Survey of members of the Australian psychological society who derive all or part of their income from private practice
Titel:
Survey of members of the Australian psychological society who derive all or part of their income from private practice
Auteur:
Reid, John M. Lord, Margaret R.
Verschenen in:
Australian psychologist
Paginering:
Jaargang 25 (1990) nr. 2 pagina's 77-102
Jaar:
1990-07-01
Inhoud:
This paper is based on the report of a survey of members of the Australian Psychological Society who are in private practice, which was carried out in March 1988. The results disclose a number of aspects of private practice of psychology in Australia that should give the profession cause for concern. There is no strong “private-practice sector” of the profession - possibly as few as 9% of APS members are in private practice - and a very high proportion of the small number of private practitioners who do exist are part-timers. Many of these part-timers, most of whom are employed in the health system or in education, arc providing their services to clients at cut rates - rates at which it would be impossible to sustain themselves and their families if private practice was their sole remunerated occupation. There is confusion about the APS's recommended fee, and the fee structure is not appropriate to non-clinical practitioners. Very few members, even among the full-time practitioners, charge private clients the APS recommended fee. The modal gross income of psychologists in private practice is substantially lower than that of other professional service providers. There is confusion about the functions of, and - perhaps consequently - a lack of support for, DPA Boards. A high proportion (≥50%) of DPA Board members in private practice (except Counselling Board members) are not undertaking any formal continuing professional education. On the other hand, the majority of non-Board-member private practitioners are undertaking formal continuing education. The APS does not appear to exercise fee and quality-of-service, discipline over its members. The concerns of the APS are too narrowly focused on clinical practice issues. The APS must broaden its interests to encourage the growth of private practice and the development of new markets for the profession in the fields of organisational/industrial psychology.
Tijdschrift beschrijving