On Psychological Identity and Training: A Reply to Thomas and Chan (2000)

K. R. Thomas and F. Chan (2000) raised several concerns about the legitimacy and primacy of the Boulder model in the training of rehabilitation psychologists, particularly with regard to the unique needs and history of rehabilitation psychology. We address several of the issues they raise and mainta...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Rehabilitation psychology 2000-02, Vol.45 (1), p.74-80
Main Authors: Wegener, Stephen T, Elliott, Timothy R, Hagglund, Kristofer J
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Applied Psychology
Clinical Psychology Graduate Training
Human
Rehabilitation
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:K. R. Thomas and F. Chan (2000) raised several concerns about the legitimacy and primacy of the Boulder model in the training of rehabilitation psychologists, particularly with regard to the unique needs and history of rehabilitation psychology. We address several of the issues they raise and maintain that the utility of the Boulder model, although in need of some revision to meet the evolving nature of health care service delivery systems, remains the most appropriate model for the training of professional psychologists.
ISSN:0090-5550
1939-1544
DOI:10.1037/0090-5550.45.1.74