To what extent are cognitive behaviour therapy competencies incorporated into clinical psychology training? A national survey of Australian universities

2019 ◽  
Vol 54 (5) ◽  
pp. 402-414
Author(s):  
Tara Impala ◽  
Kim Burn ◽  
Nikolaos Kazantzis
Keyword(s):  
National Survey ◽  
Clinical Psychology ◽  
Cognitive Behaviour Therapy ◽  
Psychology Training ◽  
Behaviour Therapy ◽  
Clinical Psychology Training ◽  
Cognitive Behaviour ◽  
Australian Universities

scholarly journals From the margins to the NICE guidelines: British clinical psychology and the development of cognitive behaviour therapy for psychosis, 1982–2002

2021 ◽  
pp. 095269512110277
Author(s):  
David J. Harper ◽  
Sebastian Townsend
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Psychology ◽  
Cognitive Behaviour Therapy ◽  
Systems Approach ◽  
Participant Observation ◽  
Clinical Excellence ◽  
Behaviour Therapy ◽  
Psychological Therapies ◽  
Historical Factors ◽  
Cognitive Behaviour ◽  
Social Technologies

Although histories of cognitive behaviour therapy have begun to appear, their use with people with psychosis diagnoses has received relatively little attention. In this article, we elucidate the conditions of possibility for the emergence of cognitive behaviour therapy for psychosis (CBTp) in England between 1982 and 2002. We present an analysis of policy documents, research publications and books, participant observation, and interviews with a group of leading researchers and senior policy actors. Informed by Derksen and Beaulieu’s articulation of social technologies, we show how CBTp was developed and stabilised through the work of a variety of overlapping informal, academic, clinical, professional, and policy networks. The profession of clinical psychology played a key role in this development, successfully challenging the traditional ‘division of labour’ where psychologists focused on ‘neurosis’ and left ‘psychosis’ to psychiatry. Following Abbott's systems approach to professions, we identify a number of historical factors that created a jurisdictional vulnerability for psychiatry while strengthening the jurisdictional legitimacy of clinical psychology in providing psychological therapies to service users with psychosis diagnoses. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence played a significant role in adjudicating jurisdictional legitimacy, and its 2002 schizophrenia guidelines, recommending the use of psychological therapies, marked a radical departure from the psychiatric consensus. Our analysis may be of wider interest in its focus on social technologies in a context of jurisdictional contestation. We discuss the implications of our study for the field of mental health and for the relationship between clinical psychology and psychiatry.

IF THE EVIDENCE IS SO GOOD – WHY DOESN'T ANYONE USE THEM? A NATIONAL SURVEY OF THE USE OF COMPUTERIZED COGNITIVE BEHAVIOUR THERAPY

2004 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 57-65 ◽  
Author(s):  
Graeme Whitfield ◽  
Chris Williams
Keyword(s):  
National Survey ◽  
Cognitive Behaviour Therapy ◽  
Clinical Excellence ◽  
Behaviour Therapy ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Self Help ◽  
Cognitive Behaviour ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Main Factors ◽  
The Uk

Computerized Self-help (CSH) has recently been the subject of a NICE (National Institute of Clinical Excellence) review. This increase in interest is also reflected in the increase in advertising for CSH programmes. We report a national survey of a random sample of 500 therapists accredited with the British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapies, which is the lead organization for CBT in the UK. A total of 329 therapists responded (65.8%). A surprisingly small number of CBT therapists were using CSH (12 or 2.4%) and only 5 or 1% were using it as an alternative to patient-therapist contact. Despite this, over 90% of the responding therapists had not ruled out using CSH in the future, but the majority of these would use it to supplement rather than as an alternative to individual face-to-face therapy. The need to know more about computerized self-help and the need for training in therapy using this modality were seen as the main factors that would have to change to allow the therapists to use CSH. Knowledge of and ability to use computers did not appear to be an important factor as most therapists in this sample used computers on a regular basis. Most therapists were not aware of evidence of the effectiveness of CSH but the minority who did feel able to express views stated that CSH would be less effective than individual face-to-face therapy and result in less client satisfaction.

The Use of Questions in Cognitive Behaviour Therapy: Identification of Question Type, Function and Structure

2007 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 507-511 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian A. James ◽  
Rachel Morse
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Therapy ◽  
Clinical Psychology ◽  
Cognitive Behaviour Therapy ◽  
Question Type ◽  
Behaviour Therapy ◽  
Type Function ◽  
Question Types ◽  
Therapeutic Dialogue ◽  
Cognitive Behaviour

An exploration of trainees' abilities to identify question types, their function and the process of questioning was carried out with 25 trainees who were studying for either a Diploma in Cognitive Therapy or a Doctorate in Clinical Psychology. The results showed that trainees were best at determining the functions of questions, but were poor overall at identifying the different elements of questioning. This study highlights the absence of terminology for breaking down therapeutic dialogue into its component parts. It is concluded that research is needed to explore ways in which the components of questioning can be better articulated and conceptualized so as to aid our ability to reflect on questions in a meaningful way.

Cognitive-Behaviour Therapy in the UK: Comments on Lovibond

1993 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 16-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas Tarrier
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Psychology ◽  
Cognitive Behaviour Therapy ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Behaviour Therapy ◽  
World Congress ◽  
Short Article ◽  
Current Thinking ◽  
Cognitive Behaviour ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Uk

It was with great interest that I read Professor Lovibond's paper, not the least because of the fact that before returning to the UK in 1991 I had spent approximately 2½ years working in Australia. In his article Professor Lovibond charts the history of behaviour therapy in Australia and comments on the current academic and professional situation there. He raises issues concerning scientific rigour, clinical practice, service delivery, and professional organisation. Some of these are general issues and many readers from many places around the world will find sympathy with these. Others are relevant to the local circumstances within Australia and are less pertinent to other countries. My first reaction to the article was surprise that problems within clinical psychology were being aired at a World Congress of Behaviour Therapy and within a behaviour therapy journal. This is perhaps explained by Professor Lovibond's view that behaviour therapy is too narrow a term for what is really clinical psychology and should be so entitled. But from a UK perspective there is here a confounding between the theory and practice of behaviour therapy (I will use the term cognitive-behaviour therapy as being more reflective of current thinking) and the profession of clinical psychology. I will devote most of this short article to outlining the situation in the UK so that it can be seen why Professor Lovibond's suggestion that behaviour therapy and clinical psychology are synonymous would not be readily acceptable in the UK. Firstly, I would like to comment on the situation regarding behaviour therapy before briefly describing that of the profession of clinical psychology.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document