Search

In response to the absence of a taxononomical system for the structured assessment, conceptualization, and intervention of athlete-clients, the MCS-SP is a model for the comprehensive evaluation of athlete-clients' needs, strategies for in-depth case conceptualization, and systematic formulation of the most appropriate type and level of professional service required. This classification system is based on the primary issues, needs, and life circumstances of the athlete-client and the suggested assessment and intervention foci combine the environmental, interpersonal, intrapersonal, behavioral, and performance history/demands that impact athletic clientele. Categories within the taxonomy include Performance Development, Performance Dysfunction, Performance Impairment, and Performance Termination, each of which include two subtypes that further guide the appropriate, ethical, and effective provision of services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In his recent article, Silva discussed the development of applied sport psychology as a profession (Silva, 1989). He termed this process "professionalization" and elaborated on issues that were identified as critical for continued growth of the field. The present paper is a response to several issues raised by Silva. Specifically, in an effort to make a case advocating the need for further professionalization of sport psychology, Silva focused much of his criticism on practitioners trained in clinical psychology as often inappropriately (and unethically) engaging in the practice of sport psychology. In so doing, the interdisciplinary base of sport psychology and the pressing need for mutual respect, understanding, and true collaboration among practitioners of different educational backgrounds were not given adequate attention. The present paper suggests that the literature place greater attention on the issue of who is qualified to provide what service if practitioners of sport psychology are to truly enhance their own professionalism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Studies suggest that training that culminates in the doctor of psychology (PsyD) degree is characterized by heterogeneity. However, elements of most of these practitioner-focused doctoral programs (e.g., larger class sizes, shorter periods of training, less funding for students), as well as the widely varying professional outcomes that they lead to, offer unique challenges and opportunities regarding mentoring. This article aims to (a) trace the development and current status of controversies surrounding the PsyD model; (b) determine the unique roles in which graduates of well-designed and scientifically grounded PsyD programs may be equipped to serve; .and (c) drawing on the (limited) extant literature, offer recommendations for mentoring and other elements of training for these practitioner-focused programs. Finally, we offer suggestions for future empirical studies to shed light on the relative value of various training practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]