by Julia Case, Temple University
Thomas Olino, Ph.D., is currently an Associate Professor of Psychology at Temple University, where he runs the Child and Adolescent Development of Emotion, Personality, and Psychopathology (CADEPP) Laboratory. Dr. Olino graciously agreed to be interviewed for this pioneer PCSAS Newsletter, after being selected based on the stellar quality of his multi-methodological research, his commitment to and belief in PCSAS, and his role as my primary research mentor at Temple University.
Interviewer: Can you provide a little bit of background on who you are, what you do, and how you got here?
Thomas Olino (TO): I’m the product of New York City public schools through high school. I completed my undergraduate studies at Cornell with double majors in Biology & Society, and Human Development. At the time, there was little clinically-oriented research at Cornell, so I sought out research experiences over summer breaks near my parent’s home. I was very fortunate to join Dan Klein’s lab at Stony Brook after my sophomore year, when initially I thought my interests would fall in line with externalizing problems. However, while working in Dan’s lab completing behavioral observations, the youth who expressed little positive affectivity were the most fascinating to me. Their lack of zest in engagement with what would typically be enjoyable activities, like popping bubbles, was immediately enthralling. Those observations set forth the path I’ve been following since.
I returned to Stony Brook over winter breaks and summers to continue working in Dan’s lab. I was extraordinarily fortunate to be accepted to Stony Brook’s Clinical Psychology program straight from my undergraduate. While a graduate student, my interests continued to be in developmental psychopathology and broadened to include questions about course and outcome of psychopathology and applied measurement.
My internship, post-doctoral training, and first couple of years as an Assistant Professor took place at the Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic in Pittsburgh. I’m currently an Associate Professor of Psychology at Temple University. I am continuing to study the developmental psychopathology of youth unipolar depression with a focus on the role of positive emotionality and reward function as key predictors. I also typically teach courses in multivariate methods, and act as a clinical supervisor for students in the program.
Interviewer: What do you love about psychology?
TO: I have a great appreciation for measurement, which I think is critical for any scientific enterprise. I also find the science of psychology to be very grounding. All of our research questions are inherently puzzles or brainteasers that require creativity in implementing a design to answer the questions. Working through that translation of the question to the methods has been where I have found my greatest fun in our field.
Interviewer: How would you describe the differences between the clinical science and scientist practitioner models? How do you define clinical science?
TO: I’m still learning about the key distinctions between clinical science and scientist practitioner models. I think that it is important to distinguish between program philosophies and accreditation processes. On the program philosophy end, there has long been a spectrum of emphasis from clinical application to clinical science as opposite ends of the dimension. Clinical science programs have rigorous research expectations and aspirations for how science can and will inform interventions. This philosophy is shared with scientist practitioner models, but differs on a matter of degree, rather than as a qualitative difference.
I see clinical science as a philosophy that empirical principles will effectively lead to the identification and refinement of the application of psychological interventions. In working with clients, we benefit from continuing to think as scientists as we develop, test, and evaluate hypotheses about the processes that are maintaining distress. Moreover, interventions will improve with stronger collaborations with clinicians who have important hypotheses about their clients. Clinical scientists should play a role in bridging the research-practice divide by examining processes of import to clinicians.
Interviewer: You mentioned that clinical science programs have rigorous research expectations. Does that mean PCSAS is all about the research? Why or why not?
I don’t think that PCSAS is all about research. I would say that the orientation is more about applying scientific thinking across domains in clinical psychology broadly. This may most typically be seen in the production of science. However, the clinical science philosophy applies to the implementation and application of interventions, too. That includes dissemination of interventions to be used among providers of many training backgrounds, and for clinical scientists providing direct services and supervising those who are providing direct services. For those of us at PCSAS-accredited institutions, there is an important role to play as mentors and supervisors to show that clinical scientists value and model thinking like a scientist across all of these levels.
Interviewer: Tell me why you believe in the importance of PCSAS or the mission of PCSAS.
TO: I believe in the importance of PCSAS and its mission because I feel that my values as a scientist are truly reflected in PCSAS’ philosophy. Evaluating and disseminating evidence for interventions is critical.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this newsletter are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Psychological Clinical Science Accreditation System (PCSAS).