ABSTRACT
The modern world is becoming increasingly integrated, and disciplines are frequently collaborating with each other. Following this trend, clinical psychologists are also often working within multidisciplinary teams and in settings outside of traditional mental health. To be competent and effective in these contexts, clinical psychologists could benefit from skills outside of psychology. The current psychology training model provides depth of training in psychology but could be improved by providing the breadth of training required of modern clinical psychologists working in these contexts. Other disciplines, such as engineering, business, and social work, have improved their breadth of training through the adoption of the T-shaped model. This model of training allows individuals to simultaneously acquire the depth of knowledge required for their discipline and the breadth required to work effectively in multidisciplinary contexts. This article discusses areas in which clinical psychologists could benefit from broad training and recommendations to implement the T-shaped model.
Subject(s)
Mental Health , Psychology , Humans , Psychology/educationABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to cross-validate previously published performance validity cutoffs embedded within the Complex Ideational Material (CIM) and the Boston Naming Test-Short Form (BNT-15). METHOD: Seventy healthy undergraduate students were randomly assigned to either a control condition (n = 40) and instructed to perform to the best of their ability or an experimental malingering (n = 30) condition and instructed to feign cognitive impairment while avoiding detection. All participants were administered the same battery of neuropsychological tests. RESULTS: Previously published validity cutoffs within the CIM (raw score ≤9 or T-score ≤29) and BNT-15 (≤12) produced good classification accuracy using both experimental malingering and psychometrically defined invalid responding as criterion variable. However, a BNT-15 completion time ≥85 s produced a better signal detection profile than BNT-15 accuracy scores. CONCLUSIONS: Results support the clinical utility of existing cutoffs. Given the relatively high base rate of failure even in the control group (5-15%), and the perfect specificity of CIM ≤9 and BNT-15 ≤ 11 to noncredible responding, relabeling this range of performance as "Abnormal" instead of "Impaired" would better capture the uncertainty in its clinical interpretation.