The purpose of an article review is to provide the academic community with a description, summary, and evaluation of the completed work. For the article review, students will assume the role of an expert who is critically evaluating contemporary research in the field of psychology. Students will incorporate material from across the course, analyzing and applying theories and principles of psychology, into a cohesive and well-written article review. This learning activity will facilitate the development of research skills, critical thinking, and writing skills that are necessary to success in the field of psychology. The article for review was chosen in Week Two of the course and must be used in this review. Carefully read the selected article, and then write the Article Review.
Begin with a well-written introduction to the article that:
Analyzes the article and identifies the professional area of psychology it represents
Assesses the roles of psychology professionals within this area and describes whether or not the article clearly and correctly represents these roles.
Evaluate the theoretical perspective on which the study is based
Detail the hypotheses presented in the study or the relationship of interest
Describe the sample(s) presented in the study (how participants were obtained, selected, sample size, etc.)
Discuss where the study was conducted: university setting (lab), organization (field), etc.
Examine the ethical concerns in the study using the APA Ethical Principles and Code of Conduct as a guide.
Summarize the results of the study. Be certain to specify the findings and whether or not the hypotheses were supported.
Analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the study (usually found in the discussion section of the article).
Evaluate possible contemporary applications of the results within the article
Create a conclusion that includes a synopsis of professional insights about the study.
In the creation of the Article Review, it is paramount to include information in the form of peer-reviewed research to support any statements made. A minimum of five peer-reviewed articles, not including the article chosen for this assignment, are required for this paper.
Here's the article I need to be talking about. It's hard to understand and I need 3-5 pages. Any other required articles I will provide
How special are the specialties? Workplace settings in counseling
and clinical psychology in the United States
Greg J. Neimeyera*, Jennifer M. Taylora
, Douglas M. Wearb and
Department of Psychology, University of Florida, P.O. Box 112250, Gainesville, FL
32611, USA; b
Psychology and Community Counseling Clinic, Antioch University Seattle,
Seattle, WA 98121, USA; c
Department of Educational Sciences, Division of Psychological
Counseling and Guidance, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey
(Received 1 February 2010; final version received 18 February 2011)
How special are the specialties? Although clinical and counseling psychology
each have distinctive origins, past research suggests their potential
convergence across time. In a survey of 5666 clinical and counseling
psychologists, the similarities and differences between their workplace
settings were examined during early-, mid-, and late-career phases to
explore the distinctiveness of the two specialties. Overall, clinical and
counseling psychologists reported markedly similar workplace settings.
However, some significant differences remained; a greater proportion of
counseling psychologists reported working in counseling centers, while a
greater proportion of clinical psychologists reported working in medical
settings. In addition, during late-career, substantially more counseling and
clinical psychologists worked in independent practice contexts than in
community mental health centers, medical settings, academia, or university
counseling centers. Findings are discussed in relation to the ongoing
distinctiveness of the two specialties and the implications of this for training
and service in the field of professional psychology.
Keywords: clinical psychology; counseling psychology; workplace settings
Recognized as distinct specialties by the American Psychological Association,
clinical and counseling psychology each have distinct histories, intersecting applications,
and longstanding concerns regarding their continuing, or diminishing,
differences. This article explores these issues and examines the contemporary
similarities and differences between these two specialties as reflected in their
workplace settings. Workplace settings are examined at early, mid, and late career
in order to determine whether differences vary by cohort in a way that might reflect
either on their enduring or diminishing differences over time.
Enduring or diminishing differences?
Historically, the specialties of clinical and counseling psychology have developed
from different origins and formed distinctly different trajectories as a result
*Corresponding author. Email:***@******.***
ISSN 0951–5070 print/ISSN 1469–3674 online
2011 Taylor & Francis
(Munley, Duncan, McDonnell, & Sauer, 2004). Clinical psychology drew heavily
from the mental health movement that emphasized psychological dysfunction,
disability, and rehabilitation (McFall, 2006). Its alignment with the medical model,
which places a premium on assessment, diagnosis, and treatment within a broad
range of hospital and community contexts, reflects a coherent extension of the
specialty across time (Tipton, 1983). Counseling psychology, by contrast, derived
largely from the vocational guidance movement that emphasized the productive
matching of a person to his or her work environment in the interest of optimizing
performance and satisfaction (McFall, 2006; Munley et al., 2004). Counseling
psychology’s enduring commitment to vocational psychology, personal adjustment,
multiculturalism, and social justice (Neimeyer & Diamond, 2001; Tipton, 1983) can
be seen as an ongoing testament to the person–environment fit that animated its
origins over a century ago (Whiteley, 1980).
These historical differences are reflected in a range of contemporary distinctions
between the two specialties, as well (Munley et al., 2004). Longstanding literatures
have addressed the enduring distinctions between clinical and counseling psychology
training programs in relation to their theoretical commitments (Norcross &
Prochaska, 1982; Ogunfowora & Drapeau, 2008) and their training models
(Korman, 1974; Norcross, Kohout, & Wicherski, 2005), and have sought to see
whether these differences translate into differential internship placements (Brems
& Johnson, 1996; Neimeyer & Keilin, 2007; Neimeyer, Rice, & Keilin, 2009;
Shivy, Mazzeo, & Sullivan, 2007) or workplace experiences (Owens, Moradi, &
Early work concerning their theoretical preferences noted substantial differences
between clinical and counseling psychology. Some of the most preferred orientations
within the field of counseling psychology, such as Rogerian, humanistic and existential,
were among the least preferred orientations within clinical psychology (Norcross
& Prochaska, 1982; Watkins, Lopez, Campbell, & Himmell, 1986). By contrast,
behavioral and psychodynamic theories have been found to be preferred within
clinical training programs (Bechtoldt, Norcross, Wyckoff, Pokrywa, & Campbell,
2001). These theoretical differences have been noted among students and practitioners
(Cassin, Singer, Dobson, & Altmaier, 2007), as well as among the
training directors in these respective specialties (Norcross, Sayette, Mayne, Karg,
& Turkson, 1998).
Other work, however, has suggested diminishing differences between the
specialties in this regard over time (Zook & Walton, 1989). The majority of students
and professionals within both of these specialties recently have been found to identify
themselves as eclectic, integrative, or cognitive-behavioral (Bechtoldt et al., 2001),
for example, with only modest differences in relation to identification with
psychoanalytic, behavioral, or humanistic orientations. The recent work of
Ogunfowora and Drapeau (2008) reported no significant differences between the
two specialties in relation to any of the theoretical orientations they studied,
including humanistic, psychodynamic, behavioral, or biological approaches.
In addition to exploring potential theoretical differences, research on the
distinctiveness of clinical and counseling psychology has also noted increasing
distinctions in relation to their underlying training models. Historically, both clinical
and counseling psychology positioned themselves beneath the scientist–practitioner
training model (Norcross, Castle, Sayette, & Mayne, 2004). With its distinctive
emphasis on the integration of science and practice, the Boulder Model (1949)
44 G.J. Neimeyer et al.
dominated the field professional of training within both specialties until the
introduction of the Scholar–Practitioner model that arose from the Vail conference
(1973). The scholar–practitioner model was introduced as an alternative to the
scientist–practitioner model (Korman, 1974), placing primary emphasis on professional
training and on the interpretation and application of research, rather than its
generation or dissemination.
The scholar–practitioner model of training has proliferated rapidly within clinical
psychology, but not within counseling psychology (Norcross et al., 2005). Today, the
modal degree conferred in the field of clinical psychology is a Psy.D. degree, which
serves as a strong testament to the appeal of the scholar–practitioner model within
the field of clinical psychology. By contrast, counseling psychology has retained its
longstanding commitment to the scientist–practitioner training model, viewing it as
core to its identity as a specialty (Stoltenberg et al., 2000). Unlike clinical psychology,
counseling psychology has only two Psy.D. programs, for example, and has regularly
reaffirmed its longstanding commitment, the Boulder training model (Meara et al.,
1988; Murdock, Alcorn, Heesacker, & Stoltenberg, 1998).
A number of researchers have sought to explore the implications of these
differences between clinical and counseling psychology and to determine whether
or not they translate into differential outcomes. Taylor and Neimeyer (2009), for
example, found qualitative differences in mentoring between clinical and counseling
psychology training programs. Students in counseling programs were generally more
satisfied and reported higher levels of socioemotional mentoring, but somewhat
lower levels of research productivity. Brems and Johnson (1996) studied the
internship placements of clinical and counseling students and found that more
clinical students were placed in health science centers than were counseling students,
whereas more counseling students were placed in university counseling centers, and
these findings were supported in a 30-year retrospective of internship placements
within the field of counseling psychology in the United States (Neimeyer & Keilin,
2007). The recent work of Neimeyer et al. (2009) extends these findings.
In comparing the internship placements for an entire cohort group of clinical and
counseling psychology students, they found differences that mirrored previous
findings; against a background of considerable similarity, clinical psychology
students nonetheless were significantly more likely to obtain internships in hospital
and medical center contexts, whereas counseling psychologists more commonly were
placed within counseling center contexts.
Some provisional evidence also supports the idea that these differences may
translate into workplace differences, as well. Watkins et al. (1986), for example,
found that counseling psychologists were more often employed in counseling centers
and academic departments, whereas clinical psychologists were more often found in
private practice and medical settings (see also Watkins, Schneider, Cox, & Reinberg,
1987), findings that were largely replicated by the subsequent work of Zook and
Walton (1989) and Brems and Johnson (1996). Likewise, Bechtoldt et al. (2001)
found that clinical psychologists were more likely to be employed in private practice,
hospitals and medical schools, while counseling psychologists were more likely to be
employed in counseling centers, differences that have been noted in more recent
research, as well (Mogan & Cohen, 2008).
Despite these differences, however, there is longstanding concern that counseling
psychology may be losing ground in relation to preserving the distinctiveness of its
specialization. The sometimes subtle differences in theoretical orientations within
Counselling Psychology Quarterly 45
counseling and clinical, for example, occur against the background of substantial
theoretical similarity (Cassin et al., 2007). And, while differences in training models
clearly persist, a number of researchers have asked, ‘‘Does the model matter?’’ and
some concluded that it may not (cf. Neimeyer et al., 2007; Rodolfa, Kaslow, Stewart,
Keilin, & Baker, 2005).
The convergence of the specialties is reflected most clearly, perhaps, in the
recognition that most counseling psychology graduates do not emphasize their
distinctiveness. Instead, they refer to themselves generically as ‘‘clinical practitioners’’
(Watkins et al., 1986), a finding that raises additional concerns about the
diminishing distinctiveness of the specialties in the professional marketplace. In fact,
Mosher (1980) and Fitzgerald and Osipow (1986) suggest that counseling psychology
may either become extinct or simply become absorbed into clinical psychology, most
notably because psychologists from both camps are experiencing a convergence
in terms of their workplace settings. The purpose of this research was to examine the
workplace settings of clinical and counseling psychologists for the evidence of this
convergence or of their continuing distinctiveness. By examining these workplace
differences within early- mid- and late-career professionals, we hoped to determine
whether any differences between the specialties have increased or decreased across
the various cohort groups.
In cooperation with the State, Provincial and Territorial Psychological Associations
(SPTAs), an Internet survey of psychologists was conducted across North America.
Executive Directors of the Associations were solicited through the Council of
Executives of State and Provincial Psychological Associations (CESPPA). Those
who agreed to participate were provided with an email to forward to their
memberships that described the nature of the study and included a link to the
informed consent and survey, which could be completed and submitted online. This
survey was part of a larger study that examined broader perceptions of professional
development (Neimeyer, Taylor, & Wear, 2009), which included a range of
demographic questions, such as the area of one’s degree type (clinical or counseling
psychology), workplace setting (Community Mental Health Center, Hospital or
Medical Setting, Independent Practice, University Academic Department, University
Counseling Center or Mental Health Service, or Other), and the year the highest
degree was conferred, among other demographic questions.
A total of 5666 psychologists (clinical n ¼ 4182; counseling n ¼ 1484) responded
to the survey. Fifty-four of the 58 licensing jurisdictions were represented, for a
participation rate of 93.1% of the jurisdictions. The overall membership of the
SPTAs is approximately 40,000 members, meaning that the current sample
represented approximately 14.2% of the total population of the collective memberships.
In all, 58.5% of the participants were women and 41.5% were men. The mean
age of participants was 52.7 (SD ¼ 11.79), which closely approximates the mean age
of APA members (54.3 years). The majority of the sample reported their ethnicity as
White/Caucasian (91.7%), followed by Hispanic (2%), African American (1.7%),
Asian (1.2%), two or more races (1.0%), Other (0.8%), American Indian or Alaskan
(0.2%), or Native Hawaiian (0.2%); 1.1% declined to report their ethnicities.
46 G.J. Neimeyer et al.
The percentages of ethnic minorities in the sample closely approximate the
percentages of psychologists represented in the membership of APA, where 2.1%
are Hispanic, 2% are Asian, 1.8% are African American, and 0.2% are American
Indian, and 0.4% are multiracial (Center for Psychology Workforce Analysis and
Research, 2007). In terms of workplace setting, the majority of participants described
themselves as working in independent practice (56.6%), followed by hospital/medical
settings (15.0%), community mental health settings (7.6%), academic settings
(6.9%), university counseling center settings (5.0%), or other (8.9%). Participants
represented a relatively experienced sample of psychologists, with the median date
of licensure being 1989 (SD ¼ 10.97). Approximately 16.4% of participants (n ¼ 926)
were considered in their ‘‘early career’’ phase (0–7 years post-highest degree), 39.1%
of participants (n ¼ 2210) were considered in their ‘‘mid-career’’ phase (8–20 years
post-highest degree), and 44.5% of participants (n ¼ 2518) were considered in their
‘‘late career’’ phase (21 or more years post-highest degree).
Participants were asked to read the Informed Consent describing the study. After
indicating their consent to participate, individuals were linked to the survey.
Participants completed and submitted their surveys online anonymously. The survey
included questions regarding specialty (clinical or counseling) and current workplace
Results and discussion
Chi-square statistics were conducted to determine if there were significant differences
in workplace settings across the career phases of those who graduated from clinical
and counseling psychology programs. Pearson Chi-square statistics indicated
significant differences between the two specialties in relation to workplace settings
in early career,
(5, N ¼ 907) ¼ 27.77, p50.001, in mid-career
(5, N ¼ 2175) ¼
65.72, p50.001, and in late career,
(5, N ¼ 2461) ¼ 67.50, p50.001, phases. These
differences emerged against the backdrop of substantial similarities between the
workplace profiles of the two specialties, however.
As illustrated in Figure 1, the profiles of workplace settings for clinical and
counseling psychologists were generally quite similar at each career stage. For
example, within community mental health centers (CMHCs), 13.7% of clinical
psychologists and 14.8% of counseling psychologists in the early career phase
reported working in this setting. Likewise, in mid-career, 7% of clinical psychologists
and 8.3% of counseling psychologists worked in this setting, percentages that
diminished somewhat during late career both for the clinical (5.6%) of clinical
psychologists work in CMHCs, and counseling psychologists (4.9%).
Unlike CMHC’s, however, more substantial workplace differences occurred in
relation to hospital or medical settings, particularly in early career. At early career,
nearly one-quarter (24.4%) of clinical psychologists reported working in hospitals
or medical settings, compared with 17.7% of the counseling psychologists. At midcareer,
the percentages were comparable for clinical (16.8%) and counseling (17.3%).
At late career, both groups showed a substantial decline, though the decline within
Counselling Psychology Quarterly 47
clinical psychology (13.2%) was greater than the decline within counseling
For both clinical and counseling psychologists, independent practice was the
predominant workplace setting across all stages of the career. However, unlike all
other workplace settings, the percentage of clinical and counseling psychologists
in independent practice appears to have increased, rather than to have decreased,
from early to late career. Nearly twice as many clinical psychologists in late career
(66.4%) reported working in independent practices when compared to clinical
psychologists working in independent practices in earlier stages of their career
(38.7%). Similar findings are observed with counseling psychologists, where 60% of
late career counseling psychologists reported working in independent practices,
compared with only 35.4% of early career counseling psychologists. It is noteworthy,
however, that a higher percentage of clinical psychologists reported working in
independent practice settings during each of the three career stages.
Regarding academic setting, similarities between clinical and counseling psychologists
were again found. In the early career stage 7.7% of the clinical
psychologists reported working in an academic setting, compared with 5.7% in
mid-career and 6.7% in late-career. For counseling psychologists, the percentage
of academic work settings was similarly consistent across early (7%), mid (7.2%),
and late (9%) career phases though, as reported by Cassin et al. (2007), a larger
percentage of counseling psychologists were employed in academic settings overall
(Watkins et al., 1987).
Perhaps, the most striking differences between clinical and counseling psychology
occurred in relation to university counseling center settings, where counseling
psychologists predominated at each career stage. In each phase, the percentage of
counseling psychologists working in counseling center contexts was more than three
times that of clinical psychologists. Counseling psychologists in early (16.0%), mid
(11.6%), and late (8.2%) phases of their careers were consistently more strongly
represented in this work setting compared to clinical psychologists (5.6% in early,
3.2% in mid, and 1.8% in late career), though both groups showed a decline
in workplace representation from early to late career.
Early Career Clinical
Late Career, Clinical
Early Career, Counseling
50 Late Career, Counseling
Community Hospital or Academic Setting
Figure 1. Workplace differences by specialty across career trajectories.
48 G.J. Neimeyer et al.
The overall pattern of these results provides qualified support for the distinctiveness
of clinical and counseling psychology in relation to the workplace settings
of the professionals within those fields. Against a backdrop of substantial similarity,
the differences that did emerge were consistent with the distinctive values of the
respective specialties. Clinical psychologists, for example, were more strongly
represented in medical and hospital settings, at least early in their careers, and
counseling psychologists were more heavily represented in counseling center settings
throughout their careers.
This profile of workplace settings may help inform students who seek graduate
training in professional psychology. This could prove valuable given the recent work
of Cassin et al. (2007) which suggests that students’ anticipations regarding their
future employment may diverge substantially from the actual settings in which
graduates find employment. Cassin et al. (2007), for example, found that 33% of
counseling psychology graduate students anticipated academic careers, whereas the
data from this study indicate that in early career, only 5.7% of counseling
psychologists had academic placements. Likewise, only 7.7% of early career clinical
psychologists were in academic contexts, compared with 20.1% of the clinical
students who anticipated academic careers (Cassin et al., 2007). By contrast, in
relation to independent practice, the picture is reversed. Fewer counseling students
(24.2%) and clinical students (26.6%) anticipate going into independent practice
than are represented in early career, where 35.4% of the counseling psychologists
and 38.7% of the clinical psychologists find employment. Thus, this study suggests
that students may benefit from gaining a more realistic sense of their workplace
probabilities and, perhaps, even utilize this information in their decision making
regarding the particular specialty they prefer to pursue. For aspiring graduate
students who want to work within a counseling center setting, for example, it may be
useful to know that counseling psychologists are disproportionately employed by
counseling centers, and this may provide useful information when considering which
graduate schools to apply to.
It is important to emphasize, however, that clinical and counseling psychologists
are represented in each of the workplace settings included in this study, so
employment opportunities are available to both across all of these workplace
contexts. Moreover, with few distinctions, the profiles of workplace settings were
quite similar for clinical and counseling psychologist across the various cohort
groups. Although clear cohort-related shifts occurred, with more professionals in
independent practice in late career (cf. Zook & Walton, 1989), these shifts did not
appear to vary by specialty. In short, there was no evidence that the differences
between clinical and counseling psychology were either substantially greater or lesser
in early than in late career. Evidence of stronger late career differences, but
diminishing mid and early career differences, might have been consistent with
the idea that the differences between the specialties are diminishing across time
(Fitzgerald & Osipow, 1986). However, no such evidence was found within this
study. To the contrary, the patterns of workplace settings for clinical and counseling
psychologists were largely consistent across cohort groups.
Overall, the results of this study provide qualified support for the distinctiveness
of clinical and counseling psychology, as reflected in the workplace settings of their
practitioners. While substantial differences were the exception, rather than the rule,
those differences that did emerge clearly conformed to stipulated differences between
the specialties and seemed to endure across cohort groups.
Counselling Psychology Quarterly 49
It is important to underscore, though, that the examination of workplace settings
provides only a global indicator of possible workplace differences. As Owens et al.
(2008) have demonstrated, clinical and counseling psychologists within the same
workplace setting can have strikingly different experiences and they fulfill different
functions (Tipton, 1983), as well. Within the same setting the duties that are fulfilled
and the orientations that are expressed by clinical and counseling psychologists
may be markedly different (Osipow, 1980). Zook and Walton (1989), for example,
found that while clinical psychologists more often approached their work from a
psychodynamic approach, counseling psychologists commonly utilized a humanistic
approach toward their work. Importantly, these differences would be masked in this
study where only differences in the workplace setting itself were examined, rather
than functions and orientations and perspectives expressed within that workplace.
For this reason, the results of this study are best regarded as providing a conservative
picture of the differences between the two specialties, leaving it to future work to
develop a more detailed picture of the distinctions between the specialties, not only in
relation to the places of their employment, but also in relation to the duties,
functions, and orientation that each brings to its workplaces.
In addition, it is important to underscore that the cohort differences examined
in this study do not necessarily reflect developmental differences. The fact that
substantially more clinical and counseling psychologists appear in independent
practice contexts during late career, for example, could reflect a movement across the
career trajectory away from other workplace settings and toward independent
practice. Alternatively, it may simply reflect a cohort effect, with more late-career
individuals spending their entire careers in independent practice contexts, while early
career individuals have taken positions in more diverse occupational contexts.
Although cohort differences between clinical and counseling psychology were
not evident in this sample, it nonetheless remains for future longitudinal efforts to
address any genuine developmental differences between the specialties that may have
occurred across time.
A final caveat has to do with the rapid internationalization of counseling
psychology (Munley et al., 2004; Takooshian, 2003). As the specialty of counseling
psychology makes systematic progress toward its international development (Leong
& Ponterotto, 2003; Leung, 2003), this development will likely register its effects on
workplace settings associated with professionals within this field, as well. A number
of researchers and scholars have noted important variations as a function of the
cultural adaptation of the specialty to a range of international contexts (Kavas,
Taylor, & Neimeyer, 2010; Pelling, 2004; Takooshian, 2003), and these may well be
reflected in workplace settings, as well, as the field continues its process of
globalization. Indeed, the rapid globalization of the specialty, as well as its quest to
embrace cultural diversity and variation, may become a further feature that
distinguishes it as a specialty (Neimeyer & Diamond, 2001).
Within the context of these considerations, however, this study provides
provisional evidence regarding the continuing differences between clinical and
counseling psychology training programs in relation to one of their principal
outcomes: the workplace settings of the professionals they train. Future work that
clarifies the nature and implications of these differences may contribute to a better
understanding of the contemporary distinctions between these specialties. And these
distinctions may, in turn, serve as the basis for more informed and effective decision
50 G.J. Neimeyer et al.
making on the part of students whose career interests may be shaped by the
knowledge of the contexts in which they might eventually work.
Notes on contributors
Greg J. Neimeyer received his PhD in counseling psychology from th
Submitted: 1 year ago.
Category: Long Paper (3+ pages)