The Los Angeles Times ran a couple of articles on January 11, 2010 on the issue of whether or not a Doctor of Psychology (Psy.D.) was worth any more than the paper it was written on.  Apparently, there is a group of psychologists that feel (since research does not back them up) the Psy.D. is a lowly substitute for lazy folks that don’t quite have what it takes to handle the rigor of the more highly prized Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) in psychology.  Their reasoning is that because more schools that turn out Psy.D.’s are independent schools, which have a higher acceptance rate than Ph.D. programs that are attached to a university.  Psy.D.’s, they argue, don’t do research and therefore aren’t equipped to provide science-based psychotherapy.

Horse rubbish.  I am a proud possessor of a Psy.D., the only drawback of which is that Ph.D.’s like to take pot shots at my degree.  In fact, when I was in grad school I remember dreaming that a fellow Ph.D. student parked her Cadillac on my then rather sad-looking front lawn; talk about an inferiority complex.  I’ve gotten over that, though–and my lawn has been replaced with water thrifty plants, to boot.

What the heck is a Psy.D., you might be asking yourself.  Well, it is based on the so-called “Boulder model” of training, which came out of the University of Colorado at Boulder.  The idea was that those psychologists that wanted to practice psychotherapy needed to have more clinical training and supervision.  In order to provide top notch services, the Psy.D. needs to be able to evaluate research and implement it in the clinical setting.  To that end, the Psy.D. writes an extensive review of an area of research literature for a dissertation, as opposed to doing a piece of original research.

For my doctorate, I attended weekly supervision of my clinical work not only at my training setting, but with my dissertation chair, doubling the amount of supervision of Ph.D. students (and MFT therapists as well).  Instead of a year of courses on research methods, I took a year of courses on reading and evaluating published papers, which naturally requires a grasp of research methods as well as good critical thinking.

In my current practice as a Psy.D., I am constantly reading research, not just on topics related to sex therapy, but on a broad range from stress combat to mood disorders to health psychology.  If you’ve been a patient of mine, you know that I often quote research in sessions.  I think it helps to know a thing, rather than just speculate.  If you’re a reader of my blog, you know that I am quick to evaluate a study that is stirring up public interest.

If you are choosing a psychologist, the type of degree–Ph.D. or Psy.D.–isn’t as important as whether or not they keep their practice based in science, and not just on their personal experience.  This latter type of approach is one I call, “The World According to . . . “  You can fill in the blank with the name of the therapist.  It isn’t that personal experience can’t be valuable–I’ve been married nearly 25 years, so I bring in some of my own observations and experiences into the treatment room–but it shouldn’t be the basis for psychotherapy.

Just to add to the confusion, there are plenty of people with doctorates that aren’t psychologists.  It’s always a good idea to check up to see if someone you are considering as a therapist is, indeed, licensed.  In California, you can verify a psychologist’s license here, and a Marriage & Family Therapist (MFT) or Licensed Clinical Social Worker (LCSW) here.

Just what the heck is a Psy.D.?  It’s a tremendously useful degree for any psychologist interested in using the best that research has to offer and combining it with natural intuition.  I wouldn’t change my doctorate for any other.

» You can leave a comment, or trackback from your own site.