CCIDPIP Conference Goals

Group of sitting people

The Consensus Conference had three overarching goals:

  1. define what a truly integrated, combined model of training would look like and be called;
  2. clarify the relationship between this model and the other practice/specialty areas in psychology;
  3. consider the potential role and place of this model within the larger profession and health care field.

In the context of these overarching goals, there were six expected conference outcomes:

  1. Review historical and current context/information about combined doctoral programs (e.g., key figures at the outset, when first recognized by APA, how many programs now, etc.), and consider how a combined and integrated model may help address historic and current issues and trends within our field (e.g., the “unification” and “psychology-as-a-health-profession” movements).
  2. Highlight the many benefits of combined and integrated doctoral training for students, faculty, administrators, clients, our field, and the public. These benefits include (but are not limited to): a) increased employment opportunities and greater professional flexibility (e.g., based upon CoA and other data); b) greater responsiveness to student perspectives and preferences; c) reduction of artificial barriers between the three practice areas; d) the financial, time, and resource savings that accrue from supporting one integrated and APA-accredited program (versus two or more); e) congruence with calls for greater “unification” in our field as well as data demonstrating that overall, no one single therapeutic approach is superior to any other; f) reduced confusion by the public and other health professions as to what practicing psychologists are, what they are qualified to do, and what they are called.
  3. In the context of Competencies 2002 (e.g., see the “Competency Cube”), adopt a consensus model of combined and doctoral training that a) specifies (at least) the “minimal level of competence” expected of our students across these practice areas (e.g., what core or foundation knowledge, skills, and values our students must demonstrate); b) clarifies the nature and scope of didactic and experiential opportunities that are integral to such a model; and c) affirms that all practicing psychologists must demonstrate such competence regardless of eventual professional roles, activities, or identity.
  4. Consider the high degree of overlap between the practice areas of clinical, counseling, and school psychology in the context of CRSSP guidelines, internship/CoA data, the CoA substantive/ emerging area discussion, and the CCOPP specialization document; consider these issues in the context of general and specialty practice, training sequence, accreditation, and licensure.
  5. Review the future role of psychology in general and professional practice in particular within the larger health care field; in the context of a combined and integrated model, consider relevant and applicable developments within the field and at a funding/advocacy/regulatory/legislative level.
  6. Discuss the suitability of the term “combined” (as in “combined programs”), decide whether an alternative term is preferable, and determine what “label” psychologists from such combined programs are to assume (e.g., Health Service Psychologists, Professional Psychologists, Combined Psychologists, General Practitioners, Integrative Psychologists, etc.); consider how this model can best be disseminated within the larger field.