science to patients out in the real world, so patients aren’t getting the treatments most likely to help them,” says Timothy Baker, a psychology researcher and professor of medicine at the University of Wisconsin–Madison and co-author of the report. Clinical psychology continues to depend on outdated, ineffective strategies of diagnosis and treatment—and surveys show individual practitioners often value their own experience or a “hunch” over scientific evidence, ultimately hindering their ability to effectively help patients. “We’re simply not taking advantage of what is known in scientific research,” Baker says.
With a stronger scientific background, psychologists not only will be able to better choose treatments for patients and gauge therapy’s effectiveness, but they also could become “more sophisticated users of psychological research,” Baker notes. “They’ll contribute to research and improve treatments.”
Note: This story was originally printed with the title "Bringing Science into the Clinic"
See what we're tweeting about
7 Comments
Add CommentGuess they will now need to classify belief in God as a delusion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article makes it seem as though psychology has no accreditation system to ensure that science is taught - that is false. The American Psychological Association has a rigorous accreditation process. Clinical psychology trainees must study evidence-based practices. They must also complete many hours of fieldwork under supervision. Why doesn't Scientific American investigate this issue more fully?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am dismayed that Scientific American did not do a more thorough investigation before publishing this. The American Psychological Association DOES ensure that accrediteed programs in clinical psychology teach evidence-based practices to their students. Why was this not even mentioned? Where was the fact-checking?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExcept that many if not most patients of these same "scientists" will tell you that what they experience at the hands of psychology practitioners seems more like touchy-feely guesswork.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's not a big wonder why, for a long time (if it's still not the case), that 1/3 of psychologists' patients experience a relief from their complaints, another third get worse and the remaining third stay exactly the same.
dsacks,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPsychology like politics not only lacks science, but most times common sense.
I hope the day comes soon, when they can test for brain chemicals.
All it takes is a trip or two with a friend...to see how poorly trained most of them are.
I know someone who has gone for over a year, and still feels terrible. This doctor thinks he can over come depression with a behavior changes.
I told my friend to go to a regular doctor and get some pills. He did, and now he's on the road to a better life. The first psychologist was over priced, kept him sick, and wasted his time.
Hi!: it was supposed that psychology is a descriptive science (logos) but when dealing with diseases, it is a part of medicine (yatros), psychiatry. If a condition is described in such places as DSM IV and psychiatry texts, it is nobody but doctor's business. Otherwise is unproven science, malpractice, and many times just the psychopats abusing the neurotics. Is there a sufficient reguation of the issue?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientific American clearly did not fact check or gather much information for this article. The American Psychological Association already accredits graduate programs in psychology and requires training in scientific research methodology and evidence-based practices. SciAm has taken the viewpoints of one small group of researchers and reported it as though it were the truth. Sci Am did not even bother to include opposing perspectives from other prominent researchers. I expect poorly investigated, overly narrow articles from local newspapers but not from SciAm.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this