| American Psychological Association | Committee on Accreditation |
|
Open Session has passed. All data is Read Only. |
|
Request for Public Comment
in "Emerging Substantive Areas" |
The Committee on Accreditation (CoA) requests public comment on potential changes in the following text from the Guidelines and Principles (2002). Relevant G&P text reads:
The CoA will consider applications from doctoral graduate and internship programs in: (a) the traditional substantive professional areas of clinical, counseling and school psychology; (b) programs that combine more than one of these areas; (c) programs in emerging substantive areas of professional psychology... (p. 2) For further background information on emerging substantive areas, click here. The decision to move forward in the process of requesting public comment was made at the CoA's meeting in April 2002. The CoA believes that the decisions made on these issues will have substantial impact on the field for years to come. Two options are under consideration currently: Option One There would be a reworking of the text that would delete the phrase "emerging substantive areas." The new text would read: The CoA will consider applications from doctoral graduate and internship programs in: (a) the traditional substantive professional areas of clinical, counseling, and school psychology; (b) programs that combine more than one of these areas. Programs may use language specified in implementing regulations to identify particular emphases or foci of programs. The revelant implementing regulations for accreditation in the traditional substantive professional areas of clinical, counseling, and school psychology, and programs that combine more than one of these areas already exist. Option Two There would be a reworking of the text to recognize a process for determining emerging substantive areas: The CoA will consider applications from doctoral graduate and internship programs in: (a) the traditional substantive professional areas of clinical, counseling, and school psychology; (b) other substantive areas of professional psychology, defined according to a process specified in implementing regulations for the CoA; (c) programs that combine more than one of these areas. If chosen, Option Two would lead to a process in which the CoA would develop implementing regulations defining how an emerging substantive area becomes a substantive area, which would in turn entail at least one additional period of public comment. There may be several stages to this process. Background information previously collected by the CoA will then be posted on the CoA web site along with the new public comment. Comment Process As a part of their comment, commentators will be asked to
specify: (1)
who they are (2)
what group, if any, they represent (3)
the approximate size of that group (4) the process by which the comment was developed The CoA is especially interested in
what commentators believe to be best for the long range development of the
field of psychology. CoA will treat
public comments not as votes but rather will be guided by the quality of the
intellectual arguments and their pragmatic implications. Therefore, we encourage advocates of either
of the options to address the following issues: 1. What will be the impact of either course of
action on the future of psychology as a profession and a science. For example,
which option is more likely to foster innovation or communication? Please respond to both intellectual and
practical aspects. Option One: Option Two: 2. Some have suggested that the primary
difference between the two options is that Option 1 will reinforce the current
practice of identifying areas of emphasis or tracks within the accredited
clinical, counseling, school, or combination programs, while Option 2 raises
the possibility of multiple accreditations within what is now one program. Please characterize your perspective on this
issue with regard to: Option One: Option Two: 3. How might either option impact the internship
training system? Would there be similar
designations for internships? For example, would Option 1 restrict the ability
of internships to offer more focused training?
Would Option 2 result in different credentials being required of
internship applicants?) Option One: Option Two: 4. What would be the impact of either option on
program curricula, if a number of new areas such as child or health were
added? For example, what components and
competencies would be added or eliminated? What would be missing from the
curriculum under each option? What would
be gained by each option? Option One: Option Two: 5. What would be the influence of either option
on licensing laws and regulations? For
example, would there be a differentiation in (a) scope of practice allowed for
graduates, (b) titles that some graduates could ethically use and others could
not, and (c) professional practice activities in which graduates would or would
not be able to engage? 6. While some argue for the benefits of
specialization at the doctoral training level, others are concerned that such
developments would lead to further compartmentalization in psychology in which
communication and innovation are stifled rather than enhanced. Some present concerns that substantive areas
would become increasingly narrow over the years and that cross-area
fertilization would be impeded, while others see benefits in the
enhanced development of the new areas.
Please comment. 7. If you would like to advocate for another
option, please describe it and its implications for each of the areas
identified in the questions. 8. The CoA encourages you to add other
comments as you see fit, including suggestions about implementation of any of
the approaches. The CoA wishes to thank all commentators for helping this
in-depth examination and effort to articulate what is best for the field of
psychology. |