Report of Committee of Clinical Section of American Psychological Association
In 1931 a committee representing the Clinical Section of the American Psychological Association was appointed for the purpose of undertaking a survey of the training and duties of clinical psychologists in the United States.
In proceeding with this survey the committee prepared a questionnaire which was sent out to about one thousand psychologists who were engaged in psychological work of a clinical nature. The returns from this questionnaire were presented in a report made at the meeting of the American Psychological Association held in Ithaca in September, 1932, and a brief summary of the survey was published in the Psychological Exchange in August, 1933. The report contained no suggestions or recommendations, but in summary the survey indicated:
1. That there are about eight hundred psychologists engaged in psychological work which they themselves would define as clinical. 2. That there was doubt in the minds of a few psychologists about the use of the term “clinical” as applied to psychology. According to these the term “clinical” was borrowed from another field and did not describe the nature of the work.
3. That there was no uniform understanding or agreement as to the meaning of the term “clinical” psychology. The term was used by some to indicate a field of work; by others to indicate a method of approach. 4. That there was no common standard either of training or of experience which was generally recognized for clinical psychologists. 5. That there was no agreement in regard to the types of problems or cases a clinical psychologist should study. Some were of the opinion that clinical psychologists should confine themselves to the study of those traits which could be objectively determined and defined. Others believed that a clinical psychologist should be qualified to diagnose and treat any behavior disorder of a psychological nature. The discussion of this report led to a realization of the need for further clarification of the terms “clinical psychology” and “clinical psychologist,” of the need for definite standards of training for clinical psychologists, and of the need for definite knowledge concerning the number and location of psychological clinics in the ‘ - BETHESDA J4, MO. United States, as well as facts concerning their organization, staffs, clientele, methods of procedure, and training offered in clinical practice.
The committee was continued and authorized to formulate a report clarifying the meaning and scope of the terms “clinical psychology” and “clinical psychologist” and suggesting standards of training for the personnel in the field, and also to collect the material for and to prepare a Guide Book to Psychological Clinics in the United States.
The result of the committee’s work is here reported. That portion of it concerned with definitions of the terms “clinical psychology” and “clinical psychologist” and standards of training in the field is presented in Part I, and that part of it constituting a study of existing psychological clinics, in Part II of this report.
Disclaimer
The historical material in this project falls into one of three categories for clearances and permissions:
Material currently under copyright, made available with a Creative Commons license chosen by the publisher.
Material that is in the public domain
Material identified by the Welcome Trust as an Orphan Work, made available with a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
While we are in the process of adding metadata to the articles, please check the article at its original source for specific copyrights.