I'm listening...

Hello. I am a psychotherapist in private practice in Oakland, CA and I work for Bruce Ecker and the Coherence Psychology Institute. Coherence therapy, while it is a newer modality, is better established than Gestalt in my opinion. The University of Memphis, one of the most highly regarded programs in psychotherapy research is using our training materials with their students. There are no major universities currently teaching Gestalt. It has been called by eminent constructivists such as Robert Neimeyer, the editor of the Journal of Constructivist Psychology, "the most compelling incarnation of clinical constructivism on the contemporary scene." Ecker has been widely published in academic and popular circles, and I interact daily with therapists from as far as Germany and Australia who practice coherence therapy. I am curious what qualifies in your mind a modality to be "major."

I appreciate your dedication and enthusiasm for your chosen modality. I'm sure it is well-deserved. However, the section in question is not intended to address every modality that has been shown to be effective or professionally established...that would make the article way too long. Rather, it needs to be limited to those that have major historical and professional significance. You say that there are no major universities currently teaching Gestalt...while I do not think that is true, that is not the issue. It is important because it has been a major influence on the theory and practice of psychotherapy, which is still practiced today after 50 years. Further, a majority of introductory texts on clinical psychology have a chapter or large section on Gestalt therapy...how many have one on coherence therapy? Probably none. That is not because it isn't a valid modality, but because it hasn't been established as being fundamentally unique or influential on the field as a whole.

On the other hand, you might be able to make an argument for including a sub-section on "clinical constructivism" as being a therapeutic orientation. I don't know anything about it myself, but it sounds interesting. Anyway, please don't be offended...the article simply doesn't have room to include all valid modalities. Psykhosis 19:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Without needing to look too far, I saw that the introductory text book, Essential Psychotherapies: Theory and Practice by Gurman and Messer has numerous references to coherence therapy and Bruce Ecker. I assume that many others do as well. In the book, coherence therapy is referred to as Depth-Oriented Brief Therapy, as this was its original name. Newer editions of psychology texts will reflect the new name. See coherence therapy for background on the name change. To corroborate what I have written here, you need but look up Essential Psychotherapies on Amazon.com and put the name Ecker in the "Search Inside this Book" box in the section "Inside this book." If this satisfies your objections, please return the stub I wrote. If not, please let me know more evidence you need. Thank you for making sure that this page is of the highest quality.

Hi. I saw that you removed my paragraph. I can probably find you a source, but I'll save myself some time and just tell you that I graduated from an acredited university with a degree in Clinical Psychology (that is what it says right on the diploma) and went on to acquire a license from the state of California (MFT) - the school provided an entire program including the supervision of hours and help with preparing for the state licensing exams.

No need for an apology - I sense your edit was made with honest intentions. People make the mistake of thinking that "psychology", "clinical psychology" and "psychologist" are terms restricted to Doctoral-level licenses. But that isn't so. The APA has been shameless in fostering that error because it suits their agenda. In the U.S. the only restricted term related to doctoral-level practice of psychology in a clinical setting is "Licensed psychologist" (and rightly so). All of the other terms have broader meanings that span political borders, apply through periods of history that predate the APA or regulatory laws in this area, and have a meaning that arises out of English usage. Steve 22:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, if you can provide a reputable citation for your claim, then that fulfills the requirement for Wikipedia. But even if you did indeed earn a Masters in Clinical Psychology, a single program doing so is not enough to invalidate the APA (despite your dislike of it, it remains the premier psychological organization), and the vast majority of schools. At the most, it would be evidence of a beginning merger...to say otherwise does not reflect the field as it currently stands. You are making an extraordinary claim, and so it requires strong proof that it reflects the profession. Psykhosis 22:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know what you are saying. I don't dislike the APA. I strongly back their drive for a set of rational standards and their drive to make psychology a research-based field (which may be the only hope of getting rid the tons of psychobabble out there). But I don't like it when they behave like a guild organization and engage in lobbying to reserve a word that already has usage in the English language or when the let themselves be misunderstood in a way that diminishes what Masters level licensees are doing. And nothing I've said "invalidates" the APA. To disagree with some of the things they do doesn't constitute "dislike" or "invalidation."

There is nothing extrodinary about my claim - are you familiar with the Masters level licenses? Here is what the program at my old school says:

"Master of Arts in Clinical Psychology Program"

"We offer a Clinical Psychology degree, with optional specializations in Child Studies, Applied Community Psychology and LGBT Psychology. Learners may also design their own specialization. We also offer a non-clinical Masters in Psychology degree for those who do not intend to seek licensure.

"Our Masters in Clinical Psychology degree fulfills educational requirements for California Marriage and Family Therapist licensure".

[Antioch University] is a respected institution that has been around since 1852. The founder of the campus I attended was a licensed psychologist whose degree was from UCLA and after getting his degree he studied at the Jung Institute in Zurich. He was one of my supervisors when I worked in the clinic.

I stand corrected. Okay, then let's integrate this information. Psykhosis 23:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. You want to take a shot at it, or should I? Steve 23:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC) Never mind - I see you have started. I'll make a small change to include psychotherapist along with the LPC. Steve 23:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think the last sentence was okay before you changed it. Here is where I'm coming from.

- All states require a doctoral degree as part of becoming a "Licensed psychologist."

- All states permit an LPC or therapist to engage in clinical psychology with a masters degree.

The confusion in this area is because of the three different kinds of things being discussed.

1) Degrees (doctoral or masters),

2) Licenses ("licenced psychologist", "MFT", "LCSW", etc.) - this is the only area where titles are restricted,

3) Areas of activity or bodies of knowledge ("School counseling", "Clincal psychology", "Industrial consultation", etc.)

Licensing says that masters level people can NOT call themselves "Licensed Psychologist" but they can work in clinical psychology while licensed as a therapist or as an LPC. Steve 00:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]