Abstract:The escalating costs of health care and other recent trends have made health care decisions of great societal import, with decision-making responsibility often being transferred from practitioners to health economists, health plans, and insurers. Health care decision making increasingly is guided by evidence that a treatment is efficacious, effective-disseminable, cost-effective, and scientifically plausible. Under these conditions of heightened cost concerns and institutional-economic decision making, psychologists are losing the opportunity to play a leadership role in mental and behavioral health care: Other types of practitioners are providing an increasing proportion of delivered treatment, and the use of psychiatric medication has increased dramatically relative to the provision of psychological interventions. Research has shown that numerous psychological interventions are efficacious, effective, and cost-effective. However, these interventions are used infrequently with patients who would benefit from them, in part because clinical psychologists have not made a convincing case for the use of these interventions (e.g., by supplying the data that decision makers need to support implementation of such interventions) and because clinical psychologists do not themselves use these interventions even when given the opportunity to do so. Clinical psychologists' failure to achieve a more significant impact on clinical and public health may be traced to their deep ambivalence about the role of science and their lack of adequate science training, which leads them to value personal clinical experience over research evidence, use assessment practices that have dubious psychometric support, and not use the interventions for which there is the strongest evidence of efficacy. Clinical psychology resembles medicine at a point in its history when practitioners were operating in a largely prescientific manner. Prior to the scientific reform of medicine in the early 1900s, physicians typically shared the attitudes of many of today's clinical psychologists, such as valuing personal experience over scientific research. Medicine was reformed, in large part, by a principled effort by the American Medical Association to increase the science base of medical school education. Substantial evidence shows that many clinical psychology doctoral training programs, especially PsyD and for-profit programs, do not uphold high standards for graduate admission, have high student-faculty ratios, deemphasize science in their training, and produce students who fail to apply or generate scientific knowledge. A promising strategy for improving the quality and clinical and public health impact of clinical psychology is through a new accreditation system that demands high-quality science training as a central feature of doctoral training in clinical psychology. Just as strengthening training standards in medicine markedly enhanced the quality of health care, improved training standards in clinical psychology will enhance health and mental health care. Such a system will (a) allow the public and employers to identify scientifically trained psychologists; (b) stigmatize ascientific training programs and practitioners; (c) produce aspirational effects, thereby enhancing training quality generally; and (d) help accredited programs improve their training in the application and generation of science. These effects should enhance the generation, application, and dissemination of experimentally supported interventions, thereby improving clinical and public health. Experimentally based treatments not only are highly effective but also are cost-effective relative to other interventions; therefore, they could help control spiraling health care costs. The new Psychological Clinical Science Accreditation System (PCSAS) is intended to accredit clinical psychology training programs that offer high-quality science-centered education and training, producing graduates who are successful in generating and applying scientific knowledge. Psychologists, universities, and other stakeholders should vigorously support this new accreditation system as the surest route to a scientifically principled clinical psychology that can powerfully benefit clinical and public health.

Major Problems in Clinical Psychological Science and How to Address them. Introducing a Multimodal Dynamical Network Approach

A new science of mental disorders: Using personalised, transdiagnostic, dynamical systems to understand, model, diagnose and treat psychopathology

Moving Forward: Challenges and Directions for Psychopathological Network Theory and Methodology

Possible Futures for the Psychological Network Approach: Agenda for Clinical Scientists

A Network Control Theory of Dynamic Systems Approach to Personalize Therapy

A Dynamical Systems View of Psychiatric Disorders—Theory

Applying a Dynamical Systems Model and Network Theory 1 to Major Depressive Disorder 2

The future of psychological treatments: The Marburg Declaration

Applying a Dynamical Systems Model and Network Theory to Major Depressive Disorder

A Dynamical Systems View of Psychiatric Disorders—Practical Implications

A Complex Network Perspective on Clinical Science

Novel Approaches Toward Studying Change: Implications for Understanding and Treating Psychopathology

A Network Control Theory Approach to Longitudinal Symptom Dynamics in Major Depressive Disorder

Challenges and ways forward in bridging units of analysis in clinical psychological science.

Affective Disorders as Complex Dynamic Diseases – a Perspective from Systems Biology

Mental disorders, network models, and dynamical systems

Dynamical systems in computational psychiatry: A toy-model to apprehend the dynamics of psychiatric symptoms

Psychiatric diagnosis and treatment in the 21st century: paradigm shifts versus incremental integration

Why Do We Need Computational Models of Psychological Change and Recovery, and How Should They Be Designed and Tested?

Network analysis: An overview for mental health research

Current Status and Future Prospects of Clinical Psychology: Toward a Scientifically Principled Approach to Mental and Behavioral Health Care