Journal of Psychotherapy Integration © 2017 American Psychological Association

2017, Vol. 27, No. 3, 304 –312 1053-0479/17/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/int0000071

Trainee Perspectives on Issues of Psychotherapy Integration Across

Research and Practice: Comment on McWilliams

Nicholas R. Morrison and Brien J. Goodwin

University of Massachusetts Amherst

As students of clinical psychology, we comment on McWilliams’s (this issue) article,

“Integrative Research for Integrative Practice: A Plea for Respectful Collaboration Across
Clinician and Researcher Roles.” McWilliams touches upon a number of contentious areas
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

within the field of clinical psychology with implications for research, practice, and inte-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

gration as they relate to psychotherapy. We are in agreement with McWilliams across a

variety of her concerns, and hope to add to the conversation on contemporary issues in
psychotherapy integration by bringing trainee viewpoints to the table. In our commentary,
we discuss our thoughts regarding the role graduate training program environments and
culture may play in initiating and sustaining issues that divide research and practice. Among
other issues, we discuss our concerns related to theoretical orientations and the need for
greater emphases on common factors across training programs. Additionally, we comment
on the importance of both clinician and researcher understanding of the constraints placed
on each other’s respective fields by external pressures (e.g., third-party insurers, research
funding), and the lack of information often dispensed at the graduate training level related
to these domains. We hope that our comments emphasize considerations that may not have
received attention in the field, and are taken in context as only one perspective of many on
the state of psychotherapy integration.

Keywords: psychotherapy integration, science-practice integration, psychotherapy

training, graduate training, clinical programs

As clinical psychology trainees engaged in reg-
ular psychotherapy process and outcome research,
we were particularly excited to be asked to com-
ment on McWilliams’s (this issue) article. McWil-
liams highlights a number of contemporary issues
related to psychotherapy research and practice,
with specific attention devoted to the growing
divide between psychologists dedicated to each of
these core disciplines. From the earliest points in
the graduate school application process, potential
trainees consider the roles they want research and
practice to play over their looming and intensive
years of clinical training. For many students, it is
the case that their research interests are divorced
from their clinical work, and they may find it
Nicholas R. Morrison and Brien J. Goodwin, Department
of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of Massa-
chusetts Amherst.
Correspondence concerning this article should be ad-
dressed to Nicholas R. Morrison, Department of Psycho-
logical and Brain Sciences, University of Massachusetts,
602 Tobin Hall, Amherst, MA 01003-9271. E-mail:
nmorriso@psych.umass.edu
304
difficult to see how their day-to-day clinical train-
ing relates to their research. This is likely true both
for students involved in more clinically oriented
programs who view research as a hurdle that
needs to be overcome before completing their
degrees and moving on to independent practice, as
well as those who simply view psychotherapy and
assessment hours as numbers that need to be at-
tained before they can focus exclusively on aca-
demic pursuits. We hope to highlight how the
themes and attitudes McWilliams addresses in her
article stem in large part from, and in many cases
are perpetuated by, the cultures students are im-
mersed in during their years of graduate training.
Additionally, we discuss from our perspectives as
students how trainees navigate some of the press-
ing practice- and research-related issues addressed
in her article.
Graduate Training Concerns
In her discussion, McWilliams identifies a
variety of key problems associated with the
divides that exist between research and practice.
To adequately address the problems McWil-
 TRAINEE PERSPECTIVES ON ISSUES
liams discusses, it is critical to consider the
origins of the attitudes that give way to the lines
of thinking she reviews. There are a number of
issues trainees must navigate regarding the ef-
fective balance of research and practice, and we
contend that these concerns are at the forefront
for trainees before any degree of formal training
begins. Although we can only comment on our
experiences as trainees of clinical psychology,
we would expect similar trends to emerge in
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
counseling psychology programs given the in-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
creasingly similar overlap between program
characteristics, student demographics, and ad-
mission and training requirements (Morgan &
Cohen, 2008). Potential applicants are encour-
aged from very early on when selecting gradu-
ate programs to choose programmatic models
consistent with their values regarding research
and practice. There are several inherent con-
cerns with this approach. First, there are a num-
ber of factors that applicants will ultimately take
into account when finalizing their graduate pro-
grams of interest, not the least of which is
financial consideration. A number of students
(particularly first-generation applicants and ap-
plicants from low socioeconomic backgrounds)
will likely apply to graduate programs having
already accrued a considerable amount of un-
dergraduate debt, and depending on the degree
type and training model of the programs of
interest, students will need to be selective when
considering the financial burden of attending a
graduate program. Notably, research-focused
programs are more likely than Psy.D. and other
clinically focused programs to provide funding to
students (Norcross, Ellis, & Sayette, 2010). Al-
though unfortunate, and often to the detriment
of the applicant, advisor, and program, it is
therefore unsurprising that students who might
otherwise be interested in a more clinically ori-
ented career may ultimately consider research-
oriented programs. After all, they reason, any
program accredited by the American Psycho-
logical Association (APA) will sufficiently pre-
pare them for a clinical career. When faced with
the alternative of a crippling future debt/income
ratio, some applicants adopt a “I can put up with
the research for a time” mind-set. To be clear,
we do not condone this approach, but rather
recognize that it is an ongoing problem that has
not been adequately addressed by the field.
For those who do not preemptively decide
upon which camp they most closely identify
305
with, they learn early on during their graduate
training to manage the perception of their clini-
cian and researcher identities. We imagine that
the scenario McWilliams describes of the aca-
demic interviewer rolling his or her eyes at the
earnest motivations of the applicant who wants
to help people is increasingly a rarity, particu-
larly among programs with at least some degree
of emphasis on research training. This is be-
cause applicants know what they are supposed
to say. Applicants are able to discern from train-
ing program descriptions, online graduate
school forums, and conversations with those
involved in training programs what is and is not
okay to discuss during the application process.
Applicants understand that they are not to stray
from the party line during interviews: Keep the
discussion of clinical work to a minimum and
avoid discussion of an interest in a future clin-
ical career.
For some fortunate applicants, their motiva-
tions and ultimate career goals will remain sta-
ble during their time in graduate school and
allow them to stay their anticipated course.
However, other trainees may shift focus and
interest once exposed to the actual experience of
working as the primary investigator of a re-
search study, or conducting a psychodiagnostic
assessment or psychotherapy session. As a re-
sult, trainees who accept an offer of admission
may find relatively shortly after enrollment that,
contrary to their initial impressions, they find
their clinical work or research to be either a
source of pleasure or dissatisfaction. Notably, in
a survey of over 600 students affiliated with
Council of University Directors of Clinical Psy-
chology (CUDCP) programs, Kamen, Veilleux,
Bangen, VanderVeen, and Klonoff (2010) found
that over 45% of their sample indicated a desire
for predominantly clinical careers, despite
CUDCP-member programs’ general commit-
ment to research training. Relatedly, in a survey
of over 100 clinical and counseling trainees
regarding program satisfaction, Rummell
(2015) found two of the areas of greatest dis-
satisfaction for students with their doctoral pro-
grams were “feeling like I have a voice in my
program” (40% of respondents) and “resources
available to me” (27% of respondents). Al-
though this is speculative, and only one area of
concern, it may be the case that trainees who
feel more supported in either domain they enjoy
less (research or practice) and have access to
 306 MORRISON AND GOODWIN
additional resources might be more amenable to
engaging in that domain.
Given the likelihood that a trainee’s interests
may shift during graduate training, it would
appear incumbent upon the training program to
develop channels to discuss these shifts. Even
if, for example, a clinical science program does
not have sufficient resources to meet a trainee’s
newfound practice-oriented goals, the program
should foster a safe environment in which the
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
trainee can explore alternative options, includ-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
ing the selection of a more appropriate training
program. This is particularly notable, given that
it can be devastating for a trainee to feel isolated
regarding his or her career trajectory, especially
if he or she feels like a “closet clinician” who
needs to feign interest in research with an ad-
visor for the next four years (we note that this
situation would be lamentable only for trainees
who experience a genuine shift during training,
not those who deceived their way into a pro-
gram). We are aware that this situation has
occurred for fellow graduate students across a
number of graduate training programs, and we
venture to guess these students represent only a
small fraction of individuals in similar predica-
ments across the country. If this is in fact the
case, it is understandable how McWilliams’s
descriptions of increased distance, and in some
cases contempt, between researchers and prac-
titioners can occur from an early point in a
trainee’s career.
Practice-Related Issues
Our personal experience as trainees echoes
McWilliams’s assertion that clinicians and re-
searchers know little of the demands of each
other’s careers. With the assumption that most
of us will go on to academic positions at re-
search universities or academic medical centers,
even though this is statistically improbable, we
receive little exposure to the world of practicing
clinicians. It is difficult enough to understand a
fellow clinical or counseling psychologist’s
day-to-day struggles when they fall on the other
side of the researcher/clinician coin; this lack of
understanding is only amplified when consider-
ing how different mental health professionals
approach their clinical care and the degree to
which they consume/produce research. Across
the United States and Canada, there is a healthy
variability in discipline-specific degrees and li-
censures with which one can deliver psycho-
therapy (e.g., licensed mental health counselors,
licensed clinical social workers, etc.). In our lab,
we organize regular psychotherapy-related ca-
reer panel discussions for our undergraduate
research assistants, which frequently result in a
lively question and answer session. These ses-
sions are in many ways beneficial for the grad-
uate trainees, as this is one of the only forums
where we get a glimpse into the world of clini-
cians trained in other modes of psychotherapy.
In addition to the unfamiliarity with other
mental health professions, a similar experience
exists within the fields of clinical and counsel-
ing psychology in the ongoing dialogues sur-
rounding theoretical orientation. As McWil-
liams states, the days of “clashing visions of
therapy” may be over; however, the ripples
from these fights continue to linger and the
shadow of orientationism is still visible in clin-
ical training paradigms. Orientation specific
teams, in our experience, appear to be the norm
rather than the exception.
Notably, the opportunity to train in orienta-
tions other than cognitive– behavioral therapy
(CBT) in clinical psychology Ph.D. programs is
limited. The majority of faculty in clinical psy-
chology Ph.D. programs report their therapeutic
orientation as CBT: an overwhelming 80% in
programs designated as clinical science pro-
grams, and 67% in all other Ph.D. programs
(Heatherington et al., 2012). For Psy.D. and
M.S. programs, CBT faculty are still in the
majority (48% and 57% respectively), but there
is also increased representation of other orien-
tations, namely psychodynamic and family sys-
tem approaches. We share Heatherington and
colleagues’ (2012) concerns about implications
of this CBT-dominated climate both in terms of
research and practice. The predominance of any
orientation in the field may limit the develop-
ment of psychotherapy research. While CBT is
effective, it is not the only effective treatment,
and as McWilliams states, many clinicians iden-
tify as assimilative integrators who pull from a
variety of orientations. Rather than working
only within the constraints of the CBT model of
psychopathology, focusing on reducing a finite
number of symptoms and tinkering with CBT
components in a way that often yields mixed
results, we should be looking to techniques and
mechanisms of change across multiple orienta-
tions and approaches. Ironically, it may be the
 TRAINEE PERSPECTIVES ON ISSUES
case for the CBT clinician that this is happening
organically. In a survey of clinicians in a large
mental health care behavioral health organiza-
tion, 50% of clinicians described their therapeu-
tic orientation as CBT, yet the most employed
therapeutic techniques for treating depression
were relationship focused, falling within the
wheelhouse of interpersonal therapy (Hepner,
Greenwood, Azocar, Miranda, & Burnam,
2010).
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
We believe that much of the confusion about
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
the role of clinicians that permeates the field,
and our own understanding of our role(s) as
trainee-clinicians is in part due to CBT’s dom-
inance. McWilliams speaks to this confusion,
contrasting the sole focus on symptom reduc-
tion with therapists’ concern for the general life
satisfaction of their patients. Even in our train-
ing clinic, operating unfettered by the cost/
benefit focus of the managed care model, we
struggle with these questions. If, for example, a
patient presents with depressive symptoms that
appear rooted in specific contexts (e.g., job dis-
satisfaction, difficult living situation), should
our primary focus be cognitive restructuring
and behavioral contingencies, or is it more ef-
fective to simultaneously take on the role of a
case manager in changing these contexts? Fur-
thermore, is the goal of treatment simply to help
patients meet some threshold of disorder remis-
sion, to return them to a baseline of nonclinical
distress, or to improve their overall psycholog-
ical functioning beyond “the average?” In our
training clinic, as in clinical psychology writ
large, this is an ongoing debate.
Another limitation of an orientation-specific
training climate is the frequent lack of focus on
empirically supported common factors. Despite
the fact that empirical evidence overwhelm-
ingly indicates that common factors, including
the therapeutic alliance, account for more vari-
ance in clinical outcomes than orientation spe-
cific techniques (Laska, Gurman, & Wampold,
2014), there is little explicit clinical training in
these constructs. Moreover, while there is an
extant literature regarding training in the thera-
peutic alliance (e.g., Constantino, Morrison,
Coyne, & Howard, 2016; Eubanks-Carter, Mu-
ran, & Safran, 2015; Sharpless, Muran, & Bar-
ber, 2010; Smith-Hansen, 2016), this subset of
articles pales in comparison to the voluminous
literature accrued regarding the therapeutic al-
liance itself, let alone the specific techniques
307
housed in the varying theoretical orientations.
Although training paradigms for the therapeutic
alliance have been suggested, there appears to
be little consensus in the field even among al-
liance researchers regarding what an ideal alli-
ance-centered training program might look like
(Constantino, Morrison, MacEwan, & Boswell,
2013).
In our personal experience as trainees, this
finding is unsurprising, given our and our col-
leagues’ involvement in a variety of practica in
which the therapeutic alliance is all-too-
frequently addressed as an afterthought. In fact,
until APA’s Commission on Accreditation
(2015) released the most recent iteration of the
Implementation Regulations for the Standards
of Accreditation for Health Service Psychology,
training in evidence-based relationships was not
explicitly recommended. Consistent with Mc-
Williams, we are hopeful that including these
recommendations for training evidence-based
relationships will change the existing paradigm
of clinical training and supervision. Addition-
ally, given the empirical support for such con-
structs, we as trainees would very much like to
see supervisors more explicitly address addi-
tional common factors regardless of the super-
visor’s therapeutic orientation, including
(among others) how to instill hope, increase
patient outcome expectations, and appropriately
incorporate routine outcomes monitoring into
regular practice.
Pivoting to some of the more logistical con-
cerns expressed by McWilliams, we are struck
by the enormous influence of managed care and
third-party insurers in treatment delivery. As
trainees in our low-fee, out-of-pocket training
clinic, we operate unfettered by the demands of
insurers, the bureaucracy, and other constraints
placed on treatment modality and duration. For
those of us that choose a more clinically focused
career, we will undoubtedly learn about these
challenges first hand. For those of us who
choose more research-focused careers, this
knowledge seems equally important. Asking
questions and designing studies within the pa-
rameters of the current treatment-delivery envi-
ronment may help repair the disconnect be-
tween research and practice, yet these factors
are rarely discussed in our program, and we
would imagine in other programs as well. How-
ever, we are encouraged that psychotherapy re-
search is increasingly trying to unravel the per-
 308 MORRISON AND GOODWIN
ceived disconnect between efficacy and
effectiveness. For example, Minami and col-
leagues (2008) found that the effectiveness of
treatments for depression in the managed care
environment was comparable to the efficacy
reported in clinical trials. Further investigation
is certainly warranted, necessitating the discus-
sion of the demands of third-party insurers and
managed care in both practice- and research-
focused training programs.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
One particularly notable in-service training
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
implication of the managed care model pre-
sented by McWilliams was a revelation for us.
The pressure of cost cutting has resulted in
positioning psychology interns as a source of
“cheap labor.” This is especially salient to us as
we look down the line toward internship. There
is a painful irony that for most clinical doctoral
trainees, their salary in their postbaccalaureate
year as a research assistant will be the most
money they will make until after internship and
postdoctorate training. In light of our reading of
McWilliams, we have at least garnered a better
understanding of why this seemingly counterin-
tuitive funding disparity exists, and the institu-
tional forces at work in maintaining a funding
climate that appears to de-value some five to
seven years of rigorous training.
Research-Related Issues
In her article, McWilliams asks one of the
most important questions regarding the role of
research in clinical work: What kind of research
would be most helpful to practicing therapists?
Highlighting the trepidation that often emerges
concerning randomized controlled trials (RCTs)
and their applicability to clinical practice in the
community, McWilliams acknowledges some
of the problems inherent in this research meth-
odology. She is certainly not alone in calling for
greater focus on additional methodologies and
approaches, particularly regarding their prag-
matic utility in the field (e.g., Carey & Stiles,
2016; Kazdin, 2008; Onwuegbuzie & Leech,
2005). We would like to be abundantly clear
that we view the RCT as a critical component of
psychotherapy research. However, like most of
the concepts discussed in this article, a number
of both external and internal pressures influence
the field and the psychologists who shape it, and
the emphasis on RCTs is no exception.
Additionally, McWilliams calls specific at-
tention to the fact that the National Institute of
Mental Health (NIMH) has recently shifted its
focus to neurobiological data, which has the
potential for considerable negative implications
on the research-practice divide. These com-
ments triggered our own complex reactions in
terms of the problems of Research Domain Cri-
teria (RDoC) as implemented, versus the poten-
tial promise of RDoC as written. In the age of
RDoC, there is an ever-increasing focus on the
genetic, molecular, and neurobiological bases
of psychopathology: specifically, the role these
factors play in etiology and maintenance of
psychopathology. We echo the concerns of Mc-
Williams that this line of research will further
alienate practicing psychotherapists. For exam-
ple, what is the pragmatic benefit for therapists
of investigating genetic correlates of negative
affect? How does a therapist integrate findings
from such research into daily practice? Al-
though the relationships between psychopathol-
ogy and genetic and neurobiological factors cer-
tainly warrant investigation, one unintended
result is that it is becoming increasingly difficult
to secure funding for psychotherapy research:
research that scientifically examines what Mc-
Williams refers to as “the human relationship in
which one person struggles to make a meaning-
ful difference in the life of another.”
However, it is important to note that the
criticisms we level here concerning RDoC are
with how it has been implemented by NIMH,
not the concept itself. We agree with Goldfried
(2016) that as written, RDoC has great potential
for furthering psychotherapy process and out-
come research. For example, included in
RDoC’s five research domains is the focus on
social processes. Subsumed in this category is
research that focuses on many of the areas that
McWilliams positions as necessary for improv-
ing psychotherapy as practiced (e.g., attach-
ment, relationships). In fact, RDoC explicitly
calls for research into the same interpersonal
process variables (e.g., body language, facial
affect) that McWilliams highlights as necessary
for the future of clinically relevant research.
Furthermore, RDoC as written may result in a
body of research that speaks directly to McWil-
liams’s criticisms of the RCT approach. RDoC
may ultimately allow the field to move away
from the focus on the efficacy of specific treat-
ments for people with a single categorical dis-
 TRAINEE PERSPECTIVES ON ISSUES
order (no comorbidity), who are treated in ac-
cordance with strict manualized adherence in
which treatment success is defined solely in
terms of symptom reduction. Instead, RDoC has
the potential to foster research that speaks to
how best treat a specific patient at a specific
moment in therapy (i.e., context-responsive-
ness). That is, instead of yielding recommenda-
tions solely focused on the reduction of symp-
toms associated with a specific categorical
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
diagnosis, there is the possibility to focus in-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
stead on process variables that have repeatedly
been shown to impact treatment effectiveness
(e.g., motivation, resistance). Recommenda-
tions of this nature would certainly be a boon to
the practicing therapist. However, the current
implementation of RDoC does not appear to
help the clinicians in the trenches. We would
like to see a greater emphasis on the promises of
RDoC as written, thus retaining its purported
relevance to improving psychotherapy as prac-
ticed.
Although these external issues are concern-
ing and have very real implications for the spe-
cific avenues through which research is con-
ducted, internal pressures at the institutional
level also play an important role in maintaining
the divides between research approaches. One
of the most salient examples for us is the “sec-
ondary citizen” status qualitative research meth-
ods and analysis are afforded at most institu-
tions. Just go to any clinical psychology training
program website and you will almost certainly
see statistics courses listed as core require-
ments, but rarely will see qualitative analysis
courses listed as electives, let alone integral
degree requirements. Moreover, research meth-
ods courses are almost entirely comprised of
quantitative approaches. All one needs to do is
attend either an undergraduate or graduate re-
search methods course to see that only one or
two classes (normally toward the end of the
term after all of the “important” material is
covered) is dedicated to qualitative research
methods, almost as if to say, “Oh, and some-
times people do this to supplement the real
research.” Even in our training program, a self-
described clinical science program whose first
priority is producing students who have the
ability to conduct original and impactful re-
search, trainees are unable to pursue qualitative
methods courses unless they look to other de-
partments (e.g., education, sociology, etc.).
309
Clearly, this is an anecdotal observation. Little
data exist that highlight the number of training
programs that offer (let alone require) qualitative
methods courses. Moreover, in qualitative courses
that are offered, the level of consistency in course
content remains unclear. Although most trainees
would be able to elaborate on multiple quanti-
tative research designs, how many would be
able to elaborate on multiple qualitative ap-
proaches? For that matter, how many could
adequately describe the basic premises of only
one qualitative approach?
These issues not only highlight McWil-
liams’s concerns related to in-group/out-group
dynamics between researchers and clinicians,
but also speak to similar dynamics between
smaller research circles (e.g., quantitative vs.
qualitative camps). Our fear is that the conti-
nental drift McWilliams describes between re-
search and practice will occur at a lower level
between research approaches, but our hope is
that genuine mixed method approaches will
continue to gain momentum in the field of psy-
chotherapy research.
Concluding Remarks
As trainees engaged in psychotherapy re-
search, practice, and integration, we are grateful
for the opportunity to respond to McWilliams.
We believe she acknowledges a variety of is-
sues that continue to concern members of the
greater psychotherapy community.
We would first like to emphasize the need to
address the research/practice divide as it pres-
ents itself across graduate training programs.
Although McWilliams does not speak to this
concern directly, we believe that the systemic
group dynamics she discusses that lead to “oth-
ering” are in many cases first conceived just
before and during graduate training. We feel
that in many instances, the research and practice
dichotomy is a false one, and that many pro-
grams work to seamlessly integrate the two.
However, this is not true across all programs,
and until the field addresses the culture of re-
searcher versus practitioner attitudes at the
training level, it is likely that the systems Mc-
Williams alludes to will only be perpetuated.
Although we highlighted an empirical study
conducted by Kamen and colleagues (2010) in
which doctoral trainees enrolled in CUDCP-
affiliated institutions indicated a desire for pre-
 310 MORRISON AND GOODWIN
dominantly clinical careers despite CUDCP-
member programs’ general commitment to
research training, we are hopeful that these
trainees will continue to value research in their
future work. In a separate survey of over 600
students affiliated with CUDCP programs,
Merlo, Collins, and Bernstein (2008) found that
clinical psychology students provided good to
excellent ratings of the quantity and quality of
science training in their respective programs,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
and noted that “the overwhelming majority of
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
students reported believing that traditional sci-
ence training is very important or extremely
important, and no students indicated that sci-
ence training was not important to them” (p.
63). Given these findings, we are optimistic that
the current generation of trainees is learning to
respect the importance of both research and
practice, which will hopefully lead to less of the
systemic “othering” and contempt for one or the
other that McWilliams describes.
Regarding practice-oriented solutions, we
whole-heartedly echo McWilliams’s sentiment
that we not fight yesterday’s battles, and agree
that many of today’s clinicians adhere to mul-
tiple orientations and approaches. As students,
we would hope graduate training programs are
mindful of this fact when they offer clinical
practica to students. If the only practica avail-
able to students during their training are com-
prised of a sole orientation, it would stand to
reason that those students may be less open to
clinical integration during their careers. Ideally,
we would hope that psychotherapy integration
moves beyond the synthesis of only specific
orientations or techniques. In this vein, we sus-
pect the next phase of psychotherapy integra-
tion will incorporate both theory-specific ap-
proaches and evidence-based common factors
in response to patients’ idiographic presenta-
tions. Constantino, Boswell, Bernecker, and
Castonguay (2013) discuss the potential of con-
text-responsive psychotherapy integration, and
its future directions in research and practice. We
as students would like to see similar paradigms
offered by supervision teams, and hope addi-
tional opportunities for training in these ap-
proaches become more available to trainees be-
fore moving on to internship.
In regards to McWilliams’s comments re-
garding third-party payers and other bureau-
cratic barriers to treatment, we would advocate
for increased efforts to make psychotherapy re-
search more pragmatic and accessible for the
community practitioner by addressing these
barriers. Greater emphasis on these barriers dur-
ing graduate training might help researchers
design studies with these hurdles in mind. That
being said, we recognize the increasing con-
striction on the latitude of clinicians’ ability to
practice, and encourage the next generation of
clinicians and researchers to attend to this issue
by engaging with policymakers and other insti-
tutional factors when possible.
As graduate trainees, our day-to-day tasks are
continuously influenced by our ability to bal-
ance the research and clinical demands of our
training program. However, we simultaneously
strive to integrate the two, a precedent that has
been set by integrationists in years gone by. We
are grateful for the work already done by the
psychotherapy integration community, and look
ahead with optimism at addressing the pressing
issues McWilliams astutely underscores.
References
Carey, T. A., & Stiles, W. B. (2016). Some problems
with randomized controlled trials and some viable
alternatives. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy,
23, 87–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cpp.1942
Commission on Accreditation. (2015). Implementa-
tion regulations for the standards of accreditation
for health service psychology. Retrieved from http://
www.apa.org/ed/accreditation/about/policies/
section-c.aspx
Constantino, M. J., Boswell, J. F., Bernecker, S. L.,
& Castonguay, L. G. (2013). Context-responsive
psychotherapy integration as a framework for a
unified clinical science: Conceptual and empirical
considerations. Journal of Unified Psychotherapy
and Clinical Science, 2, 1–20.
Constantino, M. J., Morrison, N. R., Coyne, A. E., &
Howard, T. (2016). The state of therapeutic alli-
ance training in clinical and counseling psychol-
ogy graduate programs. Manuscript submitted for
publication.
Constantino, M. J., Morrison, N. R., MacEwan, G., &
Boswell, J. F. (2013). Therapeutic alliance re-
searchers’ perspectives on alliance-centered train-
ing practices. Journal of Psychotherapy Integra-
tion, 23, 284 –289. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
a0032357
Eubanks-Carter, C., Muran, J. C., & Safran, J. D.
(2015). Alliance-focused training. Psychotherapy,
52, 169 –173. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0037596
Goldfried, M. R. (2016). On possible consequences
of National Institute of Mental Health funding for
 TRAINEE PERSPECTIVES ON ISSUES 311

psychotherapy research and training. Professional
Psychology: Research and Practice, 47, 77– 83.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pro0000034
Heatherington, L., Messer, S. B., Angus, L., Strau-
man, T. J., Friedlander, M. L., & Kolden, G. G.
(2012). The narrowing of theoretical orientations
in clinical psychology doctoral training. Clinical
Psychology: Science and Practice, 19, 364 –374.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cpsp.12012
Hepner, K. A., Greenwood, G. L., Azocar, F., Mi-
randa, J., & Burnam, M. A. (2010). Usual care
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
treatment for adult depression in a managed care
environment: A preliminary study. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76, 116 –124.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.76.1.116
Morgan, R. D., & Cohen, L. M. (2008). Clinical and
counseling psychology: Can differences be
gleaned from printed recruiting materials? Train-
ing and Education in Professional Psychology, 2,
156 –164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1931-3918.2.3
.156
Norcross, J. C., Ellis, J. L., & Sayette, M. A. (2010).

psychotherapy for depression in a large managed

Getting in and getting money: A comparative anal-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

behavioral health organization. Administration and

Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Ser-
vices Research, 37, 270 –278. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1007/s10488-009-0247-6
Kamen, C., Veilleux, J. C., Bangen, K. J., Vander-
Veen, J. W., & Klonoff, E. A. (2010). Climbing
the stairway to competency: Trainee perspectives
on competency development. Training and Edu-
cation in Professional Psychology, 4, 227–234.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021092
Kazdin, A. E. (2008). Evidence-based treatment and
practice: New opportunities to bridge clinical re-
search and practice, enhance the knowledge base,
and improve patient care. American Psychologist,
63, 146 –159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-
066X.63.3.146
Laska, K. M., Gurman, A. S., & Wampold, B. E.
(2014). Expanding the lens of evidence-based
practice in psychotherapy: A common factors per-
spective. Psychotherapy, 51, 467– 481. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1037/a0034332
Merlo, L. J., Collins, A., & Bernstein, J. (2008).
CUDCP-affiliated clinical psychology student
views of their science training. Training and Edu-
cation in Professional Psychology, 2, 58 – 65.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1931-3918.2.1.58
Minami, T., Wampold, B. E., Serlin, R. C., Hamilton,
E. G., Brown, G. S., & Kircher, J. C. (2008).
Benchmarking the effectiveness of psychotherapy
ysis of admission standards, acceptance rates, and
financial assistance across the research-practice
continuum in clinical psychology programs. Train-
ing and Education in Professional Psychology, 4,
99 –104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0014880
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2005). On
becoming a pragmatic researcher: The importance
of combining quantitative and qualitative research
methodologies. International Journal of Social Re-
search Methodology: Theory & Practice, 8, 375–
387. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/136455705004
02447
Rummell, C. M. (2015). An exploratory study of
psychology graduate student workload, health, and
program satisfaction. Professional Psychology:
Research and Practice, 46, 391–399. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/pro0000056
Sharpless, B. A., Muran, J. C., & Barber, J. P. (2010).
Coda: Recommendations for practice and training.
In J. C. Muran & J. P. Barber (Eds.), The thera-
peutic alliance: An evidence-based guide to prac-
tice (pp. 341–354). New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
Smith-Hansen, L. (2016). The therapeutic alliance:
From correlational studies to training models.
Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 26, 217–
229. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/int0000012

Perspectivas de los aprendices sobre temas de la psicoterapia integrativa a través de la investigación

y practica: comentarios sobre McWilliams

Como estudiantes de la psicología clínica, comentamos sobre el artículo de McWilliams (esta edición), ‘La investigación
integrativa para la práctica integrativa: La petición para una colaboración respetuosa a través de los oficios de clínicos e
investigadores.’ McWilliams aborda varias áreas conflictivas en el campo de psicología clínica, con implicaciones para la
investigación, practica, e integración en cómo se relacionan con la psicoterapia. Estamos de acuerdo con McWilliams a
través de sus varias preocupaciones, y esperamos agregar a la conversación sobre temas contemporáneos en la psicoterapia
integrativa, trayendo los puntos de vista de los aprendices. En nuestro comentario, discutimos nuestras ideas sobre el oficio
del ambiente y cultura de programas de formación de posgrado y como pueden influenciar en iniciando y sosteniendo temas
que hacen grietas en la investigación y práctica. Entre otros temas, discutimos nuestras preocupaciones relacionadas a las
orientaciones teoréticas y la necesidad por mayores énfasis en factores común a través de programas de formación. Además,
comentamos sobre la importancia de la comprensión de ambos clínicos e investigadores sobre las restricciones colocados
en los respectivos campos por presión externa (e.g., aseguradores de terceros, fondos de investigación), y la falta de
información muchas veces dispensados al nivel de formación posgrado relacionada a estos dominios. Esperamos que
 312 MORRISON AND GOODWIN

nuestros comentarios enfatizan las consideraciones que aún no han recibido atención, y se toman en el contexto como solo
un perspectivo de varias, sobre el estado de la psicoterapia integrativa.

Integración psicoterapia, integración de ciencia y práctica, formación de psicoterapia, formación de posgrado, programas
clínicos

从实习生的角度谈研究与实践中心理治疗整合的问题：对McWilliams的评论
作为临床心理学的学生，我们评论了麦克威廉姆斯（本期）的文章“综合研究为综合实践：为临床医师和研究人员
角色之间尊重性合作的請求”。麦克威廉姆斯谈到了临床心理学领域的一些具有争议的领域，以及其对心理治疗相
关的研究，实践和整合的影响。我们對麦克威廉姆斯以及她所关注的各种问题表示同意，并希望通过从一个受訓
員的角度考虑心理治疗整合当代问题。在我们的评论中，我们讨论了关于研究生培训项目的环境和文化在引发和
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

持續研究和实践的分裂问题上可能的角色。对于其他问题，我们还讨论了我们对理论方向的关注，以及需要更多
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

地强调培训计划中的共同因素的必要性。此外，我们评论了临床医师和研究人员对外部压力对彼此各自领域的限
制（例如，第三方保险公司，研究经费）的理解的重要性，以及研究生培训中常见的对这些领域缺乏信息。我们
希望我们的意见强调了（还）没有得到关注的考虑因素，并且被視为许多心理治疗整合意見中的一个观点。

心理治疗整合, 科学-实践整合, 心理治疗培训, 研究生培训, 临床专业

Received October 3, 2016

Revision received January 3, 2017
Accepted January 4, 2017 䡲

E-Mail Notification of Your Latest Issue Online!

Would you like to know when the next issue of your favorite APA journal will be
available online? This service is now available to you. Sign up at https://my.apa.org/
portal/alerts/ and you will be notified by e-mail when issues of interest to you become
available!