{"id":376,"date":"2025-05-21T19:02:59","date_gmt":"2025-05-21T19:02:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sd5bc.info\/?p=376"},"modified":"2025-12-22T08:19:38","modified_gmt":"2025-12-22T08:19:38","slug":"college-of-alberta-psychologists-an-opinion-you-get-depends-on-which-psychologist-you-see","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sd5bc.info\/index.php\/2025\/05\/21\/college-of-alberta-psychologists-an-opinion-you-get-depends-on-which-psychologist-you-see\/","title":{"rendered":"College of Alberta Psychologists: An opinion you get depends on which psychologist you see"},"content":{"rendered":"\n


Double, double toil and trouble; Fire burn and caldron bubble. Fillet of a fenny snake, In the caldron boil and bake; Eye of newt and toe of frog, Wool of bat and tongue of dog, Adder\u2019s fork and blind-worm\u2019s sting. Lizzard\u2019s leg and howlet\u2019s wing, For a charm of powerful trouble, Like a hell-broth boil and bubble. Double, double toil and trouble; Fire burn and caldron bubble; Cool it with a baboon\u2019s blood, Then the charm is firm and good.<\/p>William Shakespeare, from Macbeth<\/cite><\/blockquote><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The public expects clinical psychologists\u2019 opinions to be reliable, valid, and science-based; clinical psychologists are expected to be science practitioners. The College of Alberta Psychologists<\/a> has the duty to enforce that Alberta psychologists are science practitioners, use the current science, and are not junk science practitioners, pseudo-scientists, charlatans, or witchcraft practitioners toiling over a cauldron interpreting bubbles and steam.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Unfortunately, the top echelons of the College of Alberta Psychologists<\/a> do not appear to subscribe to the science-practitioner model and hold the view that psychologists’ opinions are not reliable and not scientific, that different psychologists are entitled to arrive to opposite conclusions over the same objective data, and that psychologists need not to rely on the current science but are free to pick and choose what they rely on including even 80 years outdated and obsolete tests, data and norms to justify their opinions. In short, the college believes that clinical psychology is akin to witchcraft where each specific witch chooses their own potions and ingredients, and each witch arrives to a different interpretation of bubbles and steam rising from the boiling brew in their cauldron depending on each witch\u2019s particular predilection, training, and experience, and which book of witchcraft each witch inherited from their predecessors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

College of Alberta Psychologists: Which Opinion One Receives Depends On Which Psychologist One Happens to See<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

In her response to Ms. T\u2019s four complaints against her, Dr. Mary Westcott<\/a> (@ Westcott Psychology<\/a>, @ West Coast Psychological Services<\/a>, @ LinkedIn<\/a>) argued that psychologists are more like witchcraft practitioners or tea-leaf readers rather than science practitioners. Dr. Westcott<\/a> argued that psychologists are free to choose any potion and any ingredients to produce \u201ca brew\u201d, any method to \u201cread\u201d the brew, and any method to \u201cinterpret\u201d the steam in formulating their opinions or predicting future, and wrote that it all depends on their choice of \u201cdifferent testing conditions\u201d, their \u201clevels of training and experience\u201d, and which \u201cresources\u201d and \u201cstudies\u201d they \u201chave access to.\u201d Verbatim, on November 1, 2021, Dr. Westcott wrote:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Importantly, different psychologists are allowed to arrive at different opinions. A different opinion does not suggest one psychologist breached standards of practice or acted incompetently. There is an endless wealth of literature in psychology, and different professionals will have access to different resources and will rely on different studies in arriving at their opinions. Different professionals will also use different testing instruments and may arrive at different results depending on different testing conditions. Professionals also have varied levels of training and experience, which will also inform the opinion at which they objectively arrive.<\/p>\nDr. Mary Westcott<\/a>, November 1, 2021<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

In Dr. Mary Westcott<\/a> ‘s view, a psychologist can choose from \u201can endless wealth of literature\u201d which depends on which literature and studies the psychologist has \u201caccess to\u201d, may have a different understanding of that literature depending on their level of \u201ctraining and experience\u201d, etc.. Accordingly, psychologists need not concern themselves with what the current scientific literature has to say on the topic nor with the fundamental issues whether, for example, the psychologist actually has the necessary knowledge and skills, for example, to conduct formal assessments, to score tests, to interpret test scores, and to locate a correct test manual.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Remarkably, in his response, Dr. John Braxton Suffield also argued that psychologists are more like witchcraft practitioners or tea-leaf readers rather than science practitioners. In Dr. Suffield\u2019s view, the psychologists are free to choose any potion and any ingredients to produce \u201ca brew\u201d, any method to \u201cread\u201d the brew, and any method to \u201cinterpret\u201d the steam in formulating their opinions or predicting the future. Verbatim, Dr. Suffield wrote [witchcraft parallels are added in square brackets]:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

In conducting fitness-for-duty and other assessments, psychologists may differ in their choice of tests [choice of potions], test norms [frog toes, tongue of a dog, wing of a bat], and their interpretation of test results [bubbles and smoke coming out of their cauldron] in formulating an opinion [a prediction of future]. Similarly, psychologists may rely on different citations [different recipes on how to make a brew] from the scientific [witchcraft] literature in forming and substantiating their opinions [predictions of future]. Often psychological research [cauldron brew and potion recipes] provides but merely one viewpoint [one witch\u2019s view], and dissenting perspectives [other witches\u2019 views] may be found on almost any topic. So long as there is reasonable and\/or empirical support for the views offered [bubbles and steam interpretation of at least one witch], these differences do not, in and of themselves, denote incompetence, unprofessional conduct, or malpractice.<\/p>\nDr. J. Braxton Suffield<\/a><\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

In Dr. Suffield\u2019s view, anything goes. Psychologists may choose different tests, different norms, different interpretations of the same scores, different literature\/articles to rely on, and as long as they can cite some literature somewhat supporting their opinions, they are competent and professional, even if that literature is 80 years outdated, obsolete, and irrelevant.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In response to Ms. T\u2019s complaints about Drs. Mary Westcott, Allan Mandel, and J. Braxton Suffield, incompetence in multiple areas (including inability to find a correct test manual), Dr. Troy Janzen<\/a>, the Deputy Registrar, and the Complaints Director, College of Alberta Psychologists, wrote:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

The fact that experts disagree on similar data does not constitute evidence that any one opinion was unprofessional. It is common for experts to disagree with one another.<\/p>\nDr. Troy Janzen<\/a><\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Dr. Janzen<\/a> unreasonably agreed with Drs. Westcott<\/a> and Suffield\u2019s psychologist as a witchcraft practitioner view. It does not matter to him which potions and ingredients psychologists choose, how long they mix the brew, as long as they come up with some interpretation of the bubbles and smoke, and as long as they can find at least one or two recipes supporting their brew formation and steam reading. Dr. Janzen wrote:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

… I cannot weigh in on their interpretation of the data in this other than to determine if their interpretation could fit within a possible range of interpretations based on the data they had available to them at the time. Indeed, you were able to find other professionals who disputed their interpretation.<\/p>\nDr. Troy Janzen<\/a><\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Dr. Lorraine Breault<\/a>, Dr. Ali Al-Asadi<\/a> and the Complaint Review Committee, the College of Alberta Psychologists<\/a>, reviewed Dr. Troy Janzen\u2019s dismissal of Ms. T\u2019s complaints, and in effect, confirmed the College of Alberta Psychologists view that different psychologists arriving to different conclusions over the same objective data is competent and professional practice. Dr. Breault, Dr. Al-Asadi, and the CRC wrote (the CRC Decision Re Suffield, p. 9-10):<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Professionals will reach opinions and opinions may vary among professionals. That variation does not mean that there is incompetence. Professionals may exercise appropriate skills and judgment and comply with the Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice and still reach an opinion that will differ from that of their colleagues. Psychologists use their knowledge and training in terms of test selection, interpretation, and rendering opinions that will fall within a spectrum. A difference of opinion is not evidence of unprofessional conduct. Opinions will be reached based on a review of a multitude of tests and a number of different sources of data… if another psychologist acting reasonably would have done similar testing and if the opinion reached is justified based on the psychologist\u2019s review and assessment of the various data sources, then the conduct is not inappropriate or unprofessional.<\/p>\nDr. Lorraine Breault, Dr. Ali Al-Asadi, and the CRC<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

If professionals reach opposite conclusions over the same or similar objective data, the professionals’ opinions are unreliable, that is, they depend on which professional one sees, and thus, are invalid and non-scientific. The stark disagreement among professionals is a strong indication of one or more psychologists being incompetent, and, for example, using junk science or pseudoscience to ground their opinions. Dr. Breault, Dr. Al-Asadi, and the CRC concluded that everything Drs. Westcott, Mandel and Suffield did to arrive to their opinions of Ms. T complied with the Code of Ethics, Standards and Practice, and Health Profession Act. Accordingly, in their view, anything goes, anything is reasonable, anything is appropriate, and anything is justified, including the following:<\/p>\n\n\n\n