Family practice residency behavioral science training: influence on graduate practice activity

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The educational efficacy of family practice residency behavioral science training and how various educational approaches might influence graduate practice activity are poorly understood. In this study, we compare a traditional didactic and clinical block rotation approach to a problem-based learning (PBL) and clinical, experiential behavioral science curriculum. METHODS: Surveys of pre- and post-intervention cohorts were used to assess graduates' perceptions of their understanding of broad behavioral science concepts, their competence to manage specific behavioral conditions, and their behavioral science practice activity. The two cohorts were University of California, Irvine family practice residency program graduates from 1984-1988 (58) and residency graduates from 1993-1995 (27). American Board of Family Practice (ABFP) In-service Training Examination scores were also compared. RESULTS: No significant differences were detected in self-perceived competence and ABFP examination performance. Residency graduates in the post-intervention cohort more often included depression, marital counseling, and eating disorders in their practice and reported more frequent practice activity for situational stress and sexual dysfunction. The post-intervention group reported less involvement with alcohol and substance abuse problems. This group also reported practice activity that exceeded perceived levels of competence for attention deficit disorder, learning disorders, and eating disorders. CONCLUSIONS: Participants in a PBL-clinical experiential curriculum reported higher levels of practice activity for several common behavioral problems. It seems unlikely that these differences were due to curriculum changes. Further investigation of the influence of educational and other factors on residency graduate practice activity is needed.     

Redefinitions of the science-practice relationship without a framework for unity will fail.

Comments on L. T. Hoshmand and D. E. Polkinghorne's (see record 1992-21300-001) article on redefining the science–practice relationship. Contrary to Hoshmand and Polkinghorne's position, it is suggested that the common-sense language of practice needs to be connected to the systematic language of the relevant basic science. Important activities in psychology are currently separated because the connections have not yet been established, not because they are incommensurate. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Hugo Münsterberg on the possibilities for psychology and society.

The author responds to criticism by J. G. Myers and R. D. Tweney (see record 1984-17504-001) of her (see record 1983-23269-001) contention that H. Münsterberg (1913, 1914) belonged with the early 20th-century psychologists who promulgated psychology as an objective science and also envisioned particular social worlds that would rely on the application of this science. It is reiterated that Münsterberg attempted to unify these apparently diverse functions of his science and sought to bring together theory and practice. (16 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

A PsyD for every practitioner: Further separation of science and practice in professional psychology.

Comments on A. E. Shapiro and J. G. Wiggins's (see record 1994-31325-001) proposal that the standard for practice in psychology be the Doctor of Psychology (PsyD) degree. Wynkoop contends that the proposal may exacerbate existing problems, such as the divisiveness between science and practice. Furthermore, Wynkoop argues that solutions already exist for the concerns raised by Shapiro and Wiggins as support for their position on the PsyD. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Are science and practice commensurable?

The scientist-practitioner model assumes a commensurability between science and practice that often is absent in academic and practice settings. One approach to T. S. Kuhn's (1962) concept of paradigm involves communities of social discourse, and within this approach, science and practice may be incommensurable. Current political forces appear to be increasing the distance between the 2 areas. However, another approach to paradigm sees it as a disciplinary matrix of shared understanding, and within this approach, science and practice can be complementary and synergistic. Theories such as behaviorism and psychoanalysis may be incommensurable, but science and practice are each components of both theories. However, for science and practice to be commensurable, the same theoretical matrix must generate both science and practice activities. Psychotherapy integration and the local clinical scientist model are seen as 2 developments that reduce the barriers between theories and activities and contribute to the commensurability of science and practice. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

A place for discontent and tensions in psychology.

R. M. Cooper (see record 1983-26906-001) commented on the failure of psychology for physiological psychologists and advised his colleagues to abandon psychology in favor of the neurosciences. Cooper's discontent may be seen as arising naturally from certain inevitable tensions between perspectives and methods in the physical and behavioral sciences. Clinical psychologists are similarly caught between differing perspectives—those of behavioral science and clinical practice—and they also experience tensions and discontent. The discontent and tensions in psychology sometimes lead to overly narrow specialization and destructive rifts within the discipline. It is argued that these effects need not occur and that tensions between differing epistemic/theoretic perspectives in psychology are healthy and should be maintained. Such dialectics are needed to generate more complete and integrated knowledge, and the tension between science and practice is necessary for the advancement of clinical skills. (French abstract) (51 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Comment on Cooper's "The passing of psychology" (Vol. 23, no. 4, October 1982).

Comments on R. M. Cooper's original article, "The passing of psychology" (see record 1983-26906-001). According to Cooper, psychology has become fruitless, devoid of substance and honest accomplishment and the real productivity of science is to be seen in material accomplishments. According to the current author, a materialist view makes any step in the world of ideas pitifully small by comparison. Materialist "science" will seem awesome, while enlargement of understanding that does not have an immediate physical expression can only be trivial musing. This is an all too prevalent view of science. Psychology is not dead. The science and practice of psychology are blessed, as they have long been, with keen and competent minds. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Data, theory, and meta-analysis: Response to Hoyle.

Responds to R. H. Hoyle's (see record 1994-08178-001) comments on F. L. Schmidt's (see record 1993-04195-001) distinction between meta-analysis and single-study data on the practice of science in psychology. Schmidt asserts that when using meta-analysis methods, rather than single-study data, sampling error that causes effect size estimates to vary can be overcome. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Challenging the stultifying bonds of tradition: Some philosophical, conceptual, and methodological issues in applying the scientist-practitioner model.

Discusses the quality of school psychology education and training in light of a continuing bifurcation of the science–practice relationship in both education and training and professional practice. The mutuality of science and practice is emphasized, and the problems of better linkage between psychological science and professional practice are discussed. The current status of the scientist–practitioner model is discussed, and arguments for the need to move beyond textbook accounts of the scientific process are presented. The war of words taking place regarding the nature of psychological science is examined, and an answer to the question of what is meant by the integration of science and practice is provided. Considerations are included of suppositions, including that fruitful interaction of science and practice often is an opportunistic process and that there is nothing so theoretical as good practice. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Constructionists and creationists.

Comments on L. T. Hoshmand and D. E. Polkinghorne's (see record 1992-21300-001) article on redefining the science–practice relationship. A constructivist role in psychology such as that advocated by Hoshmand and Polkinghorne, it is argued, is analogous to that of creationism in biology. The aim of both is to undermine belief that reasoned application of the scientific principles provides a valuable domain of knowledge. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Can religion be used as a science in psychotherapy?

Applauds S. L. Jones's (see record 1994-29392-001) efforts to rediscover and elucidate the underlying tenets that bind, at the root level of basic humanity, the seemingly diverse principles of religion with the science and practice of psychology. Uniting religion and science at this psychological depth has demonstrated to Weiss and his colleagues an efficacious psychotherapy. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

On the relation between data and theory.

Comments on F. L. Schmidt's (see record 1993-04195-001) article on the impact of meta-analysis on the practice of science in psychology. The author (1) explains that Schmidt's distinction between meta-analysis and single-study statistical methods is illusory and (2) argues for the critical value of the primary research study and the traditional literature review in the enterprise of scientific psychology. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Are there necessary linkages between research practices and the philosophy of science?

Describes articles by D. E. Polkinghorne (see record 1985-07630-001), G. S. Howard (see record 1985-07626-001), and M. J. Patton (see record 1985-07629-001), as representing healthy trends in a liberalizing of approaches to counseling psychology research. All 3 share the implicit position that narrow positivist dogma can be transcended in practice to address core issues of the person as active agent. They suggest that successful research practice does not need a direct infrastructure from the philosophy of science. Eclectic, diverse ways of knowing may be most useful. (20 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Redefining the science-practice relationship and professional training.

A revised conception of the relationship between psychological science and professional practice is proposed in the light of postmodern changes in perspectives on knowledge. Positivistic science, which has dominated the traditional interpretation of scientist–practitioner training, is considered from a constructivist point of view to be only one possible foundation of psychological knowledge. It is argued that the knowledge base of the profession should be derived with diverse methods and from multiple sources, including the knowledge of practice. The mutuality of science and practice is emphasized. An evolving framework for understanding the epistemology of practice, based on cognitive psychology, is presented. Emphasis on broadened choices of research methods, the development of reflective skills, and better linkage between teaching in the domains of research and practice are urged. Suggestions for research related to scientific training and the knowledge processes of practice are offered. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

On science, mirrors, and lamps: A comment.

Comments on the presentation by B. N. Phillips (see record 1988-37183-001) of several issues associated with the science and practice of psychology and discusses the relevance of these issues to school psychology. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The future of psychology practice and science.

This article reviews the 2009 APA President's initiatives and recommendations for the future of psychology practice and science. The future of psychology practice requires that we expand the focus of traditional practice; become health care providers, not just mental health providers; use evidence-based practice, assessment, and outcome measures; incorporate technology into our practices, including electronic health records; and change training and focus to meet the needs of our diverse society. The future of psychological science requires that we train and work in multidisciplinary teams, employ different methods and approaches, and shift our focus to translational science. The future of our profession requires substantial changes in graduate education to prepare our students for science and practice in the 21st century. In light of advances in science and practice that reveal the critical importance of psychosocial and behavioral factors in health and disease, I call for the creation of a department of behavioral health within the federal government. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Undoing theory/practice dualism: Joint action and knowing from within.

The relation between theory and practice is the object of a central debate in the history of science. In a recent contribution to the issue, L. E. Sandelands (see record 1991-11441-001) equates practice with G. Ryle's "knowing how" and theory with Ryle's "knowing that," arguing that practice and theory are incommensurate forms of knowing such that theory cannot be translated into practice. R. T. Craig (see record 1996-04965-004) took issue with Sandelands' position, pointing out that it reflects an academic approach removed from everyday social behavior in which problem solving is always both practical and theoretical. The authors agree and take this blurring of the theory/practice dichotomy as a cue to deconstruct the conception of two ways of knowing. J. Shotter's concepts of "joint action" and "knowing from within" suggest a third type of knowing which develops between knowers in particular contexts or circumstances. This third way of knowing has important implications for psychological training and inquiry. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The reciprocal effects of science on practice: Insights from the practice and science of goal setting.

The hypothesis of this paper is that the science and practice of psychology are interdependent. Science drives practice which drives science. The science and practice of 25 years of programmatic research on goal setting theory in industrial-organizational psychology (I/O) is used in support of this hypothesis. I/O research on goal setting includes findings that (1) high goals lead to higher performance; (2) there is a linear relationship between goal difficulty and performance; (3) variables such as feedback, participative decision making, and competition affect performance to the extent that they lead to the setting of and commitment to high goals; and (4) mediators of goal setting are motivational and cognitive, with other variables mediating the effects of goals on performance in I/O settings. Scientists, practitioners, and scientist–practitioners alike are encouraged to work in unison in order to advance psychology for all. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Enhancing Communication Through Visual Aids in Clinical Practice.

Comments on the article by L. D. Smith et al (see record 2002-18352-001) regarding the role of graphs and tables in hard and soft psychology. In this comment, the authors argue that the value of graphs in psychology is not limited to hard science but can be extended to the softer domain of clinical practice, where it can serve as an effective communication tool. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Does the model matter? The relationship between science-practice emphasis in clinical psychology programs and the internship match.

[Correction Notice: An erratum for this article was reported in Vol 1(4) of Training and Education in Professional Psychology (see record 2007-18975-009). The biography for the third author was incorrect. It should read as follows: GREGORY KEILIN is an Assistant Director at the Counseling and Mental Health Center at the University of Texas at Austin and a former Chair of APPIC. He received his doctorate in Counseling Psychology from Colorado State University. His current research interests include supply and demand issues in professional psychology.] Academic training programs in clinical psychology vary in the emphasis that they place on science and practice, and this paper examines whether these differential emphases are linked to distinctive internship outcomes. In a study of 2,130 internship applicants from clinical psychology programs, differences were noted among practice-oriented programs, balanced science-practice programs, and science-oriented programs. Against a backdrop of some similarities, a differential emphasis on science and practice within academic training programs was related to significantly different internship match rates, as well as to successful matching in qualitatively different internship settings. Results provided qualified support for future work that might further address the relationship between academic training programs and outcomes in the field of clinical psychology. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)