An analysis of professional characteristics of rehabilitation psychologists trained in clinical, counseling, and rehabilitation psychology doctoral programs.

摘要

The rehabilitation psychology literature suggests many rehabilitation psychologists are not adequately trained for work in rehabilitation (Shontz & Wright, 1980) and that sound preparation can only be acquired through a rehabilitation psychology doctoral program (Golden, 1984). However, there are few published research studies to support this position. The purpose of this study was to determine whether there are significant differences in objective and subjective professional characteristics of rehabilitation psychologists trained in clinical, counseling, and rehabilitation psychology doctoral programs.;Eleven of the 26 research questions of this study indicated significant differences in objective and subjective professional characteristics of rehabilitation psychologists among respondents trained in clinical, counseling, and rehabilitation psychology doctoral programs. However, none of the 11 significant differences obtained indicate or suggest respondents trained in clinical, counseling, or rehabilitation psychology doctoral programs are limited in their effectiveness as rehabilitation psychologists. The findings of this study indicate there are no significant differences in the perceived practitioner competencies, primary work settings, major functions, theoretical orientations, and primary goals for patients or clients among respondents trained in clinical, counseling, or rehabilitation psychology doctoral programs. It appears that the skills and knowledge required to function effectively as a rehabilitation psychologist can be acquired during the internship or through work experience.;It is the conclusion of this study that rehabilitation psychologists trained in clinical, counseling, or rehabilitation psychology doctoral programs appear to be adequately prepared for work in rehabilitation. However, the results of this study must be cautiously interpreted due to the primary reliance on self-evaluations. The findings suggest that respondents from each type of doctoral program have unique strengths and contributions to offer the field of rehabilitation. It is the recommendation of this study that each type of doctoral program training persons interested in rehabilitation psychology provide such students with practicum experience in a rehabilitation setting and exposure to relevant rehabilitation psychology coursework.