Objective
A goal of this effort is to explicate two differing views on training models in clinical psychology and allied fields, namely, the gradualist view—which assumes that trainees’ exposure to patients with severe clinical presentations should be restricted until clinical experience accrues—and the anti-fragilist view—which, under certain conditions, encourages trainees’ exposure to the full range of severity regardless of experience. A related aim is to empirically test a prediction arising from the tension between these two perspectives.
Methods
Patient and therapist data were available from a low-cost population-facing treatment center (N = 399; 69.8% women; 73.6% Non-Hispanic White), which collected data on patients’ severity of clinical presentation at intake and over time and on therapist experience, and which does not restrict assignment based on therapist experience. The statistical interaction between severity of clinical presentation at intake and therapist experience predicting clinical outcomes was tested.
Results
There was no evidence that inexperienced therapists’ patients had worse outcomes in general, including if the patients’ initial presentations were clinically severe.
Conclusions
There are reasons to favor an anti-fragilizing training model, including that it better respects and serves patients and trainees, and that the current results do not support a core assumption of the gradualist model.