The narrowing of theoretical orientations in clinical psychology doctoral training.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The focus of this article is the increasingly narrow range of therapeutic orientations represented in clinical psychology graduate training programs, particularly within the most research-oriented programs. Data on the self-reported therapeutic orientations of faculty at "clinical science" Ph.D. programs, Ph.D. programs at comprehensive universities in clinical and in counseling psychology, Psy.D. programs at comprehensive universities, and Ph.D. or Psy.D. programs at freestanding specialized institutions reveal a strong predominance of faculty with cognitive-behavioral orientations at the more science-focused programs, and a narrower range of orientations than in the more practice-focused programs. We discuss the implications of this trend for the future development of clinical psychology and provide suggestions for addressing the attendant concerns. © 2013 American Psychological Association. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc., on behalf of the American Psychological Association.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.061 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".