Talk:Doctor of Psychology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 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.
|
||||||||
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of education and education-related topics. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to featured and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details. |
| Portal | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
According to my text book, the vail conf was in 1973, not 75...posted by adam freeman. adam.freeman@wmich.edu
Concur. This article would be better moved. V. Joe 20:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
The way that the article is written makes it seem like the Doctor of Psychology program only confers the title of "doctor" outside the United States. Is this accurate? DenimForce2.0 14:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] PhD versus PsyD
I do not contest that a PsyD may not have the research background that a PhD may have, but a source for that would be nice.
My issue is with the implication that the PsyD has a stronger clinical background that a PhD. Further, it is stated, albeit not exactly directly, that there is a difference in clinical competency between the two degrees. It all smacks of weasely statements that require citations to support.
Roodog2k 17:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- The 2 sentences you've highlighted are also vaguely contradictory. The first says relative emphasis, whereas the second is about absolute emphasis. Coming from a non-US perspective, I'm only familiar with that. There, the clinical component is the same regardless of MA/MSc & clinical diploma, PsyD, or PhD & clinical diploma. Slightly more contentiously, one could argue that if the PhD research is on a clinical topic (which it need not be), then that may make for a better clinician. --Limegreen 21:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- I concur. There is more contradiction when you contrast the clinical ability of PsyDs vs PhDs regarding licensing. The bar for obtaining a license is the same, so, one could assume (in the absense of any other information) that the PsyD and PhD would be equally capible clinicians. Roodog2k 17:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] rm weasel statements
Ok, made some edits, this is why:
- changed professional to clinical -> A researcher is professional. One can be involved in the professional practice of psychology as a researcher. I think its clearer to use clinical here.
- change to explicitly -> Its a direct quote fro the source.
- remove competency -> There is no evidence that demonstrates that any given PsyD is any more competent than a PhD.
Roodog2k 18:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
