On psychological identity and training: A reply to Thomas and Chan (2000)

Stephen T. Wegener; Timothy R. Elliott; Kristofer J. Hagglund

doi:10.1037/0090-5550.45.1.74

On psychological identity and training: A reply to Thomas and Chan (2000)

Stephen T. Wegener, Timothy R. Elliott, Kristofer J. Hagglund

School of Medicine

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

5 Scopus citations

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	https://doi.org/10.1037/0090-5550.45.1.74
State	Published - Jan 1 2000

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation
Rehabilitation
Clinical Psychology
Psychiatry and Mental health

Access to Document

10.1037/0090-5550.45.1.74

Cite this

@article{d94eb31ed6c146cc80ec2429cc6f37e0,

title = "On psychological identity and training: A reply to Thomas and Chan (2000)",

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.",

author = "Wegener, {Stephen T.} and Elliott, {Timothy R.} and Hagglund, {Kristofer J.}",

year = "2000",

month = jan,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1037/0090-5550.45.1.74",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "45",

pages = "74--80",

journal = "Rehabilitation Psychology",

issn = "0090-5550",

publisher = "American Psychological Association Inc.",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - On psychological identity and training

T2 - A reply to Thomas and Chan (2000)

AU - Wegener, Stephen T.

AU - Elliott, Timothy R.

AU - Hagglund, Kristofer J.

PY - 2000/1/1

Y1 - 2000/1/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0034130815&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0034130815&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1037/0090-5550.45.1.74

DO - 10.1037/0090-5550.45.1.74

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:0034130815

VL - 45

SP - 74

EP - 80

JO - Rehabilitation Psychology

JF - Rehabilitation Psychology

SN - 0090-5550

IS - 1

ER -

On psychological identity and training: A reply to Thomas and Chan (2000)

Abstract

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this