ABSTRACT

This paper seeks to clarify some of the assertions made by Norton et al. (2022 Norton, P. J., Norberg, M. M., Naragon-Gainey, K., & Deacon, B. J. (2022). An examination of accreditation standards between Australian and US/Canadian doctoral programs in clinical psychology. Clinical Psychologist. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/13284207.2021.1949944[Taylor & Francis Online] , [Google Scholar]) regarding the accreditation standards of the American Psychological Association (APA) Commission on Accreditation (CoA) and the Canadian Psychological Association (CPA), as well as examines two critical issues raised by the authors. In their editorial, Norton et al. sought to examine accreditation standard similarities and differences between Australia and North America to promote an exploration of effective educational practices. This commentary applauds their effort and after making some clarifying comments about the First Street Accord, Exemplar Institutions, Program Differences and Supervised Experience Requirements and Licensure, this commentary explores competency-based education and assessing competency. The commentary concludes by underscoring Norton et al.’s challenge to the field to develop a clear consensus on what constitutes competent practice and instruments that would allow researchers to measure competence.

摘要

本文试图澄清诺顿等人的一些断言。( 2022 Norton, PJ , Norberg, MM , Naragon-Gainey, K. , & Deacon, B. J. （2022 年）。澳大利亚和美国/加拿大临床心理学博士课程之间的认证标准检查。临床心理学家。提前在线发布。https://doi.org/10.1080/13284207.2021.1949944 [泰勒和弗朗西斯在线]  ，[谷歌学术]) 关于美国心理学会 (APA) 认证委员会 (CoA) 和加拿大心理学会 (CPA) 的认证标准，并研究了作者提出的两个关键问题。在他们的社论中，诺顿等人。试图检查澳大利亚和北美之间认证标准的异同，以促进对有效教育实践的探索。这篇评论赞扬了他们的努力，在对第一街协议、示范机构、项目差异和监督经验要求和执照做出了一些澄清评论之后，这篇评论探讨了基于能力的教育和能力评估。评论最后强调诺顿等人。