Journal of Pediatric Psychology Advance Access originally published online on September 21, 2007
Journal of Pediatric Psychology 2008 33(1):6-8; doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jsm095
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
© The Author 2007. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society of Pediatric Psychology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org
Editorial: Review and Commentary Section
1Children's Memorial Hospital, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University and 2Mary Ann and J. Milburn Smith Child Health Research Program, Children's Memorial Research Center
All corresspondence concerning this article should be addressed to John V. Lavigne, Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Children's Memorial Hospital (#10), 2300 Children's Plaza, Chicago, Illinois, USA. E-mail: jlavigne@childrensmemorial.org.
| The first 10% of the full text of this article appears below. |
Is this the era of empirically supported practice? If it is not, it is up to us to make it so. Many of us were trained in the scientist–practitioner framework of the Boulder model, now almost 60 years old, which emphasized training in both research and practice for clinical psychologists, and which seems to make the implicit assumption that the "science" training would help to make the "practice" activities more empirically-based. Almost 60 years later, we now have a greater appreciation for the difficulties of translating research into practice. As complicated as it may be to integrate science and practice into a single career, it may be even more difficult to find ways to have science infuse our clinical activities so that the knowledge base of clinical psychology guides our clinical work whenever possible.
Currently,