Distinguishing between 'assistant' and 'trainee' psychologists

Recent parliamentary reports in connection with the debate on the Psychologists' Bill has brought to the fore an issue that is threatening to do more harm than good to this emergent profession.

Psychological practice is a relatively new area and does not enjoy the formal acknowledgement and wide acceptance of the longer established professions.

It is understandable, therefore, that misconceptions abound. It is understandable, too, that the role of the psychologist is perceived as a nebulous one by some. However, this is no reason for the perpetuation of vague notions and lack of clear lines of demarcation.

In a letter to The Times recently, Antoine Schembri Wismayer referred to what he called the paradoxical situation in which "psychology graduates may be better qualified in terms of psychological knowledge than many of their co-workers from other professions". However, at the risk of sounding inconsiderate, I feel I have to add that unsaid phrase "but they are not psychologists!"

Rightly, Dr Schembri Wismayer makes reference to the long period of prescribed training required to achieve the competencies possessed by trained psychologists in the diverse areas of psychological practice. To my mind, this is what defines a psychologist along with formal recognition by a legally constituted body to regulate entry to the profession and the practice of such a profession.

The critical issue is that while graduates with a first degree in psychology (usually at honours level) do indeed possess insight into the general area of psychology, and usually do have some basic induction to very limited and minor aspects of working with people in a helping capacity (not formal training), they still need years of further education and practical training to achieve those competencies normally invested in the title of psychologist.

I thus find that the term "assistant" psychologist, used so freely in recent parliamentary debates on the Bill, carries little or no meaning by virtue of the fact that a graduate with a first degree in psychology is exactly what he or she purports to be, a graduate with a first degree in psychology and no more.

The issue lies, however, not with the first degree in itself but with the path that the person with a first degree is to follow if he or she does indeed wish to train as a psychologist.

If I understand the trend of thought of the many debaters in Parliament as reported in the press, the "assistant psychologist" is in a role that is inherently subordinate to a psychologist, requires no further training for the post and it is not implied that the holder is likely to need to pursue further training to become a psychologist.

I ardently hope that this is not the way we wish to go. It may also be seen as a short-term but inherently flawed solution to responding to the ever increasing demands for psychological services. I ask myself what degree of service can clients expect to receive through such stop-gap arrangements which do not implicitly have at heart the development of services to the highest professional levels possible.

Rather, if one were to use the term "trainee psychologist", then one would be making a subtle but very definite shift of meaning. A "trainee" is indeed a person with the appropriate first degree in psychology but, and here lies the difference, this person has been deemed by his employer, prima facie, to possess the necessary qualities in terms of both academic preparation and aptitude to pursue further training to become a psychologist.

Normally, a trainee is awarded a traineeship with an employer for a number of years and the limited tenure of the post is conditional upon the trainee being successful in securing a place on a recognised course of training.

Even in terms of providing limited services while in training, the "trainee psychologist" is shouldering the responsibility of advancing his or her practice to the highest degree possible and permissible in the circumstances.

Unlike the "assistant psychologist", he or she knows that this will be taken into account when he or she does indeed secure a place on a recognised course of training.

Incidentally, this helps to ensure better service delivery to the client. This was the specific formula applied to a number of Ministry of Education trainees among others, all of whom have now trained as psychologists by following the M.Psy course at the University of Malta.

By creating a new class of so-called "assistant psychologists" I fear that one may be doing a grave injustice to the profession by virtue of the fact that a first degree in psychology will be popularly perceived as the entry level qualification to the profession.

Moreover, it has the potential for exposing the public making use of psychological services to possible dangers inherent in this situation.

What one should aim for is to have adequate numbers of carefully selected "trainee psychologists" who are employed conditionally on the pursuance of, and successful completion of, recognised professional training.

This is the only way that the practice of psychology can develop. A two-tier system of "assistant" and "professional" psychologist is likely to lead to division, rancour and differences in ethical principles and levels of competence.

On the other hand, the appointment of "trainee psychologists" together with the availability of the course for the completion of their training is a longer-term solution but one that is likely to bring about sustained and real development to the profession and, more importantly, the delivery of the highest level of service possible to clients.

Dr Martinelli is a chartered educational psychologist.