Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Comment
  • Published:

Repairing the research–service rupture in clinical psychological science

Science–service integration is a key tenet of clinical psychology. However, precisely whom clinical psychology research serves, and how successfully, often goes unexamined. Without defining and systematically prioritizing service-centred research, clinical psychology will fall short of the profession’s goal: to understand and reduce mental illness in individuals and communities.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout


  1. McFall, R. M. Manifesto for a science of clinical psychology. Clin. Psychol. 44, 75–88 (1991).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Frank, G. The Boulder model: history, rationale, and critique. Prof. Psychol. Res. Pract. 15, 417–435 (1984).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Swartz, S. ‘Going deep’ and ‘giving back’: strategies for exceeding ethical expectations when researching amongst vulnerable youth. Qual. Res. 11, 47–68 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Farrimond, H. Doing Ethical Research (Palgrave Macmillan, 2013).

  5. Mullarkey, M. C. & Schleider, J. L. Embracing scientific humility and complexity: learning “what works for whom” in youth psychotherapy research. J. Clin. Child Adolesc. Psychol. 5, 1–7 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Weisz, J. R. et al. What five decades of research tells us about the effects of youth psychological therapy: a multilevel meta-analysis and implications for science and practice. Am. Psychol. 72, 79–117 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Fassinger, R. & Morrow, S. L. Toward best practices in quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method research: a social justice perspective. J. Soc. Action Couns. Psychol. 5, 69–83 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Shroff, A., Chen, S. & Fassler, J. EMA Data Collection: improving compliance rates and giving back to participants. Medium (2020).

  9. Watts, S., van Ommeren, M. & Cuijpers, P. Open access of psychological intervention manuals. World Psychiatr. 19, 251–252 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


The author receives grant support from the National Institutes of Health (DP5OD28123), the Klingenstein Third Generation Foundation, the American Psychological Foundation, the Society for Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, Limbix, Inc., and the Upswing Fund for Adolescent Mental Health. The content is solely the responsibility of the author and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health or other funding agencies.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jessica L. Schleider.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

J.L.S. has co-authored and receives royalties from sales of a therapeutic workbook for adolescents, published by New Harbinger. J.L.S. is under contract with Oxford University Press to co-edit a book on low-intensity mental health interventions for youth. J.L.S. serves on the Scientific Advisory Board for Walden Wise, Inc.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schleider, J.L. Repairing the research–service rupture in clinical psychological science. Nat Rev Psychol 1, 2–4 (2022).

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing