The CommsHub
The Communications Centre for the Performance Under Demand Think Tank
The Think Tank is the home for influential discussion on international developments in "under demand" performance support
Arguing for an AOPE
What international "best practice models" can we identify as relevant to the way we practice sport psychology in Australia?
Click to download a pdf version
We haven't really had to address
this question for some time because
during the 80s, 90s, and into the early 2000s, the world came here to look at what we were doing.
​
The service models developed at the AIS and NSWIS set the standard for their eras. Many international groups sought to base their programming on the knowledge and experience that existed in Australia.
Where are the more contemporary versions of these models?
Do you know of any other "state of the art" models?
Have you produced such a document for a program you have created?
The IOC has entered the discussion in a very strong manner, publishing what is effectively a blueprint for psychological practice in high performance sport.
There are many interesting and useful perspectives
throughout the document, but 2 stand out
diagrams refer to the "athlete entourage"
and the various professions / professionals who
operate within a close circle near the athlete, or in
a more "arms length" capacity
​
In this model, the athlete has an "entourage" that
includes "psychologists", "psychiatrists", and
"sport psychologists".
The psychologists and psychiatrists are placed in a "health" sector.
The sport psychologists are placed in a
"performance" sector.
This document is very well researched, and includes
a sport psychologist in the editorial team.
As a model for international NOCs (National
Olympic Committees), these differentiations
will have significant impact.
In a further expansion of the model (amid discussions of various
team member's roles in monitoring athlete welfare), there is a further diagram
indicating how various team members move in and out of an
"inner circle" around the athlete. In "normal conditions", it is interesting
the model identifies the relative importance of the sport psychologist.
The psychologist and psychiatrist are seen as outer ring.
It is concerning, although it may be a matter of fact now, that the model
includes "mental skills trainers" and "psychotherapists".:
So is this the international best practice model
that we can base an argument for a "point of difference"
with the other areas of practice endorsement?
​
Is this a framework that informs discussions about
what we bring "in addition" to our general registration?
​
When the claim is made that "any generally registered
psychologist" (under the new system post review)
should be able to deal with any individual, any topic
"that walks into the office", does this model present
a compelling discussion about our quite unique
operating environment?