Prescriptive authority: Psychologists’ abridged training relative to other professions’ training

William N. Robiner, Tanya L. Tompkins, Kate M. Hathaway

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

5 Scopus citations

Abstract

Albeit psychologists were granted prescription authority in two states over a decade ago and in three states in recent years, the controversy over prescriptive authority persists within the profession and remains a concern of diverse stakeholders. The literature provides minimal research on the adequacy of psychopharmacology training programs and how commensurate psychologists’ training is with other prescribers’ training. Comparing psychopharmacology training for psychologists to other prescribing professionals’ training reveals psychologists receive fewer didactic training hours in foundational sciences (e.g., biology, chemistry, and pathophysiology) and fewer clinical training hours directly related to prescribing and managing medications. Implications of these findings and legal and regulatory cautions are discussed along with recommendations for future research directions.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article numbere12309
JournalClinical Psychology: Science and Practice
Volume27
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2020

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 American Psychological Association. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc., on behalf of the American Psychological Association.

Copyright:
Copyright 2020 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.

Keywords

  • prescription privileges
  • prescriptive authority
  • psychologist
  • quality of care
  • training

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Prescriptive authority: Psychologists’ abridged training relative to other professions’ training'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this