When I was a summer student in a canadian psychiatric hospital, I asked a med-student what he thought the difference between a psychiatrist and a psychologist was. This somewhat egotistical doctor-in-training told me that a psychologist is just a psychiatrist without medical training or prescription privileges. Though this definition is most definitely not correct, a number of lay-persons do believe it (as well as a surprisingly great deal of people within the mental health disciplines). I personally see the psychologist as a person whom focuses primarily on behaviour and how personality/motivation/etc. shapes this behaviour. A psychiatrist on the other hand looks at the biological basis of behaviour, and for this reason attempts to correct biological deficits via pharmacological means. This definition is far from perfect, both disciplines vary greatly and quite often overlap. There is quite a number of psychiatrists who follow a behavioural/cognitive model, and just as likely a equal proportion of psychologists who subscribe to a biological school of thought.
In the literature it has been pointed out that non-psychiatric experts may be suffering from a prejudicial lower social status (Perlin, 1977). That is, forensic evaluations of psychiatrists are seen as more significant due to these professionals medical training, even though forensic evaluations are primarily behavioural in nature. Do these opinions have any basis in fact? A study by Petrella and Poytherss, Jr. (1983) suggests that this is not the case. In their study two aspects of forensic evaluations were analyzed: (1) evaluations of competency to stand trial, and (2) evaluations of criminal responsibility. Both aspects were measured on thoroughness and quality. On competency evaluations psychologists used a greater number of additional sources of information and provided the lengthiest notes. Independent judges, attorneys, and law professors ranked psychologists reports as being of higher quality. With the evaluations of criminal responsibility, psychologists again sought out additional sources of information at greater frequency then psychiatrists. Additionally, psychologists produced more thorough write-ups. The differences in quality of the criminal responsibility evaluations were significantly different in only two cases, both of which showed the psychologists reports as being of a higher quality.
Petrella and Poythress, Jr. (1983) seem to have shown that the layman's view of clinical psychologists as second rate experts is not an opinion that stands up to factual scrutiny. This does not mean that roles should be reversed and that psychiatrists should be seen as "second rate". Rather, I would suggest that we should simply attempt to not judge once discipline superior then the other, and that each expert should be judged individually on the basis of
Go To Page: 1 2
