Talk:Clinical psychology/Archive 2

message: This is an "a-bit-useless" comment. Maybe the Greek letter Psi picture on the top of the article should be changed. As far as I know about the topic, this symbol refers to the whole psychology, not only clinical. According to me, we should find a picture that is more representative. (a couch?) What do you think about that? Frédérick Lacasse 00:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or a picture of a self-help book.  Clincal psychologists have written more of them then there are scholarly works on psychology (I just made that up, but it's probably true.)  Maybe a picture of Psi on a couch?  Just kidding.  I like the Psi - but I don't care what image is used - I think all the visual changes user Psykhosis has made do improve the page.  Steve 00:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psi 

message: My entry of Branden was deleted and I was asked to come up with sources.  I'll put them forth, with my reasoning.  I do this here to permit discussion (not because of WP Policy, which would allow me to simply enter the edit and cite my source) but in hopes of restoring good will among editors.  
That Branden has been one of the earliest to do a substantial amount of writing on self-esteem is beyond dispute (just look at the number of books he has written on self-esteem and their publication dates).  In an earlier comment it was implied that self-esteem might be too vague of a concept or that Branden might only be a 'self-help' author.  I have a respected, valid, verifiable source to substantiate the following statement:  Self-esteem is an important topic for clinical psychology and Branden has made major contributions.
The book has been recommended reading for advanced psychology courses at the university level (at Universities other than the one Dr. Mruk is associated with).
Christopher J.Mruk, Ph.D. is a professor of clinical psychology with practical experience in many different clinical settings. He was the director of the counseling center at St. Francis College and he has taught clinical psychology at Firelands College of Bowling Green State University.  He has trained and supervised clinicians. He has researched and published in the field of self-esteem. He is currently a consulting psychologist to Firelands Community Hospital of Sandusky, Ohio.
Page one, Dr. Mruk states, "Even a cursory database search of PsychINFO will reveal... more than 23,215 articles, chapters, books that directly focus on self-esteem as a crucial factor in human behavior."  and later, "In fact, Rodewalt and Tragakis (2003, p. 66) stated that "self-esteem is one of the 'top three covariates in personality and social psychology research,'..."
Page 114 of the third edition is just one of many that detail the depth of Branden's work in self-esteem.  Branden is referenced on pages 4, 19, 20, 34, 42, 43, 100, 114, 128, and 146. Steve 22:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are conflating Branden with the topic of self esteem. It is a logical fallacy to say that because Branden wrote on self esteem and then other people wrote on it that somehow he is a vital influence on the field as a whole. The issue isn't "self esteem" but Branden...you need to provide some evidence that he himself, via is own works, made a substantial impact comparable with the folks currently on the list. If you can come up with any published source, even one, that provides evidence of his importance, I'll return the name myself. Psykhosis 01:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe I did just what you request.  Dr. Mruk's references to Branden when discussing self-esteem are quite explict - Branden occupies pages of description.  Steve 01:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I asked for a reference and you gave me one. While I still maintain that his contributions are nowhere near that of the others on the list, you seem to think he is worth all of this conversation. I find it odd that you are so passionate about adding him...but I'm too worn out talking about this to care anymore (which is kinda sad, actually). I really wish you would reconsider, for the sake of keeping the article as relevant and accurate as possible. Psykhosis 03:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits to the article 

message: Lets line out the items in question first, because the first thing needed is to agree about our disagreements.  Working from what is posted above in the talk page, the content disputed are as follows:
# The extent to which this article should/should not overlap Psychotherapy.
# Images of the DSM / Drugs.
# Use of Rorschach Image.
# Use of Portraits.
This may be a little simplified, but I am a simple person.  If you agree that these are the essential points of the content disagreement, leave a note below.  If disagree, leave a brief explanation of where I got it wrong below. -- Pastordavid 20:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for this. I think that's essentially it. The overlap issue not being about denying that psychotherapy is a core part of clinical psychology, but about keeping the focus on that clinical psychology context and on clinical psychologists, rather than historical detail and related influences and people EverSince 21:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I have seen what is going on in the discussion above.  I am focusing my attention here, as the conversation above stalled out before I arrived.  As for sourcing, etc, I don't know that we are there yet.  -- Pastordavid 22:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, that sounds OK. EverSince 22:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pastordavid, I feel it would be beneficial to have a third opinion on those four basic issues still if possible, despite the metaphysics below. I'd also incidentally like to clarify whether it is your opinion that the issue of the scope and focus of the article is not relevant to its quality grading; it seems from the guideline pages that it is relevant. EverSince 21:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Working toward consensus 

message: It might be useful to create a framework to discuss these core issues. I myself find many of EverSince's suggestions and arguments to be vague and confusing, so this might provide a way to make things more concrete, so we all are on the same page.
While these things might seem obvious, let's list them out so we know where we are. With this in mind, here are some fundamental axioms along with derived questions:
#Only information that is relevant to clinical psychology should exist in this article. Question: Is there information relevant to clin-psy that is not now in the article but should be? 
#Information that is indirectly related to clinical psychology may be mentioned, but should be minimized and linked. Question: Is there current info that is indirectly related but treated as fully relevant that should be minimized? Likewise, is there relevant info that is being treated as only related and should be expanded?
#Information that is irrelevant, erroneous, confusing, redundant, extraneous, or better explained elsewhere (e.g. detailed info on research validity) should be corrected, improved, or omitted. Question: Is there info currently that violates any of these? If so, should it be edited or deleted?
I further recommend that issues be detailed and explained in bullet-point format, followed by an "Agree/Disagree" label for discussion. For example, I recently edited out a small paragraph in the CBT section. So, I might have said this: 
* The first paragraph of the CBT section should be mostly eliminated with some info incorporated into the next paragraph (namely the references to Cognitive psychology and Behaviorism). Reason: it is better addressed in the CBT article and isn't necessary to understand the fundamental theory of CBT as presented in the main paragraph.
**Agree. Contributors can add their agreement to the suggestion here.
**Disagree. Contributors can add their disagreement to the suggestion here.
**Neutral. Contributors can add their neutral comment here.
My hope is that this will make sure we are discussing discrete and well-articulated suggestions so to minimize confusion. Psykhosis 02:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Epistemological framework

message: I recently took out this lead (below). It has become too long and there is a lot of information that is either redundant, debatable, or better served in the main body. See below for my main questions.
:Clinical psychology is the study and application of psychology for the purpose of understanding, preventing, and relieving socially and psychologically based distress or dysfunction, and to promote subjective well-being, objective physical health, with an outlook to personal, familial and occupational development. A Clinical Psychologist aims to help people achieve their best and to indicate how they might adapt to or change their life circumstances. In many countries it is a regulated profession with public health care funding.
:Clinical Psychology also addresses moderate to severe disorders such as depression and anxiety and chronic health problems such as unremitting pain from injury or illness. Most clinical interventions proceed on the basis of a diagnosed mental disorder using the treatment protocol recommended for the diagnosis and backed by research into its treatment effect. Treatment can only occur with informed consent even where the client is directed to comply with a care and treatment program. That is a duty of care.
:[...]
:Although different countries require various educational qualifications to practice clinical psychology, [...] Australia has nationally accredited licensing for funded service provision within Medicare. [...]
:Clinical psychology includes a wide range of practices, including research, psychological assessment, teaching, consultation, forensic testimony, and program development and administration.Brain, Christine. (2002). Advanced psychology : applications, issues and perspectives. Cheltenham : Nelson Thornes. > Central to clinical psychology is the practice of psychotherapy, counseling and coaching which aims to show and teach clients effective ways of improving subjective well-being, mental health, and life functioning.  This is achieved by facilitating change of distressing or detrimental thoughts, feelings, or behaviors, both within themselves and in their significant relationships.
:Although there are dozens of individual forms of psychotherapy, and significant practitioner variation within each form, three major orientations have been: psychodynamic, cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), and humanistic. The evidence on the effect of psychotherapy suggests 1. that the theory of change held by the client is more influential than the theory of the practitioner, and 2. that no one method is superior to another in its treatment outcome. Partly as a consequence, there is a growing movement to integrate these and other approaches to resulting in a more eclectic practice. This occurs alongside the movement toward interdisciplinary research in all fields of science.
:Clinical psychologists can be found working with individuals, couples, children, older adults, families, small groups, and communities. They may work individually or in multi-disciplinary teams involving other professions for example social work, psychiatry and clinical dietician.
* I have never read that the goal of clin-psy is the promotion of "objective physical health." Clin-psychologists are not medical doctors, and it could be misleading to suggest that people with health problems should seek out a psychologist. 
* A Clinical Psychologist aims to help people achieve their best and to indicate how they might adapt to or change their life circumstances. Too much detail...also, "achieve their best" is too vague. The rest is better addressed in the psychotherapy section.
* with public health care funding. Again, this is too detailed for the lead. Perhaps we need a section on the financial aspects of the field and getting treatment. 
* Clinical Psychology also addresses moderate to severe disorders... Again, this paragraph is better addressed in the main body. 
* Australia has nationally accredited licensing for funded service provision within Medicare. This is a somewhat confusing sentence. The paragraph is addressing basic educational requirements, i.e. what degree is needed to practice clinical psychology?
* Central to clinical psychology is the practice of psychotherapy, counseling and coaching which aims to show and teach clients effective ways of improving subjective well-being, mental health, and life functioning. This is a bold statement that doesn't seem well-supported in the literature. Can you offer a clinical psychology source that states that clinical psychologists offer "counseling" (as distinct from psychotherapy) or "coaching"? 
* This is achieved by facilitating change of distressing or detrimental thoughts, feelings, or behaviors, both within themselves and in their significant relationships. Better addressed in the main body.
* The evidence on the effect of psychotherapy suggests 1. that the theory of change held by the client is more influential than the theory of the practitioner, and 2. that no one method is superior to another in its treatment outcome. Same...integrate within the main body, and cite your literature source.
* They may work individually or in multi-disciplinary teams involving other professions for example social work, psychiatry and clinical dietician. Hm...this isn't bad...I'm putting it back.
Psykhosis 00:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue isn't having alternative points of view, but working within Wikipedia standards. If you decide to jump back in the water, you would be well-served by becoming familiar with the Wikipedia Manual of Style, and especially WP:BETTER, WP:VERIFY, and WP:CITE. Considering the current level of development of this article, adhering to these standards becomes more of a priority. If you feel like you want to add information, but aren't motivated to master the large amount of style elements, you are welcome to offer suggestions on the talk page and ask others to integrate them into the article. Psykhosis 19:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits to the lead

message: I think of an unusual defintion like: "Clinical Psychology is the application within Psychology of cognitive science to treatment and to treatment research in clincial settings." Even a superficial reading of cogntive science and ToK will indicate both the significance of increasings its breadth, and that it could include every known psychotherapy approach and therapy research from behaviourist, biofeedback, EFT and energy therapies, EMD*R, somatic or body centred psychotherapies, through strategic and family systems interventions, couples therapy, NLP and to psychoanalysis and yes, (arggghh) CBT and DBT, to which I groan. Because the common element in all of them is thought - attention, memory, perception, language and action. Thought seems to me a practical unifying principle and the science of it is interdisciplinary. Clinical Psychology has a place in that sun. Without a movement in this direction I fear it may become just another brand fighting over flavors. It might then make an interesting historical study in the sociology of professions, left behind by advances in bran (sic) science.
One benefit of joining cognitive science might then be the possibility of differentiating between therapy, counselling, psychoeducation, philosophical enquiry, coaching and mentoring (to name a few) in a way that honours the unique history and contribution of clinical psychology to those fields AND their contribution to ours. See my comments about the presence of each of these processes in micromanaging the development of a treatment program/ therapy relationship from commencement to conclusion.
On that basis clinical psychologists might then be able to speak a common language drawn from embodiment and Eco-somatics. Utopian, I know.--Ziji 20:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the relationship between clinical psychology and cognitive science is interesting. There are issues about the range of cognitive science too, like the extent to which emotions or psychosocial dynamics are incorporated. As a general rule Talk Pages should stick to discussing improvements to the article; perhaps this could be addressed in the article in some way... incidentally I agree about the article addressing 'Eastern' perspectives more - it does already mention the use of 'mindfulness' techniques in CBT EverSince 10:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Ziji, it would be inappropriate to mention "cognitive science" in this article.  Clinical psychology is a division of psychology - not cognitive science.  It would be going off track, perhaps for the purpose of supporting cognitive science, which would not appropriate to the encyclopedia article. Steve 19:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do agree actually that a POV about subdivisions shouldn't be incorporated, partly for the range issues I mentioned, but  some do argue things like this, and of course psychology as a whole is recognized to have undergone something of a 'cognitive revolution' which at one extreme involves links between clin psy and cog sci (sometimes via cog psych and sometimes directly) EverSince 16:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: To clarify what I wanted to say about cognitive science, I do personally think it can be included as an influence/aspect of modern clinical psychology, given sources supporting this, but just that any points included should be NPOV not personal argumentation. Regarding the breadth in general, as I understand it the article should describe and reflect the common definition(s). Since this seems to vary (including by country), the article should describe the variation in usage. The first paragraph need only describe the basic common meaning, however, with detail/qualifications/nuances coming later (Guide to Layout). Any notable sourced points falling within that can potentially be included. Of course potentially a huge range of things are 'included in the knowledge applied by clinical psychology". I certainly agree that family-based work etc (more broadly, a systemic or psychosocial approach) is a major part of clinical psychology; some aspects of this are already included in the article. EverSince 09:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you eversince, that is clear. I have made my first move to broaden the definintion in the first paragraph. I'll wait and read the edits that it may give rise to, before going further.--Ziji 11:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broadening the definition of clinical psychology? 

message: I think the article is getting worse not better.  I'm sorry if that hurts anyones feelings.  I've not been opposing or correcting any changes that are being made because it was clear that my input wasn't wanted, and, frankly, I just lost heart.  But someone needs to say something.  You now have ancient eastern traditions "informing" modern clinical practices - whatever that means - with no explanations  or any sources given.  And for God's sakes, Ayurveda was Hindu, not Buddhist! Steve 05:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The start of the history section clearly needs rewording, NPOV'ing and sourcing now. I hope you will consider helping do that. I was leaving it for a while to see the basic issues that were covered, and going to go back to it, with a source. Is there anything else in particular? I can only say I feel your input is wanted. I was only just saying above that you should (of course, in the usual way) feel free to revise or revert things, and was just asking for clarification re the particular psychotherapy issue you had. EverSince 09:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Feelings not hurt nor a target. You don't need to invoke God to make a change to the edits. Steve your input is wanted, our conversations a delight. I won't tackle you on the challenge of Hinduism and Buddhism's shared history but the full stop between Ayurveda and Buddhism I had hoped was clear. I think the article is much improved. Still only three voices in these changes. What are the rest of you thinking?--Ziji 09:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Steve. I like the differentiation of 'not about clinical psychologists but clinical psychology' - much more inclusive of the practice rather than the profession, which answers one of my other concerns that it read as potentially self serving of the profession. Thank you.--Ziji 22:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Ziji.  It was much, much worse in the beginning.  There were lots of people that weren't seeing past the licensing title and were maintaining that only licensed psychologists could do clinical psychology.  They just didn't grasp the concept of a discipline.  Same thing went on for a while at the psychology article.  Much of it comes from U.S. academia's attitude.  There is much less focus on critical thinking and classical knowledge and much more on certification and exclusion of all who don't accept all the PC proclamations.  Like a giant trade school with an attitude.  And they seem to support a new kind of rhetoric - win arguments by declaring all opponents not eligible for debate.  I agree that it still reads too much like it is an article on American Licensed Psychologists practicing CBT under APA guidelines. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SteveWolfer (talk • contribs) 22:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Steve - it sounds like you have all had a helluva time getting the article to this level. I assume from what you are saying that we can expect further visits from CBT hagiographers. The lack of classical training and critical thinking is a significant impediment here in Australia as well. When you have time I would really appreciate you having a look at Clinical Psychology - Eastern & Middle Eastern Influences and addiing or editing as you see fit.--Ziji 22:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ziji, I'd be happy to look, but I have no knowledge in that area so I probably won't have any changes.  Steve 01:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article isn't getting better

message: There's a relatively clear history of clin psych that dates to when the term and practice were first recognized around the start of the 20th century. Giving a brief summary of preceding influences seems cloudier. Sources (e.g. from main England & Wales charity MIND) tend to cover anything vaguely related to mental health. With something like the history of psychiatry which I previously worked on, it's a bit easier because it can be restricted to medical models and physicians (including Rhazes). 
I think the "pre-history" here probably needs to be restricted to just a very basic outline of the general psychological approach (as it can now be described) to mental distress/disorder in "ancient/middle/enlightenment" times in East and West. With the more recognisably modern psychological approaches developing through the 19th century perhaps. There are clear links for more on the general history of psychology or psychotherapy of course. EverSince 10:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is already 66kb long and getting longer. Pre-history of clinical psych could be in a separate section and pointed to as a 'main article' on eastern influences, which would then give room for exploring that inflence on the founders of clinical psychology and in its current practice. There are other sections which could be dealt with in the same way to reduce the size of this beast, for example the section on Training and Licensing--Ziji 09:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Pre-history" of clinical psychology 

message: I agree the Training and Licensing should be summarized more, with details on a separate page if necessary. And, as mentioned in peer review, shouldn't be solely dedicated to American/bit of British. I don't think it should be detailing here all those related (US) qualifications about "Psychologist", "Marriage and Family Therapist (MFT)", "Licensed Professional Counselor (LPC)" etc and "Licensed Psychological Associate. (LPA)", "Psychological Technician (Alabama), Psychological Assistant (California), Licensed Clinical Psychotherapist (Kansas), Licensed Psychological Practitioner (Minnesota), Licensed Behavioral Practitioner (Oklahoma), or Psychological Examiner (Tennessee)." 
Also not sure if the list of people considered "Major influences" is ideal, kind of out on its own with no context/sources. At the same time, the article doesn't really mention many of the major recognized clinical psychologists. I guess a solution, along the lines of Chupper's work on mental health professional and recently psychiatrist, is to have a separate "clinical psychologist" page to detail professoinal qualifications and people. I'm gonna mostly take a break from this subject for a while though. EverSince 09:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a separate article or page on qualifications would be best.  This would allow for sufficient detail to be included without cluttering up this article. DPetersontalk 14:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about 3 new pages titled something like: Clinical Psychology - Training; Clinical Psychology - Licensing and duty of care; Clinical Psychology - Eastern and Middle Eastern influences?--Ziji 21:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could the first two pages be made one?  That wouldn't be too long an article, would it? So, if there were a link from this page to the new ones, that would be great. DPetersontalk 22:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only way to find out is to do as you suggest and see how big a combined page gets. There's new material to be added about the impact of common law on the research and practice of clinpsych, which I thought to add to Licensing. Training will only get bigger if other country persepctives than US and UK are added. I might get around to do the Australian one but not high on my priorities The new pages should be clearly linked to this one.--Ziji 22:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made that move but have not checked if the references releveant to the page are all there from the bottom of the clin psych page.--Ziji 21:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Training and Licensing