Specialty designation in psychology: developing a Canadian model

Canadian Psychology, Jan 1994 by Service, John

Certification of Advanced Expertise. A third model includes the concept of specialization as expertise beyond minimal competency. Designation as a specialist would recognize extra qualification related to additional training, experience and more rigorous evaluation. It would be analogous to the specialist model in medicine. As with a system concerned with minimal competency, this system would require a means of evaluation in addition to that required for registration as a psychologist. The evaluation would be made with reference to higher standards and would be more exclusive. As with certification of at least minimum competency, certification of advanced expertise could have descriptive value even if not all areas of psychology were covered within the system. Such a system would provide for clear identification of specialists and the most assurance of the quality of specialty services. The American Board of Professional Psychology follows this model.

Appropriate Type for Canada. Our survey respondents were most supportive of a minimal competency model, with a notable number favouring certification of advanced expertise. For a specialty designation system to be developed and to be viable, it must be acceptable to most psychologists in Canada. If specialty designation is to aid in the public identification of specialists, there must be a reasonably large number of psychologists who would seek and qualify for designation. We concluded that a model defining specialization in terms of at least minimum competence in the specialty field is the most appropriate model for Canadian psychology at the present time. Even those who favour specialty designation as meaning more advanced expertise may accept an at - least - minimal - competency system as a necessary stage in the evolution of specialty designation within the discipline.

Voluntary or Mandatory. Another fundamental issue is whether specialty designation should be voluntary or mandatory. Under a voluntary system, psychologists who chose to participate would be granted the right to use a particular title or set of initials that indicated they were the holders of a specialty in psychology. This designation system could follow the British or ABPP models whereby a controlled term such as "Chartered" or "Diplomate" is used before the specialty title (e.g., "Chartered Clinical Psychologist" or "Diplomate in Clinical Psychology"). Psychologists who chose not to participate could not claim such official designation, but still could refer to themselves as, for example, a clinical psychologist. A mandatory system would restrict the use of the specialty titles or claims of specialty expertise to those psychologists who had received official designation; for example, only those psychologists who were officially certified as clinical psychologists could hold themselves out as clinical psychologists. Under both voluntary and mandatory systems, as with provincial registration, only a certain title is controlled, not function. To the extent that fewer psychologists participate, voluntary specialty designation systems are less able to produce beneficial effects. Moreover, those few individuals who misrepresent themselves will be the least likely to participate. A mandatory system overcomes such problems, although any mandatory system will mean imposing it on some people who disagree with it. This would make the development and implementation of specialty designation more controversial. A voluntary system allows psychologists who disagree to decline to participate. The results of our survey indicate most support for a voluntary system. We concluded that official designation as a specialist should be voluntary, and should permit a psychologist to use a designated specialist title established by the designating body to indicate official specialist status.