In the context of the project "Treatment by clinical psychologists", commissioned by the Federal Ministry of Health and the passage of a new law governing psychologists (Psychologengesetz 2013) the aims of part I of the project report were on the one hand a comparison of Austrian and international education and training requirements for clinical psychologists and an overview of the scholarly literature on quality assurance of training, on the other hand an analysis of Austrian stakeholder perspectives regarding a definition of clinical psychological treatment, legal training requirements and a delineation of responsibilities of clinical psychologists vis-à-vis neighbouring professions (psychotherapists, psychiatrists).

Doctoral programs are required for practice in clinical psychology both in England and the USA and to a lesser degree in Australia and Canada. New Zealand prescribes a special post graduate diploma. Theoretical and practical components of training are less interlinked in Switzerland and Austria. The new Austrian law governing psychologists raises training standards, while they still remain below those in compared countries. In this context Austrian stakeholders deplore the lack of a definition of clinical psychological treatment and call for a clear demarcation of the spheres of responsibility of clinical psychologists. Some consider training requirements of clinical psychologists insufficient for independent practice. From the perspective of quality assurance, Austria’s regulatory focus on formal aspects of education and training (content, duration) with little emphasis on the competence of graduates appears problematic. In addition the regulatory focus on theoretical as opposed to practical aspects of training and the lack of coordination between the two is apparent.

Since neither the scholarly literature, nor textbooks or the new Austrian law offer clear delineations of the spheres of clinical psychologists, psychotherapists and psychiatrists (that metaphorically overlap like the Olympic rings), the report’s conclusion is to concentrate on objectively evaluated treatment competences of the individual professional rather than on her/ his membership in a professional group.