Specialty designation in psychology: developing a Canadian model

Canadian Psychology, Jan 1994 by Service, John

The respondents were more united when it came to possible areas within psychology that would qualify as specialties. An overwhelming majority of the respondents felt that industrial/organizational (81%), clinical (79%), clinical neuropsychology (78%) and school psychology (77%) were identifiable specialties. This result is not surprising given the move toward recognition of these areas as specialties within the American Psychological Association and/or the awarding of ABPP diplomate status in them. Counselling (58%), criminal justice (58%) and marriage & family (56%) were recognized by a majority as potential specialties, but they also had strong minorities (over 20% each) who disagreed. The comparatively low level of support expressed for counseling psychology was particularly surprising considering the strong movement towards its recognition as a specialty in the United States. It is possible that counseling psychology in Canada is more likely to be associated with another area, e.g. as an adjunct of clinical or school, than as a separate specialty. There was no support for the designation of experimental psychology as a specialty, strengthening the interpretation that specialty designation is a practitioner - related issue.

When asked to state their perceptions of the advantages and disadvantages of specialty designation, the respondents were more likely to see the positive side, an indication that those who answered the questionnaire were more likely to be supporters of such a system. The respondents believed that specialty designation would have the primary benefits of ensuring the public that a psychologist actually possesses some competence in an area being practiced (62%) and that it would help the public to find a psychologist within a particular specialty (47%). The impact of specialty designation on improving the income or status of the psychologist was not frequently mentioned as a benefit (10%) even though this reason is advanced by many proponents of specialty designation because it might affect third party payments. The respondents also felt that specialty designation would benefit psychology as a profession (75%) and as a means of promoting human welfare (62%); a minority viewed it as having a positive impact on psychology as a science (43%), again consistent with previous suggestions that specialty designation is seen as a practitioner issue.

LOSS OF FLEXIBILITY

The main disadvantage cited by the respondents could be classified as a fear of loss of flexibility -- they might be limited to a specific area and could not move easily into different areas of psychology (28%). If this fear is taken in conjunction with another cited disadvantage, the loss of creativity or professional freedom on the part of the psychologist (16%), then the apprehension might be that the perceived advancement of the profession will be made through the loss of individual professional autonomy. Individual professional rights, already circumscribed by professional codes of ethics would become further restricted.