Prior to beginning work on this interactive assignment, please read the Neimeyer, et al. (2011) “How Special Are the Specialties? Workplace Settings in Counseling and Clinical Psychology in the United States” and Heatherington, et al. (2012)
“The Narrowing of Theoretical Orientations in Clinical Psychology Doctoral Training” Links to an external site.
articles. Be sure to also review the
APA’s Ethical Principles of Psychologist and Code of Conduct Links to an external site.
article and the
Recognized Specialties and Proficiencies in Professional Psychology Links to an external site.
web page, as well as any relevant Instructor Guidance.
For this interactive assignment, you will assume the role of a clinical or counseling psychologist who has recently opened a private practice or begun working for a mental health agency. You are eager to begin working with client(s) and need to market your services. One way to attract clients is to develop professional relationships with individuals who may need to refer their clients, patients, students, or congregants to a psychologist. It can be helpful to provide these professionals with informational materials that provide an overview of your services.
For this interactive assignment, it is recommended that you utilize one of the
Microsoft Word or PowerPoint brochure templates Links to an external site.
available at
https://templates.office.com/en-us/Search/results?query=brochure Links to an external site.
. If you must use any programs other than Microsoft Word or PowerPoint, save your brochure as a pdf file before attaching it to your discussion post.
Potential Referring Professionals: First, identify the target audience for your informational brochure (see common examples in the list below). You will utilize the brochure to market your services to the audience you identify in order to obtain client referrals from them. You may select as many audiences as you desire as long as the content in your brochure is relevant to the reasons these individuals would refer their clients, patients, or students to a psychologist.
- Attorneys
- Clergy/religious leaders
- Employee Assistance Program personnel
- Life/wellness coaches
- Physicians, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners including family practice specialists and psychiatrists
- Teachers and school counselors who may refer patients to you
- Other mental health professionals (e.g., nutritionists, physical therapists, occupational therapists, recreational therapists)
- Other mental health professionals (e.g., counselors, social workers, behavioral technicians, art therapists)
Your brochure must include the following information:
Disclaimer: Include the following statement in your brochure: “This informational brochure was developed for a class assignment. I am not holding myself out to be a mental health provider in any manner.”
Name, Photo/Image, and Credentials: Be sure to include your name degree, type of license, and any professional membership organizations appropriate to your assumed role. You may also list any appropriate division memberships and certifications applicable to your specialty. Include a personal professional headshot or other image appropriate to your brochure’s content.
Personal Statement: Create a 50-100-word personal statement in which you describe attributes that make your practice or agency unique.
Specialties: Identify at least three areas of specialization (e.g., child and adolescent psychology, behavioral disorders, learning disorders, trauma, family and relationships issues, anxiety, depression, eating disorders, neuropsychology, personality disorders, substance disorders). Access the APA’s
Recognized Specialties and Proficiencies in Professional Psychology Links to an external site.
page for more information on this topic.
Treatment Proficiencies: Compare the possible theoretical orientations appropriate to your assumed role and identify your treatment orientation(s). Identify which modalities (e.g., individual, couples, family, and/or group) you use with clients. For further assistance with creating this portion of your brochure, review the Heatherington, et al. (2012) article titled “The Narrowing of Theoretical Orientations in Clinical Psychology Doctoral Training.”
Client Focus: Describe the populations that you would primarily serve. Include information regarding age, gender, religious orientations, ethnicities, and/or special populations. List all languages you speak fluently and provide any additional information on cultural specialization you may have.
Confidentiality and Limitations: Explain what information will remain confidential in your sessions as well as the limitations of confidentiality. Keep in mind the age of your target population and the reasons for referral.
Initial Post Requirements
At the top of your post identify (1) the level of professional training you based your role on (e.g., PhD in clinical psychology; PsyD in clinical psychology, PhD in counseling psychology, EdD in counseling psychology), and (2) the target audience(s) for your brochure from the list of potential referring professionals above.
Attach the document to your initial post in the forum for review by your instructor and peers. Make sure you identify
Recognized Specialties, Subspecialties and Proficiencies (apa.org)
Ethical PrinciPlEs
of Psychologists and
codE of conduct
Adopted August 21, 2002
Effective June 1, 2003
With the 2010 Amendments
Adopted February 20, 2010
Effective June 1, 2010
Effective June 1, 2003, as amended 2010 1
Copyright © 2010 by the American Psychological Association. 0003-066X
Ethical PrinciPlEs of Psychologists
and codE of conduct
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION AND APPLICABILITY
PREAMBLE
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Principle A: Beneficence
and Nonmaleficence
Principle B: Fidelity and Responsibility
Principle C: Integrity
Principle D: Justice
Principle E: Respect for People’s Rights
and Dignity
ETHICAL STANDARDS
1. Resolving Ethical Issues
1.01 Misuse of Psychologists’ Work
1.02 Conflicts Between Ethics and Law,
Regulations, or Other Governing
Legal Authority
1.03 Conflicts Between Ethics and
Organizational Demands
1.04 Informal Resolution of Ethical
Violations
1.05 Reporting Ethical Violations
1.06 Cooperating With Ethics Committees
1.07 Improper Complaints
1.08 Unfair Discrimination Against
Complainants and Respondents
2. Competence
2.01 Boundaries of Competence
2.02 Providing Services in Emergencies
2.03 Maintaining Competence
2.04 Bases for Scientific and Professional
Judgments
2.05 Delegation of Work to Others
2.06 Personal Problems and Conflicts
3. Human Relations
3.01 Unfair Discrimination
3.02 Sexual Harassment
3.03 Other Harassment
3.04 Avoiding Harm
3.05 Multiple Relationships
3.06 Conflict of Interest
3.07 Third-Party Requests for Services
3.08 Exploitative Relationships
3.09 Cooperation With Other
Professionals
3.10 Informed Consent
3.11 Psychological Services Delivered to
or Through Organizations
3.12 Interruption of Psychological Services
4. Privacy and Confidentiality
4.01 Maintaining Confidentiality
4.02 Discussing the Limits of
Confidentiality
4.03 Recording
4.04 Minimizing Intrusions on Privacy
4.05 Disclosures
4.06 Consultations
4.07 Use of Confidential Information
for Didactic or Other Purposes
5. Advertising and Other Public
Statements
5.01 Avoidance of False or Deceptive
Statements
5.02 Statements by Others
5.03 Descriptions of Workshops and
Non-Degree-Granting Educational
Programs
5.04 Media Presentations
5.05 Testimonials
5.06 In-Person Solicitation
6. Record Keeping and Fees
6.01 Documentation of Professional
and Scientific Work and
Maintenance of Records
6.02 Maintenance, Dissemination,
and Disposal of Confidential Records
of Professional and Scientific Work
6.03 Withholding Records for
Nonpayment
6.04 Fees and Financial Arrangements
6.05 Barter With Clients/Patients
6.06 Accuracy in Reports to Payors and
Funding Sources
6.07 Referrals and Fees
7. Education and Training
7.01 Design of Education and Training
Programs
7.02 Descriptions of Education and
Training Programs
7.03 Accuracy in Teaching
7.04 Student Disclosure of Personal
Information
7.05 Mandatory Individual or Group
Therapy
7.06 Assessing Student and Supervisee
Performance
7.07 Sexual Relationships With
Students and Supervisees
8. Research and Publication
8.01 Institutional Approval
8.02 Informed Consent to Research
8.03 Informed Consent for Recording
Voices and Images in Research
8.04 Client/Patient, Student, and
Subordinate Research Participants
8.05 Dispensing With Informed Consent
for Research
8.06 Offering Inducements for Research
Participation
8.07 Deception in Research
8.08 Debriefing
8.09 Humane Care and Use of Animals
in Research
8.10 Reporting Research Results
8.11 Plagiarism
8.12 Publication Credit
8.13 Duplicate Publication of Data
8.14 Sharing Research Data for Verification
8.15 Reviewers
9. Assessment
9.01 Bases for Assessments
9.02 Use of Assessments
9.03 Informed Consent in Assessments
9.04 Release of Test Data
9.05 Test Construction
9.06 Interpreting Assessment Results
9.07 Assessment by Unqualified Persons
9.08 Obsolete Tests and Outdated Test
Results
9.09 Test Scoring and Interpretation
Services
9.10 Explaining Assessment Results
9.11 Maintaining Test Security
10. Therapy
10.01 Informed Consent to Therapy
10.02 Therapy Involving Couples or
Families
10.03 Group Therapy
10.04 Providing Therapy to Those Served
by Others
10.05 Sexual Intimacies With Current
Therapy Clients/Patients
10.06 Sexual Intimacies With Relatives
or Significant Others of Current
Therapy Clients/Patients
10.07 Therapy With Former Sexual Partners
10.08 Sexual Intimacies With Former
Therapy Clients/Patients
10.09 Interruption of Therapy
10.10 Terminating Therapy
2010 AMENDMENTS TO THE
2002 “ETHICAL PRINCIPLES Of
PSYCHOLOGISTS AND CODE Of
CONDUCT”
2 Effective June 1, 2003, as amended 2010Introduction and Applicability
portunity for an in-person hearing, but generally provide that
complaints will be resolved only on the basis of a submitted
record.
The Ethics Code is intended to provide guidance for
psychologists and standards of professional conduct that can
be applied by the APA and by other bodies that choose to
adopt them. The Ethics Code is not intended to be a basis of
civil liability. Whether a psychologist has violated the Ethics
Code standards does not by itself determine whether the psy-
chologist is legally liable in a court action, whether a contract
is enforceable, or whether other legal consequences occur.
The modifiers used in some of the standards of this
Ethics Code (e.g., reasonably, appropriate, potentially) are in-
cluded in the standards when they would (1) allow profes-
sional judgment on the part of psychologists, (2) eliminate
injustice or inequality that would occur without the modifier,
(3) ensure applicability across the broad range of activities
conducted by psychologists, or (4) guard against a set of rigid
rules that might be quickly outdated. As used in this Ethics
Code, the term reasonable means the prevailing professional
judgment of psychologists engaged in similar activities in sim-
ilar circumstances, given the knowledge the psychologist had
or should have had at the time.
The American Psychological Association’s Council of Representatives ad-
opted this version of the APA Ethics Code during its meeting on August 21,
2002. The Code became effective on June 1, 2003. The Council of Represen-
tatives amended this version of the Ethics Code on February 20, 2010. The
amendments became effective on June 1, 2010 (see p. 15 of this pamphlet).
Inquiries concerning the substance or interpretation of the APA Ethics Code
should be addressed to the Director, Office of Ethics, American Psycho-
logical Association, 750 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002-4242. The
Ethics Code and information regarding the Code can be found on the APA
website, http://www.apa.org/ethics. The standards in this Ethics Code will
be used to adjudicate complaints brought concerning alleged conduct occur-
ring on or after the effective date. Complaints will be adjudicated on the basis
of the version of the Ethics Code that was in effect at the time the conduct
occurred.
The APA has previously published its Ethics Code as follows:
American Psychological Association. (1953). Ethical standards of psycholo-
gists. Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychological Association. (1959). Ethical standards of psycholo-
gists. American Psychologist, 14, 279–282.
American Psychological Association. (1963). Ethical standards of psycholo-
gists. American Psychologist, 18, 56–60.
American Psychological Association. (1968). Ethical standards of psycholo-
gists. American Psychologist, 23, 357–361.
American Psychological Association. (1977, March). Ethical standards of
psychologists. APA Monitor, 22–23.
American Psychological Association. (1979). Ethical standards of psycholo-
gists. Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychological Association. (1981). Ethical principles of psycholo-
gists. American Psychologist, 36, 633–638.
American Psychological Association. (1990). Ethical principles of psycholo-
gists (Amended June 2, 1989). American Psychologist, 45, 390–395.
American Psychological Association. (1992). Ethical principles of psycholo-
gists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 47, 1597–1611.
American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psycholo-
gists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 57, 1060-1073.
Request copies of the APA’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code
of Conduct from the APA Order Department, 750 First Street, NE, Washing-
ton, DC 20002-4242, or phone (202) 336-5510.
INTRODUCTION AND APPLICABILITY
The American Psychological Association’s (APA’s)
Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct
(hereinafter referred to as the Ethics Code) consists of an In-
troduction, a Preamble, five General Principles (A–E), and
specific Ethical Standards. The Introduction discusses the
intent, organization, procedural considerations, and scope of
application of the Ethics Code. The Preamble and General
Principles are aspirational goals to guide psychologists toward
the highest ideals of psychology. Although the Preamble and
General Principles are not themselves enforceable rules, they
should be considered by psychologists in arriving at an ethical
course of action. The Ethical Standards set forth enforceable
rules for conduct as psychologists. Most of the Ethical Stan-
dards are written broadly, in order to apply to psychologists in
varied roles, although the application of an Ethical Standard
may vary depending on the context. The Ethical Standards are
not exhaustive. The fact that a given conduct is not specifically
addressed by an Ethical Standard does not mean that it is nec-
essarily either ethical or unethical.
This Ethics Code applies only to psychologists’ ac-
tivities that are part of their scientific, educational, or profes-
sional roles as psychologists. Areas covered include but are
not limited to the clinical, counseling, and school practice of
psychology; research; teaching; supervision of trainees; pub-
lic service; policy development; social intervention; develop-
ment of assessment instruments; conducting assessments;
educational counseling; organizational consulting; forensic
activities; program design and evaluation; and administra-
tion. This Ethics Code applies to these activities across a vari-
ety of contexts, such as in person, postal, telephone, Internet,
and other electronic transmissions. These activities shall be
distinguished from the purely private conduct of psycholo-
gists, which is not within the purview of the Ethics Code.
Membership in the APA commits members and stu-
dent affiliates to comply with the standards of the APA Ethics
Code and to the rules and procedures used to enforce them.
Lack of awareness or misunderstanding of an Ethical Standard
is not itself a defense to a charge of unethical conduct.
The procedures for filing, investigating, and resolving
complaints of unethical conduct are described in the current
Rules and Procedures of the APA Ethics Committee. APA may
impose sanctions on its members for violations of the stan-
dards of the Ethics Code, including termination of APA mem-
bership, and may notify other bodies and individuals of its
actions. Actions that violate the standards of the Ethics Code
may also lead to the imposition of sanctions on psychologists
or students whether or not they are APA members by bodies
other than APA, including state psychological associations,
other professional groups, psychology boards, other state or
federal agencies, and payors for health services. In addition,
APA may take action against a member after his or her convic-
tion of a felony, expulsion or suspension from an affiliated state
psychological association, or suspension or loss of licensure.
When the sanction to be imposed by APA is less than expul-
sion, the 2001 Rules and Procedures do not guarantee an op-
Effective June 1, 2003, as amended 2010 3Preamble–Principle D
Principle A: Beneficence and Nonmaleficence
Psychologists strive to benefit those with whom they
work and take care to do no harm. In their professional ac-
tions, psychologists seek to safeguard the welfare and rights
of those with whom they interact professionally and other af-
fected persons, and the welfare of animal subjects of research.
When conflicts occur among psychologists’ obligations or
concerns, they attempt to resolve these conflicts in a respon-
sible fashion that avoids or minimizes harm. Because psychol-
ogists’ scientific and professional judgments and actions may
affect the lives of others, they are alert to and guard against
personal, financial, social, organizational, or political factors
that might lead to misuse of their influence. Psychologists
strive to be aware of the possible effect of their own physical
and mental health on their ability to help those with whom
they work.
Principle B: fidelity and Responsibility
Psychologists establish relationships of trust with
those with whom they work. They are aware of their profes-
sional and scientific responsibilities to society and to the spe-
cific communities in which they work. Psychologists uphold
professional standards of conduct, clarify their professional
roles and obligations, accept appropriate responsibility for
their behavior, and seek to manage conflicts of interest that
could lead to exploitation or harm. Psychologists consult
with, refer to, or cooperate with other professionals and in-
stitutions to the extent needed to serve the best interests of
those with whom they work. They are concerned about the
ethical compliance of their colleagues’ scientific and profes-
sional conduct. Psychologists strive to contribute a portion
of their professional time for little or no compensation or per-
sonal advantage.
Principle C: Integrity
Psychologists seek to promote accuracy, honesty, and
truthfulness in the science, teaching, and practice of psychol-
ogy. In these activities psychologists do not steal, cheat, or en-
gage in fraud, subterfuge, or intentional misrepresentation of
fact. Psychologists strive to keep their promises and to avoid
unwise or unclear commitments. In situations in which de-
ception may be ethically justifiable to maximize benefits and
minimize harm, psychologists have a serious obligation to
consider the need for, the possible consequences of, and their
responsibility to correct any resulting mistrust or other harm-
ful effects that arise from the use of such techniques.
Principle D: Justice
Psychologists recognize that fairness and justice en-
title all persons to access to and benefit from the contribu-
tions of psychology and to equal quality in the processes,
procedures, and services being conducted by psychologists.
Psychologists exercise reasonable judgment and take precau-
tions to ensure that their potential biases, the boundaries of
In the process of making decisions regarding their
professional behavior, psychologists must consider this Eth-
ics Code in addition to applicable laws and psychology board
regulations. In applying the Ethics Code to their professional
work, psychologists may consider other materials and guide-
lines that have been adopted or endorsed by scientific and
professional psychological organizations and the dictates of
their own conscience, as well as consult with others within
the field. If this Ethics Code establishes a higher standard of
conduct than is required by law, psychologists must meet the
higher ethical standard. If psychologists’ ethical responsi-
bilities conflict with law, regulations, or other governing legal
authority, psychologists make known their commitment to
this Ethics Code and take steps to resolve the conflict in a re-
sponsible manner in keeping with basic principles of human
rights.
PREAMBLE
Psychologists are committed to increasing scientific
and professional knowledge of behavior and people’s un-
derstanding of themselves and others and to the use of such
knowledge to improve the condition of individuals, organi-
zations, and society. Psychologists respect and protect civil
and human rights and the central importance of freedom of
inquiry and expression in research, teaching, and publication.
They strive to help the public in developing informed judg-
ments and choices concerning human behavior. In doing so,
they perform many roles, such as researcher, educator, diag-
nostician, therapist, supervisor, consultant, administrator, so-
cial interventionist, and expert witness. This Ethics Code pro-
vides a common set of principles and standards upon which
psychologists build their professional and scientific work.
This Ethics Code is intended to provide specific stan-
dards to cover most situations encountered by psychologists.
It has as its goals the welfare and protection of the individuals
and groups with whom psychologists work and the education
of members, students, and the public regarding ethical stan-
dards of the discipline.
The development of a dynamic set of ethical standards
for psychologists’ work-related conduct requires a personal
commitment and lifelong effort to act ethically; to encour-
age ethical behavior by students, supervisees, employees,
and colleagues; and to consult with others concerning ethical
problems.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
This section consists of General Principles. General
Principles, as opposed to Ethical Standards, are aspirational
in nature. Their intent is to guide and inspire psychologists to-
ward the very highest ethical ideals of the profession. General
Principles, in contrast to Ethical Standards, do not represent
obligations and should not form the basis for imposing sanc-
tions. Relying upon General Principles for either of these rea-
sons distorts both their meaning and purpose.
4 Effective June 1, 2003, as amended 2010Principle E–Standard 2.01
vidual, if an informal resolution appears appropriate and the
intervention does not violate any confidentiality rights that
may be involved. (See also Standards 1.02, Conflicts Between
Ethics and Law, Regulations, or Other Governing Legal Au-
thority, and 1.03, Conflicts Between Ethics and Organization-
al Demands.)
1.05 reporting Ethical Violations
If an apparent ethical violation has substantially
harmed or is likely to substantially harm a person or organi-
zation and is not appropriate for informal resolution under
Standard 1.04, Informal Resolution of Ethical Violations, or
is not resolved properly in that fashion, psychologists take
further action appropriate to the situation. Such action might
include referral to state or national committees on profes-
sional ethics, to state licensing boards, or to the appropriate
institutional authorities. This standard does not apply when
an intervention would violate confidentiality rights or when
psychologists have been retained to review the work of an-
other psychologist whose professional conduct is in question.
(See also Standard 1.02, Conflicts Between Ethics and Law,
Regulations, or Other Governing Legal Authority.)
1.06 cooperating With Ethics committees
Psychologists cooperate in ethics investigations, pro-
ceedings, and resulting requirements of the APA or any af-
filiated state psychological association to which they belong.
In doing so, they address any confidentiality issues. Failure
to cooperate is itself an ethics violation. However, making a
request for deferment of adjudication of an ethics complaint
pending the outcome of litigation does not alone constitute
noncooperation.
1.07 improper complaints
Psychologists do not file or encourage the filing of
ethics complaints that are made with reckless disregard for or
willful ignorance of facts that would disprove the allegation.
1.08 unfair discrimination against complainants
and respondents
Psychologists do not deny persons employment, ad-
vancement, admissions to academic or other programs, ten-
ure, or promotion, based solely upon their having made or
their being the subject of an ethics complaint. This does not
preclude taking action based upon the outcome of such pro-
ceedings or considering other appropriate information.
2. Competence
2.01 Boundaries of competence
(a) Psychologists provide services, teach, and conduct
research with populations and in areas only within the bound-
aries of their competence, based on their education, training,
supervised experience, consultation, study, or professional
experience.
their competence, and the limitations of their expertise do
not lead to or condone unjust practices.
Principle E: Respect for People’s Rights
and Dignity
Psychologists respect the dignity and worth of all peo-
ple, and the rights of individuals to privacy, confidentiality,
and self-determination. Psychologists are aware that special
safeguards may be necessary to protect the rights and welfare
of persons or communities whose vulnerabilities impair au-
tonomous decision making. Psychologists are aware of and
respect cultural, individual, and role differences, including
those based on age, gender, gender identity, race, ethnicity,
culture, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability,
language, and socioeconomic status, and consider these fac-
tors when working with members of such groups. Psycholo-
gists try to eliminate the effect on their work of biases based
on those factors, and they do not knowingly participate in or
condone activities of others based upon such prejudices.
ETHICAL STANDARDS
1. Resolving Ethical Issues
1.01 Misuse of Psychologists’ Work
If psychologists learn of misuse or misrepresentation
of their work, they take reasonable steps to correct or mini-
mize the misuse or misrepresentation.
1.02 conflicts Between Ethics and law,
regulations, or other governing
legal authority
If psychologists’ ethical responsibilities conflict with
law, regulations, or other governing legal authority, psychol-
ogists clarify the nature of the conflict, make known their
commitment to the Ethics Code, and take reasonable steps
to resolve the conflict consistent with the General Principles
and Ethical Standards of the Ethics Code. Under no circum-
stances may this standard be used to justify or defend violat-
ing human rights.
1.03 conflicts Between Ethics
and organizational demands
If the demands of an organization with which psy-
chologists are affiliated or for whom they are working are in
conflict with this Ethics Code, psychologists clarify the nature
of the conflict, make known their commitment to the Ethics
Code, and take reasonable steps to resolve the conflict consis-
tent with the General Principles and Ethical Standards of the
Ethics Code. Under no circumstances may this standard be
used to justify or defend violating human rights.
1.04 informal resolution of Ethical Violations
When psychologists believe that there may have been
an ethical violation by another psychologist, they attempt to
resolve the issue by bringing it to the attention of that indi-
Effective June 1, 2003, as amended 2010 5Standard 2.02–Standard 3.03
vices of others, such as interpreters, take reasonable steps to
(1) avoid delegating such work to persons who have a multi-
ple relationship with those being served that would likely lead
to exploitation or loss of objectivity; (2) authorize only those
responsibilities that such persons can be expected to perform
competently on the basis of their education, training, or expe-
rience, either independently or with the level of supervision
being provided; and (3) see that such persons perform these
services competently. (See also Standards 2.02, Providing
Services in Emergencies; 3.05, Multiple Relationships; 4.01,
Maintaining Confidentiality; 9.01, Bases for Assessments;
9.02, Use of Assessments; 9.03, Informed Consent in Assess-
ments; and 9.07, Assessment by Unqualified Persons.)
2.06 Personal Problems and conflicts
(a) Psychologists refrain from initiating an activity
when they know or should know that there is a substantial
likelihood that their personal problems will prevent them
from performing their work-related activities in a competent
manner.
(b) When psychologists become aware of personal
problems that may interfere with their performing work-relat-
ed duties adequately, they take appropriate measures, such as
obtaining professional consultation or assistance, and deter-
mine whether they should limit, suspend, or terminate their
work-related duties. (See also Standard 10.10, Terminating
Therapy.)
3. Human Relations
3.01 unfair discrimination
In their work-related activities, psychologists do not
engage in unfair discrimination based on age, gender, gender
identity, race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, religion, sex-
ual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or any basis
proscribed by law.
3.02 sexual harassment
Psychologists do not engage in sexual harassment.
Sexual harassment is sexual solicitation, physical advances, or
verbal or nonverbal conduct that is sexual in nature, that oc-
curs in connection with the psychologist’s activities or roles as
a psychologist, and that either (1) is unwelcome, is offensive,
or creates a hostile workplace or educational environment,
and the psychologist knows or is told this or (2) is sufficiently
severe or intense to be abusive to a reasonable person in the
context. Sexual harassment can consist of a single intense or
severe act or of multiple persistent or pervasive acts. (See also
Standard 1.08, Unfair Discrimination Against Complainants
and Respondents.)
3.03 other harassment
Psychologists do not knowingly engage in behavior
that is harassing or demeaning to persons with whom they
interact in their work based on factors such as those persons’
age, gender, gender identity, race, ethnicity, culture, national
(b) Where scientific or professional knowledge in the
discipline of psychology establishes that an understanding of
factors associated with age, gender, gender identity, race, eth-
nicity, culture, national origin, religion, sexual orientation,
disability, language, or socioeconomic status is essential for ef-
fective implementation of their services or research, psycholo-
gists have or obtain the training, experience, consultation, or
supervision necessary to ensure the competence of their ser-
vices, or they make appropriate referrals, except as provided in
Standard 2.02, Providing Services in Emergencies.
(c) Psychologists planning to provide services, teach,
or conduct research involving populations, areas, techniques,
or technologies new to them undertake relevant education,
training, supervised experience, consultation, or study.
(d) When psychologists are asked to provide services
to individuals for whom appropriate mental health services
are not available and for which psychologists have not ob-
tained the competence necessary, psychologists with closely
related prior training or experience may provide such services
in order to ensure that services are not denied if they make a
reasonable effort to obtain the competence required by using
relevant research, training, consultation, or study.
(e) In those emerging areas in which generally rec-
ognized standards for preparatory training do not yet exist,
psychologists nevertheless take reasonable steps to ensure
the competence of their work and to protect clients/patients,
students, supervisees, research participants, organizational cli-
ents, and others from harm.
(f) When assuming forensic roles, psychologists are
or become reasonably familiar with the judicial or administra-
tive rules governing their roles.
2.02 Providing services in Emergencies
In emergencies, when psychologists provide services
to individuals for whom other mental health services are not
available and for which psychologists have not obtained the
necessary training, psychologists may provide such services
in order to ensure that services are not denied. The services
are discontinued as soon as the emergency has ended or ap-
propriate services are available.
2.03 Maintaining competence
Psychologists undertake ongoing efforts to develop
and maintain their competence.
2.04 Bases for scientific and Professional
Judgments
Psychologists’ work is based upon established scien-
tific and professional knowledge of the discipline. (See also
Standards 2.01e, Boundaries of Competence, and 10.01b, In-
formed Consent to Therapy.)
2.05 delegation of Work to others
Psychologists who delegate work to employees, super-
visees, or research or teaching assistants or who use the ser-
6 Effective June 1, 2003, as amended 2010Standard 3.04–Standard 3.10
therapist, consultant, diagnostician, or expert witness), an
identification of who is the client, the probable uses of the
services provided or the information obtained, and the fact
that there may be limits to confidentiality. (See also Standards
3.05, Multiple Relationships, and 4.02, Discussing the Limits
of Confidentiality.)
3.08 Exploitative relationships
Psychologists do not exploit persons over whom they
have supervisory, evaluative, or other authority such as cli-
ents/patients, students, supervisees, research participants,
and employees. (See also Standards 3.05, Multiple Relation-
ships; 6.04, Fees and Financial Arrangements; 6.05, Barter
With Clients/Patients; 7.07, Sexual Relationships With Stu-
dents and Supervisees; 10.05, Sexual Intimacies With Cur-
rent Therapy Clients/Patients; 10.06, Sexual Intimacies With
Relatives or Significant Others of Current Therapy Clients/
Patients; 10.07, Therapy With Former Sexual Partners; and
10.08, Sexual Intimacies With Former Therapy Clients/Pa-
tients.)
3.09 cooperation With other Professionals
When indicated and professionally appropriate, psy-
chologists cooperate with other professionals in order to
serve their clients/patients effectively and appropriately. (See
also Standard 4.05, Disclosures.)
3.10 informed consent
(a) When psychologists conduct research or provide
assessment, therapy, counseling, or consulting services in per-
son or via electronic transmission or other forms of commu-
nication, they obtain the informed consent of the individual
or individuals using language that is reasonably understand-
able to that person or persons except when conducting such
activities without consent is mandated by law or governmen-
tal regulation or as otherwise provided in this Ethics Code.
(See also Standards 8.02, Informed Consent to Research;
9.03, Informed Consent in Assessments; and 10.01, Informed
Consent to Therapy.)
(b) For persons who are legally incapable of giving
informed consent, psychologists nevertheless (1) provide an
appropriate explanation, (2) seek the individual’s assent, (3)
consider such persons’ preferences and best interests, and (4)
obtain appropriate permission from a legally authorized per-
son, if such substitute consent is permitted or required by law.
When consent by a legally authorized person is not permitted
or required by law, psychologists take reasonable steps to pro-
tect the individual’s rights and welfare.
(c) When psychological services are court ordered or
otherwise mandated, psychologists inform the individual of
the nature of the anticipated services, including whether the
services are court ordered or mandated and any limits of con-
fidentiality, before proceeding.
(d) Psychologists appropriately document written or
oral consent, permission, and assent. (See also Standards 8.02,
origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, language, or so-
cioeconomic status.
3.04 avoiding harm
Psychologists take reasonable steps to avoid harming
their clients/patients, students, supervisees, research par-
ticipants, organizational clients, and others with whom they
work, and to minimize harm where it is foreseeable and un-
avoidable.
3.05 Multiple relationships
(a) A multiple relationship occurs when a psycholo-
gist is in a professional role with a person and (1) at the same
time is in another role with the same person, (2) at the same
time is in a relationship with a person closely associated with
or related to the person with whom the psychologist has the
professional relationship, or (3) promises to enter into an-
other relationship in the future with the person or a person
closely associated with or related to the person.
A psychologist refrains from entering into a multiple
relationship if the multiple relationship could reasonably be
expected to impair the psychologist’s objectivity, compe-
tence, or effectiveness in performing his or her functions as
a psychologist, or otherwise risks exploitation or harm to the
person with whom the professional relationship exists.
Multiple relationships that would not reasonably be
expected to cause impairment or risk exploitation or harm are
not unethical.
(b) If a psychologist finds that, due to unforeseen fac-
tors, a potentially harmful multiple relationship has arisen,
the psychologist takes reasonable steps to resolve it with due
regard for the best interests of the affected person and maxi-
mal compliance with the Ethics Code.
(c) When psychologists are required by law, institu-
tional policy, or extraordinary circumstances to serve in more
than one role in judicial or administrative proceedings, at the
outset they clarify role expectations and the extent of con-
fidentiality and thereafter as changes occur. (See also Stan-
dards 3.04, Avoiding Harm, and 3.07, Third-Party Requests
for Services.)
3.06 conflict of interest
Psychologists refrain from taking on a professional
role when personal, scientific, professional, legal, financial, or
other interests or relationships could reasonably be expected
to (1) impair their objectivity, competence, or effectiveness in
performing their functions as psychologists or (2) expose the
person or organization with whom the professional relation-
ship exists to harm or exploitation.
3.07 Third-Party requests for services
When psychologists agree to provide services to a
person or entity at the request of a third party, psychologists
attempt to clarify at the outset of the service the nature of the
relationship with all individuals or organizations involved.
This clarification includes the role of the psychologist (e.g.,
Effective June 1, 2003, as amended 2010 7Standard 3.11–Standard 4.07
(c) Psychologists who offer services, products, or in-
formation via electronic transmission inform clients/patients
of the risks to privacy and limits of confidentiality.
4.03 recording
Before recording the voices or images of individuals to
whom they provide services, psychologists obtain permission
from all such persons or their legal representatives. (See also
Standards 8.03, Informed Consent for Recording Voices and
Images in Research; 8.05, Dispensing With Informed Con-
sent for Research; and 8.07, Deception in Research.)
4.04 Minimizing intrusions on Privacy
(a) Psychologists include in written and oral reports
and consultations, only information germane to the purpose
for which the communication is made.
(b) Psychologists discuss confidential information
obtained in their work only for appropriate scientific or pro-
fessional purposes and only with persons clearly concerned
with such matters.
4.05 disclosures
(a) Psychologists may disclose confidential informa-
tion with the appropriate consent of the organizational client,
the individual client/patient, or another legally authorized
person on behalf of the client/patient unless prohibited by
law.
(b) Psychologists disclose confidential information
without the consent of the individual only as mandated by law,
or where permitted by law for a valid purpose such as to (1)
provide needed professional services; (2) obtain appropri-
ate professional consultations; (3) protect the client/patient,
psychologist, or others from harm; or (4) obtain payment for
services from a client/patient, in which instance disclosure is
limited to the minimum that is necessary to achieve the pur-
pose. (See also Standard 6.04e, Fees and Financial Arrange-
ments.)
4.06 consultations
When consulting with colleagues, (1) psychologists
do not disclose confidential information that reasonably
could lead to the identification of a client/patient, research
participant, or other person or organization with whom they
have a confidential relationship unless they have obtained the
prior consent of the person or organization or the disclosure
cannot be avoided, and (2) they disclose information only to
the extent necessary to achieve the purposes of the consulta-
tion. (See also Standard 4.01, Maintaining Confidentiality.)
4.07 use of confidential information for didactic
or other Purposes
Psychologists do not disclose in their writings, lec-
tures, or other public media, confidential, personally identifi-
able information concerning their clients/patients, students,
research participants, organizational clients, or other recipi-
Informed Consent to Research; 9.03, Informed Consent in As-
sessments; and 10.01, Informed Consent to Therapy.)
3.11 Psychological services delivered to or
Through organizations
(a) Psychologists delivering services to or through
organizations provide information beforehand to clients and
when appropriate those directly affected by the services about
(1) the nature and objectives of the services, (2) the intended
recipients, (3) which of the individuals are clients, (4) the re-
lationship the psychologist will have with each person and the
organization, (5) the probable uses of services provided and
information obtained, (6) who will have access to the infor-
mation, and (7) limits of confidentiality. As soon as feasible,
they provide information about the results and conclusions of
such services to appropriate persons.
(b) If psychologists will be precluded by law or by
organizational roles from providing such information to par-
ticular individuals or groups, they so inform those individuals
or groups at the outset of the service.
3.12 interruption of Psychological services
Unless otherwise covered by contract, psychologists
make reasonable efforts to plan for facilitating services in the
event that psychological services are interrupted by factors
such as the psychologist’s illness, death, unavailability, relo-
cation, or retirement or by the client’s/patient’s relocation or
financial limitations. (See also Standard 6.02c, Maintenance,
Dissemination, and Disposal of Confidential Records of Pro-
fessional and Scientific Work.)
4. Privacy and Confidentiality
4.01 Maintaining confidentiality
Psychologists have a primary obligation and take rea-
sonable precautions to protect confidential information ob-
tained through or stored in any medium, recognizing that the
extent and limits of confidentiality may be regulated by law or
established by institutional rules or professional or scientific
relationship. (See also Standard 2.05, Delegation of Work to
Others.)
4.02 discussing the limits of confidentiality
(a) Psychologists discuss with persons (including, to
the extent feasible, persons who are legally incapable of giving
informed consent and their legal representatives) and organi-
zations with whom they establish a scientific or professional
relationship (1) the relevant limits of confidentiality and (2)
the foreseeable uses of the information generated through
their psychological activities. (See also Standard 3.10, In-
formed Consent.)
(b) Unless it is not feasible or is contraindicated, the
discussion of confidentiality occurs at the outset of the rela-
tionship and thereafter as new circumstances may warrant.
8 Effective June 1, 2003, as amended 2010Standard 5.01–Standard 6.02
5.04 Media Presentations
When psychologists provide public advice or com-
ment via print, Internet, or other electronic transmission,
they take precautions to ensure that statements (1) are based
on their professional knowledge, training, or experience in ac-
cord with appropriate psychological literature and practice;
(2) are otherwise consistent with this Ethics Code; and (3)
do not indicate that a professional relationship has been es-
tablished with the recipient. (See also Standard 2.04, Bases
for Scientific and Professional Judgments.)
5.05 testimonials
Psychologists do not solicit testimonials from current
therapy clients/patients or other persons who because of their
particular circumstances are vulnerable to undue influence.
5.06 in-Person solicitation
Psychologists do not engage, directly or through
agents, in uninvited in-person solicitation of business from
actual or potential therapy clients/patients or other persons
who because of their particular circumstances are vulner-
able to undue influence. However, this prohibition does not
preclude (1) attempting to implement appropriate collateral
contacts for the purpose of benefiting an already engaged
therapy client/patient or (2) providing disaster or commu-
nity outreach services.
6. Record Keeping and fees
6.01 documentation of Professional and scientific
Work and Maintenance of records
Psychologists create, and to the extent the records are
under their control, maintain, disseminate, store, retain, and
dispose of records and data relating to their professional and
scientific work in order to (1) facilitate provision of services
later by them or by other professionals, (2) allow for repli-
cation of research design and analyses, (3) meet institutional
requirements, (4) ensure accuracy of billing and payments,
and (5) ensure compliance with law. (See also Standard 4.01,
Maintaining Confidentiality.)
6.02 Maintenance, dissemination, and disposal
of confidential records of Professional and
scientific Work
(a) Psychologists maintain confidentiality in creat-
ing, storing, accessing, transferring, and disposing of records
under their control, whether these are written, automated, or
in any other medium. (See also Standards 4.01, Maintaining
Confidentiality, and 6.01, Documentation of Professional and
Scientific Work and Maintenance of Records.)
(b) If confidential information concerning recipients
of psychological services is entered into databases or systems
of records available to persons whose access has not been con-
sented to by the recipient, psychologists use coding or other
techniques to avoid the inclusion of personal identifiers.
ents of their services that they obtained during the course of
their work, unless (1) they take reasonable steps to disguise
the person or organization, (2) the person or organization has
consented in writing, or (3) there is legal authorization for do-
ing so.
5. Advertising and Other Public Statements
5.01 avoidance of false or deceptive statements
(a) Public statements include but are not limited to
paid or unpaid advertising, product endorsements, grant ap-
plications, licensing applications, other credentialing applica-
tions, brochures, printed matter, directory listings, personal
resumes or curricula vitae, or comments for use in media
such as print or electronic transmission, statements in legal
proceedings, lectures and public oral presentations, and pub-
lished materials. Psychologists do not knowingly make public
statements that are false, deceptive, or fraudulent concerning
their research, practice, or other work activities or those of
persons or organizations with which they are affiliated.
(b) Psychologists do not make false, deceptive, or
fraudulent statements concerning (1) their training, experi-
ence, or competence; (2) their academic degrees; (3) their
credentials; (4) their institutional or association affiliations;
(5) their services; (6) the scientific or clinical basis for, or re-
sults or degree of success of, their services; (7) their fees; or
(8) their publications or research findings.
(c) Psychologists claim degrees as credentials for their
health services only if those degrees (1) were earned from a
regionally accredited educational institution or (2) were the
basis for psychology licensure by the state in which they prac-
tice.
5.02 statements by others
(a) Psychologists who engage others to create or place
public statements that promote their professional practice,
products, or activities retain professional responsibility for
such statements.
(b) Psychologists do not compensate employees of
press, radio, television, or other communication media in
return for publicity in a news item. (See also Standard 1.01,
Misuse of Psychologists’ Work.)
(c) A paid advertisement relating to psychologists’ ac-
tivities must be identified or clearly recognizable as such.
5.03 descriptions of Workshops and non-degree-
granting Educational Programs
To the degree to which they exercise control, psychol-
ogists responsible for announcements, catalogs, brochures,
or advertisements describing workshops, seminars, or other
non-degree-granting educational programs ensure that they
accurately describe the audience for which the program is
intended, the educational objectives, the presenters, and the
fees involved.
Effective June 1, 2003, as amended 2010 9Standard 6.03–Standard 7.04
er–employee relationship, the payment to each is based on
the services provided (clinical, consultative, administrative,
or other) and is not based on the referral itself. (See also Stan-
dard 3.09, Cooperation With Other Professionals.)
7. Education and Training
7.01 design of Education and training Programs
Psychologists responsible for education and training
programs take reasonable steps to ensure that the programs
are designed to provide the appropriate knowledge and prop-
er experiences, and to meet the requirements for licensure,
certification, or other goals for which claims are made by the
program. (See also Standard 5.03, Descriptions of Workshops
and Non-Degree-Granting Educational Programs.)
7.02 descriptions of Education and training
Programs
Psychologists responsible for education and training
programs take reasonable steps to ensure that there is a current
and accurate description of the program content (including
participation in required course- or program-related counsel-
ing, psychotherapy, experiential groups, consulting projects,
or community service), training goals and objectives, stipends
and benefits, and requirements that must be met for satisfac-
tory completion of the program. This information must be
made readily available to all interested parties.
7.03 accuracy in teaching
(a) Psychologists take reasonable steps to ensure
that course syllabi are accurate regarding the subject matter
to be covered, bases for evaluating progress, and the nature
of course experiences. This standard does not preclude an
instructor from modifying course content or requirements
when the instructor considers it pedagogically necessary or
desirable, so long as students are made aware of these modifi-
cations in a manner that enables them to fulfill course require-
ments. (See also Standard 5.01, Avoidance of False or Decep-
tive Statements.)
(b) When engaged in teaching or training, psycholo-
gists present psychological information accurately. (See also
Standard 2.03, Maintaining Competence.)
7.04 student disclosure of Personal information
Psychologists do not require students or supervisees
to disclose personal information in course- or program-relat-
ed activities, either orally or in writing, regarding sexual histo-
ry, history of abuse and neglect, psychological treatment, and
relationships with parents, peers, and spouses or significant
others except if (1) the program or training facility has clearly
identified this requirement in its admissions and program
materials or (2) the information is necessary to evaluate or
obtain assistance for students whose personal problems could
reasonably be judged to be preventing them from performing
their training- or professionally related activities in a compe-
tent manner or posing a threat to the students or others.
(c) Psychologists make plans in advance to facilitate
the appropriate transfer and to protect the confidentiality of
records and data in the event of psychologists’ withdrawal from
positions or practice. (See also Standards 3.12, Interruption of
Psychological Services, and 10.09, Interruption of Therapy.)
6.03 Withholding records for nonpayment
Psychologists may not withhold records under their
control that are requested and needed for a client’s/patient’s
emergency treatment solely because payment has not been
received.
6.04 fees and financial arrangements
(a) As early as is feasible in a professional or scientific
relationship, psychologists and recipients of psychological
services reach an agreement specifying compensation and
billing arrangements.
(b) Psychologists’ fee practices are consistent with
law.
(c) Psychologists do not misrepresent their fees.
(d) If limitations to services can be anticipated because
of limitations in financing, this is discussed with the recipient
of services as early as is feasible. (See also Standards 10.09, In-
terruption of Therapy, and 10.10, Terminating Therapy.)
(e) If the recipient of services does not pay for services
as agreed, and if psychologists intend to use collection agen-
cies or legal measures to collect the fees, psychologists first in-
form the person that such measures will be taken and provide
that person an opportunity to make prompt payment. (See
also Standards 4.05, Disclosures; 6.03, Withholding Records
for Nonpayment; and 10.01, Informed Consent to Therapy.)
6.05 Barter With clients/Patients
Barter is the acceptance of goods, services, or other
nonmonetary remuneration from clients/patients in return
for psychological services. Psychologists may barter only if
(1) it is not clinically contraindicated, and (2) the resulting
arrangement is not exploitative. (See also Standards 3.05,
Multiple Relationships, and 6.04, Fees and Financial Arrange-
ments.)
6.06 accuracy in reports to Payors and
funding sources
In their reports to payors for services or sources of
research funding, psychologists take reasonable steps to en-
sure the accurate reporting of the nature of the service pro-
vided or research conducted, the fees, charges, or payments,
and where applicable, the identity of the provider, the find-
ings, and the diagnosis. (See also Standards 4.01, Maintaining
Confidentiality; 4.04, Minimizing Intrusions on Privacy; and
4.05, Disclosures.)
6.07 referrals and fees
When psychologists pay, receive payment from, or di-
vide fees with another professional, other than in an employ-
10 Effective June 1, 2003, as amended 2010Standard 7.05–Standard 8.05
Dispensing With Informed Consent for Research; and 8.07,
Deception in Research.)
(b) Psychologists conducting intervention research
involving the use of experimental treatments clarify to par-
ticipants at the outset of the research (1) the experimental
nature of the treatment; (2) the services that will or will not
be available to the control group(s) if appropriate; (3) the
means by which assignment to treatment and control groups
will be made; (4) available treatment alternatives if an indi-
vidual does not wish to participate in the research or wishes to
withdraw once a study has begun; and (5) compensation for
or monetary costs of participating including, if appropriate,
whether reimbursement from the participant or a third-par-
ty payor will be sought. (See also Standard 8.02a, Informed
Consent to Research.)
8.03 informed consent for recording Voices and
images in research
Psychologists obtain informed consent from research
participants prior to recording their voices or images for data
collection unless (1) the research consists solely of natural-
istic observations in public places, and it is not anticipated
that the recording will be used in a manner that could cause
personal identification or harm, or (2) the research design in-
cludes deception, and consent for the use of the recording is
obtained during debriefing. (See also Standard 8.07, Decep-
tion in Research.)
8.04 client/Patient, student, and subordinate
research Participants
(a) When psychologists conduct research with cli-
ents/patients, students, or subordinates as participants, psy-
chologists take steps to protect the prospective participants
from adverse consequences of declining or withdrawing from
participation.
(b) When research participation is a course require-
ment or an opportunity for extra credit, the prospective par-
ticipant is given the choice of equitable alternative activities.
8.05 dispensing With informed consent for
research
Psychologists may dispense with informed consent
only (1) where research would not reasonably be assumed to
create distress or harm and involves (a) the study of normal
educational practices, curricula, or classroom management
methods conducted in educational settings; (b) only anony-
mous questionnaires, naturalistic observations, or archival
research for which disclosure of responses would not place
participants at risk of criminal or civil liability or damage their
financial standing, employability, or reputation, and confi-
dentiality is protected; or (c) the study of factors related to
job or organization effectiveness conducted in organizational
settings for which there is no risk to participants’ employabil-
ity, and confidentiality is protected or (2) where otherwise
permitted by law or federal or institutional regulations.
7.05 Mandatory individual or group Therapy
(a) When individual or group therapy is a program or
course requirement, psychologists responsible for that pro-
gram allow students in undergraduate and graduate programs
the option of selecting such therapy from practitioners unaf-
filiated with the program. (See also Standard 7.02, Descrip-
tions of Education and Training Programs.)
(b) Faculty who are or are likely to be responsible
for evaluating students’ academic performance do not them-
selves provide that therapy. (See also Standard 3.05, Multiple
Relationships.)
7.06 assessing student and supervisee
Performance
(a) In academic and supervisory relationships, psy-
chologists establish a timely and specific process for provid-
ing feedback to students and supervisees. Information regard-
ing the process is provided to the student at the beginning of
supervision.
(b) Psychologists evaluate students and supervisees
on the basis of their actual performance on relevant and es-
tablished program requirements.
7.07 sexual relationships With students and
supervisees
Psychologists do not engage in sexual relationships
with students or supervisees who are in their department,
agency, or training center or over whom psychologists have
or are likely to have evaluative authority. (See also Standard
3.05, Multiple Relationships.)
8. Research and Publication
8.01 institutional approval
When institutional approval is required, psychologists
provide accurate information about their research proposals
and obtain approval prior to conducting the research. They
conduct the research in accordance with the approved re-
search protocol.
8.02 informed consent to research
(a) When obtaining informed consent as required
in Standard 3.10, Informed Consent, psychologists inform
participants about (1) the purpose of the research, expected
duration, and procedures; (2) their right to decline to par-
ticipate and to withdraw from the research once participation
has begun; (3) the foreseeable consequences of declining or
withdrawing; (4) reasonably foreseeable factors that may be
expected to influence their willingness to participate such as
potential risks, discomfort, or adverse effects; (5) any prospec-
tive research benefits; (6) limits of confidentiality; (7) incen-
tives for participation; and (8) whom to contact for questions
about the research and research participants’ rights. They pro-
vide opportunity for the prospective participants to ask ques-
tions and receive answers. (See also Standards 8.03, Informed
Consent for Recording Voices and Images in Research; 8.05,
Effective June 1, 2003, as amended 2010 11Standard 8.06–Standard 8.13
to their role. (See also Standard 2.05, Delegation of Work to
Others.)
(d) Psychologists make reasonable efforts to minimize
the discomfort, infection, illness, and pain of animal subjects.
(e) Psychologists use a procedure subjecting animals
to pain, stress, or privation only when an alternative proce-
dure is unavailable and the goal is justified by its prospective
scientific, educational, or applied value.
(f) Psychologists perform surgical procedures under
appropriate anesthesia and follow techniques to avoid infec-
tion and minimize pain during and after surgery.
(g) When it is appropriate that an animal’s life be
terminated, psychologists proceed rapidly, with an effort to
minimize pain and in accordance with accepted procedures.
8.10 reporting research results
(a) Psychologists do not fabricate data. (See also Stan-
dard 5.01a, Avoidance of False or Deceptive Statements.)
(b) If psychologists discover significant errors in their
published data, they take reasonable steps to correct such er-
rors in a correction, retraction, erratum, or other appropriate
publication means.
8.11 Plagiarism
Psychologists do not present portions of another’s
work or data as their own, even if the other work or data
source is cited occasionally.
8.12 Publication credit
(a) Psychologists take responsibility and credit, in-
cluding authorship credit, only for work they have actually
performed or to which they have substantially contributed.
(See also Standard 8.12b, Publication Credit.)
(b) Principal authorship and other publication credits
accurately reflect the relative scientific or professional contri-
butions of the individuals involved, regardless of their relative
status. Mere possession of an institutional position, such as
department chair, does not justify authorship credit. Minor
contributions to the research or to the writing for publica-
tions are acknowledged appropriately, such as in footnotes or
in an introductory statement.
(c) Except under exceptional circumstances, a student
is listed as principal author on any multiple-authored article
that is substantially based on the student’s doctoral disserta-
tion. Faculty advisors discuss publication credit with students
as early as feasible and throughout the research and publica-
tion process as appropriate. (See also Standard 8.12b, Publi-
cation Credit.)
8.13 duplicate Publication of data
Psychologists do not publish, as original data, data
that have been previously published. This does not preclude
republishing data when they are accompanied by proper ac-
knowledgment.
8.06 offering inducements for research
Participation
(a) Psychologists make reasonable efforts to avoid
offering excessive or inappropriate financial or other induce-
ments for research participation when such inducements are
likely to coerce participation.
(b) When offering professional services as an induce-
ment for research participation, psychologists clarify the
nature of the services, as well as the risks, obligations, and
limitations. (See also Standard 6.05, Barter With Clients/Pa-
tients.)
8.07 deception in research
(a) Psychologists do not conduct a study involving
deception unless they have determined that the use of decep-
tive techniques is justified by the study’s significant prospec-
tive scientific, educational, or applied value and that effective
nondeceptive alternative procedures are not feasible.
(b) Psychologists do not deceive prospective par-
ticipants about research that is reasonably expected to cause
physical pain or severe emotional distress.
(c) Psychologists explain any deception that is an in-
tegral feature of the design and conduct of an experiment to
participants as early as is feasible, preferably at the conclusion
of their participation, but no later than at the conclusion of
the data collection, and permit participants to withdraw their
data. (See also Standard 8.08, Debriefing.)
8.08 debriefing
(a) Psychologists provide a prompt opportunity for
participants to obtain appropriate information about the na-
ture, results, and conclusions of the research, and they take
reasonable steps to correct any misconceptions that partici-
pants may have of which the psychologists are aware.
(b) If scientific or humane values justify delaying or
withholding this information, psychologists take reasonable
measures to reduce the risk of harm.
(c) When psychologists become aware that research
procedures have harmed a participant, they take reasonable
steps to minimize the harm.
8.09 humane care and use of animals
in research
(a) Psychologists acquire, care for, use, and dispose of
animals in compliance with current federal, state, and local
laws and regulations, and with professional standards.
(b) Psychologists trained in research methods and
experienced in the care of laboratory animals supervise all
procedures involving animals and are responsible for ensur-
ing appropriate consideration of their comfort, health, and
humane treatment.
(c) Psychologists ensure that all individuals under
their supervision who are using animals have received instruc-
tion in research methods and in the care, maintenance, and
handling of the species being used, to the extent appropriate
12 Effective June 1, 2003, as amended 2010Standard 8.14–Standard 9.04
(b) Psychologists use assessment instruments whose
validity and reliability have been established for use with
members of the population tested. When such validity or re-
liability has not been established, psychologists describe the
strengths and limitations of test results and interpretation.
(c) Psychologists use assessment methods that are ap-
propriate to an individual’s language preference and compe-
tence, unless the use of an alternative language is relevant to
the assessment issues.
9.03 informed consent in assessments
(a) Psychologists obtain informed consent for as-
sessments, evaluations, or diagnostic services, as described
in Standard 3.10, Informed Consent, except when (1) test-
ing is mandated by law or governmental regulations; (2) in-
formed consent is implied because testing is conducted as a
routine educational, institutional, or organizational activity
(e.g., when participants voluntarily agree to assessment when
applying for a job); or (3) one purpose of the testing is to
evaluate decisional capacity. Informed consent includes an
explanation of the nature and purpose of the assessment, fees,
involvement of third parties, and limits of confidentiality and
sufficient opportunity for the client/patient to ask questions
and receive answers.
(b) Psychologists inform persons with questionable
capacity to consent or for whom testing is mandated by law
or governmental regulations about the nature and purpose of
the proposed assessment services, using language that is rea-
sonably understandable to the person being assessed.
(c) Psychologists using the services of an interpreter
obtain informed consent from the client/patient to use that
interpreter, ensure that confidentiality of test results and test
security are maintained, and include in their recommenda-
tions, reports, and diagnostic or evaluative statements, includ-
ing forensic testimony, discussion of any limitations on the
data obtained. (See also Standards 2.05, Delegation of Work
to Others; 4.01, Maintaining Confidentiality; 9.01, Bases for
Assessments; 9.06, Interpreting Assessment Results; and
9.07, Assessment by Unqualified Persons.)
9.04 release of test data
(a) The term test data refers to raw and scaled scores,
client/patient responses to test questions or stimuli, and psy-
chologists’ notes and recordings concerning client/patient
statements and behavior during an examination. Those por-
tions of test materials that include client/patient responses
are included in the definition of test data. Pursuant to a client/
patient release, psychologists provide test data to the client/
patient or other persons identified in the release. Psycholo-
gists may refrain from releasing test data to protect a client/
patient or others from substantial harm or misuse or misrep-
resentation of the data or the test, recognizing that in many
instances release of confidential information under these
circumstances is regulated by law. (See also Standard 9.11,
Maintaining Test Security.)
8.14 sharing research data for Verification
(a) After research results are published, psychologists
do not withhold the data on which their conclusions are based
from other competent professionals who seek to verify the
substantive claims through reanalysis and who intend to use
such data only for that purpose, provided that the confiden-
tiality of the participants can be protected and unless legal
rights concerning proprietary data preclude their release. This
does not preclude psychologists from requiring that such indi-
viduals or groups be responsible for costs associated with the
provision of such information.
(b) Psychologists who request data from other psy-
chologists to verify the substantive claims through reanalysis
may use shared data only for the declared purpose. Request-
ing psychologists obtain prior written agreement for all other
uses of the data.
8.15 reviewers
Psychologists who review material submitted for pre-
sentation, publication, grant, or research proposal review re-
spect the confidentiality of and the proprietary rights in such
information of those who submitted it.
9. Assessment
9.01 Bases for assessments
(a) Psychologists base the opinions contained in their
recommendations, reports, and diagnostic or evaluative state-
ments, including forensic testimony, on information and tech-
niques sufficient to substantiate their findings. (See also Stan-
dard 2.04, Bases for Scientific and Professional Judgments.)
(b) Except as noted in 9.01c, psychologists provide
opinions of the psychological characteristics of individuals
only after they have conducted an examination of the indi-
viduals adequate to support their statements or conclusions.
When, despite reasonable efforts, such an examination is not
practical, psychologists document the efforts they made and
the result of those efforts, clarify the probable impact of their
limited information on the reliability and validity of their
opinions, and appropriately limit the nature and extent of
their conclusions or recommendations. (See also Standards
2.01, Boundaries of Competence, and 9.06, Interpreting As-
sessment Results.)
(c) When psychologists conduct a record review or
provide consultation or supervision and an individual exami-
nation is not warranted or necessary for the opinion, psychol-
ogists explain this and the sources of information on which
they based their conclusions and recommendations.
9.02 use of assessments
(a) Psychologists administer, adapt, score, interpret, or
use assessment techniques, interviews, tests, or instruments
in a manner and for purposes that are appropriate in light of
the research on or evidence of the usefulness and proper ap-
plication of the techniques.
Effective June 1, 2003, as amended 2010 13Standard 9.05–Standard 10.02
automated or other outside services, psychologists take rea-
sonable steps to ensure that explanations of results are given
to the individual or designated representative unless the na-
ture of the relationship precludes provision of an explanation
of results (such as in some organizational consulting, preem-
ployment or security screenings, and forensic evaluations),
and this fact has been clearly explained to the person being
assessed in advance.
9.11 Maintaining test security
The term test materials refers to manuals, instruments,
protocols, and test questions or stimuli and does not include
test data as defined in Standard 9.04, Release of Test Data.
Psychologists make reasonable efforts to maintain the integ-
rity and security of test materials and other assessment tech-
niques consistent with law and contractual obligations, and in
a manner that permits adherence to this Ethics Code.
10. Therapy
10.01 informed consent to Therapy
(a) When obtaining informed consent to therapy as
required in Standard 3.10, Informed Consent, psychologists
inform clients/patients as early as is feasible in the therapeu-
tic relationship about the nature and anticipated course of
therapy, fees, involvement of third parties, and limits of con-
fidentiality and provide sufficient opportunity for the client/
patient to ask questions and receive answers. (See also Stan-
dards 4.02, Discussing the Limits of Confidentiality, and 6.04,
Fees and Financial Arrangements.)
(b) When obtaining informed consent for treatment
for which generally recognized techniques and procedures
have not been established, psychologists inform their cli-
ents/patients of the developing nature of the treatment, the
potential risks involved, alternative treatments that may be
available, and the voluntary nature of their participation. (See
also Standards 2.01e, Boundaries of Competence, and 3.10,
Informed Consent.)
(c) When the therapist is a trainee and the legal re-
sponsibility for the treatment provided resides with the su-
pervisor, the client/patient, as part of the informed consent
procedure, is informed that the therapist is in training and is
being supervised and is given the name of the supervisor.
10.02 Therapy involving couples or families
(a) When psychologists agree to provide services to
several persons who have a relationship (such as spouses, sig-
nificant others, or parents and children), they take reasonable
steps to clarify at the outset (1) which of the individuals are
clients/patients and (2) the relationship the psychologist will
have with each person. This clarification includes the psychol-
ogist’s role and the probable uses of the services provided or
the information obtained. (See also Standard 4.02, Discuss-
ing the Limits of Confidentiality.)
(b) If it becomes apparent that psychologists may
be called on to perform potentially conflicting roles (such
(b) In the absence of a client/patient release, psychol-
ogists provide test data only as required by law or court order.
9.05 test construction
Psychologists who develop tests and other assessment
techniques use appropriate psychometric procedures and
current scientific or professional knowledge for test design,
standardization, validation, reduction or elimination of bias,
and recommendations for use.
9.06 interpreting assessment results
When interpreting assessment results, including au-
tomated interpretations, psychologists take into account the
purpose of the assessment as well as the various test factors,
test-taking abilities, and other characteristics of the person be-
ing assessed, such as situational, personal, linguistic, and cul-
tural differences, that might affect psychologists’ judgments
or reduce the accuracy of their interpretations. They indicate
any significant limitations of their interpretations. (See also
Standards 2.01b and c, Boundaries of Competence, and 3.01,
Unfair Discrimination.)
9.07 assessment by unqualified Persons
Psychologists do not promote the use of psychologi-
cal assessment techniques by unqualified persons, except
when such use is conducted for training purposes with ap-
propriate supervision. (See also Standard 2.05, Delegation of
Work to Others.)
9.08 obsolete tests and outdated test results
(a) Psychologists do not base their assessment or in-
tervention decisions or recommendations on data or test re-
sults that are outdated for the current purpose.
(b) Psychologists do not base such decisions or rec-
ommendations on tests and measures that are obsolete and
not useful for the current purpose.
9.09 test scoring and interpretation services
(a) Psychologists who offer assessment or scoring ser-
vices to other professionals accurately describe the purpose,
norms, validity, reliability, and applications of the procedures
and any special qualifications applicable to their use.
(b) Psychologists select scoring and interpretation
services (including automated services) on the basis of evi-
dence of the validity of the program and procedures as well
as on other appropriate considerations. (See also Standard
2.01b and c, Boundaries of Competence.)
(c) Psychologists retain responsibility for the appro-
priate application, interpretation, and use of assessment in-
struments, whether they score and interpret such tests them-
selves or use automated or other services.
9.10 Explaining assessment results
Regardless of whether the scoring and interpretation
are done by psychologists, by employees or assistants, or by
14 Effective June 1, 2003, as amended 2010Standard 10.03–Standard 10.10
ent’s/patient’s personal history; (5) the client’s/patient’s cur-
rent mental status; (6) the likelihood of adverse impact on
the client/patient; and (7) any statements or actions made by
the therapist during the course of therapy suggesting or in-
viting the possibility of a posttermination sexual or romantic
relationship with the client/patient. (See also Standard 3.05,
Multiple Relationships.)
10.09 interruption of Therapy
When entering into employment or contractual rela-
tionships, psychologists make reasonable efforts to provide
for orderly and appropriate resolution of responsibility for cli-
ent/patient care in the event that the employment or contrac-
tual relationship ends, with paramount consideration given
to the welfare of the client/patient. (See also Standard 3.12,
Interruption of Psychological Services.)
10.10 terminating Therapy
(a) Psychologists terminate therapy when it becomes
reasonably clear that the client/patient no longer needs the
service, is not likely to benefit, or is being harmed by contin-
ued service.
(b) Psychologists may terminate therapy when threat-
ened or otherwise endangered by the client/patient or anoth-
er person with whom the client/patient has a relationship.
(c) Except where precluded by the actions of clients/
patients or third-party payors, prior to termination psycholo-
gists provide pretermination counseling and suggest alterna-
tive service providers as appropriate.
as family therapist and then witness for one party in divorce
proceedings), psychologists take reasonable steps to clarify
and modify, or withdraw from, roles appropriately. (See also
Standard 3.05c, Multiple Relationships.)
10.03 group Therapy
When psychologists provide services to several per-
sons in a group setting, they describe at the outset the roles
and responsibilities of all parties and the limits of confiden-
tiality.
10.04 Providing Therapy to Those served by others
In deciding whether to offer or provide services to
those already receiving mental health services elsewhere, psy-
chologists carefully consider the treatment issues and the po-
tential client’s/patient’s welfare. Psychologists discuss these
issues with the client/patient or another legally authorized
person on behalf of the client/patient in order to minimize
the risk of confusion and conflict, consult with the other ser-
vice providers when appropriate, and proceed with caution
and sensitivity to the therapeutic issues.
10.05 sexual intimacies With current Therapy
clients/Patients
Psychologists do not engage in sexual intimacies with
current therapy clients/patients.
10.06 sexual intimacies With relatives or
significant others of current Therapy
clients/Patients
Psychologists do not engage in sexual intimacies with
individuals they know to be close relatives, guardians, or sig-
nificant others of current clients/patients. Psychologists do
not terminate therapy to circumvent this standard.
10.07 Therapy With former sexual Partners
Psychologists do not accept as therapy clients/pa-
tients persons with whom they have engaged in sexual inti-
macies.
10.08 sexual intimacies With former Therapy
clients/Patients
(a) Psychologists do not engage in sexual intimacies
with former clients/patients for at least two years after cessa-
tion or termination of therapy.
(b) Psychologists do not engage in sexual intimacies
with former clients/patients even after a two-year interval ex-
cept in the most unusual circumstances. Psychologists who
engage in such activity after the two years following cessation
or termination of therapy and of having no sexual contact with
the former client/patient bear the burden of demonstrating
that there has been no exploitation, in light of all relevant fac-
tors, including (1) the amount of time that has passed since
therapy terminated; (2) the nature, duration, and intensity of
the therapy; (3) the circumstances of termination; (4) the cli-
Effective June 1, 2003, as amended 2010 152010 Amendments to the 2002 “Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct”
2010 AMENDMENTS TO THE 2002 “ETHICAL PRINCIPLES Of PSYCHOLOGISTS
AND CODE Of CONDUCT”
The American Psychological Association’s Council of
Representatives adopted the following amendments to the
2002 “Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Con-
duct” at its February 2010 meeting. Changes are indicated
by underlining for additions and striking through for dele-
tions. A history of amending the Ethics Code is provided in
the “Report of the Ethics Committee, 2009” in the July-Au-
gust 2010 issue of the American Psychologist (Vol. 65, No. 5).
Original Language With Changes Marked
introduction and applicability
If psychologists’ ethical responsibilities conflict with
law, regulations, or other governing legal authority, psycholo-
gists make known their commitment to this Ethics Code and
take steps to resolve the conflict in a responsible manner. If
the conflict is unresolvable via such means, psychologists may
adhere to the requirements of the law, regulations, or other
governing authority in keeping with basic principles of hu-
man rights.
1.02 conflicts Between Ethics and law,
regulations, or other governing legal
authority
If psychologists’ ethical responsibilities conflict with
law, regulations, or other governing legal authority, psychol-
ogists clarify the nature of the conflict, make known their
commitment to the Ethics Code, and take reasonable steps
to resolve the conflict consistent with the General Principles
and Ethical Standards of the Ethics Code. If the conflict is un-
resolvable via such means, psychologists may adhere to the
requirements of the law, regulations, or other governing legal
authority. Under no circumstances may this standard be used
to justify or defend violating human rights.
1.03 conflicts Between Ethics and organizational
demands
If the demands of an organization with which psy-
chologists are affiliated or for whom they are working are in
conflict with this Ethics Code, psychologists clarify the nature
of the conflict, make known their commitment to the Eth-
ics Code, and to the extent feasible, resolve the conflict in a
way that permits adherence to the Ethics Code. take reason-
able steps to resolve the conflict consistent with the General
Principles and Ethical Standards of the Ethics Code. Under no
circumstances may this standard be used to justify or defend
violating human rights.
NOTES
Printed in the United States of America
The Narrowing of Theoretical Orientations in Clinical
Psychology Doctoral Training
Laurie Heatherington, Williams College
Stanley B
.
Messer, Rutgers University
Lynne Angus, York University
Timothy J. Strauman, Duke University
Myrna L. Friedlander, University at Albany
Gregory G. Kolden, University of Wisconsin
The focus of this article is the increasingly narrow range
of therapeutic orientations represented in clinical
psychology graduate training programs, particularly
within the most research-oriented programs. Data on
the self-reported therapeutic orientations of faculty at
“clinical science” Ph.D. programs, Ph.D. programs at
comprehensive universities in clinical and in counseling
psychology, Psy.D. programs at comprehensive universi-
ties, and Ph.D. or Psy.D. programs at freestanding spe-
cialized institutions reveal a strong predominance of
faculty with cognitive-behavioral orientations at the
more science-focused programs, and a narrower range
of orientations than in the more practice-focused pro-
grams. We discuss the implications of this trend for the
future development of clinical psychology and provide
suggestions for addressing the attendant concerns.
Key words: CBT hegemony, clinical training and
research, theoretical orientation. [Clin Psychol Sci Prac
19: 362–374, 2012]
The growth of our knowledge is the result of a process closely
resembling what Darwin called ‘natural selection’; that is, the
natural selection of hypotheses: our knowledge consists, at
every moment, of those hypotheses which have shown their
(comparative) fitness by surviving so far in their struggle for
existence; a competitive struggle which eliminates those
hypotheses which are unfit.
Karl Popper (1979)
The best way to have a good idea is to have a lot of
ideas.
Linus Pauling
Doctoral training in clinical psychology is clearly in a
state of evolution. The scientist–practitioner (“Boul-
der”) model that characterized the training landscape
since 1949 has been challenged by several strong ideo-
logical and sociological forces and developments. Argu-
ments for the value of more practice-focused doctoral
training led to the development of Psy.D. programs,
beginning in the 1970s. Subsequently, market forces
have resulted in the explosive growth of large, prac-
tice-focused doctoral training programs at freestanding
institutions, dubbed “specialized institutions not offer-
ing comprehensive education beyond psychology or
counseling” by Sayette, Norcross, and Dimoff (2011,
p. 4), and hereafter referred to as “specialized institu-
tions,” as well as a crisis in the oversupply of applicants
relative to the availability of doctoral internships
(Munsey, 2011; Vasquez, 2011). Controversies about
standards for doctoral training programs, especially with
regard to the need to teach evidence-based treatments
(Bray, 2011; Calhoun, Moras, Pilkonis, & Rehm,
Address correspondence to Laurie Heatherington, Ph.D.,
Department of Psychology, Williams College, Williamstown,
MA 01267. E-mail: lheather@williams.edu
© 2013 American Psychological Association. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc., on behalf of the
American
Psychological Association.
All rights reserved. For permission, please email: permissionsuk.wiley.com 364
Th
is
d
oc
um
en
t i
s c
op
yr
ig
ht
ed
b
y
th
e A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
tio
n
or
o
ne
o
f i
ts
a
lli
ed
p
ub
lis
he
rs
.
Th
is
a
rti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r t
he
p
er
so
na
l
u
se
o
f t
he
in
di
vi
du
al
u
se
r a
nd
is
n
ot
to
b
e
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
b
ro
ad
ly
.
1998; Davison, 1998; Eby, Chin, Rollock, Schwartz,
& Worrell, 2011), continue. And most recently, the
assertion by some that current American Psychological
Association (APA) accreditation standards and practices
are undermining the science of clinical psychology has
resulted in the creation of alternative accreditation stan-
dards that emphasize research and clinical training
focusing on empirically supported treatments and
assessment (Baker, McFall, & Shoham, 2009; McFall,
2007). The outcomes of this evolution in training are
difficult to predict, and the relative merits of the vari-
ous training models are a matter of widely diverging
opinions and beyond the scope of this article.
However, a recent study of APA-accredited clinical
Ph.D. programs (Sayette et al., 2011), including the
Academy of Psychological Clinical Science (APCS,
2012)1 and non-APCS programs in regular (“compre-
hensive”) university settings and in specialized universi-
ties, but excluding Psy.D. and counseling psychology
Ph.D. programs, demonstrated a number of significant
differences in acceptance rates, numbers of applicants
admitted, admissions credentials, extent of financial aid,
student demographic characteristics, and program fea-
tures (e.g., research funding, internship acceptance
rates). The study also found stronger faculty allegiance
to a cognitive-behavioral orientation in APCS pro-
grams (80%), as compared with non-APCS programs
(67%) and programs in the specialized institutions
(37%), as well as stronger allegiances to psychodynamic
and humanistic/existential orientations in non-APCS
versus APCS programs.
This article expands and critically discusses the latter
finding. We argue that the finding regarding theoretical
orientation reflects a feature of the evolving training
landscape that is central to the future of clinical psy-
chology but which has received little formal attention,
that is, the increasingly restricted range of therapeutic
orientations that clinical graduate students are expected
to draw upon in their professional work. We contend
that an unfortunate effect of some otherwise positive
developments in promoting clinical psychology as a sci-
ence is the danger of a monoculture of ideas about the
nature of psychotherapeutic change—specifically, a
hegemony of cognitive-behavioral theory and therapy.
Furthermore, this effect is moderated by the nature of
the doctoral training program. That is, the more
research-based, science-focused programs tend to offer
the narrowest range of theoretical orientations, whereas
the more practice-focused programs present the widest
ones. In this article, we present data suggesting that this
divide is evident within doctoral programs at compre-
hensive universities, especially in clinical psychology
(but not counseling psychology) programs. The divide
is particularly evident when comparing clinical
programs at comprehensive universities versus programs
at freestanding professional schools of psychology.
Following the presentation of data supporting this
assertion, we discuss the dangers of these divides.
First, however, consider the following thought exer-
cise. Imagine that you are the mentor of a talented
undergraduate who is beginning the clinical psychology
doctoral application process. She has a strong liberal
arts preparation, with a range of psychology courses in
both clinical and nonclinical areas, and good research
experience. She plans a career that includes psychother-
apy research and theory development, and she wants
solid clinical training as well. She is compiling an initial
list of programs and is particularly interested in family
systems theory and therapy. As her mentor, you consider
programs with core faculty (those who supervise theses
and dissertations, that is, excluding adjuncts, off-site
practicum supervisors, faculty in departments of psychi-
atry that do not offer doctoral degrees) who publish
research in addition to providing clinical training.
Now, repeat the exercise with humanistic, experiential or
existential theory/therapy, with psychodynamic theory/ther-
apy, and with interpersonal theory/therapy. Having done
this exercise ourselves and having mentored students
like this one, we are aware of the difficulty in coming
up with programs to suggest; indeed, these lists are
likely to be very short.
The data presented below bear out these personal
observations. We undertook a systematic study of theo-
retical orientations represented in clinical and counsel-
ing doctoral training programs of various types, using
published sources. The Insider’s Guide to Graduate
Programs in Clinical and Counseling Psychology (Sayette,
Mayne, & Norcross, 2010) provided information on
self-reported theoretical orientations of program faculty
in six categories, that is, Psychodynamic, Behavioral,
Family Systems, Cognitive Behavioral, Humanistic/
Existential, and Other; the guide allows for faculty to
THEORETICAL ORIENTATIONS � HEATHERINGTON ET AL. 365
Th
is
d
oc
um
en
t i
s c
op
yr
ig
ht
ed
b
y
th
e A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
tio
n
or
o
ne
o
f i
ts
a
lli
ed
p
ub
lis
he
rs
.
Th
is
a
rti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r t
he
p
er
so
na
l u
se
o
f t
he
in
di
vi
du
al
u
se
r a
nd
is
n
ot
to
b
e
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
b
ro
ad
ly
.
indicate one or more orientations. The APA’s 2010
Graduate Study in Psychology (APA, 2010) education/
accreditation web site (http://apa.org/ed/accreditation/
programs/index.aspx) and the list of member programs
published by the Academy of Psychological Clinical
Science (http://acadpsychclinicalscience.org/members)
provided designations of various program types. As
needed, Internet searches of individual programs were
used to confirm their statuses as (a) Ph.D. programs at
comprehensive universities, (b) Ph.D. programs at
comprehensive universities that are designated as clini-
cal science programs, (c) Psy.D. programs at compre-
hensive university programs, and (d) Psy.D. or Ph.D.
programs at freestanding, “specialized” institutions. We
included programs in the 50 U.S. states and Canada.
Although the APA is phasing out accreditation of
Canadian programs as of 2015, our concern is not with
credentialing issues, but rather with training and con-
tinued development in psychotherapy theory and
research, which has been and no doubt will continue
to be significantly influenced by Canadian psychology.
For this same reason, we also included counseling psy-
chology, but treated it separately, as virtually all coun-
seling psychology doctoral programs are at
comprehensive universities and because there are some
historical and current differences between counseling
and clinical psychology. Moreover, we excluded the
eight APA-accredited “combined” (e.g., school/clini-
cal, school/counseling) programs.
Table 1 presents the mean percentages of faculty in
various types of clinical psychology doctoral programs
who self-report particular theoretical orientations.2 The
comparison is striking. In the clinical science programs,
fully 80% of faculty claim a cognitive-behavioral orien-
tation, and 89% claim either a behavioral or cognitive-
behavioral orientation, whereas small percentages of
faculty claim either a psychodynamic or a humanistic/
existential orientation. Fewer than half of the faculty in
Psy.D. programs at comprehensive universities and in
Psy.D. or Ph.D. programs in freestanding universities
claim a CBT orientation, with noticeably higher per-
centages of faculty (28% and 29%, respectively) claim-
ing a psychodynamic orientation. Interestingly, the
least variation across programs was found in the per-
centages of faculty claiming a family systems orienta-
tion, close to 20% of faculty in each type of program.
Table 2 presents the mean percentages of faculty in
counseling psychology doctoral programs who self-
report particular theoretical orientations. These data
reveal a wider range of orientations, with fewer than
half claiming a behavioral or cognitive-behavioral ori-
entation and nearly a third claiming a humanistic/exis-
tential orientation. Explanations for this variation will
be advanced shortly.
Some elaboration and qualifications of these data are
in order. First, in the Insider’s Guide, programs could
also designate faculty with “other” orientations. These
data were sparse and often unique to individual pro-
grams or individual faculty and thus are not included in
the table, but rather summarized as follows. Of the 54
clinical science programs, only two cited one or more
“other” orientations. These (and the number of pro-
grams that cited them) were neuropsychology (1),
community (1), interpersonal (1), motivational inter-
Table 1. Therapeutic orientations of faculty in clinical psychology doctoral training programs
Program Type Psychodynamic (%)
Behavioral (%)
Family
Systems (%) Humanistic/Existential (%)
Cognitivea
Behavioral (%)
Ph.D. programs designated as
“clinical science”b programs (n = 54)
7 9 17 4 80
All other Ph.D. programs at
comprehensive universities (n = 116)
19 11 20 24 67
Psy.D. programs at comprehensive
universities (n = 31)
28 5 16 12 48
Psy.D. and Ph.D. programs at
freestanding professional
schools (n = 37)
29 6 22 15 32
Ms 21 8 19 14 57
a Source: Sayette et al. (2010).
b Source: Academy of Psychological Clinical Science (http://acadpsychclinicalscience.org/index.php?page=members).
CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY: SCIENCE AND PRACTICE � V19 N4, DECEMBER 2012 366
Th
is
d
oc
um
en
t i
s c
op
yr
ig
ht
ed
b
y
th
e A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
tio
n
or
o
ne
o
f i
ts
a
lli
ed
p
ub
lis
he
rs
.
Th
is
a
rti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r t
he
p
er
so
na
l u
se
o
f t
he
in
di
vi
du
al
u
se
r a
nd
is
n
ot
to
b
e
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
b
ro
ad
ly
.
viewing (1), child (1), and eclectic (1). Of the 116
other clinical Ph.D. programs at comprehensive univer-
sities, 15 listed faculty with “other” orientations: health
(1), integrative (3), community (1), clinical neuropsy-
chology (3), eclectic (1), interpersonal or interpersonal/
ego relations or cognitive/interpersonal (5), develop-
mental psychopathology (1), feminist (2), cognitive (1),
narrative/personal construct (1). Of the 31 Psy.D. pro-
grams at comprehensive universities, only one listed an
“other” orientation: integrative/transtheoretical. Of the
38 programs at freestanding professional schools, four
listed “other” orientations: research (1), integrative (2),
cultural diversity focus (1). And of the 66 doctoral
counseling programs, 13 listed “other” orientations:
eclectic (1), integrative (1), interpersonal (7), feminist/
multicultural or feminist or multicultural (13), con-
structivist (2), relational/process (1), narrative (1),
developmental systems (2).
Second, the data on orientations in the Insider’s
Guide were only available as percentages. We do not
know how many actual faculty are represented in these
percentages; “20%” of faculty claiming a family systems
orientation could refer to one or two individuals in
smaller programs, but several individuals in programs
with larger faculties. Although the APA Graduate Study
guide lists numbers of faculty, it was not possible (given
changing faculty sizes, variability in the recency of the
data in each source) to accurately compare the data in
these two sources to derive the raw numbers of faculty.
Nevertheless, this issue is of obvious importance,
because it speaks to the actual availability of mentors
and supervisors representing particular orientations, as
well as the viability of training and research from the
particular theoretical orientation at any given program.
Adding the percentages for each program, however,
provides a rough index of the extent to which faculty
at a particular program claim more than one allegiance,
that is, eclectic orientations. That is, in programs at
which each faculty member claims a single orientation,
the mean percentages for each orientation total to
100%. For programs in which faculty members claim
more than one orientation, the percentages total to
more than 100%, with higher totals representing more
faculty claiming multiple allegiances. The total percent-
ages averaged across the different program types are the
following: Ph.D. programs at comprehensive universi-
ties, M = 129%, Ph.D. programs at comprehensive
universities that are designated as clinical science pro-
grams, M = 107%, Psy.D. programs at comprehensive
university programs, M = 110%, Psy.D. or Ph.D. pro-
grams at the freestanding, “specialized” institutions,
M = 105%, and counseling psychology doctoral pro-
grams, M = 114%. Interestingly, the modal and median
percentage totals were the same (each 100%) for every
program type.
SO WHAT? IMPLICATIONS FOR TRAINING, RESEARCH,
THEORY, AND PRACTICE
The data revealed two major divisions: between the
types of theoretical orientations in which current stu-
dents/future clinical psychologists are being trained and
between the theoretical orientations predominant in
the more research-focused and more practice-focused
programs. These divides are potentially dangerous for
the field and the future development of psychotherapy
theory and research.
It should be noted as well that the data revealed a
third divide, between clinical and counseling psychol-
ogy programs, which is noteworthy in that it provides
some context for the current concern. The broader
theoretical focus in counseling psychology can be
explained by differences in its history and training phi-
losophies. Although counseling psychology training
programs have required curricula and training experi-
ences that are similar to those of clinical psychology
programs, counseling psychology has different roots in
Table 2. Therapeutic orientations of faculty in counseling psychology doctoral training programs
Psychodynamic
(%)
Behavioral
(%)
Family
Systems (%)
Humanistic/
Existential (%)
Cognitivea
Behavioral (%)
Ph.D. programs at comprehensive
universities (n = 67)
19 1 18 31 42
a Source: Sayette et al. (2010).
THEORETICAL ORIENTATIONS � HEATHERINGTON ET AL. 367
Th
is
d
oc
um
en
t i
s c
op
yr
ig
ht
ed
b
y
th
e A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
tio
n
or
o
ne
o
f i
ts
a
lli
ed
p
ub
lis
he
rs
.
Th
is
a
rti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r t
he
p
er
so
na
l u
se
o
f t
he
in
di
vi
du
al
u
se
r a
nd
is
n
ot
to
b
e
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
b
ro
ad
ly
.
group career counseling, vocational rehabilitation of
WWII veterans (Gelso & Fretz, 1992), and counseling
of “normal” individuals with developmental difficulties
or life problems (Friedlander, Pieterse, & Lambert,
2012). This history dovetails with the fact that the pre-
dominant training model in counseling psychology for
the last 45 years has focused on relationship-oriented
and microcounseling skills (Egan, 2007; Hill, 2004;
Ivey & Ivey, 2007; Ridley, Kelly, & Mollen, 2011). In
practicum training, the preferred supervision approach
is to foster trainees’ experience with a range of theoret-
ical approaches, always being guided by clients’ indi-
vidual problems and needs. Most counseling
psychology programs do not hire faculty members
based on theoretical orientation; rather, the prevailing
preference seems to be a faculty that represents a broad
range of approaches. Further, reflecting the de-empha-
sis on the medical model (matching treatment to diag-
nosis) and the preferred emphasis on relationship skills
and common factors, counseling psychology researchers
have traditionally focused more on explicating thera-
peutic change factors than on comparing client out-
comes by treatment approach. Indeed, some of the
historically most influential lines of psychotherapy pro-
cess research were conducted by counseling psycholo-
gists, for example, Edward Bordin, Charles Gelso,
Leslie Greenberg, Adam Horvath, Clara Hill, Laura
Rice, and Stanley Strong.
Returning to the two major divides, regarding the
first, we would argue that the increasing dominance of
CBT, while derived in part from the early body of
research (Chambless et al., 1996) examining and sup-
porting its efficacy, is not optimal for the continued
development of psychotherapy specifically, and clinical
psychology more generally. In particular, we suggest
that it is highly limiting to have the field dominated by
any single theory of change. If CBT were the only
effective treatment, this would not be problematic. But
converging evidence indicates that CBT is not in fact
the only effective treatment, as demonstrated by the
Dodo verdict; the fact that, typically, only a small per-
centage of outcome variance is accounted for by treat-
ment approach (Wampold, 2001); the demonstration of
therapist effects and especially (as discussed shortly) the
current research evidence that a number of treatments
from other theoretical approaches are also efficacious,
especially for the treatment for depression (APA Task
Force on Psychological Interventions’ 2012 list, http://
www.div12.org/PsychologicalTreatments/disor-
ders.html). We suggest that an impartial reading of the
psychotherapy efficacy literature would not inevitably
lead to such a narrow focus on a single theoretical ori-
entation. We also suggest that such a narrow focus is
very unlikely to encourage and facilitate the research
that is sorely needed on other treatment orientations.
The evolution of theory, research, and practice
requires a diversity of ideas and perspectives, and, as
Pauling noted, “lots” of them. Indeed, our current
major theoretical perspectives evolved from a combina-
tion of mutually enriching, sometimes competing, per-
spectives. For CBT, these have included behavioral,
psychodynamic, personal construct, social learning, and
other perspectives. Messer (2004), in a discussion of
“assimilative integration” (i.e., incorporation of tech-
niques from other types of treatment into one’s
“home” therapy), cited Keane and Barlow’s (2002)
observation that Freud and Janet most influenced the
use of exposure and anxiety management—now con-
sidered central features of CBT—in the treatment for
PTSD. More recently, we have seen the experiential
tradition influencing the evolution of CBT in its new
emphasis on affective experience, and the meditative
tradition helping to shape Dialectical Behavior Therapy
(Linehan,1993) and variations of cognitive-behavioral
treatments for generalized anxiety disorder (Roemer,
Erisman, & Orsillo, 2008). Additionally, integrative
approaches to treating addictions and associated mental
health issues, such as motivational interviewing, draw
heavily on the client-centered model of therapeutic
practice (Angus & Kagan, 2009).
Why is the current dominance of a single theoretical
perspective potentially problematic? A generation of
students trained to think from only one perspective will
become theorists, teachers, researchers, and practitio-
ners whose creativity, intellectual flexibility, and ability
to create new treatments for changing times, troubles,
and client populations are likely to be diminished.
Further, a generation of students trained (implicitly or
explicitly) to trust in only one perspective will become
a generation that is less willing to be open to different
ideas and most importantly, less able to meet the
emerging mental health needs of the future.
CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY: SCIENCE AND PRACTICE � V19 N4, DECEMBER 2012 368
Th
is
d
oc
um
en
t i
s c
op
yr
ig
ht
ed
b
y
th
e A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
tio
n
or
o
ne
o
f i
ts
a
lli
ed
p
ub
lis
he
rs
.
Th
is
a
rti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r t
he
p
er
so
na
l u
se
o
f t
he
in
di
vi
du
al
u
se
r a
nd
is
n
ot
to
b
e
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
b
ro
ad
ly
.
John Stuart Mill, a strong advocate of empirical
methods in scientific procedure in the 19th century
and a philosophical progenitor of behaviorism, argued
that a plurality of views is needed in science (Cohen,
1961). Mill’s reasons are as appropriate for training in
clinical and counseling psychology as they are for sci-
entific advancement, including the fact that a problem-
atic view may contain some portion of the truth.
Moreover, as the prevailing view is never the whole
truth, it is only by collision with contrary opinions that
the remainder of the truth has a chance of being recog-
nized. One point of view that is wholly true, but not
subjected to challenge, will be held as a prejudice
rather than derived from a rational basis, and someone
holding a particular point of view without considering
alternative perspectives will not really understand the
meaning of the view he or she holds. Citing Mill and
framing this argument in a positive form, Safran and
Messer (1997) argued that science and practice flourish
in an atmosphere of confronting and discussing differ-
ence, noting that “to the extent that confronting alter-
nate therapeutic paradigms and techniques flips us into
a ‘world-revising mode’ … there is the possibility of its
leading to a dialogue which can truly deepen our
understanding of the human change process” (1997,
p. 142). In the clinical realm as well, there are atten-
dant implications for the ways in which we think
philosophically about human nature and human
change. It has been argued that exposing psychology
students to different theories and visions of reality
(Messer & Winokur, 1984) enriches their understand-
ing of clients and ways to treat them, including the
possibility of shifting from one perspective to another,
thereby encompassing more of the complexity of
human behavior (Messer, 2006).
Paradoxically, having both understanding of and
competence with two or more treatment orientations
may help clinicians use particular treatment protocols
with greater fidelity, when that is their goal. There is
mounting evidence that the actual therapeutic
interventions of clinicians who believe they are follow-
ing manualized treatment protocols often do not accu-
rately reflect the core treatment principles of that
approach (Shoham, 2011). A proposed remedy, training
students to understand the difference between going
“off-manual” versus practicing “flexibility within
fidelity” (Kendall, Gosch, Furr, & Sood, 2008; Sho-
ham, 2011), requires a deep understanding of what is
and what is not a prototypical intervention in the
approach at hand. And the latter, we suggest, is facili-
tated by knowing more than one therapeutic approach
well because the distinguishing features between cate-
gories of interventions help define them. For example,
students who truly understand interpretation but who
are following a CBT protocol and attempting to frame
cognitive restructuring interventions will be more
likely to do so with integrity because they understand
the differences between these similar yet distinct con-
structs at a core level.
Finally, we are concerned that the trend shown in
these data is likely to beget more of the same over
time. The programs most likely to produce our future
academic clinical psychologists—comprehensive Ph.D.
programs, perhaps especially those designated as clinical
science programs—are the ones with the narrowest
range of orientations. Not only will this trend limit the
vision and sources of ideas for current students, but also
their students will be even less likely to have professors
and clinical supervisors who represent other orienta-
tions, and consequently less likely to have research
mentors who are engaged in serious research on psy-
chotherapy from other orientations. We hasten to note
that there is no implied criticism here of the core
emphasis of clinical science training programs on the
need for data regarding the development and validation
of treatment approaches. In fact, one of our goals in
this commentary is to emphasize and support the asser-
tion that any treatment model worth learning must
have compelling data that support its efficacy and effec-
tiveness (and in fact, as noted earlier, a range of treat-
ment approaches do). Rather, the concern is that we
may inadvertently be training a generation of students
who equate a particular orientation with “good sci-
ence” and, by implication, other orientations for which
compelling data in fact exist, with “bad science” or
“no science.”
Finally, inasmuch as the growth and development of
treatments is facilitated by ongoing exchanges between
researchers and practicing clinicians, these divides are
dangerous. There is currently considerable distance
between the kinds of treatments that practitioners
know and use, on the one hand, and the type of
THEORETICAL ORIENTATIONS � HEATHERINGTON ET AL. 369
Th
is
d
oc
um
en
t i
s c
op
yr
ig
ht
ed
b
y
th
e A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
tio
n
or
o
ne
o
f i
ts
a
lli
ed
p
ub
lis
he
rs
.
Th
is
a
rti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r t
he
p
er
so
na
l u
se
o
f t
he
in
di
vi
du
al
u
se
r a
nd
is
n
ot
to
b
e
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
b
ro
ad
ly
.
treatment that has come to dominate the research-
based treatment development landscape, that is, CBT,
on the other. A 2008 APA survey of 5,051 certified
Psychology Health Service Providers in the United
States revealed the following “primary theoretical
orientations,” in descending order: cognitive behavioral
(38.9%), psychodynamic/psychoanalytic (15.6%), inte-
grative (14.6%), “other,” which was primarily “eclec-
tic” (6.1%), cognitive (5.1%), humanistic/existential
(4.1%), behavioral (2.9%), systems (2.8%), and less than
2% each of biological, developmental, and family
(APA, 2008, http://www.apa.org/workforce/publications/
08-hsp/index.aspx).
Yet, feedback about the clinical realities of imple-
menting treatments as well as (ideally) the input of
practitioners into treatment development at early stages
is critical. A laudable collaborative project between
APA’s Division 12 (Clinical Psychology) and Division
29 (Psychotherapy) solicited clinicians’ feedback about
their experiences using various cognitive-behavioral
approaches for social phobia, generalized anxiety disor-
der, and panic (Goldfried, 2010, 2011). This kind of
exchange advances intelligent development and refine-
ments of our treatments, but it will be less and less
likely to happen among, for example, family therapy,
psychodynamic, and experiential researchers and practi-
tioners, given the shrinking numbers of academics ask-
ing such questions from these perspectives.
LIMITATIONS AND POSSIBLE COUNTERARGUMENTS
There are some limitations in the data themselves.
Only allegiances to the categories of therapeutic orien-
tation included by the Insider’s Guide were assessed;
also, objections may be raised to the ways in which the
approaches are categorized in that book, for example,
separating behavioral and cognitive behavioral, and cat-
egorizing all psychodynamic approaches as one. Other
orientations (e.g., Interpersonal Therapy [IPT], group,
eclectic) are missing altogether. An “integrative” choice
would have been particularly relevant to the current
questions. As it is not included in the Insider’s Guide,
we have no way of knowing whether faculty “orienta-
tion” refers to an orientation with regard to one’s clini-
cal practice (and indeed, how many faculty are engaged
in active clinical practice), personal theoretical prefer-
ence, research domain, or some combination. Further,
the focus of these categories on treatment orientations
does not capture allegiance to training orientations that
focus on aspects of the therapeutic relationship, which
transcend treatment type, but which are also critically
important not only for treatment outcome but also for
theory development and research (Norcross, 2011). On
the other hand, we note that our sample itself is
broader and more representative of psychologists cur-
rently engaged in training than other surveys of theo-
retical orientation, for example, surveys restricted to
members of APA’s Division 12 (Clinical Psychology;
Norcross, Karpiak, & Santoro, 2005).
The data also cannot reveal how the current state of
affairs applies to the actual coursework and practicum
training offered within the various types of training pro-
grams, nor do the percentages include part-time and
adjunct faculty who are hired to teach practical and who
are sometimes involved in supervising theses and disser-
tations at Psy.D. and professional school programs, and
thus have some influence on doctoral students’ outlooks.
We would argue, however, that the impact of their
research mentorship may not be as strong as that of core
faculty, who are engaged in research and predominantly
shape the intellectual ethos of the program.
In the spirit of the Popper quote, a counterargument
to ours may be mounted, namely, that the evolution
we described is precisely what is best for the field. The
strongest stance would be that it is no longer accept-
able to use—or to train students to use—psychological
treatments that have not been empirically supported as
efficacious for specific psychological disorders in rigor-
ous randomized clinical trial research. On the other
end, there are stances that allow for evidence-based
practice and training (Levant & Hasan, 2008) that in
addition to basing practice on findings from random-
ized clinical trials, more explicitly recognize the role of
clinical expertise, client values and preferences, and
other forms of research evidence (Messer, 2004). There
are a variety of opinions about the standards by which
the acceptability of evidence for a treatment should be
decided. We will not hash out the empirically sup-
ported treatments debate here as it has been thoroughly
discussed in the literature, but we acknowledge that
individuals’ and programs’ stances on what constitutes
acceptable evidence of treatment effectiveness/efficacy
are a key factor in training policies.
CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY: SCIENCE AND PRACTICE � V19 N4, DECEMBER 2012 370
Th
is
d
oc
um
en
t i
s c
op
yr
ig
ht
ed
b
y
th
e A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
tio
n
or
o
ne
o
f i
ts
a
lli
ed
p
ub
lis
he
rs
.
Th
is
a
rti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r t
he
p
er
so
na
l u
se
o
f t
he
in
di
vi
du
al
u
se
r a
nd
is
n
ot
to
b
e
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
b
ro
ad
ly
.
We agree that training students in a diversity of
poor or wholly untested treatments for the sake of hav-
ing a variety of options makes no sense and that dis-
credited theories and treatments (cf. Castonguay, 2010;
Lilienfeld, 2007), as well as those for which no one
seems to be willing or able to mount research programs
to evaluate, should be “eliminated as unfit.” But we are
a long way from the claim that only cognitive-behav-
ioral treatments are empirically supported. As Messer
(2004) noted, the literature also reveals a number of
what Wampold (2001) defined as “bonafide” therapies:
those with a firm theoretical base, an extensive practice
history, and a research foundation, even if the treat-
ment does not meet the “empirically supported” crite-
ria as defined by the Task Force (Wampold, Minami,
Baskin, & Tierney, 2002; Wampold et al., 1997).
Indeed, as noted earlier, the updated APA Division 12
list of research-supported treatments for depression
now goes far beyond the narrow range of treatment
approaches originally identified and includes 12 differ-
ent empirically supported treatments for depression that
are based on humanistic, psychodynamic, interpersonal,
and cognitive therapy models (http://www.div12.org/
PsychologicalTreatments/disorders.html). Yet, the increas-
ing lack of opportunity for serious graduate study and
research on the full range of evidence-based approaches
risks creating a situation in which their development
will fall increasingly behind, widening these divides.
POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
First, preparing students to think in an integrative man-
ner may help. It has been demonstrated that the funda-
mental tenets of one theory also explain client change
from other theoretical perspectives. Consider operant
conditioning, a hallmark of CBT, which Castonguay,
Reid, Halperin, and Goldfried (2003) found to occur
in psychodynamic as well as humanistic therapies.
Contrariwise, there are features of CBT that are bor-
rowed, knowingly or not, from psychodynamic therapy
and that are correlated with change in CBT (Shedler,
2010). The psychotherapy integrationist movement has
a long history, which includes Dollard and Miller’s
(1950) comparative analysis of behaviorism and
psychoanalysis, Frank’s (1961) description of curative
factors in healing across cultures, and Lazarus’s (1967)
technical eclecticism and multimodal therapy. The
growing trend toward integration came from major
theorists who recognized the complexity of the change
process and the shortcomings of many unimodal theo-
ries. In his 2010 presidential address to the Society for
Psychotherapy Research, Castonguay predicted that
psychotherapy integration will continue to grow and
that the four major systems of therapy will be
improved based on research that emphasizes common
and contextual factors with diverse client populations.
According to him, as we narrow the division between
research and clinical practice, integrative psychotherapy
is likely to become the gold standard, even if it is not
superior to a “pure form” approach. In our data set,
there were a few programs that were clearly integra-
tionist evidenced by both a variety of orientations rep-
resented and a total number of orientations listed that
was well over 100%. Furthermore, a substantial body
of efficacy research indicates that successful treatment is
accounted for by individual client differences, individ-
ual therapist effects, and common factors (expectancy,
alliance, etc.) more so than by techniques specific to
any particular theoretical orientation (Wampold, 2001).
Thus, truly integrative thinking requires training in
these research and theoretical bases as well.
Second, the training of top-notch future psychother-
apists, psychotherapy theorists, and psychotherapy
researchers needs to include an understanding of the
latest clinical science in related domains of knowledge
such as developmental psychopathology and affective
neuroscience. For example, attachment, emotion regu-
lation, autobiographical memory specificity, and per-
ceptual-cognitive biases, among many other topics, are
highly relevant to therapy; not only will this under-
standing enrich the pool of ideas that inform the study
of change process mechanisms, but also it will enhance
entry-level clinicians’ ability to think broadly and
deeply about how and when to use the tools they
have. It is erroneous to assume that one orientation is
more compatible with basic science than another, the
current data notwithstanding. The challenge, of course,
is to be true to the intent of training models—to actu-
ally expose students to science, teach them how to
understand it (and in some cases, how to engage in it),
and most importantly, help them to integrate emerging
findings in behavioral and clinical science into their
practices.
THEORETICAL ORIENTATIONS � HEATHERINGTON ET AL. 371
Th
is
d
oc
um
en
t i
s c
op
yr
ig
ht
ed
b
y
th
e A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
tio
n
or
o
ne
o
f i
ts
a
lli
ed
p
ub
lis
he
rs
.
Th
is
a
rti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r t
he
p
er
so
na
l u
se
o
f t
he
in
di
vi
du
al
u
se
r a
nd
is
n
ot
to
b
e
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
b
ro
ad
ly
.
Third, we suggest that monocultures, or near mono-
cultures, tend to reproduce themselves in both subtle
and less subtle ways without deliberate attention to
intellectual diversity. The chance to talk with col-
leagues from other theoretical orientations as well as
from related disciplines is affected by program infra-
structure, from the seemingly mundane (office and lab-
oratory placements, research group assignments, habits
of colloquia invitations and attendance) to the less
mundane (faculty hiring and graduate student admission
practices, tenure and promotion pressures that foster
not straying too far from colleagues’ beliefs or prevail-
ing department culture). Professional conferences, with
a few exceptions (Society for Psychotherapy Integra-
tion, Society for Psychotherapy Research), have
become increasingly balkanized, top-ranked doctoral
programs tend to admit students whose prior training
and attitudes about theoretical orientation are fairly set
and mirror that of their potential advisor, and grant
pressures (which currently favor the predominant treat-
ment approach) help keep students fairly narrowly
focused from the time they enter their doctoral pro-
grams. Our field needs to think collectively about the
implications of such practices. Finally, it bears repeating
that advocates of promising treatment approaches that
are not widely available for training at present and that
do still require stronger empirical evidence need to
continue their research efforts and to be better sup-
ported in doing so. It is interesting and hopeful in this
regard that those doctoral programs in comprehensive
universities not designated as clinical science programs,
and the doctoral programs in counseling psychology,
had the highest mean percentages of multiple orienta-
tions claimed, 129% and 114%, respectively.
It will be interesting to see whether or not future psy-
chotherapy training continues to be organized around
broad umbrella “orientations” or organized more
around some other features of treatments. We note, for
example, that CBT now represents a highly diverse cate-
gory of evidence-based protocols (EBPs), which are
quite different from each other in underlying theories of
change (e.g., exposure in Prolonged Exposure [PE],
cognitive restructuring in Cognitive Processing Therapy
[CPT]), structures (90-min sessions in PE, 60-min ses-
sions in CPT), and techniques/procedures (in-session,
repeated imaginal exposures in PE, use of written narra-
tives in CPT). In fact, the United States Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) purports to provide training and
dissemination of specific EBPs for clinicians providing
mental health services to veterans (Karlin et al. 2010).
The VA’s list of these includes the following: CBT for
depression, Acceptance and Commitment Therapy
(ACT) for depression, IPT for depression, CPT for
PTSD, PE for PTSD, Social Skills Training (SST) for
severe mental illness, Integrative Behavioral Couple
Therapy (IBCT), and Family Psychoeducation.
Should graduate psychotherapy training programs
aspire to training models that de-emphasize a focus on
particular theoretical orientations and focus more than
at present on training in a broad range of evidence-
based protocols? On the one hand, it would be a way
for students to acquire knowledge earlier in a range of
efficacious treatments so that internship and postdoc-
toral psychotherapy training could be organized around
providing more advanced training and supervision.
(Currently, many internship and postdoctoral training
sites can only provide introductory exposure to evi-
dence-based protocols from approaches other than
CBT, due to students’ very limited [if any] exposure to
these approaches during graduate training.) Further, it
might be expected that with experience and supervi-
sion, trainees in EBPs naturally evolve toward integra-
tion and adaptation of EBPs according to the unique
characteristics of individual patients. On the other
hand, it could be argued that this kind of training strat-
egy, especially at the graduate (vs. internship or extern-
ship) level, would be atheoretical, too narrow and too
focused on specific protocols. Rather, students should
be trained in the broader theoretical outlooks and non-
specific relationship skills, and only then in the specific
EBPs, which will lead naturally to an integrative
approach informed by a deeper understanding.
In another vein, Follette and Beitz (2003) offer
some sensible suggestions for creating a curriculum that
teaches students to think in a broad and rigorous scien-
tific manner about empirically supported treatments.
Specifically, these suggestions call for more attention to
mechanisms of psychotherapeutic change, which is by
definition a multitheoretical or even pantheoretical
enterprise, at least. In addition, programs seeking to
build strength in training for more than one orientation
should “put their best foot forward” by highlighting
CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY: SCIENCE AND PRACTICE � V19 N4, DECEMBER 2012 372
Th
is
d
oc
um
en
t i
s c
op
yr
ig
ht
ed
b
y
th
e A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
tio
n
or
o
ne
o
f i
ts
a
lli
ed
p
ub
lis
he
rs
.
Th
is
a
rti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r t
he
p
er
so
na
l u
se
o
f t
he
in
di
vi
du
al
u
se
r a
nd
is
n
ot
to
b
e
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
b
ro
ad
ly
.
the available data, exposing students to the theoretical
and empirical base that justifies training in a particular
orientation.
In sum, healthy evolution in our field, as in all
fields, requires new ideas that derive from varying per-
spectives. As clinical science progresses, this kind of
flexibility, which transcends singular allegiances to one
theoretical orientation versus another, will become
increasingly important in the development of theory,
research, and practice.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We gratefully acknowledge the able research assistance of
Laura Christianson and Joshua Wilson, and very helpful com-
ments from Marlene Sandstrom, Catherine B. Stroud, and an
anonymous reviewer.
NOTES
1. These are programs that have been determined to meet
the criteria outlined by the Academy of Psychological Clini-
cal Science and thus designated by that body as “clinical sci-
ence” programs. See http://acadpsychclinicalscience.org/
members.
2. The raw data, including a list of programs in each cate-
gory, are available upon request.
REFERENCES
Academy of Psychological Clinical Science. (2012). Member
programs. Retrieved June 11, 2011, from http://
acadpsychclinicalscience.org/members.
American Psychological Association. (2008). Survey of
psychologist-members. Retrieved June 1, 2011, from
http://www.apa.org/workforce/publications/08-hsp/index.
aspx
American Psychological Association. (2009). Graduate study in
clinical psychology. Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychological Association. (2011). Accredited
programs in clinical psychology. Retrieved June 1, 2011,
from http://apa.org/ed/accreditation/programs/index.aspx
American Psychological Association Task Force on
Psychological Interventions. (2012). Division 12 Society of
Clinical Psychology. Retrieved June 15, 2012, from http://
www.div12.org/PsychologicalTreatments/disorders.html
Angus, L., & Kagan, F. (2009). Therapist empathy and client
anxiety reduction in motivational interviewing: “She
carries with me, the experience.” Journal of Clinical
Psychology: In Session, 65, 1156–1167.
Baker, T. D., McFall, R. M., & Shoham, V. (2009). Current
status and future prospects of clinical psychology: Toward
a scientifically principled approach to mental and
behavioral health care. Psychological Science in the Public
Interest, 9, 67–103.
Bray, J. H. (2011). Training for the future of clinical
psychology practice. Training and Education in Professional
Psychology, 5, 69–72.
Calhoun, K. S., Moras, K., Pilkonis, P., & Rehm, L. P. (1998).
Empirically supported treatments: Implications for training.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 151–162.
Castonguay, L. G. (2010).A promising dawn: Integrative connections
in psychotherapy. Presidential address, annual conference of
the Society for Psychotherapy Research,Monterey, CA.
Castonguay, L. G., Reid, J. J., Halperin, G. S., & Goldfried,
M. R. (2003). Psychotherapy integration. In G. Stricker &
T. A. Widiger (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychology,
Vol. 8: Clinical Psychology (pp. 327–345). New York: Wiley.
Chambless, D. L., Sanderson, W. C., Shoham, V., Bennett
Johnson, S., Pope, K. S., Crits-Christoph, P., et al.
(1996). An update on empirically validated therapies. The
Clinical Psychologist, 49, 5–18.
Cohen, M. (Ed.). (1961). The philosophy of John Stuart Mill.
New York: Modern Library.
Davison, G. C. (1998). Being bolder with the Boulder
model: The challenge of education and training in
empirically supported treatments. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 66, 163–167.
Dollard, J., & Miller, N. E. (1950). Personality and
psychotherapy. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Eby, M. D., Chin, J. L., Rollock, D., Schwartz, J. P., &
Worrell, F. C. (2011). Professional psychology training in
the era of a thousand flowers: Dilemmas and challenges
for the future. Training and Education in Professional
Psychology, 5, 57–68.
Egan, G. (2007). The skilled helper: A problem-management and
opportunity-development approach to helping (8th ed.).
Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Follette, W. C., & Beitz, K. (2003). Adding a more rigorous
scientific agenda to the empirically supported treatment
movement. Behavior Modification, 27, 369–386.
Frank, J. (1961). Persuasion and healing. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University
Press.
Friedlander, M. L., Pieterse, A. L., & Lambert, J. E. (2012).
The evolution of theory in counseling psychology. In N.
Fouad, L. Subich, & J. Carter (Eds.), APA handbook of
counseling psychology (pp. 31–58). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
THEORETICAL ORIENTATIONS � HEATHERINGTON ET AL. 373
Th
is
d
oc
um
en
t i
s c
op
yr
ig
ht
ed
b
y
th
e A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
tio
n
or
o
ne
o
f i
ts
a
lli
ed
p
ub
lis
he
rs
.
Th
is
a
rti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r t
he
p
er
so
na
l u
se
o
f t
he
in
di
vi
du
al
u
se
r a
nd
is
n
ot
to
b
e
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
b
ro
ad
ly
.
Gelso, C. J., & Fretz, B. (1992). Counseling psychology. New
York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Goldfried, M. R. (2010). Clinicians’ experiences in using an
empirically supported treatment (EST) for panic disorder:
Results of a survey. Retrieved June 15, 2012, from
Goldfried, M. R. (2011). Generating research questions from
clinical experience: Therapists’ experiences using CBT for
Panic Disorder. The Behavior Therapist, 34, 57–62.
Hill, C. E. (2004). Helping skills: Facilitating exploration, insight,
and action (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Ivey, A. E., & Ivey, M. B. (2007). Intentional interviewing and
counseling: Facilitating client development in a multicultural
society (6th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Karlin, B. E., Ruzek, J. I., Chard, K. M., Eftekhari, A.,
Monson, C. M., Hembree, E. A., et al. (2010).
Dissemination of evidence-based psychological treatments
for posttraumatic stress disorder in the Veterans Health
Administration. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 23, 663–673.
Keane, T. M., & Barlow, D. H. (2002). Posttraumatic stress
disorder. In D. H. Barlow (Ed.), Anxiety and its disorders
(2nd ed., pp. 418–453). New York: Guilford.
Kendall, P. C., Gosch, E., Furr, J. M., & Sood, E. (2008).
Flexibility within fidelity. Journal of the American Academy
of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 47, 987–993.
Lazarus, A. A. (1967). In support of technical eclecticism.
Psychological Reports, 21, 415–416.
Levant, R. F., & Hasan, N. T. (2008). Evidence-based
practice in psychology. Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, 39, 658–662.
Lilienfeld, S. (2007). Psychological treatments that cause
harm. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 53–69.
Linehan, M. M. (1993). Cognitive-behavioral treatment of
borderline personality disorder. New York: Guilford.
McFall, R. M. (2007). On psychological clinical science. In
T. A. Treat, R. R. Bootzin, & T. B. Baker (Eds.),
Psychological clinical science: Papers in honor of Richard M.
McFall (pp. 363–396). New York: Psychology Press.
Messer, S. B. (2004). Evidence-based practice: Beyond
empircially supported treatments. Professional Psychology:
Research and Practice, 35, 580–588.
Messer, S. B. (2006). Psychotherapy integration based on
contrasting visions of reality. In G. Stricker, & J. Gold
(Eds.), Casebook of psychotherapy integration (pp. 281–291).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association
Press.
Messer, S. B., & Winokur, M. (1984). Ways of knowing and
visions of reality in psychoanalytic therapy and behavior
therapy. In H. Arkowitz, & S. B. Messer (Eds.),
Psychoanalytic therapy and behavior therapy: Is integration
possible? (pp. 63–100). New York: Plenum.
Munsey, C. (2011). The internship match crisis continues.
Monitor on Psychology, 42(4), 12–13.
Norcross, J. C. (Ed.). (2011). Psychotherapy relationships that work:
Evidence-based practice (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Norcross, J. C., Karpiak, C. P., & Santoro, S. O. (2005).
Clinical psychologists across the years: The Division of
Clinical Psychology from 1960 to 2003. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 61, 1467–1483.
Ridley, C. R., Kelly, S. M., & Mollen, D. (2011). Beyond
microskills: Toward a model of counseling competence.
The Counseling Psychologist, 39, 825–864.
Roemer, L., Erisman, S.M.,&Orsillo, S.M. (2008).Mindfulness
and acceptance-based treatments for anxiety disorders. In M.
M. Antony, & M. B. Stein (Eds.), Handbook of anxiety and the
anxiety disorders (pp. 476–487).NewYork:OxfordUniversity
Press.
Safran, J., & Messer, S. B. (1997). Psychotherapy integration:
A postmodern critique. Clinical Psychology: Science and
Practice, 4, 140–152.
Sayette, M. A., Mayne, T. J., & Norcross, J. C. (2010).
Insider’s Guide to Graduate Programs in Clinical and
Counseling Psychology. New York: Guilford.
Sayette, M. A., Norcross, J. C., & Dimoff, J. D. (2011). The
heterogeneity of clinical psychology Ph.D. programs and
the distinctiveness of APCS programs. Clinical Psychology:
Science and Practice, 18, 4–11.
Shedler, J. (2010). The efficacy of psychodynamic
psychotherapy. American Psychologist, 65, 98–109.
Shoham, V. (2011). Treatment fidelity: The elusive independent
variable. Paper presented at the North American Society
for Psychotherapy Research conference, Banff, Alberta.
Vasquez, M. J. T. (2011). The internship crisis: Strategies and
solutions. Monitor on Psychology, 42(4), 5.
Wampold, B. E. (2001). The great psychotherapy debate. New
York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wampold, B. E., Minami, T., Baskin, T. W., & Tierney, S.
C. (2002). A meta-(re) analysis of the effects of cognitive
therapy versus ‘other therapies’ for depression. Journal of
Affective Disorders, 68, 159–165.
Wampold, B. E., Mondin, G. W., Moody, M., Stich, F.,
Benson, K., & Ahn, H. (1997). A meta-analysis of outcome
studies comparing bona fide psychotherapies: Empirically,
‘all must have prizes’. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 203–215.
Received February 5, 2012; accepted October 2, 2012.
CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY: SCIENCE AND PRACTICE � V19 N4, DECEMBER 2012 374
Th
is
d
oc
um
en
t i
s c
op
yr
ig
ht
ed
b
y
th
e A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
tio
n
or
o
ne
o
f i
ts
a
lli
ed
p
ub
lis
he
rs
.
Th
is
a
rti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r t
he
p
er
so
na
l u
se
o
f t
he
in
di
vi
du
al
u
se
r a
nd
is
n
ot
to
b
e
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
b
ro
ad
ly
.
Personal Commitment
It is my personal commitment to all patients that their psychological care is given with integrity, commitment to service and dedication to excellence. I aim at providing the highest quality of care, privacy and security, reliability and respect with each patient to ensure the trust and satisfaction are delivered.
Located in the center of Atlanta we understand that your day may be busy and stressed we do offer weekend availability alongside of both in-office and video counseling service by appointment. Office staff are always friendly and knowledgeable of all services in assisting patients with questions and concerns. I look forward to helping you live more relaxed and productive life.
Dr. Michelle-Desiree Silva, PsyD
Reliable Counseling
Services
Dr. Michelle-Desiree Silva, PsyD
Reliable Counseling Services
Dr. Michelle-Desiree Silva, PsyD
3208 Peachtree Street NE , Suite 912
Atlanta, GA 30326
Susie Culpepper
2809 Quail Hunt Drive
College Park, GA 30296
***This informational brochure was developed for a class assignment. I am not holding myself out to be a mental health provider in any manner.***
PLACE
STAMP
HERE
To change this brochure, replace our sample content with your own. Or, if you’d rather start from a clean slate, press the New Slide button on the Home tab to insert a new page. Now enter your text and pictures in the empty placeholders. If you need more placeholders for titles, subtitles or body text, copy any of the existing placeholders, then drag the new one into place.
1
Areas of Practice
Individual
Group
Family
Psychological Services
Evaluation
Clinical Consultation
Supervision
After Care treatment for outpatients based on discharge summaries and recommendations.
Focus on Adults and adolescents (15+).
Languages: English
Depression
General and Social Anxiety
PTSD
Phobias
Personality Disorder
Stress Management
OCD
Specialties
Privacy
Following guidelines from the American Psychological Association all information expressed throughout appointments and services will be protected and kept confidential. Only if there is an urgent and expressed concern of harm to self or others will appropriate authorities be notified.
Associations
Contact Us
Georgia Psychology Association
The National Honor Society in Psychology
The National Register of Health Service Psychologists
Association for Women in Psychology
Reliable Counseling Services
Dr. Michelle-Desiree Silva, PsyD
3208 Peachtree Street NE , Suite 912
Atlanta, GA 30326
346 494 6118
Msilva@reliablecounselingservices.org
Business Hours
Mon-Fri 9:00 am- 7:30 pm
Sat Closed
Sun Closed
Weekend Availability for appointment only
Appointments for in- office and video available.
Weekend are available by appointment only.
2
image1
image2
Clinical Psychologist
License Clinical Psychologist
Register Behavioral Technician
Our mission is to provide mindful teachings to children and adolescence in order to cope and understand their mental health concerns. We thrive on achieving a healthy way to deal with mental health illnesses.
Crystal M Hernandez
PSY 650 Introduction to Clinical and Counseling Psychology
Phone: 831-821-****
Email: HernandezCrystal***
Contact
Treatment Proficiencies
Motivational Interviews
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy
Interpersonal Relations
Developmental Psycopathology
Specialties
Child and adolescent psychology
Trauma and Family concerns
Cognitive and Mood disorders
Behavioral Disorders
We Can Help: Client Focus
Focus on ages 3 – 18 years of age, male and female
Experiences in different cultural backgrounds understandings and Ethicality
Fluent in English and Spanish
We ensure that all clients will be protected by law and information will remain confidential.
Those under the age of 18 will always need authorization from legal guardian.
Information will only be presented and disclosed to legal guardians
Limitations would possibly be insurance coverage
Limitation would be referrals due to non-insurance personal
Limitations on wait time for legal documentation
Confidentiality and Limitations
image1
image2
image3
image4
image5
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
