Abstract
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.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 74-80 |
| Number of pages | 7 |
| Journal | Rehabilitation Psychology |
| Volume | 45 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Jan 1 2000 |
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation
- Rehabilitation
- Clinical Psychology
- Psychiatry and Mental health
Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'On psychological identity and training: A reply to Thomas and Chan (2000)'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.
Cite this
Wegener, S. T., Elliott, T. R., & Hagglund, K. J. (2000). On psychological identity and training: A reply to Thomas and Chan (2000). Rehabilitation Psychology, 45(1), 74-80. https://doi.org/10.1037/0090-5550.45.1.74