Canadian Psychology © 2010 Canadian Psychological Association

2010, Vol. 51, No. 2, 133–139 0708-5591/10/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0018236

Clinical Psychology Graduate Students’ Perceptions of Their Scientific

and Practical Training: A Canadian Perspective

Daniel L. Peluso, R. Nicholas Carleton, and Gordon J. G. Asmundson

University of Regina

The scientist-practitioner model is the most commonly used training modality in Canadian clinical
psychology graduate programmes. Despite pervasive endorsement throughout Canadian psychology
programmes, there is a paucity of data available on Canadian student opinions of the model’s imple-
mentation. The current study assessed 134 students from 9 provinces with a 38-item questionnaire
developed by the Council of University Directors of Clinical Psychology for assessing students’
perceptions about the quantity, quality, and breadth of science training in their clinical psychology
doctoral programmes. Most students described their programs as providing a mix of research and clinical
focus, with slightly more weight given to research. Science training was reported as very important to
students, with indications they receive a good amount of high-quality training in science. Moreover, there
was a high level of agreement between desired levels of science training and the science training
received. Implications for future research and training are discussed.

Keywords: clinical psychology, clinical psychology graduate training, clinical psychology graduate
students, scientist-practitioner model

The primary goal of clinical psychology graduate programmes
in Canada, as expressed in many departmental mission statements,
is to train students according to the scientist-practitioner or “Boul-
der model” of training (Raimy, 1950). This model is geared toward
training students to adequately develop both scientific research and
clinical practise skills (D. Myers, 2007). Most programmes ac-
claim the model; however, each programme differs in the extent to
which the scientific or practical aspects of training are emphasised.
Moreover, incorporating a balance between research and clinical
training is indicated throughout the current Canadian Psychology
Association (CPA) guidelines for accreditation and ethical conduct
(CPA, 2002). The question of what proportion of focus should be
given to each aspect of training has been a subject of debate for
over 50 years (Aspenson et al., 1993; D. Myers, 2007). Some
Canadian researchers have argued that the scientist-practitioner
model is illusory and that each programme ultimately focuses on
whichever side—science or practise—the programme sees fit to
emphasise (Conway, 1984).
To understand the status of the scientist-practitioner model in a
Canadian context, it is necessary to understand the developmental
history of clinical psychology training in Canada. The existing
Daniel L. Peluso, R. Nicholas Carleton, and Gordon J. G. Asmundson,
Anxiety and Illness Behaviours Laboratory, University of Regina.
Gordon J. G. Asmundson is supported by a Canadian Institutes of Health
Research (CIHR) Investigator Award; R. Nicholas Carleton is supported by
a CIHR Canada Graduate Scholarship Doctoral Research Award; and
Daniel L. Peluso is supported by a SSHRC Canada Graduate Scholarship
Masters Award.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Gordon
J. G. Asmundson, Anxiety and Illness Behaviours Laboratory, University
of Regina, Regina, Saskatchewan, S4S 0A2. E-mail: gordon
.asmundson@uregina.ca
documentation regarding the early history of applied psychology is
scant; however, it is widely held that training in professional and
clinical psychology was prompted by the ending of the Second
World War (C. R. Myers, 1970). At that time, the utility of applied
psychology had been demonstrated through successful selec-
tion, training, and rehabilitation of military personnel (Vipond &
Richert, 1977; Wright, 1974). Consequently, there was increasing
demand for applied psychology in education, government, and
health sectors. Clinical training in Canada was not geared toward
professional specialisation; that is, training was encompassing
and broad, offering students training in educational, industrial, and
counselling sectors (Conway, 1984).
The status of applied psychology amongst other academic dis-
ciplines was considered suspect, largely because the psychologists
of the day paid little attention to scientific research (Wright, 1969).
In an attempt to secure status and legitimize itself as a profession
in universities, psychology programmes began adopting stronger
scientific foci. The shift was so profound that professional and
applied areas were eventually relegated to an inferior status in
favour of rigorous science and research (Conway, 1984).
Growing concern over professionalization and the development
of professional training in psychology prompted the CPA to stage
the Opinicon conference in 1960. Despite efforts to the contrary,
the conference failed to address issues of professionalism and
training, focusing instead on developing the academic side of
psychology (Gibson, 1974). It was during the Opinicon conference
that psychology was defined primarily as a science and secondarily
as a profession. This stringent operational definition served to
widen the increasing gulf between scientists and professionals
(Conway, 1984).
In May 1965, the CPA sponsored the Couchiching Conference
on Professional Psychology. The primary purpose of this gathering
was to reformulate an operational definition of professional psy-

133
134 PELUSO, CARLETON, AND ASMUNDSON
chology. The vast majority of psychologists at this conference
advocated for a more balanced approach to training that would
emphasise both academic and applied facets of training. Despite
substantial agreement, many vocal professionals remained polar-
ized on these issues. For example, some clinicians argued for a
professional training model resembling the PsyD programmes
found in the United States (Ewing, 1963; Sutherland, 1964), given
the low research productivity amongst professional psychology
graduates (Kelly & Fiske, 1950; Levy, 1962). By contrast, there
were ardent academics who argued that professional psychologists
were merely “technicians”, and advocated for a focus on rigorous
science (Conway, 1984). Despite such disagreements a consensus
was reached and the scientist-practitioner model leading to the
PhD was ultimately adopted (Webster, 1967). The clinician was
reconceptualized as a scientist-professional who should have the
ability to produce useful research. Training in clinical skills was
seen as important, but secondary to training in the theory under-
lying those skills. This second hierarchical consensus was likely
the result of therapeutic techniques regularly being invalidated
(Conway, 1984).
From 1965 to 1980, psychology programmes in Canada expe-
rienced an unprecedented growth. In a veritable explosion of
enrolment, psychology departments were rapidly becoming the
largest departments in many universities. Indeed, the number of
departments offering graduate programmes in psychology doubled
(Adair, 1981). Clinical psychology, as we know it today, experi-
enced a rebirth of sorts as a result of psychology’s rapidly bour-
geoning popularity. In 1969, of the 29 professional graduate psy-
chology programmes, 17 were in clinical psychology (Arthur,
1971), though these programmes were not accredited by the CPA,
and were substantially smaller in size than those that exist today;
currently, there are 23 CPA-accredited clinical programmes in
Canada.
The rapid expansion of clinical psychology resulted in regional
diversity regarding the adoption of the scientist-practitioner model.
For instance, French-speaking programmes in Quebec had larger
enrolments and were generally more practise-oriented than other
Canadian programmes (Conway, 1984). Furthermore, doctoral
programmes differed in the length of required internships, with
some institutions exclusively offering doctoral degrees (Conway,
1984). Reflecting this diversity in training, the relevance of the
scientist-practitioner model continued to be contested amongst
professionals and was not supported amongst nonacademic clinical
psychologists. The Boulder model was considered by some to be
culturally irrelevant to the Canadian context (Gibson, 1974), given
that the model was conceived in the United States, and would
therefore not reflect Canadian needs and culture (e.g., greater
contact between psychology and the community). As such, there
was a demand by some for a professional model that was tailored
to Canadian values and institutions. Davidson (1971) proposed the
“researcher-consultant” model that was designed to be more ger-
mane to Canadian psychology. This model advocated for a com-
munity psychology focus in which the psychologist would assess
the community’s needs, and subsequently develop and evaluate
programmes that were identified by the community (Davidson,
1981). Despite these efforts, a definition of a Canadian training
model was never fully developed; consequently, the scientist-
practitioner model became the dominant training modality. Cana-
dian regions each met their own individual needs by altering the
model to fit their requirements.
The debate regarding Canadian training models continues today.
Despite the disagreements, empirical research on the scientist-
practitioner model in Canada is scant. Indeed, implementation of
science training in clinical psychology programmes has not been
systematically studied (Merlo, Collins, & Bernstein, 2008). The
paucity of empirical research is made worse because student
opinions on the matter have largely been unsolicited. Preliminary
evidence suggests that American student opinions regarding the
scientist-practitioner model vary widely, with some being staunch
advocates and others describing it as a training anachronism
(Aspenson et al., 1993). More recently, the Council of University
Directors of Clinical Psychology (CUDCP)—a nonprofit organi-
sation whose purpose is to further graduate education in clinical
psychology programmes espousing the scientist-practitioner
model—invited American and Canadian doctoral students to par-
ticipate in a survey on their experiences. The researchers admin-
istered a rigorously developed CUDCP questionnaire to 611 clin-
ical psychology students, assessing their scientific and practical
training experiences in doctoral programmes; however, the authors
provided no indication of the percentage of Canadian respondents,
if any. Results of that study suggest that students report a fairly
balanced emphasis on science and clinical work in their pro-
grammes (Merlo et al., 2008). These two studies represent the
extent of available data on scientist-practitioner models from a
student perspective; consequently, current understanding of stu-
dent perceptions of their graduate programmes in clinical psychol-
ogy remains limited.
Given the paucity of empirically driven research in this domain,
the purpose of the current study was to administer the CUDCP
questionnaire to a large sample of Canadian students and therein
assess their experiences with the scientist-practitioner model. The
current study will address three specific purposes. First, the results
will broaden our understanding of Canadian clinical psychology
student’s training experiences. This is crucial given that the data
available in this domain from the United States is difficult to
generalise to a Canadian sample because of differences which exist
amongst clinical and counselling programmes (and the unspecified
number of Canadian participants in the Merlo et al., 2008 study).
For instance, PsyD and counselling programmes do not figure
prominently in Canada, as there is only one PsyD programme
accredited by the CPA, and only four counselling programmes
are accredited by the CPA. Second, the information will provide
students with a summation of first hand experiences with scientist-
practitioner models. Currently, students may unknowingly choose
programmes that are incongruent with their goals, thereby restrict-
ing their career paths because the relative emphasis on scientific or
practical aspects in graduate programmes is not explicitly stated
prior to enrolment (D. Myers, 2007). Third, the results will inform
existing Canadian clinical psychology programmes in Canada
about their own student perceptions.
Method
Procedure
Participants (N ⫽ 136) were recruited from the CPA student
listserve via email. The distribution of sex was highly skewed,
 TRAINING OF CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY STUDENTS
with 120 (88%) participants reporting being women (Mage ⫽ 26.9;
SD ⫽ 4.0) and only 16 (12%) reporting being men (Mage ⫽ 30.4;
SD ⫽ 6.3). This disproportion in gender is reflective of the overall
composition of graduate students, according to Canadian pro-
gramme statistics as posted on programme websites. Students
interested in participating were directed to an online survey. Par-
ticipation was restricted to clinical psychology students who were
currently enrolled in a clinical psychology programme in Canada.
Participants were informed that the study received ethical approval
from the University of Regina Research Ethics Board. Further-
more, participants were assured that all responses would be kept
confidential, and no identifying information was obtained from the
students. Education levels ranged from students in their first year
of graduate school through students in their eighth year or higher.
Program year distribution was as follows: 5% first year students,
25% second year, 17% third year, 15% fourth year, 18% fifth year,
10% sixth year, 7% seventh year, and 2% eighth year or above.
Approximately 9% of students did not disclose their year of study.
In terms of provincial representation, 52 (38%) of respondents
were enrolled in Ontario, 29 (29%) in Quebec, 17 (13%) in
Saskatchewan, 8 (6%) in Nova Scotia, 7 (5%) in British Columbia
and Manitoba, respectively, and 2 (1.5%) in each of Alberta,
Newfoundland, and New Brunswick. The sample was primarily
White (90%), with a smaller proportion of Asian (4%), South
Asian (1%), and Hispanic (2%) participants. Two (2%) partici-
pants endorsed the “other” category, and 13 (9%) chose not to
respond to the question.
Measures
Science training questionnaire. The current study employed
a 38-item questionnaire developed by the CUDCP Board of Di-
rectors to assess current students’ perceptions about the quantity,
quality, and breadth of science training in their clinical psychology
doctoral programmes (Merlo et al., 2008). The authors of this
questionnaire all serve as training directors of primarily scientist-
practitioner programmes. The authors developed a detailed expla-
nation of science training to be utilised in completing the ques-
tionnaire. Given that several competing perspectives on what
consists of “science” training—as defined by each individual pro-
gramme— exist in the literature, the authors decided to employ a
“more conventional definition of science.” (Merlo et al., 2008).
Prior to questionnaire development, science was defined as:
All research-related instruction and activities. Some examples are: (1)
courses in research design, methodology and statistics, and philoso-
phy of science, (2) required participation in research projects (e.g., a
formal, empirical Master’s Thesis or other research projects), (3) a
focus on using empirically supported treatments/assessment tech-
niques in clinical work, (4) participation in research projects being
conducted by faculty members, (5) opportunities to become involved
in conference presentations and manuscript preparation, (6) grant-
writing or other related experience, and (7) a focus on critical analysis
and review of the literature.
These seven skills were seen to comprise well-rounded science
training in clinical psychology.
Participants responded to the questionnaire using a 5-point
Likert-type scale with three different response anchors ranging
from 1 (none, not at all, or very poor) to 5 (a great amount,
135
extremely, or excellent), depending on the particular question. To
tailor the questionnaire to Canadian students, the term “qualifying
exams” was changed to “comprehensive exams”, given that the latter
term is more frequently used in Canadian programmes. Sample items
corresponding to each response choice include, “How much is science
emphasised/integrated in your programme as a whole?”; “How effec-
tive is the science training you receive for your comprehensive ex-
ams?”; and “Overall, how would you rate the quality of the science
training you receive in your graduate programme?”
Results
Emphasis on Science Training: Overall Programme
and Specific Skills
The majority of students described their programs as providing
a mix of research and clinical focus. Scores ranged from 1 ( pri-
marily clinical focus) to 5 ( primarily research focus). Approxi-
mately 47% of students reported that their program’s training
emphasised clinical and research training equally, with a mean
score of 3.2. No students reported that their program had a strictly
clinical focus, whereas 5% reported an entirely research focus.
Students also described how much emphasis was placed on
seven different skill areas of traditional science training in their
programs. Results are shown in Table 1. Students typically re-
ported that they received a good amount of training in these
specific science skills; however, more than a third (37%) of stu-
dents indicated that they received a minimal amount of training in
grant writing, and almost a third (29%) reported a minimal amount
of training in research projects being conducted by faculty mem-
bers. There were also statistically significant differences between
the years of education and the perceived focus on grant writing by
the programme, F(7, 119) ⫽ 3.58, p ⬍ .01, ␩2 ⫽ .17. Based on
Tukey’s post hoc comparisons, the first year students report re-
ceiving significantly more emphasis on grant writing than the
fourth, t(119) ⫽ 3.75, p ⬍ .01, r2 ⫽ .11, fifth, t(119) ⫽ 4.22, p ⬍
.01, r2 ⫽ .13, and sixth, t(119) ⫽ 3.48, p ⬍ .05, r2 ⫽ .09, year
students. There were no other statistically significant differences
between the groups and there were no other differences were found
based on students’ year of study in their program (all ps ⬎ .05).
Areas of Traditional Science Training
Students were also asked to report how much science is empha-
sised in six areas of their clinical psychology training, and how
much they would like science to be integrated into these areas.
These results are provided in Table 2. The emphasis on scientific
training that students reported receiving differed significantly from
their desired emphasis in two areas, including clinical placement
and practicum, wherein students wanted more emphasis, t(125) ⫽
⫺4.94, p ⬍ .001, r2 ⫽ .16, and research, wherein students wanted
less emphasis, t(125) ⫽ 2.58, p ⬍ .011, r2 ⫽ .05.
Student Opinions of Traditional Science Training
Overall, the majority of students indicated that science training
was either fairly (44%) or very (19%) important to them. Only one
respondent reported that science training was not at all important,
whereas a substantial minority (19%) answered extremely impor-
136 PELUSO, CARLETON, AND ASMUNDSON

Table 1
Students’ Perceptions of the Amount of Training in Seven Science Skills

Minimum–
maximum 1 (none) 2 (minimal 3 (fair 4 (good 5 (great
Skill M (SD) scores Mode ␹2(df) % amount) % amount) % amount) % amount) %

Required participation in
research projects 4.35 (0.84) 2–5 5 (3) ⫽ 76.31ⴱ 0 4 12 30 54
Involvement in conference
presentations and/or
manuscripts 3.67 (0.92) 2–5 4 (3) ⫽ 24.21ⴱ 0 12 28 41 19
Focus on critical
analysis/review of the
literature 3.84 (0.87) 2–5 4 (3) ⫽ 32.34ⴱ 0 6 28 42 24
Coursework in research
methodology, philosophy of
science, statistics, and so
forth 3.65 (0.86) 2–5 4 (3) ⫽ 38.76ⴱ 0 1% 29 46 15
Focus on using empirically
supported treatments in
clinical work 3.96 (0.96) 1–5 4 (4) ⫽ 64.69ⴱ 1 7 21 37 34
Participation in faculty research 3.09 (1.20) 1–5 2 (4) ⫽ 17.92ⴱ 8 28 25 24 15
Grant writing or other related
experience 2.91 (1.10) 1–5 2 (4) ⫽ 45.56ⴱ 6 39 21 26 8

Note. N ⫽ 134. These results reflect responses to the Science Training Questionnaire (Merlo, Collins, & Bernstein, 2008).
ⴱ
p ⬍ .01.

tant. In addition, most students indicated that they identify them-
selves as scientists fairly strongly (35%), very strongly (30%), or
extremely strongly (14%).
Effectiveness of Traditional Science Training
Most students reported that their science training is very
effective as indicated by chi-square analysis (see Table 3).
Specifically, areas of science training that were rated as being
the most effective were, in order, research, followed by pro-
gram as a whole, coursework, and comprehensive exams; there-
after, elective coursework and clinical work were both rated as
equally effective. Regarding the quality of science training that
they receive, the mean score was 3.9; scores ranged from 2
( poor) to 5 (excellent). Ratings for quantity of science training
were also assessed, with a mean score of 3.9; scores ranged
from 2 ( poor) to 5 (excellent). Finally, students rated the
breadth of science training that they receive, with a mean score
of 3.6, and a range of 2 ( poor) to 5 (excellent).
There was no significant correlation between ratings of the
quality of science training and number of years of study (r ⬍ .10,

Table 2
Discrepancies Between Received Versus Desired Emphasis on Science in Various Areas of Training

Minimum–
maximum 1 (none) 2 (minimal 3 (fair 4 (good 5 (great
Area M (SD) scores t(df) % amount) % amount) % amount) % amount) %

Received programme as a whole 4.12 (0.79) 2–5 t(126) ⫽ 1.75, r2 ⫽ .02 0 4 14 48 34

Desired programme as a whole 4.00 (0.75) 2–5 0 3 18 54 24

Received required coursework 3.95 (0.76) 2–5 t(126) ⬍ 0.01, r2 ⬍ .01 0 5 17 56 22

Desired required coursework 3.95 (0.69) 2–5 0 2 19 60 19

Received elective coursework 3.57 (0.93) 1–5 t(123) ⫽ –1.95, r2 ⫽ .03 2 11 30 43 15

Desired elective coursework 3.73 (0.84) 1–5 1 8 23 54 14

Received clinical work 3.38 (0.85) 1–5 t(125) ⫽ –4.94, r2 ⫽ .16ⴱ 1 12 45 33 10

Desired clinical work 3.76 (0.78) 2–5 0 6 26 52 16

Received research 4.51 (0.71) 2–5 t(125) ⫽ 2.58, r2 ⫽ .05ⴱ 0 2 8 29 62

Desired research 4.33 (0.72) 2–5 0 2 9 43 46

Received comprehensive exams 3.79 (1.08) 1–5 t(118) ⫽ 0.87, r2 ⫽ .01 5 7 20 40 28

Desired comprehensive exams 3.73 (0.90) 1–5 4 2 24 54 16

Note. N ⫽ 134. These results reflect responses to the Science Training Questionnaire (Merlo, Collins, & Bernstein, 2008).
ⴱ
Significantly different after Bonferroni adjustment (Westfall & Wolfinger, 1997).
 TRAINING OF CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY STUDENTS 137

Table 3
Perceived Effectiveness of Traditional Science Training

Minimum–
maximum 1 (none) 2 (minimal 3 (fair 4 (good 5 (great
Area M SD scores Mode ␹2(df) % amount) % amount) % amount) % amount) %

Programme as a whole 3.59 .78 1–5 4 (4) ⫽ 107.45ⴱ 1 6 35 48 9

Required coursework 3.49 .77 1–5 4 (4) ⫽ 109.10ⴱ 1 7 42 43 7
Elective coursework 3.28 .83 1–5 3 (4) ⫽ 94.87ⴱ 2 13 48 31 6
Clinical work 3.28 .90 1–5 3 (4) ⫽ 70.03ⴱ 2 16 41 34 7
Research 3.98 .76 2–5 4 (3) ⫽ 51.71ⴱ 0 2 25 47 26
Comprehensive exams 3.37 .93 1–5 4 (4) ⫽ 74.63ⴱ 5 9 38 41 8

Note. N ⫽ 134. These results reflect responses to the Science Training Questionnaire (Merlo, Collins, & Bernstein, 2008).
ⴱ
p ⬍ .01.

p ⬎ .05). This suggests student perception of the quality of their
education remains fairly constant throughout their training. As
might be expected, there was a small but statistically significant
negative correlation between the quantity or amount of science
training and years of study (r ⫽ ⫺.18, p ⬍ .05). In contrast, there
was no significant correlation between ratings of the breadth of
science training and years of study (r ⬍ .10, p ⬎ .05). The
previous two results are somewhat counterintuitive, suggesting the
possibility that students may not perceive additional time spent
with scientific training as providing additional breadth; neverthe-
less, the quality, quantity, and breadth of training are all positively
correlated (all rs ⬎ .60, all ps ⬍.01), suggesting that despite
student perceptions across time, students recognise the confluent,
supporting relationship of the three variables— quality, quantity,
and breadth of science training.
Discussion
Science has formed the foundation of training and has retained
a position of paramount importance since the early years of clinical
psychology; it continues to be inextricably linked to the training
provided in doctoral clinical psychology programmes. The vast
majority of clinical psychology programmes in Canada espouse
the scientist-practitioner model. Even amongst programmes that do
not explicitly endorse such a model, science training is deemed to
be an essential part of graduate training. Despite pervasive en-
dorsement of the scientist-practitioner model in Canada, there are
little data available on Canadian student opinions of the imple-
mentation of the scientist-practitioner model. The results of the
present study suggest that, in general, clinical psychology students
enrolled in Canadian programmes report feeling satisfied with the
level of science training they receive.
Consistent with previous research using a U.S. student sample
(Merlo et al., 2008), Canadian students reported that their training
was slightly more weighted toward research than clinical practise.
The overwhelming majority of Canadian students indicated that
they preferred a good amount of science training in their pro-
grammes, suggesting that most perceive science training to be an
integral aspect of their overall academic training. In addition,
Canadian students reported, with some exceptions, that both the
quality and quantity of the science training received was highly
congruous with their desired levels; thusly, it appears that training
programmes have been successful at integrating science into train-
ing to a degree that is consistent with student expectations. Al-
though students indicated that a fair amount of science training
was emphasised in clinical work (i.e., clinical placements and
practicum), they reported that this training was not very effective;
indeed, as 52% of students indicated that they would like a good
amount of science emphasis placed on their clinical work it ap-
pears that this is a training area in need of some modification.
Clinical work, according to this study, was defined as clinical
placements or practicum. It is difficult to determine why students
perceive their science training to be less effective in clinical
work. It may be that practicum sites are not adequately integra-
ting science into the training programmes, according to students.
Given that practising clinicians rarely conduct research (Haynes,
Lemsky, & Sexton-Radek, 1987), it may be the case that science
is not seen as a priority. Conversely, it is possible that science is
not being effectively integrated into clinical work at the university
level, because some programmes offer practicum at their institu-
tion. In any case, clinical programmes may find it particularly
worthwhile to review these issues internally, including their own
graduate students and their experiences.
Regarding the breadth of science training, students were gener-
ally satisfied with the emphasis received in their programmes.
There was, however, an exception; nearly half of the students
reported receiving no training or minimal training in grant writing
or other related experience. It is reasonable to speculate that
student responses to this question included all funding applications
(e.g., grants, scholarships, bursaries); however, that speculation
necessarily overlooks the distinction between grant applications
which are typically more complex and scholarship applications
which are often relatively less complex. This finding was surpris-
ing, given the implicit importance of writing funding applications
in academia for the future success of both students and profession-
als. For example, students with funding place less strain on the
supervisor’s budget, leaving those resources to be allocated to
other areas such as research, conferences, and attracting future
students. Grants also provide funding for research, thereby increas-
ing the likelihood of sustained funding, and ultimately, increasing
the probability of promotion in the academic field (Merlo et al.,
2008). Thusly, grant writing, and by extension funding, is impor-
tant in generating and perpetuating research.
The difference may be the result of faculty assuming senior
students possess the analytical and writing skills necessary to
formulate a successful grant proposal and thusly are given less
instruction than more junior students, although this point is purely
138 PELUSO, CARLETON, AND ASMUNDSON
speculative. Conversely, it may be the case that junior students are
more likely to apply for scholarships because they have not yet
received them; in contrast, over time an increasing number of
students will have funding and not be continuing to apply. Lastly,
it may be that junior students are more likely than senior students
to seek out and attend to grant-writing instruction because of their
relatively lower levels of experience.
Limitations
There are limitations within the current study that are worth
noting. First, the study may have suffered from a sample bias,
given that the majority of provinces provided responses from only
two to eight students. For instance, in the case of British Columbia,
only seven respondents participated, a figure which is not repre-
sentative of the number of students actually enrolled in clinical
programmes in that province. Consequently, results are difficult to
generalise for the entire province. Second, although only Canadian
student participants were solicited, no methods were employed to
confirm a participant’s nationality or student status; accordingly, it
is possible, though unlikely, that some of the respondents were not
students in Canadian clinical programs.
Limitations also exist with regard to the CUDCP questionnaire
itself. First, although rigorously developed, the questionnaire was
designed for American programmes espousing the scientist-
practitioner model. Although Canadian programmes adhere to the
same model, it is possible that the questions may have been more
appropriate for American programmes. Moreover, the operational
definition of science that was adopted for the current study was
appropriated from the CUDCP. Thusly, it is possible that there is
divergence between American and Canadian programmes regard-
ing what elements should be subsumed under science. Second, the
results of this study were not compared to the results of Merlo et
al. (2008). The Merlo et al. study did not exclude Canadian
participants; however, the percentage of Canadian respondents is
unknown. As a result, we feel that a direct comparison of the
countries would be inappropriate, and would not result in mean-
ingful information. Fourth, the psychometric properties of the
CUDCP questionnaire have not been extensively assessed. Con-
sequently, the results may not be robust. Fifth, the current data
does not provide details allowing discrimination between the ad-
ditive and integrative effects of training. Future research should
attempt to explore whether these two dimensions of training can be
usefully delineated. Finally, it is possible that the current results
reflect a tautological relationship between student expectations and
Canadian psychology programs that acclaim the scientist-
practitioner model. For example, students’ support of the Boulder
model might be a reflection of the fact that they have been
socialized into valuing research-based clinical training. Despite
these limitations, the results of this study warrant attention as they
currently represent the only explicitly Canadian data available on
this issue.
Implications for Future Research
Pervasive endorsement of the scientist-practitioner model in
Canadian clinical psychology programmes is limited by the current
lack of knowledge about its status or implementation. The results
of this study provide some insights on the Canadian implementa-
tion of the Boulder model via the perceptions of students. Students
were generally satisfied with the level of science training—with
grant writing and clinical integration being the two notable excep-
tions. Whether scholarship or grant-writing education is the re-
sponsibility of the department or incumbent on individual super-
visors remains to be decided. Accordingly, future research should
explore this issue with students, supervisors, and departments. If
departments place responsibility for scholarship or grant-writing
training on faculty members, it may be beneficial for departments
to regulate this process through expert tutorials. Such tutorials may
foster a culture in which applying for funding is an expected part
of professional psychology. The finding that students are not
satisfied with the integration of science into their clinical work
presents some concerns— given that science training is a require-
ment for CPA accreditation in clinical psychology programmes—
and the Canadian Code of Ethics (CPA, 2002) stipulates that
practising psychologists must stay abreast with research. More-
over, this suggests that the scientist-practitioner model is not being
implemented as effectively as may be hoped, given that clinical
practise should be informed with relevant and up-to-date scientific
research. Future research should examine which aspects of inte-
gration are lacking. For example, students may feel that there is
insufficient emphasis on reading literature or attending scholarly
conferences to supplement clinical training. Given the myriad of
ways in which science could be integrated into clinical work,
greater specificity regarding which aspect of science integration is
ineffective appears warranted.
Finally, the vast majority of students indicated that emphasis on
science in their graduate training was very important; however,
students may not always readily perceive the cumulative value of
their training over time. The present study did not assess whether
students intend on continuing to integrate science into their clinical
practise after graduation. Future studies should determine how
important it is for students to incorporate science in their profes-
sional careers and, perhaps more important, how they intend on
doing so.
Conclusions
This study represents an important first step in determining the
status of the scientist-practitioner model in Canadian clinical psy-
chology programmes. The research was exploratory and the results
preliminary. More information about the implementation of the
scientist-practitioner model is needed, from representative samples
of students as well as from faculty and directors of clinical train-
ing. Ultimately, it is our hope that these insights, once generated,
will be used to improve the quality of training in Canadian clinical
psychology programmes.
Résumé
Le modèle de formation scientifique-praticien est le plus courant
pour les programmes d’études supérieures en psychologie clinique
au Canada. En dépit d’un puissant appui de par le pays au sein des
programmes de psychologie, il existe peu de données sur les
opinions des étudiants sur l’application de ce modèle. Dans la
présente étude, on a demandé à 134 étudiants de 9 provinces de
répondre à un questionnaire de 38 items, élaboré par le Council of
University Directors of Clinical Psychology, en vue d’évaluer
 TRAINING OF CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY STUDENTS
l’opinion des étudiants sur la quantité, la qualité et la portée de la
formation en science dans le cadre de leur programme de troisième
cycle en psychologie clinique. Selon la plupart des répondants,
leur programme est axé tant sur la recherche que sur le travail
clinique, la recherche bénéficiant d’un peu plus d’importance. Les
étudiants ont rapporté que la formation en science leur était très
importante et ont indiqué qu’ils obtenaient une bonne dose de
formation de grande qualité dans ce domaine. En outre, le niveau
désiré de formation en science équivalait, en grande partie, au
niveau reçu. Sont examinées les réprecussions des résultats sur les
études ultérieures ainsi que sur la formation.
Mots-clés : psychologie clinique, formation des diplômés en psy-
chologie clinique, étudiants diplômés en psychologie clinique,
modèle scientifique-praticien
References
Adair, J. G. (1981). Canadian psychology as a profession and discipline.
Canadian Psychology, 22, 163–122.
Arthur, A. Z. (1971). Applied training programmes of psychology in
Canada: A survey. Canadian Psychologist, 12, 46 – 65.
Aspenson, D. O., Gersh, T. L., Perot, A. R., Galassi, J. P., Schroeder, R.,
Kerick, S., . . . Brooks, L. (1993). Graduate psychology students’ per-
ceptions of the scientist-practitioner model of training. Counseling Psy-
chology Quarterly, 6, 201–215.
Canadian Psychological Association. (2002). Accreditation standards and
procedures for doctoral programmes and internships in professional psy-
chology (4th Rev.). Retrieved from, http://www.cpa.ca/cpasite/userfiles/
Documents/Accreditation/Accreditation%20Manual%20Jan08.pdf
Conway, J. B. (1984). Clinical psychology training in Canada: Its devel-
opment, current status, and the prospects for accreditation. Canadian
Psychology, 25, 177–191.
Davidson, P. O. (1971). Graduate training and research funding in clinical
psychology in Canada (Special Report to the Science Council of Canada,
1970). Reprinted in Canadian Psychologist, 12, 141–175.
Davidson, P. O. (1981). Some cultural, political and professional antecedents of
community psychology in Canada. Canadian Psychology, 22, 315–320.
139
Ewing, R. M. (1963). Some thoughts on the education and training of
clinical psychologists. Canadian Psychologist, 4a, 55–59.
Gibson, D. (1974). Enculturation stress in Canadian psychology. Canadian
Psychologist, 15, 145–151.
Haynes, S. N., Lemsky, C., & Sexton-Radek, K. (1987). Why clinicians
infrequently do research. Professional Psychology: Research and Prac-
tice, 18, 515–519.
Kelly, E. L., & Fiske, D. W. (1950). The prediction of success in the VA training
program in clinical psychology. American Psychologist, 5, 395–406.
Levy, L. H. (1962). The skew in clinical psychology. American Psychol-
ogist, 17, 244 –249.
Merlo, L. J., Collins, A., & Bernstein, J. (2008). CUDCP-affiliated clinical
psychology student views of their science training. Training and Edu-
cation in Professional Psychology, 2, 58 – 65.
Myers, C. R. (1970). Whatever happened to Canadian psychology? Cana-
dian Psychologist, 11, 128 –132.
Myers, D. (2007). Implication of the scientist-practitioner model in coun-
selling psychology training and practice. American Behavioral Scientist,
50, 789 –796.
Raimy, V. C. (1950). Training in clinical psychology. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Sutherland, J. S. (1964). The case history of a profession. Canadian
Psychologist, 5a, 209 –224.
Vipond, D., & Richert, R. A. (1977). Contributions of Canadian psychol-
ogists to the war effort, 1939 –1945. Canadian Psychological Review,
18, 169 –174.
Webster, E. C. (1967). The Couchiching conference on professional psy-
chology. Montreal, Quebec: Canadian Psychological Association.
Westfall, P. H., & Wolfinger, R. D. (1997). Multiple tests with discrete
distributions. The American Statistician, 51, 3– 8.
Wright, M. J. (1969). Canadian psychology comes of age. Canadian
Psychologist, 10, 229 –253.
Wright, M. J. (1974). CPA: The first ten years. Canadian Psychologist, 15,
112–131.
Received March 10, 2009
Revision received July 13, 2009
Accepted July 14, 2009 䡲