In Psychology, there is a difference between a legislated title (endorsement) and a caseload demographic (scope of practice).
There are currently nine legislated titles of endorsement in Australia. These legislated titles can only be used by those who are registered with that endorsed title. These are: Clinical Psychology, Clinical Neuropsychology, Community Psychology, Counselling Psychology, Education & Developmental Psychology, Forensic Psychology, Health Psychology, Organisational Psychology and Sport & Exercise Psychology.
I have two endorsed areas of practice. So I can call myself a Counselling Psychologist and a Sport & Exercise Psychologist.
But what does that actually mean?
Stating a legislated title (e.g., Forensic, Counselling, Clinical, Sport & Exercise, Education & Developmental, etc) does not inform the client of the caseload demographic the psychologist actually works with and has training, experience and skill working with.
The psychologist’s legal and ethical obligation to accurately inform the client of their capacity to assist, goes way above and beyond the use of a one-dimensional legislated pronoun of endorsement. So while there might be nine legislated areas of endorsement, the scope of a psychologist’s practice is a lot more difficult to pin down.
For example, while some psychologists may not be able to use the pronoun of ‘Forensic’ in their title, when asked about their scope of practice in that field they are ethically and legally obliged to let the client know if they do work in the forensic setting and have a caseload demographic of forensic cases.
An interesting phenomenon in Australia is that most psychologists who work clinical caseloads are not endorsed with the legislated title of Clinical. In this instance, the psychologist can state they work clinical caseloads but cannot use the legislated title of ‘Clinical.
To accurately communicate the caseload if not having an endorsed title in that scope of practice, the endorsed word (e.g., clinical or forensic) can be used as an adjective or adverb but not as a pronoun. E.g., the psychologist may work clinical caseloads or work as a psychologist in the forensic setting, but they are not by law able to use the title Clinical Psychologist or Forensic Psychologist.
But it gets far more nuanced than that.
For example, an endorsed sport and exercise psychologist may work with eating disorders while a psychologist who is clinically endorsed might not have that in their scope of practice. That same clinical psychologist may work with OCD while that same sport and exercise psychologist may not. A Forensic Psychologist may work with narcissism while an Education & Developmental Psychologist may have developed a lot of experience in the developmental path and behaviours of psychopaths. Another psychologist without any endorsed title might be highly skilled and experienced working with borderline personality disorder through a Dialectic Behaviour Therapy approach, while a psychologist with counselling endorsement may not work with borderline cases but has a lot of experience with major depression or drug and alcohol rehab. In these examples, the title of endorsement fades into the distance from being relevant.
The undeniable fact is that an endorsed title DOES NOT clarify for the client or the public the actual scope of practice of the psychologist.
Presumptions of skill through excessive use of one-dimensional endorsed pronouns can be risky in overly dumbing down the complexities of the psychologists, skills, training and experience applied through their scope of practice.
Ultimately the psychologist’s ethical duty is to ensure the client is offered an accurate representation of their scope of practice that includes their skill, experience and training in the field of practice the client is seeking assistance in.
In this context, there is far more to the responsibility of informing the client of practice scope than a single word or phrase in a title.
Dr Clive 