Collateral damage: Comment on Robiner et al. Prescriptive authority-Psychologists' abridged training relative to other professions' training

Comments on an article by W. N. Robiner et al. (see record 2019-78379-001). The first section of Robiner et al. presents a thorough and well-documented developmental history of the prescription authority movement (also referred to as RxP). While written from an anti-RxP viewpoint, it is arguably mor...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Clinical psychology (New York, N.Y.) N.Y.), 2020-03, Vol.27 (1), p.n/a
Main Author: Klepac, Robert K.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Clinical Methods Training
Clinical Psychologists
Prescribing (Drugs)
Prescription Drugs
Prescription Privileges
Psychologists
Psychopharmacology
Stakeholder
Training
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Comments on an article by W. N. Robiner et al. (see record 2019-78379-001). The first section of Robiner et al. presents a thorough and well-documented developmental history of the prescription authority movement (also referred to as RxP). While written from an anti-RxP viewpoint, it is arguably more balanced than earlier historical accounts. The historical account forms a background for the authors’ data and commentary on the adequacy of current prescriptive training of psychologists relative to that of other prescribing professionals. Comparisons of training expectations are challenging, thanks to differences in conceptual issues and reporting across disciplines. To their credit, Robiner et al. present sufficient details of their methodology to permit readers to evaluate the adequacy of their comparisons and conclusions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)
ISSN:0969-5893
1468-2850
DOI:10.1111/cpsp.12318