ABSTRACT

Objective

Clinical psychology involves the integration of clinical science and clinical practice, and the application of this integrated knowledge for the purpose of alleviating human distress.

Method

The best way to train these competencies has been a matter of debate. In this editorial, we compare the standards of three accreditation bodies: the Australian Psychology Accreditation Council (APAC), the Canadian Psychological Association (CPA), and the American Psychological Association (APA).

Results

Although the three accreditation standards are similar in terms of required coursework for core clinical psychology competencies, research output, and clinically supervised placement hours, the APA/CPA standards involved more coursework in statistics, research methodology, and topics highly relevant to clinical psychology that elucidate for whom and under what circumstances a treatment may be helpful (e.g., developmental and social psychology). The APA/CPA standards also required coursework on the history of psychology, which provides the opportunity for students to learn about and better appreciate the developments and influences on current knowledge and practice. The APA/CPA accreditation standards also required more clinically supervised placement hours to be obtained prior to graduation than did the APAC standards.

Conclusions

Unfortunately, data do not directly support one training system over another. We therefore urge psychology programs to routinely monitor their students’ clinical practice effectiveness after graduation so that accreditation standards can be reenvisaged if needed.

KEY POINTS

What is already known about this topic

(1) Accreditation of degree programs leading to the practice of clinical psychology is overseenby regulatory bodies in Australia, the US, and Canada.

(2) Greater synchronization with international competencies is a stated goal of the Psychology Board of Australia.

(3) No prior comparisons of accreditation standards between Australia and Canada/US has been published.

What this topic adds

(1) APA/CPA and APAC accredited programs tend to have very similar coursework in clinical psychology.

(2) APA/CPA programs tend to require substantially greater training in research methods/statistics and other domains of psychology such as social and cognitive psychology.

(3) An individual with an APA/CPA-accredited degree would be close to meeting Australian psychology registration requirements, while an individual with an APAC accredited degreewould require substantial additional coursework if wishing to become licensed/registered as a psychologist in the US or Canada.

中文翻译：

---

澳大利亚和美国/加拿大临床心理学博士课程的认证标准审查

摘要

客观的

临床心理学涉及临床科学和临床实践的整合，以及将这种整合的知识应用于减轻人类痛苦的目的。

方法

培养这些能力的最佳方式一直是一个有争议的问题。在这篇社论中，我们比较了三个认证机构的标准：澳大利亚心理学认证委员会 (APAC)、加拿大心理学会 (CPA) 和美国心理学会 (APA)。

结果

尽管这三个认证标准在核心临床心理学能力、研究成果和临床监督实习时间的必修课程方面是相似的，但 APA/CPA 标准涉及更多的统计学、研究方法和与临床心理学高度相关的主题，以阐明治疗对谁以及在什么情况下可能有帮助（例如，发展和社会心理学）。APA/CPA 标准还要求学习心理学史课程，这为学生提供了了解和更好地了解当前知识和实践的发展和影响的机会。与 APAC 标准相比，APA/CPA 认证标准还要求在毕业前获得更多的临床监督实习时间。

结论

不幸的是，数据并不直接支持一个训练系统而不是另一个训练系统。因此，我们敦促心理学项目在毕业后定期监测学生的临床实践效果，以便在需要时重新制定认证标准。

关键点

关于这个主题的已知信息

(1) 导致临床心理学实践的学位课程的认证由澳大利亚、美国和加拿大的监管机构监督。

(2) 与国际能力更好地同步是澳大利亚心理学委员会的既定目标。

(3) 澳大利亚和加拿大/美国之间的认可标准之前的比较尚未公布。

本主题添加的内容

(1) APA/CPA 和 APAC 认可的项目在临床心理学方面的课程往往非常相似。

(2) APA/CPA 课程往往需要在研究方法/统计和其他心理学领域（如社会和认知心理学）方面进行大量培训。

(3) 拥有 APA/CPA 认证学位的个人将接近满足澳大利亚心理学注册要求，而拥有 APAC 认证学位的个人如果希望在美国或加拿大获得许可/注册为心理学家，则需要大量额外的课程.