Since as early as 1908, psychology as a discipline has grappled with how to integrate research and practice into the field’s professional identity. To further define the area of expertise of a psychologist, three main models of clinical training have been proposed: the scientist-practitioner model, the practitioner-scholar model, and the clinical scientist model. Despite clinical psychology’s universal claim for empirical moorings, the debate about the foundation of training in clinical psychology has remained primarily theoretical. The purpose of this study is to expand upon the limited research exploring the differences between training models to empirically determine which factors significantly predicted training models. To answer this question, a series of logistic regressions were run to determine if training models could be predicted by program admission criteria, faculty modeling, structural factors, differences in epistemological stance, and student factors. Results indicated admission criteria, faculty modeling, and structural factors significantly predicted training models. Results and implications for future research and clinical practice are discussed.
","abstract_html":"<p>Since as early as 1908, psychology as a discipline has grappled with how to integrate research and practice into the field’s professional identity. To further define the area of expertise of a psychologist, three main models of clinical training have been proposed: the scientist-practitioner model, the practitioner-scholar model, and the clinical scientist model. Despite clinical psychology’s universal claim for empirical moorings, the debate about the foundation of training in clinical psychology has remained primarily theoretical. The purpose of this study is to expand upon the limited research exploring the differences between training models to empirically determine which factors significantly predicted training models. To answer this question, a series of logistic regressions were run to determine if training models could be predicted by program admission criteria, faculty modeling, structural factors, differences in epistemological stance, and student factors. Results indicated admission criteria, faculty modeling, and structural factors significantly predicted training models. Results and implications for future research and clinical practice are discussed.</p>","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Dautenhahn, Katherine E."],"institution":null,"degree_name":"Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)","degree_level":"Dissertation","degree_discipline":"Psychology","degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["Vermeersch, David A.","Aréchiga, Adam L.","Morrell, Holly E. R.","Sonne, Janet L."],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2018,"date_issued":"2018-08-01T07:00:00Z","date_published":"2018-08-01T07:00:00Z","updated_at":"2026-07-24T02:52:45Z","subjects":["Clinical Psychology","Medicine and Health Sciences","Psychology","Social and Behavioral Sciences","Professional Identity; Research; Professional Training; Training Models"],"languages":["English"],"rights":["This title appears here courtesy of the author, who has granted Loma Linda University a limited, non-exclusive right to make this publication available to the public. The author retains all other copyrights."],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://scholarsrepository.llu.edu/etd/494","outbound_label":"Repository record","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["Vermeersch, David A.","Aréchiga, Adam L.","Morrell, Holly E. R.","Sonne, Janet L."]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Dautenhahn, Katherine E."]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Psychology"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Dissertation"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Clinical Psychology","Medicine and Health Sciences","Psychology","Social and Behavioral Sciences","Professional Identity; Research; Professional Training; Training Models"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language","label":"Dc Language","values":["English"]},{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["This title appears here courtesy of the author, who has granted Loma Linda University a limited, non-exclusive right to make this publication available to the public. The author retains all other copyrights."]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["https://scholarsrepository.llu.edu/etd/494"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["Since as early as 1908, psychology as a discipline has grappled with how to integrate research and practice into the field’s professional identity. To further define the area of expertise of a psychologist, three main models of clinical training have been proposed: the scientist-practitioner model, the practitioner-scholar model, and the clinical scientist model. Despite clinical psychology’s universal claim for empirical moorings, the debate about the foundation of training in clinical psychology has remained primarily theoretical. The purpose of this study is to expand upon the limited research exploring the differences between training models to empirically determine which factors significantly predicted training models. To answer this question, a series of logistic regressions were run to determine if training models could be predicted by program admission criteria, faculty modeling, structural factors, differences in epistemological stance, and student factors. Results indicated admission criteria, faculty modeling, and structural factors significantly predicted training models. Results and implications for future research and clinical practice are discussed.
"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["An Empirical Examination of Doctoral Training Models in Clinical Psychology in the United States"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["Vermeersch, David A.","Aréchiga, Adam L.","Morrell, Holly E. R.","Sonne, Janet L."],"dc:creator":["Dautenhahn, Katherine E."],"dc:description.abstract":["Since as early as 1908, psychology as a discipline has grappled with how to integrate research and practice into the field’s professional identity. To further define the area of expertise of a psychologist, three main models of clinical training have been proposed: the scientist-practitioner model, the practitioner-scholar model, and the clinical scientist model. Despite clinical psychology’s universal claim for empirical moorings, the debate about the foundation of training in clinical psychology has remained primarily theoretical. The purpose of this study is to expand upon the limited research exploring the differences between training models to empirically determine which factors significantly predicted training models. To answer this question, a series of logistic regressions were run to determine if training models could be predicted by program admission criteria, faculty modeling, structural factors, differences in epistemological stance, and student factors. Results indicated admission criteria, faculty modeling, and structural factors significantly predicted training models. Results and implications for future research and clinical practice are discussed.
"],"dc:identifier":["https://scholarsrepository.llu.edu/etd/494"],"dc:language":["English"],"dc:rights":["This title appears here courtesy of the author, who has granted Loma Linda University a limited, non-exclusive right to make this publication available to the public. The author retains all other copyrights."],"dc:subject":["Clinical Psychology","Medicine and Health Sciences","Psychology","Social and Behavioral Sciences","Professional Identity; Research; Professional Training; Training Models"],"dc:title":["An Empirical Examination of Doctoral Training Models in Clinical Psychology in the United States"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Psychology"],"thesis:degree_level":["Dissertation"],"thesis:degree_name":["Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T02:52:45Z"}