| Abstract: | A representative sample of contributors (333) to the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology was asked to report on their motivations for conducting studies that had been published in that journal. Results indicate that the primary motivation of these clinical researchers was to build on prior theory and research through the gathering and analysis of new data to answer socially significant applied-clinical questions. More immediate pragmatic considerations (e.g., tenure, funding, degree or job requirements, and availability of Ss) were reported to be of secondary, but nevertheless significant, importance. Most respondents described the training model in which they had received their doctoral education or oriented toward an integrated scientist-practitioner approach rather than one that focused primarily on research, therapy, or assessment training. It was also found that these clinical researchers rarely conducted investigations in the context of community service or consultation interventions or in order to replicate past research. Results are discussed in light of current controversies in clinical psychology concerning the optimal model for training and the relevance of clinical research. (21 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved) |
