Anybody can call themselves a Psychologist....Apparently this is true....told to me , by a recently qualified Psychologist....

Any psychologists on site , verify or dispute this ?

Yes Peter that's correct as the term psychologist isn't currently a protected title.

However there are move afoot to protect several titles in the domain of applied psychology.

The following is taken from the BPS website:

''These considerations have led to the following proposals for the psychologists' register. The part of the register shall be called 'Applied Psychologists'. This will not however be a protected title. The protected titles shall be those titles currently and generally used to describe practitioners: that is clinical psychologist, clinical neuropsychologist, counselling psychologist, health psychologist, educational psychologist, forensic psychologist and occupational psychologist. These are the seven groups of applied psychologists that will be regulated when the register is formally opened.''

The above process of regulation is still in the consultation stage with the Department of Health so will be some time off yet.

Hope this helps a bit towards clarifying the position, or maybe just adds further to the confusion!

Chris

Thanks Chris...Best wishes , Peter Walsh Psychologist haha !

I've always taken 'psychologist' to mean someone interested in psychology and as such I don't think it should be restricted.

'Psychotherapist' implies something more and as such should be and is restricted.

Hi all,

Calling yourself anything you want to is no great trick. Getting others to perceive you in a way that parallels what you call yourself can be somewhat more challenging...

Be Well,

Michael Perez

Wendy

who is restricting psychotherapist and why?

Nigel

Wendy,
It would be good if you could answer Nigel's question. I would love to know where you got the idea from that the term psychotherapist is restricted?

Vince.

I am studying for a degree in Psychology. However, that will not make me a Psychologist. I need to do another 3 years training, with generally involved getting a Masters, or PhD, and hands on training too.

For jumping through all those hoops, and paying the British Psychological Society a nice sum of money, i will then be able to call myself a CHARTERED Psychologist. Which means I will be able to get work in organisations like the NHS. (If I wanted it)

Problem is, the general public really don't have much idea about the difference between a self-named 'Psychologist' and a real, qualified one.

Much like the trust put in Dr Gillian McKeiths ideas really, the general public just accept what they are told.

I am sure there are plenty of people out there calling themselves 'NLP Practitioners' or 'Hypnotherapists' when they have never been on a training course. And people will always get qualifications in the way that suits them (e.g Dr McKenna).

Frustrating for all of us, I think.

Gillian McKeith?? I'm googling now...,.

In Australia it is illegal to call oneself a psychologist unless registered with a psychologists registration board. Registration boards are at the state level. This is turning out well for psychologists with the recent advent of medicare rebates for therapy when the client is referred by a medical practitioner.

Of course there are no constraints (in Australia) on who can call themselves an NLP practitioner, master practitioner or trainer. In fact I know someone who is teaching practitioner and master practitioner courses and advertises himself as a NLP trainer who has never attended a NLP trainers training.

We have been instrumental in creating and accrediting (in Australia) the first post-graduate qualification in NLP - a Graduate Certificate in Neuro-Linguistic Programming. This is our third year since the qualification was accredited and timely in that recently one of Tad James former students has started marketing a 3 day NLP practitioner program.

Chris Collingwood

Firstly, I guessing that anyone anywhere can call themself a psychologist, or psychotherapist, or put Ph.D after their name even if they have no formal training and no certification. The differences arise if you offer your services as a psychologist, psychotherapist or whatever without some kind of formal qualification.

In Britain you can offer your services in these areas without any qualifications. In the USA, AFAIK, you must have at least an M.A., and Australia you must belong to a relevant association (which implies having obtained appropriate qualifications).

If you want to work in this area then obviously the legal restrictions are going to affect you. As far as giving value for money I can't think of anything less relevant. I know of several psychiatrists in the UK (that's a person with a medical qualification with a bit of psychology on the side), working within the NHS (National Health Service) who seemed to be interested in very little except taking on as many jobs as possible - both public and private - so as to maximise their income and minimise their actual workload.

I also have several friends who have done training, though not with any formally recognised organisation, who are very skilled at what they do and who show a great deal of respect for their clients and genuine concern for their well-being.

If I wanted therapy in the UK the question of whether someone was formally accredited certainly wouldn't be high up on my list - except possibly as an indication of who to avoid.
But of course that's just my personal point of view.

jack wrote:

Firstly, I guessing that anyone anywhere can call themself a psychologist, or psychotherapist, or put Ph.D after their name even if they have no formal training and no certification. The differences arise if you offer your services as a psychologist, psychotherapist or whatever without some kind of formal qualification.

A counter example to "anyone anwhere..." is the fact that in Australia someone claiming to have a qualification that they do not have is fraud.

jack wrote:

In Britain you can offer your services in these areas without any qualifications. In the USA, AFAIK, you must have at least an M.A., and Australia you must belong to a relevant association (which implies having obtained appropriate qualifications).

In Australia psychologists are registered with a state registation board not an association.

jack wrote:

If you want to work in this area then obviously the legal restrictions are going to affect you. As far as giving value for money I can't think of anything less relevant. I know of several psychiatrists in the UK (that's a person with a medical qualification with a bit of psychology on the side), working within the NHS (National Health Service) who seemed to be interested in very little except taking on as many jobs as possible - both public and private - so as to maximise their income and minimise their actual workload.

In Australia psychiatry is not a medical degree with a bit of psychology on the side. A medical degree is 6 years of training with an additional 6 years for specialising as a psychiatrist.

jack wrote:

I also have several friends who have done training, though not with any formally recognised organisation, who are very skilled at what they do and who show a great deal of respect for their clients and genuine concern for their well-being.

If I wanted therapy in the UK the question of whether someone was formally accredited certainly wouldn't be high up on my list - except possibly as an indication of who to avoid.
But of course that's just my personal point of view.

That's all very nice however what about the numbers of unskilled poorly trained practitioners representing themselves as (in the example of NLP applied to therapy) exponents of NLP and the damage to the reputation of the discipline? The function of formal qualifications, professional bodies and Government registration is to provide some protection to a). the public, b). practitioners in the particular profession and c). protecting the reputation of the discipline.

The process of creating / maintaining a profession including accredition and qualification is not necessarily synonymous with medicalisation. Mainstream psychology does have some rather limited models however that has nothing to do with the accreditation process.

Chris Collingwood

Chris_Collingwood wrote:

The process of creating / maintaining a profession including accredition and qualification is not necessarily synonymous with medicalisation. Mainstream psychology does have some rather limited models however that has nothing to do with the accreditation process.

Chris Collingwood

(my bolding in the quote above)

.....which is why I am studying Psychology PLUS NLP PLUS Hypnotherapy PLUS Life(style) Coaching - to approach from all possible angles !

I intend to gain accreditation as a HealthPsychologist (I am already a qualifed Personal Fitness Trainer). Long way to go yet........but it will be worth it!