Specialty designation in psychology: developing a Canadian model

Canadian Psychology, Jan 1994 by Service, John

In addition, there was a belief expressed by several respondents that specialty designation would have a negative impact on the delivery of services in those geographic areas which are presently underserved by the profession. These respondents believed that the more rural areas of the country could not support specialists and that consumers, who had been educated to seek the services of a specialist, might not seek out the generalist practicing in that area.

The respondents were aware that specialty designation could lead to further fractionalization of psychology as a discipline. This issue of divisiveness, cited by 21%, becomes even more magnified in the context of the survey itself: specialty designation as a "practice" issue vs a "science" issue. Any system of specialty designation in Canada will have to be sensitive to these concerns and strive to maximize the likely benefits and minimize the likely costs. Both of these goals can be realized given that both are under the control of psychology and psychologists.

In summary, the survey results from the individual respondents and the official spokespersons offer support for a made - in - Canada specialty designation system that would be voluntary and certify minimal competence. The organizational structure for such a system would be similar to CRHSPP and would operate in conjunction with provincial, fraternal and regulatory bodies. Four areas, clinical, school, industrial/organizational and clinical neuropsychology appear to have broad based support for consideration as specialties at this time.

A Canadian Specialty Designation Model

The results from the survey were used to design a specialty designation system that we believed would meet with the agreement of the vast majority of Canadian psychologists. The fundamental issues that must be addressed in any specialty designation model are described briefly together with our proposals for a Canadian model.

IDENTIFICATION OF SPECIALTIES

Which areas of psychology constitute "specialties" is a fundamental issue. There may be general support in Canada for considering clinical, school, clinical neuropsychological and industrial/organizational psychology as specialities, but there is no clear consensus about other possibilities. Moreover, even if an initial list were to be easily agreed upon, provision would need to be made for the recognition of new specialties as the discipline evolves.

A model for rational decision making on this issue was developed by the APA Subcommittee on Specialization (Sales, Bricklin & Hall, 1983). It includes an enumeration of defining characteristics, including the critical existence of a body of knowledge and a set of skills uniquely identified with the specialty. The knowledge and skills may overlap with, but must be distinguishable from and not subsumed by, the knowledge and skills associated with another area of the discipline. Each specialty would need to demonstrate its uniqueness along four parameters of practice that relate to the daily activities of professional psychologists: 1. Client populations -- the individuals, groups, families, organizations or communities, irrespective of individual client's age or presenting problem; 2. Techniques and technologies -- the intervention methods including among others therapy, consultation, supervision, evaluation and administration, among others; 3. Problems addressed -- the vast array of problems presented by individual, family or organizational clients and; 4. Service settings -- the wide variety of settings, such as private practice, schools, universities, organizations, hospitals, etc., within which psychologists practice. In addition, each specialty would have to have an administrative organization and a typical education and training programme leading to competent practice in the specialty.