Abstract
In their reply to our previous paper that contrasts Australian and English-speaking North American training in clinical psychology, Dyck and O'Donovan agree with our comments on the lack of evidence for the benefits of additional training. Here we clarify the basis for our assertions about the state of training in professional psychology in Australia on the assumption that the basic model of entry-level training that is used here will remain in practice and not change to that proposed by Dyck and O'Donovan. Questions as to the competence and effectiveness of clinical psychologists are ones open to empirical study. We note the ongoing natural experiment in clinical training in Australia and encourage the open debate and active study of issues related to professional training.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
