<p>You might want to study differences in PsyD and PhD clinical psychologists.  The thesis per se doesn't seem to be the question but the focus on research.  A PsyD dissertation generally does not involve the conducting of an original line of research while the PhD does.  I can't think of a better way to equate your groups at the moment.</p>

<p>As a comment I'd like to mention that the benefits of a scientist-practitioner model reach beyond the immediate and are best seen long term, as the practice of psychology evolves.  Someone trained only in therapeutic techniques is trained in a stagnant psychology and is ill equipped to understand new research that motivates changes in the field.  They may change but the decision to won't be as well grounded in science and will be more based on their clinical judgment.  </p>

<p>If you've ever been to a clinical conference where the budding field of clinical neuroscience was endorsed by a speaker through a careful presentation of (astoundingly powerful) research and logical argument you'd see an embarrassing number of practitioners making serious scientific errors dismissing the idea.  And it's not just a bias against new but an inability to make sound scientific judgments.  The ridiculous case of Autism and vaccines and how many psychologists actually endorsed that research highlights how we need better scientific training.  A training that many an experienced scientist can tell you really only comes through practice.</p>

<p>If you come up with a better way to produce a clinician on the day after they graduate then you haven't necessarily come up with a better way to train a psychologist.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-05-23T12:48:04.240Z
2012-05-23T18:57:40.253Z
2012-05-23T18:57:40.253Z
John
<p>I am a strong believer in the importance of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist%E2%80%93practitioner_model" rel="noreferrer">scientist-practitioner model</a> for psychology. I think that training in the scientific method is a major component of what makes a person trained in psychology more employable.</p>

<p>In many jurisdictions, a student wanting to be registered as a psychologists is required to complete one more research theses. For example, in Australia, a student will typically complete an undergraduate fourth year thesis and a thesis as part of a larger masters or doctoral program.
While it is obvious that training in research will make a student a better researcher, I have heard some people question whether completing a research thesis will make the student a better practising psychologist.</p>

<p>Thus, my questions are:</p>

<ul>
<li>What empirical research exists that has tested whether completing a research thesis in psychology makes you a better practising psychologist?</li>
<li>What theoretical frameworks justify or challenge the value of completing a research thesis in terms of improving practical skills required by a psychologist?</li>
</ul>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-05-23T08:16:18.193Z
I would doubt that the only difference between a Bachelor degree and a Master or PhD degree is just the additional thesis that has to be written for the latter ones. What about the two to five years of additional study/training time?
H.Muster
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-05-23T08:19:31.887Z
I agree, you'd have to take that into account;  possible comparisons of interest would be someone who has done everything that a masters or doctorate program involves but without the thesis; or perhaps comparing someone who has done more thesis with someone who has done less thesis but otherwise the same amount of coursework and placement; I also imagine that there would be selection effects in any observational sample (e.g., perhaps PhD students are different to masters students before doing their respective courses).
Jeromy Anglim
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-05-23T08:24:27.607Z
How about just asking whether people holding a Master/PhD degree are necessarily better practical psychologists than people holding a bachelor degree?
H.Muster
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-05-23T08:27:00.363Z
My interest is largely driven by discussions about whether Masters degrees in psychology should or should not have a compulsory thesis component. Thus, the comparison with Bachelor degree students is not really of interest.
Jeromy Anglim
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-05-23T08:55:29.720Z
Do you know of any Master programs that do not require a thesis?
H.Muster
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-05-23T11:20:00.343Z
No. But I have heard several academics discuss privately whether a thesis is required in a masters course or whether it could be reduced in scope, especially where students have already done an honours thesis. I have also heard some academics critique this embodiment of the scientist-practitioner model on the grounds that they had not been given evidence as to  its efficacy. I don't share these views, but I do like the idea of discussing the consequences for professional practice of different training models.
Jeromy Anglim
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-05-23T11:24:54.590Z
How can your first question then be answered, given that there are no masters programs without a thesis requirement?
H.Muster
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-05-23T11:48:25.537Z
I'm not saying there are no such programs. I'm saying that I'm not aware of any such programs. I only really know the Australian jurisdiction well; My understanding is a little fuzzy when it comes to other countries. Also, I imagine you could compare students based on scope of thesis (smaller or bigger thesis), or there might be some other possible comparison that would be meaningful (e.g. if the thesis occurred at a particular phase of the degree there might be some pre- post- comparison). But perhaps as you say, the answer to my first question is that there is no relevant empirical research.
Jeromy Anglim
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-05-23T12:45:04.537Z
I think I just heard about a Master's program which rather than requiring unique research required hands-on clinical experience (closely supervised by a licensed  professional) Let me see if I can find references for that and I'll answer if so.
Josh
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-05-23T12:46:22.963Z
Just for background, as a rough guide the Australian professional Masters in psychology is typically around coursework (35%), professional placement (35%), and thesis (30%).
Jeromy Anglim
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-06-16T08:14:35.390Z
I should make it clear that I'm NOT arguing against the incorporation of a thesis into the training of  clinical psychologists. I'd merely like to read about rigorous empirical evaluations of the benefits (or possibly the lack of benefits) of doing a thesis.
Jeromy Anglim
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-01-23T17:15:57.507Z
maybe this question would be of some interest also on this site proposal: [undergraduates](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/49571/undergraduates).
Daniele B
<clinical-psychology>
Does completing a thesis make you a better practicing psychologist?
Jeromy Anglim
# Does completing a thesis make you a better practicing psychologist?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2012-05-23)

I am a strong believer in the importance of the [scientist-practitioner model](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist%E2%80%93practitioner_model) for psychology. I think that training in the scientific method is a major component of what makes a person trained in psychology more employable.

In many jurisdictions, a student wanting to be registered as a psychologists is required to complete one more research theses. For example, in Australia, a student will typically complete an undergraduate fourth year thesis and a thesis as part of a larger masters or doctoral program.
While it is obvious that training in research will make a student a better researcher, I have heard some people question whether completing a research thesis will make the student a better practising psychologist.

Thus, my questions are:

* What empirical research exists that has tested whether completing a research thesis in psychology makes you a better practising psychologist?
* What theoretical frameworks justify or challenge the value of completing a research thesis in terms of improving practical skills required by a psychologist?

**Tags:** clinical-psychology

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I would doubt that the only difference between a Bachelor degree and a Master or PhD degree is just the additional thesis that has to be written for the latter ones. What about the two to five years of additional study/training time?  
> **username_0**: I agree, you'd have to take that into account;  possible comparisons of interest would be someone who has done everything that a masters or doctorate program involves but without the thesis; or perhaps comparing someone who has done more thesis with someone who has done less thesis but otherwise the same amount of coursework and placement; I also imagine that there would be selection effects in any observational sample (e.g., perhaps PhD students are different to masters students before doing their respective courses).  
> **username_1**: How about just asking whether people holding a Master/PhD degree are necessarily better practical psychologists than people holding a bachelor degree?  
> **username_0**: My interest is largely driven by discussions about whether Masters degrees in psychology should or should not have a compulsory thesis component. Thus, the comparison with Bachelor degree students is not really of interest.  
> **username_1**: Do you know of any Master programs that do not require a thesis?  
> **username_0**: No. But I have heard several academics discuss privately whether a thesis is required in a masters course or whether it could be reduced in scope, especially where students have already done an honours thesis. I have also heard some academics critique this embodiment of the scientist-practitioner model on the grounds that they had not been given evidence as to  its efficacy. I don't share these views, but I do like the idea of discussing the consequences for professional practice of different training models.  
> **username_1**: How can your first question then be answered, given that there are no masters programs without a thesis requirement?  
> **username_0**: I'm not saying there are no such programs. I'm saying that I'm not aware of any such programs. I only really know the Australian jurisdiction well; My understanding is a little fuzzy when it comes to other countries. Also, I imagine you could compare students based on scope of thesis (smaller or bigger thesis), or there might be some other possible comparison that would be meaningful (e.g. if the thesis occurred at a particular phase of the degree there might be some pre- post- comparison). But perhaps as you say, the answer to my first question is that there is no relevant empirical research.  
> **username_2**: I think I just heard about a Master's program which rather than requiring unique research required hands-on clinical experience (closely supervised by a licensed  professional) Let me see if I can find references for that and I'll answer if so.  
> **username_0**: Just for background, as a rough guide the Australian professional Masters in psychology is typically around coursework (35%), professional placement (35%), and thesis (30%).  
> **username_0**: I should make it clear that I'm NOT arguing against the incorporation of a thesis into the training of  clinical psychologists. I'd merely like to read about rigorous empirical evaluations of the benefits (or possibly the lack of benefits) of doing a thesis.  
> **username_3**: maybe this question would be of some interest also on this site proposal: [undergraduates](http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/49571/undergraduates).  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_4 on 2012-05-23. Score: 10 | Accepted answer

You might want to study differences in PsyD and PhD clinical psychologists. The thesis per se doesn't seem to be the question but the focus on research. A PsyD dissertation generally does not involve the conducting of an original line of research while the PhD does. I can't think of a better way to equate your groups at the moment.

As a comment I'd like to mention that the benefits of a scientist-practitioner model reach beyond the immediate and are best seen long term, as the practice of psychology evolves. Someone trained only in therapeutic techniques is trained in a stagnant psychology and is ill equipped to understand new research that motivates changes in the field. They may change but the decision to won't be as well grounded in science and will be more based on their clinical judgment.

If you've ever been to a clinical conference where the budding field of clinical neuroscience was endorsed by a speaker through a careful presentation of (astoundingly powerful) research and logical argument you'd see an embarrassing number of practitioners making serious scientific errors dismissing the idea. And it's not just a bias against new but an inability to make sound scientific judgments. The ridiculous case of Autism and vaccines and how many psychologists actually endorsed that research highlights how we need better scientific training. A training that many an experienced scientist can tell you really only comes through practice.

If you come up with a better way to produce a clinician on the day after they graduate then you haven't necessarily come up with a better way to train a psychologist.


---

