Chwalisz (2003 [this issue]) proposed an evidence-based practice model for training in counseling psychology, based on the apparent failures of the scientist-practitioner model and the need for an expanded view of scientific evidence. Although I am sympathetic to the model she developed, and also to a local clinical scientist model that I have written about previously, I do not believe that these differ substantially from the scientist- practitioner model. I also differ with the need for expanding the nature of scientific evidence, which easily can embrace the qualitative studies that she and I both see as valuable potential contributions to knowledge.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Psychological Association Task Force on Psychological Intervention Guidelines. (1995). Template for developing guidelines: Interventions for mental disorders and psychosocial aspects of physical disorders (Vol. 47). Washington, DC: Author.
2.
Baker, D. B., & Benjamin, J. L. T. (2000). The affirmation of the scientist-practitioner: A look back at Boulder. American Psychologist, 55, 241-247.
3.
Chwalisz, K. (2003). Evidence-based practice: A framework for twenty-first-century scientist-practitioner training. The Counseling Psychologist, 31, 497-528.
4.
Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimental design: Design & analysis issues for field settings. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
5.
Nathan, P. E., & Gorman, J. M. (Eds.). (1998). A guide to treatments that work. New York: Oxford University Press.
6.
Raimy, V. (Ed.). (1950). Training in clinical psychology. New York: Prentice Hall.
7.
Roth, A., & Fonagy, P. (1996). What works for whom?: A critical review of psychotherapy research. New York: Guilford.
8.
Stricker, G. (1992). The relationship of research to clinical practice. American Psychologist, 47, 543-549.
9.
Stricker, G. (1997). Are science and practice commensurable? American Psychologist, 52, 442-448.
10.
Stricker, G. (2000). The scientist-practitioner model: Gandhi was right again. American Psychologist, 55, 253-254.
11.
Stricker, G., Abrahamson, D. J., Bologna, N. C., Hollon, S. D., Robinson, E. A., & Reed, G. M. (1999). Treatment guidelines: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Psycholotherapy: Theory, Research/Practice/Training, 36, 69-79.
12.
Stricker, G., & Cummings, N. A. (1992). The professional school movement. In D. K. Freedheim (Ed.), History of psychotherapy: A century of change (pp. 801-828). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
13.
Stricker, G., & Kiesner, R. H. (1985). The relationship between research and practice. In G. Stricker & R. H. Kiesner (Eds.), From research to clinical practice (pp. 3-14). New York: Plenum.
14.
Stricker, G., & Trierweiler, S. J. (1995). The local clinical scientist: A bridge between science and practice. American Psychologist, 50, 995-1002.
15.
Task Force on Promotion and Dissemination of Psychological Procedures. (1995). Training in and dissemination of empirically-validated psychological treatments. The Clinical Psychologist, 48(1), 3-23.
16.
Trierweiler, S. J., & Stricker, G. (1998). The scientific practice of professional psychology.New York: Plenum.
