Specialty designation in psychology: Developing a Canadian model.

Abstract

The Canadian Psychological Association (CI'A) and the Council of Provincial Associations of Psychologists (Cl'AP) created a Task Force to study the issue of designation in Canada. As part of fulfilling its mandate, the Task Force surveyed Canadian psychologists and reviewed the status and history of designation in other countries. Based on that data, the Task Force concluded that it was timely for Canadian psychology to implement a designation system. The present paper outlines the rationale for the development of a Canadian designation system. In 1986 the Canadian Psychological Association (CPA) and the Council of Provincial Associations of Psychologists (CPAP) established a Task Force on Specialty Designation Canadian Psye:hology/Psychologie caiiadicnnc, 35:1 (CI'A, 1984a). The Task Force had as its mandate both the study of designation and the feasibility and desirability for establishing a designation system in Canada. The present paper outlines the rationale for designation, ii.s history, and the main findings and conclusions of the Task Force report (Service, Sahourin, Catano, Day, Hayes, & MacDonald, 1989). The discipline of psychology has grown considerably over the years following the Second World War (Thomgalc, 1990). The proliferation of education and training programmes, the dramatic increase in the number of psychologists, and the expansion of the number and variety of work settings has led to the creation of new specialty areas in psychology. New applications of psychological knowledge stimulate further theoretical and technological advances leading to the gradual evolution of new branches of expertise which eventually become recognized as specialty areas. There continues to be a steady pressure within psychology to recognize and differentiate specialties ranges from individual psychologists describing their area of expertise to various national and international training, research, and crcdentialing programmes recognizing specialties. Current International Practice The common use of the resulting descriptors argues for greater attention in deciding whether designation should be pursued in Canada. Psychologists in other countries have also wrestled with issues related to designation. Their experiences may have special relevance to the Canadian situation. The status of designation in the United States, Great Britain, and Australia, countries having some parallel in legal and political institutions with Canada, follows. Specially Designation Vl UNITED STATliS OF AMKRICA Although the American Psychological Association (APA) has not yet formally recognized specialties in psychology, interest in specialization has been, and continues to be, strong. For example, accreditation criteria for university training programmes in clinical psychology (APA Committee on Training in Clinical Psychology, 1947), standards for practicum training in clinical psychology (AI'A Committee on Training in Clinical Psychology, 19.50) and standards for counselling psychology (APA Committee on Counsellor Training, Division of Counselling and Guidance, 1952) have long been established. APA further refined the process by developing one set of standards for all doctoral level (raining programmes and internships in professional psychology (APA, 1979), as well as guidelines for the provision of psychological services in the areas of industrial/organizational, clinical, counselling, and school psychology (APA, 1981, 1987). Therefore, it can be argued that APA has given da facto recognition of status to at least these four areas. APA's Hoard of Professional Affairs' Subcommittee on Specialization has attempted to develop an acceptable model to outline specific criteria which niustbe satisfied before any area ol' the discipline could be given official designation as a proficiency or (Sales, Bricklin, & Hall, 1983, 1984a, 1984b). The model is described in more detail later. APA has never officially adopted this, or any other model; yet the lack of official sanction has not stopped the proliferation of specially designation systems in the USA. hi most states, tin: statutes regulating psychology provide lor the assessment, of the core education, for specific training, and for generic examination that, in a lew slates, may be follower) by certification or the restriction of practice to specific areas (Hall, 19K.>:i). Similarly, in :i few stales, the legislation equates a psychologist to a health seivice provider (Hawaii, South Dakota, and Michigan are examples); and in others, a certificate is awarded for practicing ;K n clinical, school or counselling psychologist (for example, in Virginia, South Carolina and Nebraska). (Hall, 1988, p. 347) In fact, in the USA more than one-hundred organizations offer crcdenMailing for which psychologists can apply (Alt.erman, Sales, & Kilbni'g, 1983). The most prominent of these is the American Board ol Professional Psychology (ABPP), originally established by APA but now independent. It initially developed criteria and procedures for evaluating the knowledge and skills of applicant psychologists in the four areas of clinical, counselling, school, and industrial/organizational psychology, and more recently has arldcd the specialties of clinical neuropsychology, forensic, and family psychology. It confers diplomate status on its registrants, signifying that they hold advanced expertise in one of its areas. Although relatively popular in the USA, only a few Canadian psychologists have sought AKI'P Diplomate status. GRI.iAT BRITAIN While no statutes currently regulate either the practice of psychology or the use of the title psychologist, the British Psychological Society (BPS) received the approval of Parliament to maintain a register of Psychologists. Regulation is achieved through controlling the use of Chartered as a modifier of (HPS, 1988a, 1988b). The BPS's membership has approved the use of Clinical Psychologist and Occupational Psychologist. Administratively, specially designations are controlled by the appropriate division of the Society, e.g., the Board of Occupational Psychology. Each board sets the standards of education, training and experience that are required for membership in the division and, consequently, for the use of the descriptors. AUSTRALIA The Australian Psychological Society (APS)