Commentary: Finding the Middle Bowl: Goldilocks’ Lessons on Professional Competencies in Pediatric Psychology

Ensuring the development of professional competencies in its trainees is a fundamental mission of every training program, and a central mission of the Society of Pediatric Psychology (SPP) in particular (SPP, 2014a). One of the founders of the Society, Logan Wright (1967), called for the development of training standards to guide the field, although minimal efforts were made at that time. Two decades later, the field offered specific training recommendations (La Greca, Stone, Drotar, & Maddux, 1988), which themselves represented an emerging recognition of pediatric psychology as distinct from other areas of child service psychology (e.g., see Tuma, 1975, 1980). Soon after becoming an independent division of the American Psychological Association in 2000, the Society endeavored again to articulate specific training guidelines that would facilitate further development of the field (Spirito, Brown, D’Angelo, Delamater, Rodrique, & Siegel, 2003). Thus, it is fitting that as the field at large further revises and refines expectations for the training of professional (or health service) psychologists [American Psychological Association, 2014; Health Service Psychology Education Collaborative (HSPEC), 2013] that SPP reexamines its expectations and recommendations for the development and training of professional competencies within the subspecialty. The Task Force on Competencies and Best Training Practices in Pediatric Psychology (Palermo et al., this issue) is commended for a thorough and thoughtful update to the Society’s prior training guidelines and recommendations. Consistent with major thought leaders in the field (APA, 2014; Hatcher et al., 2013; HSPEC, 2013), the recommendations focus on specific competencies with identifiable and measurable benchmarks (‘‘behavioral anchors’’) across six cluster areas, plus an additional cluster representing specialized knowledge in the subspecialty. Like more general models of professional competencies and benchmarks for professional performance (e.g., Fouad et al., 2009; Rodolfa et al., 2005) the Task Force’s behavioral anchors reflect a developmental progression across specific cluster areas ranging from ‘‘readiness for practicum’’ to ‘‘readiness for entry into practice.’’ Importantly, the Task Force also puts careful consideration into its audience: Just who would use this document? And how? As noted by the Task Force, the recommendations for training were designed to be used by training directors of graduate, internship, and postdoctoral programs (as they evaluate and develop their programs), students (as they plan and evaluate their training experiences), 1 Although the Task Force refers to Pediatric Psychology as a ‘‘specialty’’ (e.g., p. 11), we feel that the term ‘‘sub-specialty’’ is both technically and conceptually more correct. Pediatric Psychology is considered a specialty area by neither the APA’s Commission for the Recognition of Specialties and Proficiencies in Professional Psychology (CRSPPP, http://www.apa.org/ed/graduate/specialize/recognized.aspx) nor the Council of Specialties in Professional Psychology (www.cospp.org). Indeed, SPP is a member organization within the Clinical Child Psychology training synarchy of the COSPP, and for Specialty Board Certification purposes is generally considered a sub-specialty under the larger specialty area of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology (see, for example, the American Board of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology’s statement regarding Pediatric Psychology (http://www.clinicalchildpsychology.com/faqs).