Panel Discussion 30 - Evaluating Training Models for Clinical Science Doctoral Programs

Starting in the mid-to-late 1940s, clinical psychology emerged as an essential and growing field, which was largely focused on meeting a looming need for treating Veterans with mental health concerns. Training programs in clinical psychology were subsequently tasked with preparing emerging psychologists to meet the tremendous mental health needs of the post-war era while also providing coursework and training in scientific methods. Since that time, clinical psychology has become an increasingly interdisciplinary field, encompassing, for example, more advanced approaches to understanding psychopathology (e.g., neuroscience, immunology, behavioral medicine) and more specialized statistical methods. Increased diversity in career settings beyond academia and private practice (e.g., community mental health, public policy, implementation science) have also emerged to contribute to both the scientific quality and impact in the field. Despite significant advances in the field, training models have remained relatively stagnant. In order to best prepare the next generation of psychologists to address the global burden of mental health, it is essential to evaluate and adapt clinical science training models. Panelists were chosen given their experience assessing the quality of training programs, overseeing training directly, or work with governing bodies that shape the current training models. Initial discussions will focus on essential functions of clinical science training models. In light of ideal functions of training models, panelists will review the strengths and weaknesses of extant training requirements. Next, panelists will discuss data on training needs that are unmet through current training models. Finally, panelists will speak to future directions for clinical science training programs, including the benefits and possible drawbacks of broadening, diversifying, and individualizing training models.