Training clinical psychologists : The current situation and a way forward [Guest Editorial]

Abstract

In the past, training in clinical psychology in Australia and overseas has been dominated by definitions of input—
hours of classes or supervision and of specific components. While prospective practitioners have been required to demonstrate the acquisition of generic competencies, satisfaction of these input driven criteria has been required for both accreditation and registration. Ironically, for a discipline that prides itself on requiring empirical bases for practice and communicating those to students (Calhoun, Moras, Pilkonis, & Rehm, 1998), training criteria have been primarily derived from accepted wisdom, rather than from a sound body of data. The situation has been remarkably like that of a treatment establishing standards of fidelity before its effective components are known—an action our profession has correctly criticised in the past (Herbert & Mueser, 1992).