Psychologists Opposed to Prescription Privileges for Psychologists
OVER 89% OF
DEMAND EMPIRICAL SUPPORT
FOR RXP PRIOR TO EXPANDING IT
Deacon (2014). Prescriptive authority for psychologists: A survey of the ABCT membership. The Behavior Therapist, 37, 163-169.
89% vs. 5%
NO MORE BILLS WITHOUT SCIENCE
73% vs. 10%
WOULD NOT REFER CLIENTS BECAUSE TOO LITTLE TRAINING
83% vs. 6%
ONLINE CLASSES INADEQUATELY PREPARE PSYCHOLOGISTS TO PRESCRIBE
67% vs. 14%
SHOULD PROMOTE COLLABORATION VS. RxP
Why do psychologists oppose RxP?
The 2014 survey of members of the Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies (ABCT) is the most recent national survey of 976 psychologists who were asked their attitudes about a full range of positions adopted by both RxP opponents and proponents, including those related to training and regulation, client care, and the effects of RxP on the profession. Respondents were also asked to share their views of the biomedical model, more generally and asked to indicate their overall support for RxP and for ABCT developing an official policy related to RxP.
Although a range of opinions were expressed, when ABCT members were asked, "to what extent do you support prescriptive authority for psychologists" a minority supported RxP (52.3% opposed, 10% neutral, 37.7% support). While such general questions do allow comparison with prior surveys regarding general support and opposition toward RxP they are limited in that respondents are likely answering with reference to some variable level of proper training in mind. In fact, when asked about support of the current APA training model which is typically the starting point for RxP legislation 89% were opposed. Echoing prior research (Baird, 2007), respondents also supported rigorous medical and clinical training standards. Particularly favorable attitudes were expressed toward obtaining additional training for effective collaboration with physicians and they tended to favor collaboration over RxP. Respondents were more likely to agree than disagree that RxP produces negative professional consequences, such as expanding the profession beyond scope of competence, detracting from its focus, strengths and perspectives, devaluing psychotherapy, and detracting from professional efforts to disseminated empirically supported psychological treatments.
See the sidebar for more highlights and to download the full article.