Talk:Psychologist/Archive 1

Archive 1

Removed paragraph from 'Contrast with Psychiatrist' section

I removed the following paragraph:

One of the major discrepancies between psychologists and psychiatrists is that, in general terms, psychiatrists basically only every treat people who are suffering from a clinical condition. Psychologists work with a wide range of people (depending on the context), many of whom do not suffer a major mental illness (with the expection of clinical psychologists who tend to work with mentally unwell clients/patients).

Here are the things that bothered me: 1) I think "discrepancies" should have been "differences". 2) Treatment is only warranted where there is some kind of clinical condition - no matter what the license. 3) psychiatrists are found in a wide variety of clinical settings treating very high-functioning patients to those requiring hospitalization. That is true for psychologists as well. 4) I think they meant to say "exception" not "expectation". 5) Maybe I'm wrong, but the main differences were already spelled out: Different licenses, Different degrees (Medical doctor), Different laws (can prescribe), different treatment approaches. SteveWolfer 16:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Income of Licensed Psychologists

How much the two stated types of psychologists earn on average, but is this per year, per lifetime of working in the field, etc.? This is quite confusing. (The obvious choice is per year, but I still think it could be clearer.) Stars in the Night Sky 01:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed sentence from under 'Psychology in the professional world'

I removed this sentence:

A psychologist can also be someone who designs things. They design the normal everyday, easy-to-use type of things; such as cars, microwave ovens, and others, they are designed to be "user-friendly."

This is covered in a general way by the phrase, "...who makes professional contributions based upon that training, be it as a therapist, counselor, researcher, teacher, or consultant." {Emphasis added} Psychologists are occasionally called in to consult with industry on design issues, or called in as consultants to script writers, or movie directors, or as consultants to trial lawyers, etc. If more needs to be said, it should be done under the section labeled "Type of Psychologists" and as a subheading, perhaps something like "Consulting Psychologists" or "Industrial Psychologists" - but it would need sources and distinguish between engineers with a good grasp of the concept of usability or user-friendly design and a psychologist. Steve 02:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

--Dr. Ken Carter 01:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I have major issues with restricting the definition of psychologist to those who have chosen to follow the APA licensing guidelines.

Mentioning that different U. S. states and different countries issue licenses that give legal meaning to term “psychologist” is a good thing. But it should be clear that this is a licensing issue, and licensed psychologists are a subset of all psychologists. The more fundamental term derives from the science of psychology – regardless of the license of the individual.

It makes no sense to say that an individual who makes significant contributions to the body of knowledge we call “psychology” is not a psychologist. The next step would be to divide up the body of knowledge itself. Should we say that a research claim or hypothesis is not really about psychology because it doesn’t have some sort of membership or licensing body’s approval?

Could it ever make any sense to have a list of psychologists that don’t include names like those mentioned in the discussion page of the list of psychologists (Sigmund Freud, Melanie Klein, Alfred Adler, Havlock Ellis, Milton H. Erikson, Alfred Kinsey, Elisabeth Kübler-Ross, William Masters and Virginia Johnson, Ivan Pavlov, Virginia Satir, Irvin Yalom)?

Once that limited definition is accepted (explicitly or implicitly) all that follows becomes tainted. For example: the number of individuals engaged in psychotherapy is far greater than statistics just on licensed APA members.

And the categories of employment are also skewed since it would only allow those that fit APA guidelines.

To be blunt, there are many people who ARE psychologists (in the broader and quite proper sense of the word) and who make significant contributions to our field that believe the APA’s attempt to monopolize this word is inappropriate, self-serving, and not the best way raise standards among practitioners or improve the body of knowledge.

---

I found this sentence to faulty to keep as is. "Psychologists study and try to understand the brain behavior process from a scientific view point. They also help people to understand then change bebehavior, first among themselves then in groups."

---

I wonder, is it really necessary to include statistics from the US on this page? The only way people other than US citizens (who I am sure can find the information at an employment agency) would benefit from these statistics is if other countries are listed, making a comparison in salery and maybe how large a percentage of the working community consists of phsychologists. And even if people were to add these figures from other countries, making the comparison, it seems that it would take far too much room looking as it does at the moment. I hold that we remove the bit that currently is and wait for someone to take the lead in adding, and systemazing, more countries' figures. (Sentius)

---

Re: Statistics, do you mean to put stats from other "english" speaking countries? Or all countries? These US stats are not easily found. I know because I have been hunting them down. Plus when you find them they are complicated. I'm in favor of more stats in order to show things like incomes (most people think we make a lot of money, comparable to MDs, which is sorely not the case); the gender distribution is interesting as the fields is now numerically dominated by women; similar to issues with race/ethnicity.

Possibly, these kinds of stats can be on a sub page? I know that if I were looking information I'd want to know what do psychologists do and who the psychologists are. Rsugden 20:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

How to find a therapist external links

Having a link that helps a reader find a therapist is a good idea. But two of these three links violate WP Policy.

I suggest deleting two of the links currently in this section. One of them is the APA listing and only available to members who must pay dues and it excludes therapists or counselors that couldn't join APA and is restricted to the U.S. The second one that should be deleted is an advertising source that charges a significant annual fee for a listing. Both of those would be violations of WP Policy on using wikipedia to advertise.

The one which I think should be left in place, is the one by the magazine "Psychology Today" is not restricted by geography or by type of license. You need to send in a photo copy of a valid license to practice. They charge a fee - $29 - but their fee is more like a reasonable covering of their own costs of maintaining the service rather than an attempt at making a profit.

I didn't delete anything in case there are people that see this differently and want to express themselves. If I don't see any comments, then after while I'll delete the two. Steve 19:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I deleted that advertising site because it was added by an IP user and the disclaimer of the site states that they make no effort to verify the authenticity of advertisers. If an editor wants to make an argument for it then go ahead. As for the APA site, I see your point. However, this is a psychology umbrella organization and inclusion on the database is not an extra fee apart from membership. Although not all psychologist are members, the listed psychologists are licensed and thus I see it as a great resource for finding a Psychologist. Your argument that the APA search site "excludes therapists or counselors that couldn't join APA and is restricted to the U.S" is unfounded as I see it. This is an article discussing Psychologists and APA's membership is open to anyone with a "doctoral degree in psychology or a related field from a regionally accredited graduate or professional school...or a school of similar standing outside of the United States" (From the APA membership page). This should cover eligibility for any licensed psychologist. Their site also has search options for Psychologists by Canadian provinces. I personally use both the APA site and the Psychology Today site when looking for a referrals for my patients. Neither site is exhaustive and often provide differing results. So a search of both increases the odds of finding a Psychologist in ones area of need. But my desire is to increase the resources of potential readers while not guiding them astray. Dkriegls 05:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion in WikiProject Medicine

Why is this article being included in WikiProject Medicine? Psychology isn't a medical discipline and psychologists are licensed as behavioral/mental health practitioners. I'm not seeing the crossover necessity here. Tamara Young (talk) 19:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed a POV statement!

The following statement is POV: The Ph.D. is the highest required doctoral degree awarded by universities. The term "Doctor" means "Teacher of Teachers" or "Learned Professional."

And hence was removed!

Someone with a major issue with psychiatrists or medical doctors has put it forth to highlight that a PhD is the superior degree.

It is worth noting that a PhD is a research doctorate whereas a MD is a professional doctorate. Both are different by their very nature! So where is the need for comparison? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.89.59 (talk) 11:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

A Ph.D. is not necessarily a research degree for psychologists. While the scientist-practitioner model is extremely popular; it is not universal. Schools may place significantly more emphasis on teaching or clinical work and describe their models in that manner. I think the statement had less to do with arguing the superiority of the Ph.D. than it did with reflecting one of the readily available online definitions for Ph.D. It's the first definition that comes up in Google (which doesn't make it right, it just means there probably wasn't an ax to grind). Tamara Young (talk) 19:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

But putting it in bold type in a paragraph and that too without context smacks of an underlying issue! You can check the previous version of the page to note the same! I agree that many schools lay emphasis on teaching and clinical work, but the definition of a PhD automatically includes a research dissertation (the thesis taking at least 3 years to complete based on research) that needs to be defended in the "thesis defense" for conferring the title of a PhD. An absence of a research thesis equates such a degree to a Psy.D or a MD in the US sense (for in the UK a MD also requires a research dissertation though not as long and concrete as in a PhD). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.87.211 (talk) 04:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, bold type is probably not the correct route to go on that one. I agree that it isn't the best definition and realistically, I'm not sure we need to define the Ph.D. in the article beyond saying, perhaps, that the classic training model is the Boulder model of Scientist-Practitioner although other programs opt for variations on that model. From there, we can link to the wiki article for Ph.D. and Scientist-Practitioner, which explain the info for us. Tamara Young (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

New intro section Feb 5th 2009

I think this article needs more work. It moves too quickly into mental health professionals, which is really just one part of the field, or just one part of the applied side. I've changed it with the thought that this should focus more on how the title psychologist is used, or on what a psychologist is.

Comparisons with a psychiatrist are more of a subset of clinical psychology or psychologists and should probably be moved down or around somewhere else.

In any case, I did just a bit ... more is needed. Pgm8693 (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I made a few changes and added a section on research psychologists, some of which I just copied from Psychology. The article definitely needs more work. Thanks for your contributions, Pgm8693. Be bold in editing! -DoctorW 22:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

vandalism deleted

I guess it's a good thing that the two recent (March 2009) acts of vandalism were removed. But perhaps it should be said that psychologists have a sense of humor, and that most psychologists would have found it to be funny. Pgm8693 (talk) 23:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

well psychologist is something dat calls my attention for sum reason<b —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.155.58.130 (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Only Human behaviour and cognition?

People that study say animal learning, behaviour and cognition are also called psychologists, so should the article recognize that? (I am at a conference as I type this with 150 people who would call themselves psychologists, who work in psychology departments etc, but all study animal cognition) Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

well, for my this page is so good, because many students can found more information about psychologist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.8.153.108 (talk) 01:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I edited the first couple of sentences to make the role of psychologists a bit more species-neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.81.11 (talk) 21:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Germany, Diplom-Psychologe

The claim "the use of the title 'Diplom-Psychologe' is restricted by law" is near tautological and beside the point: It amounts to "It is illegal to claim to have an academic degree that one does, in fact, not have.", and says nothing about "Psychologe" (psychologist) per se.88.77.152.162 (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Which countries have instituted laws allowning psychologists to prescribe medicine?

I think this needs to be mentioned

also in Australia psychology does not have any specialties as they are not one of the 3 professions listed by AHPRA that have specialties — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.149.239.158 (talk) 10:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

What you've said isn't entirely correct. AHPRA may not recognise specialties within psychology, but the Australian Psychological Society recognises 9 specialties, see http://www.psychology.org.au/studentHQ/careers-in-psychology/. AHPRAs position is more to ensure that all health practioners are registered, from that perspective the designation of "psychologist" is probably sufficient, regardless of specialty. For this article APS' views of psycholosts are probably more appropriate than AHPRAs.

With regard to your question about which psychologists are allowed to prescribe medications: As far as I know only appropriately trained psychologists in 3 US states, the US army and the US territory of Guam can prescribe medications. No psychologists have prescription privileges in Australia. I think that it is a similar situation in most countries around the world, but I'm not 100% of on that.MitchMcM (talk) 23:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

What is a psychologist? Discussion of major edit undo

I haven't been watching this page for some months, but it appears that the definition of a psychologist was changed back in September in a substantial way. There was no discussion, other than an edit note that it was being changed to reflect what is found in the reference to the Occupational Outlook Handbook (OOH), a source that provides information about titles listed in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles.

1. I am going to revert it back to indicate that "psychologist" is a title that names certain people. This is important because the use of the title is regulated by law in all 50 States, and in the Canadian Provinces and in countries other than in North America. In each State, there is a law regulating the use of the term or the title. If the article just jumps into what psychologists do, as opposed to what they are, it misses the important point that the word is first and foremost a title. And if the article starts off by saying what psychologists do, there are endless complications in providing a definition ... there are all kinds of different types of psychologists under the basic distinction between scholars and professionals.

2. I am also going to revert back the change that was made indicating that practitioners are involved in "mental" health care, as opposed to health care in general. Practicing (clinical) psychologists are not limited to the field of just "mental" health, and the distinction is not actually meaningful.

3. I am also going to revert back in the use of the distinction between those psychologists who are scientists and those who actually apply the science. The use of the terms scholar, scientist, professional and practitioner are well established in the field as having meaning. The references for this are to the "Vail" and "Boulder" conferences, both of which have articles in Wikipedia and both of which are essential foundations for the definition of a psychologist. See: Scientist–practitioner model and Practitioner-scholar model

4. Finally, I am going to revert back in the language indicating that the public typically encounters and thinks of psychologists as being clinical and counseling types.

I don't think I'm going to get to this today, and I will follow with additional discussion as needed when I make the changes.Pgm8693 (talk) 00:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I hope this potential new version takes into account that not all psychologists study humans, and that there are PhD psychologists at Universities for example that have nothing to do with clinical and counselling practice. It would be good if any big change like that, maybe we could come up with wording here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Dbrodbeck: Your comment highlights the problem with trying to define a "psychologist" in terms of what psychologists do, rather than what they are. You are absolutely correct, some study rats rather than humans, some study machines (e.g., artificial intelligence) and some just write about math and research methods. Even on the applied side of the house, there are professionals whose work has nothing to do with counseling and therapy ... industrial/organizational psychologists are the best example. The field of psychology is defined elsewhere in Wikipedia. It's a big tree with a lot of limbs and branches. This article answers the question: What is a psychologist? ... if it tries to go down the path of "what is psychology?" or "what do psychologists do?," there is no end of side roads that need to be followed.

Another thing about how this article was changed: If it starts out by saying that "a psychologist is someone who studies the mind and human behavior," then it has included my barber and my bartender as part of the definition. Pgm8693 (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

One more thing for Dbrodbeck: the term "social scientist" is commonly used as an umbrella term to distinguish certain fields (including psychology) from the "natural sciences." The distinctions and definitions are problematic in many ways ... the distinction between "hard" and "soft" science is problematic as well. The wikipedia articles on natural and social science are troubled. That having been said, it is a common convention to describe psychology as a "social science." Psychology is a science, but it is generally understood as not being rocket science.Pgm8693 (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

(i hope this is an OK section to post this)..Note that I am speaking on behalf of the US only & NOT Canada.I have not researched Canada. If Canadian regulations are different then maybe the countries should be under separate headings... Within the second full paragraph under the heading 'US and Canada' there is a statement made re: an exception made for school psychologists to be referred to as psychologists regardless of their degree level ie M.A. or Doctorate. If my interpretation is correct I believe then that this statement is incorrect. On the APA's website it clearly states that for an individual to identify themself as a psycholgist he/she must hold a doctorate level degree. I agree ( & have found evidence to support) that people with a masters degree can work in the field of school psychology however they cannot call themselves or be called psychologists. I would like to change the wording to reflect this. Can we eliminate the sentence that reads "The exception to this is the profession of a school psychologist who can be certified by boards of education to practice and use the title "psychologist." Can we reframe the idea to read something like 'in the field of school psychology the board of education in some states can certify persons to practice psychology in a school setting, however under no circumstances can they refer to themselves or be called psycholgoists. (AddictionPsychologistFrank (talk) 20:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC))

List of fields and psychologists

I am putting this here to get some input before I go further with my list of psychologists (as no one, understandably, has made a comment on that discussion page). I have broken it down the way I did for clarity and because I feel that it is important as a discipline to make sure it is clear who and what a psychologist is, as opposed to who adds to psychological knowledge. Also, I thought of adding lists of eminent psychologists from other countries that more know in their own country. That's why I put the Japan list when I stumbled upon it. So take a look.

And, I need help with the categories that go into the info box. I have posted in another place (with no response) that I want to reorganize it. I want to put 15 main categories of general fields of psychology (based on my research of textbooks, outlines, etc.) and remove the "approaches" as they are basically about psychotherapy. In order to help people classify future personages for addition, I would like to put an outline somewhere as a guide. I have started one but I really don't want to add more than 15 general catergories as the box becomes too long. I could use some amplifications of the existing categories, though.

My Sandbox3 Rsugden 20:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Saying that psychologists get a Ph.d and do "clical rotations" whereas M.D. Psychiatrists' M.D.'s don't involve hands-on clinical training is proof that the writer doesn't know anything about the nature of medical school, which is 70-80% hands-on medicine, including the4 to 8 years of residency and fellowship time, meaning in the clinic/hospital, and the rest didactic testing(first two years of medical school plus in-house exams plus harse board exams, etc). Please describe it correctly or don't describe it at all; you are misleading people. Also, Sigmunf Freud and some of the others thatvwere mentiones were psychiatrists! Steve Carpenter, M.D.

Freud was a psychologist in the broader meaning of the term. He was a theorist who contributed to the body of knowledge we know as psychology - even though he was not licensed as a psychologist. Here is the very first sentence of the article: "A psychologist is a scientist and/or clinician who studies psychology, the systematic investigation of the human mind, including behavior and cognition." Then in the next section of the article it explains more completely that the word "psychologist" has two meanings - the broadest of the meanings can include psychiatrists, social workers, researchers, or others if they contribute to, or practice in the body of knowledge we call psychology. The narrower of the two meanings refers to the license that a person has. The article discusses licensing but it isn't about licensing alone. Steve 07:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: this is my 1st experience on wiki. any advice is appreciated. I'd like to make some suggestions. 1)In the first full paragraph (below the 3 bullets)it discusses the 56 divisions of the APA. This link does not take the reader directly to the 'divisions'. By deleting the current link and inserting a link that does take the reader directly to the 'divisions' would allow for more efficient validity of the information. 2)In the same paragraph the sentence reads "...are many different types of psychologists as reflected in the 56 divisions...." The divisions are merely divisions and are not necessarily a list of the types of psychologists. Yes, some types of psychologists are listed, but there are some existing types of psychologists that are not reflected by the 'division title' alone.(AddictionPsychologistFrank (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC))

Regarding the Info Page that was mentioned a few edits above...I think the posting of the 'categories of psychology' is a good idea as it would help to further educate the public about our field. The author speaks of including only 15 categories (as additional is cumbersome). APA recognizes 17 categories. If we are going to list 15 why not include all of them. Another approach to this idea would be to create a link to APA's site which would inevibly provide the reader with detail about each category as well. Or is it considered incorrect via Wiki users to create links to credible sources rather than paraphrase large quantities of info on the wiki site itself? (AddictionPsychologistFrank (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC))

the controversy about the usefulness of psychology

there are well-known groups who believe that much of "psychology" is ineffective, or even harmful. psychologists are also the ones most likely to be referred to as "quacks" (fakes, frauds). the college major is commonly joked about as being one of the easy ones. this should be included in the article at some point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.168.139 (talk) 12:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Go for it. But remember that you need to provide reliable citations for your conjecture. Mark D Worthen PsyD 16:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Non-Exclusive Definition of Psychology

I've seen more than one person read a definition of "psychologist" and conclude, "Oh, psychologists are the ONLY ones who can evaluate, diagnose, or treat mental disorders!" I doubt this is true anywhere. In my state (Oregon), evaluating, diagnosing, and treating mental disorders is legitimate for psychologists, psychiatrists, psychiatric nurse practitioners, clinical social workers, counselors, and marriage and family therapists. This is a significant error, so I felt it necessary to add a clarification right after the definition.

On other notes, I noticed in the section for the USA on "Licensing and Regulation" that APA membership was discussed first, though it's pretty much irrelevant to the topic at hand. But I just moved it to the bottom rather than deleting it. (A section on licensing and regulation really needs to talk about licensing and regulation in its first paragraph!) RobertPlamondon (talk) 03:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Not all research psychologists are social sceintists

I am not sure the term social scientist would apply to Endel Tulving, Brenda Milner or Sara Shettleworth. Indeed, fields like perception, sensation, neuroscience, cognition etc are not really social sciences. What do others think?Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree. Many psychologists (for example) do vision science, but I would not call these people social scientists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.68.142 (talk) 23:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Multiple Issues - Improve Quality to Clearly Satisfy B-Class Criteria

I added a Multiple Issues banner, and changed this article from B-class to C-class for WikiProject Psychology, as it clearly does not meet the Project's six B-class criteria. Given that this is an article of Top importance for WikiProject Psychology (and High importance for WikiProject Occupations), there should be little doubt about it meeting B-class criteria before we designate it as B-class.

Along those lines, I ask that you consider focusing your editing efforts on improving this article in each of those six areas, and discuss such quality-focused improvements (including potential edits for which one seeks feedback) here in this section. I commit to doing the same.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 05:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I also changed the WikiProject Medicine quality rating to C-class. (See: Change the article, 'Psychologist', from B-class to C-class? on the WikiProject Medicine Talk page.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I've begun doing extensive copyediting work on this article and have also done some work reorganizing the lead paragraph. Over the next few days, I plan to continue working and am going to try and weed out some of the repetitive information. Feel free to check my work or make suggestions as I go along. -MadelineGrace17 (talk) 13:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Psychologist. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hpc-uk.org/aboutregistration/aspirantgroups/psychologists/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070410005200/http://www.antiochla.edu/programs_map_options.shtml to http://www.antiochla.edu/programs_map_options.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090310204328/http://www.enamp.org/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=4 to http://www.enamp.org/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=4
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.psichi.org/pubs/articles/article_171.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150930103535/http://www.apa.org/support/education/accreditation/importance.aspx to http://www.apa.org/support/education/accreditation/importance.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070404120746/http://www.aamft.org/faqs/index_nm.asp to http://www.aamft.org/faqs/index_nm.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061214135515/http://www.abpp.org/abpp_certification_specialties.htm to http://www.abpp.org/abpp_certification_specialties.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070406224513/http://bbs.ca.gov/lic-req2.htm to http://www.bbs.ca.gov/lic-req2.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:53, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Table of Contents

Has anyone else noticed that the table of contents isn't properly reflecting the headings and subheadings in the article? I've checked to make sure the formatting and everything is correct, and I can't find anything out of place. I've researched how to fix this and haven't found anything. Does anyone know how to make subheadings show up in the table of contents? MadelineGrace17 (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

There was a {{TOC-limit|2}} template limiting the depth of the table of contents, later removed in this edit by Alexwho314. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:28, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Psychologist. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070406224513/http://bbs.ca.gov/lic-req2.htm to http://www.bbs.ca.gov/lic-req2.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131024133229/http://www.hkadcp.com.hk/ to http://www.hkadcp.com.hk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Not all Psychologists are mental health professionals

The opening line stated "A psychologist is a mental health professional who evaluates and studies behavior and mental processes". This is not true and it is not supported by the citation provided. Psychologists study both normal and abnormal behavior. I have changed this to match the citation that was provided. "A psychologist studies normal and abnormal mental states from cognitive, emotional, and social processes and behavior by observing, interpreting, and recording how individuals relate to one another and to their environments" (Here). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.1.202.203 (talk) 18:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Good call oh anonymous editor. ;0)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 04:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Italy

I do not speak or read Italian (my loss, as it is a beautiful language), but I was curious if the newly added material regarding psychologists in Italy - Psychologist#Italy - is consistent with the Psychologist article on Italian Wikipedia - Psicologo.

I posted a request for help at

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussione:Psicologo#Please_help_review_the_psychologist_article_on_psychology_in_Italy

Below is a rough translation (using Google Translate) of pertinent sections of the Italian Psychologist article.

it.wikipedia excerpt English translation

In Italy, the profession of Psychologist is a health profession, ordered by the State with specific legislative provisions [6]. For the Italian law establishing the profession (Law 18/02/89, No. 56 "Ordination of the profession of psychologist") [7], the profession of Psychologist includes "the use of cognitive tools and intervention for prevention, the diagnosis, the activities of habilitation-rehabilitation and psychological support for the person, the group, the social organizations and the communities.It also includes the activities of experimentation, research and teaching in this field ".

To become a psychologist you need to be a graduate (degree V.O. in psychology, or master's degree LM-51) and pass a State Exam (divided into 4 tests) after completing a 12 month internship. You must then register on the Professional Register if you intend to carry out the related activity.

Section A and Section B are established in the Professional Register of the Order of Psychologists:

the members of Section A have the professional title of "Psychologist";

the members of Section B are entitled to the professional title of "Psychologist iunior", which can be accessed after obtaining the three-year degree in the psychological field (class L-24), the performance of a six-month internship and a specific State Examination. The members of Section B have some limitations on the professional activities that they can perform independently, as outlined in Law 170/13.

The psychologist deals with a series of interventions in different professional fields (experimental, educational, psychosocial, organizational, neuropsychological, applied psychology, etc.); he also deals with psychological counseling (counseling), psychopathology and clinical psychology, intervening in situations, personal and relational, which generate suffering and distress.

The qualification of a psychologist does not qualify for the practice of psychotherapy; the professional role of Psychotherapist is open to psychologists and physicians, who have attained additional training requirements (four-year post-graduate specialization, in a public or private school recognized by MIUR, and consequent "annotation" on the Register).

At present (December 2017) in Italy there are over 105,000 psychologists, almost all enrolled in Section A of the Register (there are about 280 members in the Register B) [8].

There may be possible overlaps between the psychologist, psychiatry, and other professional figures whose competences and possible acknowledgments depend on the legislation of the various nations. Some overlaps mainly concern the counselor, the psychotherapist, the psychoanalyst and the family mediator.

In Italy the counselor is an equal professional figure, corresponding to university and parallel courses starting from graduation to post-graduate courses and research doctorates, although these are not necessary for the free exercise of the profession; the opinion of the National Council of the Order of Psychologists is that the "counseling" exercised by non-psychologists may overlap with the typical professional acts reserved for Psychologists [9], while the opinion of the National Council of Psychotherapists is that the specialization of two professions, although similar from an interventionist point of view, are based on different theoretical positions. The professional figure of the psychotherapist counselor is registered by national registers such as the Register of Italian Counseling Counseling Italy and the Italian Association for Counseling. Both registries follow international guidelines, as described in Division 17, Psychological Counseling Society, the APA - American Psychology Association (1) and the ACA - American Counseling Association:

"Psychological counseling is a specialty of professional psychology that facilitates personal and interpersonal functioning throughout life.The specialty pays special attention to emotional, social, professional, educational, health, development and organizational issues (Society of Counseling Psychology, APA 17th Division). "

"Professional counseling is a professional relationship that allows different individuals, families and groups to achieve mental health, wellness, education and career goals (American Counseling Association)."

Article. 348 of the Italian Penal Code provides for and punishes anyone who exercises a profession for the exercise of which admission and registration to special registers or lists is required, without having been authorized by law. In the case of the figure of the psychologist, different judgments have been issued for greater protection of the profession. Above all in order to discern the practices of the professional psychologist from several other figures who may incur the offense of abusive exercise of the profession. Below is a list of some of these sentences.

Decision of the Court of Cassation n.39339 / 2017 [10]:

«It constitutes an abusive exercise of a profession: the activity [...] that carries out in-depth interviews on intimate aspects of patients' lives, to diagnose psychological problems that may be the cause of the complaints they have complained of» [11].

«Anyone who deals with people with psychological disorders (anxiety, phobias, depressions) with interviews and anamnesis to link psychological causes and physical disorders [12] or with consultations for character and relationship problems, supported by therapeutic pathways, sessions, constitutes an abusive profession. interviews and hypnotic practices [13] or with the re-enactment of past experiences [14] ».

Finally, "teleologically oriented psychotherapeutic activity can qualify as an abusive exercise of the profession of psychologist, regardless of the way in which the activity is carried out and requires that it has as its presupposition the diagnosis and as a goal the treatment of psychic disorders. [...] It is not necessary that the unqualified subject uses one of the methodologies of the psychotherapeutic profession, but it is sufficient that his action affects the psychic sphere of the patient with the aim of inducing a modification, which could be harmful » .

Ruling of 17/11/2015 TAR Lazio [15]: «the gradation of psychological distress presupposes a diagnostic competence that is not recognized peacefully by counselors and that psychological problems, even outside clinical contexts, fall within the competence of the health profession of the psychologist».

Judgment of the Court of Cassation n. 767/2006 [16]: is reserved for psychologists any activity in which the psychological evaluation aspect is so evident (as a control of anxiety, aggression, sociability, leadership) that it can be defined as a real psychological diagnosis or aptitude assessment.

Judgment of the Court of Cassation n. 17702/2004 [17]: "the activity of dialogue with its customers, aimed at clarifying any psychological disturbances and also to provide advice [...] constitutes an activity of diagnosis and therapy that, despite the generality of the indications contained in the professional law 18 February 1989, n. 56, is certainly intimately connected to the profession of psychologist, constituting an expression of the specific competence and the patrimony of knowledge of psychology ".

If you know any Italian psychologists or someone otherwise knowledgeable about the profession in Italy, please ask them if they might help check the accuracy of the Italy section here on the English Wikipedia's Psychologist article. Nothing against the anonymous author of this section--I personally appreciate the contribution! It might be completely accurate, although perhaps would benefit from some copy editing(?).   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 05:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the report. Various incorrect information has been included. The counselor, in Italy, has no regulation and is not a psychologist or psychotherapist. In Italy the counseling activity is recognized, but not the counselor figure. This activity is typically conducted by the psychologist and many judgments seem to reserve the activity exclusively for this profession. However, to date, in Italy the National Council of the Order of Psychologists does not recognize the figure of the counselor and believes that counseling is typical and reserved for psychologists. . In the future I will add the section, correctly. Thank you, --Dapifer (talk) 11:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)