Talk:Clinical psychology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Clinical psychology has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 9, 2007 Peer review Reviewed July 23, 2007 Good article nominee Listed Current Status: Good article

Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project. GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit comments - comment history - watch comments · refresh this page) The section regarding clinical social work needs improvement. The statement that a MSW degree is generally considered a professional degree and not an academic one displays an interprofessional bias between some social workers and psychologists, a turf war as to who is qualified to perform which tasks. As a result, this section of the article has a bias. The statement that the MSW degree is profession vs. academic does not have a citation or site sources, neither cross citations within Wiki, no professional social work resources. Some MSW programs require significant committment to research, including a master's thesis, high standards of scholarship. Social work publications, such as the Smith Studies for Social Work, a psychoanalytic social work journal, and even the NASW journal, "Social Work," are quite academic in nature. Until that section is improved, I would proposed that a "neutrality dispute" label be placed upon it. Author is stating his or her opinions of the MSW degree, with no citations or research. Thank you.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
GA	This page has been rated as GA-Class on the quality assessment scale
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance assessment scale

Archives

July - December 2006 January - May 2007

Contents 1 Archived 2 Self-acceptance merge suggestion 3 Personal disclaimer 4 Counseling and Clinical 5 GA Passed 6 Fair use rationale for Image:DSM-IV.jpg

[edit] Archived

Archived the talk page again. The last edit was in May, so it seemed like a good time to give this page a fresh start. Ash(talk) 01:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Self-acceptance merge suggestion

Please add your opinion below.

• No. The Self-acceptance article is a shallow stub with no substantive information. It has very little to do with clinical psychology and only the vaguest connection with psychotherapy. Ash(talk) 03:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal disclaimer

I used to edit this article under the name Psykhosis (yes, I'm back from "retirement"). —Ash(talk) 02:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Great to have you back.--Ziji (talk email) 00:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. :) It's amazing what a little distance can do to bring fresh eyes to something. —Ash(talk) 00:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Counseling and Clinical

It is my impression that the counseling and clinical psych fields are now undifferentiated. In my experience, there is only one license for both fields and they both perform the same internships, in the same environment. Practically, both work in the same field, with the same clients, the differences have dissolved. The distinction the cited article claims may have been more true back when it was written (using sources from the eighties), but in the intervening time, it is my impression that the distinctions have become much less pronounced. I'm not sure how to phrase this and what would classify as a notable source for this, as I was not able to find an article written about this shift, but as it is, I feel this article is outdated. leontes 12:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the paragraph in the article does a good job of pointing out what differences remain, using recent sources (they are not from the 80s, as suggested). I also added a cite from the APA counseling section, Section 17. The practical differences are shrinking, but nevertheless remain, including differences in education, focus, and clinical attitude. —Ash(talk) 15:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I have retained the comparison in the paragraph, but rephrased as I feel that the distinctions were too strongly drawn. The increase in the prevalence of the short term psychiatric units in hospitals has increased number of Masters level counselor positions available in hospitals and many counselors are now trained in working with abnormal psychology. The article that I think thought was out of date was the 'what's the diff?' article, which I see now has it's references in late nineties rather than eighties has I originally thought: my bad. I'm curious about the "clinical attitude" you speak about, as in my experience clinical psychologists and counselors are quite similar in approach when it comes to psychotherapy, the main difference to me, seems to come between the different theoretical backgrounds, such as the cognitive behaviorists vs the humanists or the relationists. leontes 23:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I made another edit because I think your's took away too many distinctions, but mostly kept your additions.

The "clinical attitude" I refer to is based on what I read about counseling... I would perhaps have better said "focus" rather than attitude. In this case, the focus is on problems of every day living. That doesn't mean that counselors don't work on more debilitating problems; they do, just as much as clinical psychologists work on problems of every day living as well. The difference is in training and outlook...based on what I can tell, there does still remain a difference, and it's worth pointing out in the article. As your reference points out: "Mental health counseling is a distinct profession with national standards for education, training and clinical practice."[1] —Ash(talk) 01:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I rephrased your edits slightly. I believe you'll find that training and outlook is not divergent nowadays. Liscened mental health counselors need two years of clinical experience to get their masters, working in a wide variety of fields, such as mental hospitals, group homes and inpatient and outpatient centers. The most important part of being a counselor is the fact that counselors use psychotherapy and other clinical interventions. Counselors are clinicians first and foremost. Although traditionally, counseling has been so focused, if you continue to read that reference, it should be clear that the population of clients is not limited. Counselors see all populations nowadays, and the fact that counseling is clinical should be the first thing mentioned in the reference, to be clear to readers. leontes 01:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I think we have got a good section. —Ash(talk) 02:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Nice working with you. leontes 02:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Passed

I have passed this article based on the Good Article Criteria. I enjoyed this article, and it's an exemplary bit of work. It's overall interesting to read, and provides a good overview for an outside reader like me. Ideally, a couple more citations could be worked in, but other than that I can't see any major problems. Cheers, Corvus coronoides 20:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the kind review. I agree that the article needs more references. I'm also glad that the article is accessible to the lay person. Your reviewing efforts are greatly appreciated. —Ash(talk) 03:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I recommend expanding the lead a bit. One sentence or so for each section is a good way to go, in my opinion. LARA♥LOVE 22:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I tweaked the lead a bit, but I'm not sure whether it's done to your standards. How is it now? Cheers, Corvus coronoides _{talk 02:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)}

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:DSM-IV.jpg

Image:DSM-IV.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)