David Shakow – 1901 1981

Biography

The history of twentieth-century American psychology is defined by the transformation of a philosophical and laboratory-bound curiosity into an autonomous, rigorous, and socially vital clinical science. At the very nexus of this transformation stands David Shakow (1901–1981), a figure whose intellectual breadth and institutional vision permanently altered how mental illness is conceptualized, studied, and treated. Working across five decades characterized by seismic geopolitical shifts, institutional reorganizations, and fierce disciplinary turf wars, Shakow achieved what few of his contemporaries thought possible: he united the uncompromising experimental rigor of the psychophysical laboratory with the empathic, hermeneutic depths of the psychoanalytic clinic. In doing so, he formulated the operational architecture of clinical psychology as both a science and a profession, securing its status within the modern biomedical landscape.

Before Shakow’s intervention, clinical psychology occupied a precarious and fragmented position. It was largely relegated to junior psychometric roles in psychiatric asylums or child guidance clinics, subordinate to organized psychiatry and treated with deep suspicion by academic experimentalists who feared that clinical work lacked scientific legitimacy. Shakow rejected this dichotomy between the scientist and the practitioner. Through his pioneering work as Chief Psychologist at Worcester State Hospital, his architectural leadership of the American Psychological Association’s Committee on Training in Clinical Psychology, and his founding directorship of the Laboratory of Psychology at the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), he demonstrated that clinical acumen and experimental precision are not competing paradigms, but mutually dependent dimensions of a single discipline. His landmark conceptualization of attentional dysfunction in schizophrenia—most notably his formulation of the “segmental set”—remains a cornerstone of modern cognitive neuropsychology and experimental psychopathology.

This comprehensive monograph examines the full trajectory of David Shakow’s life, scholarship, and systemic impact. Spanning from his early intellectual formation at Harvard University under the shadows of William James and Edwin G. Boring to his final reflective treatises in Bethesda, Maryland, this analysis traces how Shakow constructed the modern clinical psychologist. By examining his empirical innovations, theoretical formulations, institutional statecraft, and epistemological philosophies, we uncover the enduring legacy of a thinker who demanded that psychology maintain scientific integrity without ever losing sight of human suffering.

1. Introduction: Life, Legacy, and Historical Significance of David Shakow

1.1 Biographical Overview and Archival Context

The biographical arc of David Shakow, spanning from his birth on January 2, 1901, to his death on February 26, 1981, mirrors the evolution of psychology from an offshoot of nineteenth-century philosophy into a fully institutionalized doctoral-level healthcare discipline. Shakow’s life traversed the foundational decades of the American Psychological Association (APA), the turbulent years of the Great Depression, the transformative mobilization of World War II, and the post-war institutional expansion of federal biomedical science. Across each of these epochs, Shakow operated not merely as an observer, but as a primary agent of institutional change, constantly mediating the dialectical tension between academic purism and applied human service.

Entering the discipline during the 1920s, Shakow arrived at a moment of profound epistemological friction. Academic psychology, heavily influenced by German psychophysics, structuralism, and early behaviorism, sought legitimacy by purging itself of clinical entanglements. Those who worked in insane asylums or developmental clinics were frequently dismissed as mere “mental testers” who lacked genuine research credentials. Shakow, endowed with a meticulous scientific disposition and deep humanistic sensibilities, refused to accept this institutional partition. Throughout his extensive career, he maintained an archival fidelity to empirical data, producing extensive laboratory notebooks, administrative reports, and clinical observations that now form an invaluable historical corpus within the archives of the Library of Congress and the National Library of Medicine.

Shakow’s dual identity as an experimentalist and a clinical reformer allowed him to establish institutional standards that legitimized clinical psychology as a distinct, doctoral-level discipline. He argued that the clinical psychologist must not be trained merely as a technician or a subordinate assistant to the psychiatrist, but as an independent, doctoral-level scholar capable of advancing original scientific knowledge while delivering sophisticated diagnostic and therapeutic services. His extensive personal and institutional correspondence reveals a man of quiet persistence, immense administrative diplomacy, and an unyielding commitment to ethical standards. He navigated conservative university faculties, medical school hierarchies, and federal bureaucracies to build enduring academic and research infrastructures that continue to support contemporary clinical psychology.

1.2 The Defining Contributions to Twentieth-Century Psychology

The defining contributions of David Shakow to twentieth-century behavioral science can be categorized into four monumental achievements: the establishment of the scientist-practitioner training paradigm, the methodological revolution in psychiatric hospital research, the experimental delineation of cognitive deficits in schizophrenia, and the institutional leadership of federal mental health research at the National Institute of Mental Health. Each of these accomplishments permanently redirected the trajectory of the behavioral and clinical sciences.

Foremost among these achievements was his chairmanship of the APA’s Committee on Training in Clinical Psychology, which culminated in the historic 1947 Shakow Report and laid the groundwork for the 1949 Boulder Conference. In this capacity, Shakow formulated the scientist-practitioner model, which established that all clinical psychologists must receive comprehensive training in rigorous empirical research methodology, diagnostic assessment, and clinical intervention. This tripartite model transformed graduate psychology education, creating the standardized curriculum that remains the global benchmark for professional training in clinical psychology.

Equally transformative were his empirical investigations into the nature of psychopathology. During his eighteen years at Worcester State Hospital, Shakow revolutionized psychiatric methodology by introducing naturalistic observation protocols, standardized psychomotor assessments, and longitudinal research designs to the study of schizophrenia. His seminal experimental work on reaction times, preparatory intervals, and attentional focus challenged prevailing biological and purely dynamic theories of mental illness. He demonstrated that patients with schizophrenia suffer from a fundamental breakdown in the ability to maintain a generalized mental readiness—a phenomenon he codified as the “segmental set.” Later, as the founding Chief of the Laboratory of Psychology at the NIMH intramural research program, Shakow built a multidisciplinary scientific sanctuary that advanced developmental, perceptual, clinical, and physiological psychology, cementing the role of empirical psychology within the National Institutes of Health.

2. Formative Years, Early Education, and Intellectual Foundations (1901–1928)

2.1 Early Background and Harvard University Undergraduate Studies

David Shakow was born in New York City to an immigrant Jewish family that valued intellectual inquiry, community responsibility, and self-discipline. Growing up in the culturally vibrant and intellectually restless milieu of early twentieth-century New York, Shakow developed an early fascination with philosophy, literature, and social reform. His youth was marked by serious reading habits and a determination to understand human nature, traits that led him to enter Harvard University in 1921. At Harvard, Shakow encountered an academic department that stood at the historical crossroads of nineteenth-century philosophical psychology and twentieth-century laboratory science.

During his undergraduate years, the intellectual shadow of William James still hung heavily over Harvard’s philosophy and psychology departments. Shakow absorbed James’s radical empiricism, his pragmatic orientation toward functional utility, and his deep phenomenological respect for the nuances of human experience. Concurrently, Shakow was exposed to the rigorous, uncompromising experimental structuralism of Edwin G. Boring, who served as a central figure in Harvard’s psychological laboratory. Boring championed an exact, psychophysical approach to psychological science, demanding precise measurement, controlled instrumentation, and mathematical analysis. This juxtaposition between Jamesian humanism and Boringian laboratory purism produced a productive tension in young Shakow, shaping his conviction that psychology must balance experiential depth with experimental discipline.

It was also during this undergraduate period that Shakow was introduced to psychopathology and the burgeoning mental hygiene movement spearheaded by Clifford Beers. He observed the stark inadequacies of contemporary institutional care for individuals suffering from severe psychological afflictions. While his peers focused exclusively on brass-instrument psychophysics involving sensory thresholds of healthy adults, Shakow became convinced that experimental methodologies could be deployed directly to understand the broken machinery of the human mind. Graduating with his Bachelor of Science degree in 1924, Shakow possessed both the technical training of a psychophysicist and the nascent social conscience of a clinical reformer, preparing him for the complex clinical terrain that lay ahead.

2.2 Graduate Studies and Formative Clinical Exposure

Following the completion of his undergraduate degree, Shakow pursued graduate studies in psychology at Harvard, continuing his relationship with Boring and other prominent faculty members. However, Shakow quickly determined that academic laboratory work conducted purely on collegiate populations could not address the deep existential and functional realities of severe mental illness. Seeking an immersive clinical environment, Shakow secured an internship and research post at McLean Hospital in Belmont, Massachusetts, a psychiatric institution renowned for its progressive clinical environment and affiliation with Harvard Medical School.

At McLean, Shakow fell under the mentorship of Frederic Lyman Wells, one of the few psychologists of the era who successfully integrated psychometrics with psychoanalytic clinical theory. Wells exerted a profound influence on Shakow. He taught the young scholar how to administer intelligence and diagnostic tests not as mechanical exercises, but as dynamic clinical interviews that revealed the idiosyncratic cognitive operations and defense mechanisms of the patient. In the wards of McLean, Shakow worked alongside individuals suffering from dementia praecox (schizophrenia), manic-depressive psychosis, and severe character neuroses, confronting the stark clinical realities that traditional laboratory textbooks ignored.

This clinical immersion created institutional and intellectual friction with his doctoral timeline at Harvard. Edwin G. Boring, who held rigid convictions regarding what constituted acceptable dissertation research, was skeptical of hospital-based clinical studies, viewing psychiatry as unscientific and soft. As a result, Shakow’s graduate trajectory was interrupted and prolonged; he prioritized deep, multi-year clinical engagements over a hasty, traditional academic thesis. Shakow balanced the strict academic requirements of Harvard with demanding hospital duties, assimilating psychoanalytic texts, learning psychiatric nomenclature, and developing customized assessment protocols. This formative period solidified his empirical orientation: psychopathology was not a realm to be treated solely through abstract speculative psychiatry or distant behavioral reductionism, but a living domain requiring systematic, long-term empirical study directly on inpatient psychiatric populations.

3. The Worcester State Hospital Era: The Crucible of Clinical Psychology (1928–1946)

3.1 Establishment of the Psychology Research Service

In 1928, David Shakow accepted an invitation that would define his career and alter the institutional history of American clinical psychology: he was appointed Chief Psychologist and Director of Psychological Research at Worcester State Hospital in central Massachusetts. At the time, state psychiatric hospitals across the United States were warehouse-like institutions characterized by chronic underfunding, severe overcrowding, custodial neglect, and therapeutic nihilism. However, under the enlightened leadership of Superintendent William A. Bryan and the visionary biochemist and endocrinologist Roy G. Hoskins, Worcester was embarking on an ambitious experiment: the establishment of the Worcester State Hospital Research Service, dedicated to an exhaustive, multidisciplinary investigation into the biological and behavioral foundations of schizophrenia.

Shakow was granted broad administrative and methodological latitude to build an autonomous Psychology Department from the ground up. He transformed the underfunded state asylum into an internationally renowned center for psychiatric research. Shakow understood that to make meaningful contributions alongside medical specialists, psychology could not remain a minor testing service; it needed to be a primary research enterprise. He established an integrated research paradigm where psychiatric patients were systematically studied across a continuum of biological, physiological, endocrinological, and behavioral variables. Working alongside Hoskins’s biochemical teams, Shakow’s psychology service generated comprehensive datasets that tracked patient functioning across days, months, and years.

The research protocols established by Shakow at Worcester were unprecedented in their methodological sophistication. He recognized that prior hospital-based research suffered from diagnostic ambiguity, variable patient motivation, and uncontrolled environmental factors. To overcome these problems, Shakow established rigorous diagnostic intake conferences, standardized naturalistic ward observation methods, and constructed specialized laboratory rooms within the hospital to isolate experimental variables. This collaborative, multidisciplinary framework not only elevated Worcester State Hospital to an international center of clinical inquiry, but also proved that a public mental hospital could serve as a world-class laboratory for human behavioral science.

3.2 Pioneering Clinical Psychology Internship Training

While establishing Worcester’s research program, Shakow recognized a critical institutional void: there was no standardized, professional training pathway for psychologists who wished to work in healthcare settings. Psychologists arrived in clinical institutions with doctoral degrees in theoretical psychophysics or animal learning, possessing virtually no supervised experience in interviewing patients, administering diagnostic instruments, or navigating the medical milieu. In response, Shakow developed the Worcester State Hospital internship training program, which became the historical blueprint for modern clinical psychology internships and the contemporary predoctoral residency system.

The Worcester model integrated three essential components: supervised diagnostic assessment, systematic clinical research, and immersion in psychiatric therapies. Trainees were not allowed to merely observe from afar; they were integrated into the clinical life of the wards. They participated in daily intake conferences, conducted clinical interviews, mastered psychometric and projective instruments—including the Stanford-Binet and the newly emerging Rorschach inkblot test—and observed multidisciplinary case reviews. Shakow demanded that trainees cultivate deep diagnostic rigor, absolute ethical integrity, and continuous psychological self-reflection. He required interns to critically analyze their own emotional reactions and cognitive biases when interacting with severely disturbed patients.

The success of the Worcester training model was amplified by the caliber of psychologists who passed through its doors. Shakow personally mentored and influenced a generation of mid-century psychological leaders, including figures such as Julian Rotter, Saul Rosenzweig, Abraham Maslow, and Tamara Dembo. These trainees absorbed Shakow’s insistence that clinical psychology must combine scientific skepticism with clinical sensitivity. As these scholars dispersed to university faculties and clinical institutions across the United States following World War II, they carried the Worcester model with them, creating a national network of academic departments and clinical internships designed around the principles Shakow had pioneered in the wards of central Massachusetts.

4. Experimental Investigations into Schizophrenia: Methodology and Instrumentation

4.1 Methodological Innovations in Psychiatric Assessment

The study of schizophrenia in the early twentieth century was plagued by rampant speculation, unreplicable biological claims, and chaotic clinical descriptions. Recognized under the rubric of dementia praecox, the condition was variously conceptualized as a progressive metabolic degeneration, an endocrine collapse, an auto-intoxication, or a purely psychodynamic retreat into infantile fantasy. David Shakow realized that before any valid theoretical claims could be made regarding its etiology, researchers required objective, reliable, and standardized methodologies for measuring the behavioral and cognitive functioning of schizophrenic patients. At Worcester, he initiated an exhaustive methodological overhaul designed to bring experimental psychophysics into the psychiatric asylum.

Shakow’s first major innovation was the development of systematic, naturalistic behavioral rating scales. He recognized that testing a patient in an artificial laboratory provided an incomplete picture of their functional capacity if their day-to-day behavior on the ward remained unmeasured. In collaboration with his clinical staff, he established multi-point observational systems where nurses, attendants, and psychologists rated patients on hygiene, social interaction, affective responsivity, and motor agitation at regular intervals. These naturalistic ward measures were then correlated with experimental laboratory performance, establishing ecological validity—a concept rarely prioritized by his academic contemporaries.

Furthermore, Shakow addressed the confounding variables that routinely invalidated psychiatric research: fluctuating patient cooperation, sedation, somatic treatments, and transient emotional distress. He instituted strict experimental controls to distinguish between what he termed “capacity” (what the patient was fundamentally capable of performing under optimal conditions) and “responsivity” (what the patient actually demonstrated given their present motivational and affective state). Shakow designed repeated-measures and longitudinal designs, testing patients across multiple weeks and months to separate enduring cognitive impairments from transient psychotic episodes. By standardizing testing environments, minimizing extraneous experimental noise, and integrating physiological indices—such as the galvanic skin response, heart rate, and basal metabolic rates—Shakow brought unprecedented quantitative rigor to experimental psychopathology.

4.2 Reaction Time Paradigms and Psychomotor Performance

Among David Shakow’s extensive experimental investigations, his work on reaction time (RT) and psychomotor performance stands as his most enduring scientific achievement. Reaction time paradigms had long been used in classical psychology laboratories to measure the speed of nerve conduction and central mental processing. Shakow recognized that reaction time was an ideal tool for investigating psychiatric dysfunction because it reduced complex cognitive behavior to precise, millisecond-level measurements of sensorimotor preparation and response execution, minimizing linguistic confounds.

Utilizing high-precision chronoscopes, kymographs, and telegraph-key apparatuses, Shakow and his colleagues designed experiments to evaluate “attentional readiness” in patients with schizophrenia compared to normal controls and other clinical cohorts. The classic Shakow paradigm manipulated the preparatory interval (PI)—the time between a warning signal (such as a light or tone) and the actual stimulus requiring a motor response (such as releasing a key). Shakow tested participants under two primary conditions: regular procedures, where the preparatory interval remained constant across a block of trials (e.g., always 2, 4, or 10 seconds), and irregular procedures, where the preparatory interval varied unpredictably from trial to trial.

These experiments yielded remarkable, consistent findings that came to be known throughout neuropsychology as the “crossover phenomenon” or the “set index.” In healthy control subjects, predictable preparatory intervals allow the individual to prepare their attentional systems; as the interval lengthens up to a certain point (typically around 2 to 4 seconds), their reaction times improve or remain highly efficient. However, Shakow discovered that patients with schizophrenia exhibited an abnormal pattern. While they could sometimes perform moderately well at very short preparatory intervals (1 to 2 seconds), their performance degraded sharply as the preparatory interval lengthened, even when the interval was completely predictable.

Most remarkably, Shakow observed the crossover effect: at longer intervals (exceeding 3 to 4 seconds), schizophrenic patients responded more slowly under regular (predictable) conditions than under irregular (unpredictable) conditions. In essence, the predictability of the warning interval, which actively assisted healthy individuals in preparing their response, actually hindered the performance of schizophrenic patients over time. Shakow demonstrated that this was not a simple deficit in peripheral motor speed or sensory acuity, as patients possessed normal muscular mechanics. Rather, it pointed directly toward a profound, central disturbance in psychomotor speed, sustained vigilance, and the ability to maintain a state of selective readiness over time.

5. Theoretical Formulations on Schizophrenia: The Segmental Set Hypothesis

5.1 Conceptualization of the ‘Segmental Set’

To provide a theoretical framework for the empirical anomalies discovered in his reaction time paradigms, Shakow formulated the “segmental set” hypothesis—one of the most sophisticated mid-century cognitive models of psychopathology. In classical experimental psychology, a “mental set” (or preparatory set) was defined as an internal orientation or state of readiness that allows an organism to select, organize, and execute an appropriate behavioral response while filtering out extraneous stimuli. Shakow posited that adaptive, healthy human behavior relies on the maintenance of a generalized set: a stable, overarching attentional schema that prepares the organism to respond effectively to relevant environmental demands over extended durations.

Shakow theorized that the core cognitive deficit in schizophrenia is the catastrophic breakdown of this generalized set and its replacement by fragmented, localized segmental sets. The patient with schizophrenia is unable to establish or sustain a broad, goal-directed preparatory state. Instead, their cognitive apparatus fragments into isolated, short-lived, and maladaptive adjustments to minor, irrelevant features of the environment or to idiosyncratic internal associations. Shakow described the patient as being at the mercy of every transient distraction, incapable of keeping the primary task goal focal while inhibiting peripheral input.

In his landmark 1962 paper, “Segmental Set: A Theory of the Formal Process in Schizophrenia,” published in the Archives of General Psychiatry, Shakow outlined the mechanics of this deficit with exceptional clarity:

“The schizophrenic appears to be incapable of maintaining a generalized set. What he does instead is to develop segmental sets—sets directed to minor aspects of the environment, to the past, to the self, or to irrelevant details of the stimulus situation. He cannot see the forest for the trees; indeed, he cannot even see the tree for the twigs, and perhaps not even the twig for the cells.”

This formulation served as a conceptual bridge connecting micro-level experimental data to macro-level clinical symptomatology. The classic clinical features of schizophrenia—loose associations, tangential thinking, delusions of reference, hallucinations, and catatonic posturing—could all be understood as direct consequences of a compromised generalized set. An individual who cannot suppress irrelevant auditory cues or internal linguistic intrusions will inevitably experience disordered thinking; an individual whose cognitive apparatus fixates on isolated, segmental aspects of the perceptual field will perceive malevolent patterns and hidden meanings where none exist. Shakow thus transformed schizophrenia from a mysterious, untreatable degenerative mystery into an understandable, quantifiable disorder of cognitive control and selective attention.

5.2 Impact on Modern Neuropsychology and Cognitive Science

David Shakow’s formulation of the segmental set hypothesis was decades ahead of its time, directly anticipating contemporary paradigms in cognitive science, neuropsychology, and psychiatric neuroscience. Writing long before the advent of functional neuroimaging or computer-based cognitive modeling, Shakow isolated the precise psychological mechanisms that modern cognitive neuroscience associates with the prefrontal cortex, anterior cingulate cortex, and executive control networks. His concept of the segmental set corresponds directly to contemporary frameworks of working memory deficits, failure of cognitive control, context processing impairment, and aberrant salience.

During the cognitive revolution of the late 1960s and 1970s, researchers such as Keith Nuechterlein, Rue Cromwell, and Michael Posner revisited Shakow’s preparatory interval paradigms and segmental set theory. They recognized that Shakow had identified a fundamental information-processing bottleneck: the inability to allocate and sustain attentional resources over temporal delays. Electrophysiological investigations utilizing event-related potentials (ERPs)—such as the P300 wave and the Contingent Negative Variation (CNV)—have repeatedly validated Shakow’s findings. The CNV, which measures the slow negative brain potential that builds during the preparatory interval between a warning stimulus and an imperative stimulus, shows distinct attenuation and abnormal morphology in schizophrenia patients, precisely mirroring Shakow’s behavioral reaction-time crossover curves.

Furthermore, contemporary cognitive paradigms exploring the “dopamine hypothesis of schizophrenia” and predictive coding echo Shakow’s insights. The modern concept of “aberrant salience”—where dysregulated subcortical dopamine firing causes neutral, background stimuli to capture conscious awareness and demand explanatory meaning—is the neurochemical analog of Shakow’s segmental set. In modern diagnostic frameworks, including the National Institute of Mental Health’s Research Domain Criteria (RDoC), attentional control, working memory, and sensorimotor readiness are prioritized as foundational behavioral constructs. Shakow’s quantitative behavioral measures provided the empirical bedrock upon which these modern transdiagnostic frameworks are constructed.

6. The Architect of the Scientist-Practitioner Model: The 1947 Shakow Report

6.1 Historical Impetus and Post-WWII Mental Health Crises

The conclusion of World War II precipitated an unprecedented crisis in American mental health infrastructure. Hundreds of thousands of returning military veterans suffered from acute psychological trauma, combat fatigue (now recognized as post-traumatic stress disorder), neuroses, and severe psychiatric disabilities. The nation’s mental health facilities were entirely unprepared for this influx. The Veterans Administration (VA) and the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) faced a catastrophic shortage of trained mental health personnel. Psychiatrists alone could not meet the overwhelming demand for psychotherapeutic treatment and diagnostic evaluation.

Recognizing this structural deficiency, the federal government looked to the discipline of psychology. The Veterans Administration offered substantial federal funding to create clinical training programs across the nation, appealing to the American Psychological Association to establish standards for identifying and certifying qualified clinical psychologists. However, the APA possessed no national accreditation guidelines, no standardized doctoral curriculum, and no uniform criteria for what constituted adequate clinical training. The field was plagued by profound heterogeneity: some practicing psychologists possessed PhDs in academic experimental psychology with zero clinical exposure, while others possessed master’s degrees or commercial certificates from unaccredited institutes with no scientific training whatsoever.

Recognizing the existential danger of this chaos, the APA, under the presidency of Carl Rogers and the urging of federal authorities, appointed David Shakow in 1947 as chair of the newly established Committee on Training in Clinical Psychology (CTCP). Shakow was the obvious choice. For nearly two decades at Worcester, he had demonstrated how to build a world-class clinical internship that fused empirical research with clinical care. Shakow was given an immense mandate: to survey the landscape of psychological training in the United States, establish minimum standards for university curricula and clinical field placements, and produce a definitive blueprint for the future of the profession.

6.2 Core Recommendations of the 1947 Report

The resulting document, titled “Recommended Graduate Training Program in Clinical Psychology” and published in the American Psychologist in December 1947, is universally celebrated as the landmark “Shakow Report.” It stands as one of the most influential policy documents in the history of the social sciences. The report set forth a radical, comprehensive, and uncompromising vision that rejected the idea that clinical psychology should be an applied trade or technical vocation. Instead, Shakow argued that clinical psychology must be anchored entirely within university graduate schools of arts and sciences as a rigorous doctoral discipline.

The core recommendations of the 1947 Shakow Report established several fundamental principles that reshaped professional psychology:

• The Doctoral Standard: The report insisted that the minimum qualification for a professional clinical psychologist must be the Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) degree, requiring a four-year graduate curriculum. Shakow firmly rejected terminal master’s-level training for independent clinical practice, warning that substandard training would lead to charlatanism and clinical incompetence.
• The Tripartite Curriculum: The educational curriculum had to be balanced equally across three central domains: diagnosis/assessment, psychotherapy, and original empirical research. Trainees were not allowed to specialize in clinical treatment at the expense of experimental methodology, psychometrics, and statistics.
• Mandatory Predoctoral Internship: The report stipulated that all doctoral students must complete a full-time, supervised one-year clinical internship in an approved, multidisciplinary healthcare setting (such as a psychiatric hospital, child guidance clinic, or general medical center) prior to the awarding of the doctoral degree.
• Psychology as an Autonomous Science: Shakow maintained that clinical psychologists must first and foremost be psychologists. They were required to complete foundational coursework in general psychology—including comparative psychology, sensation and perception, developmental psychology, physiological psychology, and learning theory—before specializing in abnormal psychology or clinical interventions.
• University Ownership: Clinical training had to be administered by academic university departments, rather than independent trade schools or medical departments, ensuring that academic freedom and scientific values governed professional preparation.

The Shakow Report established a brilliant compromise between the experimental purists within academic faculties and the urgent therapeutic demands of the post-war healthcare system. By demanding that every clinical psychologist be rigorously trained as an empirical researcher capable of evaluating clinical outcomes, designing experiments, and contributing to basic behavioral science, Shakow ensured that clinical psychology would never become a secondary medical technical craft. Instead, it was established as a sovereign scientific discipline capable of holding its own alongside academic medicine and experimental science.

7. The Boulder Conference of 1949 and Institutionalization of Clinical Training

7.1 Proceedings of the Boulder Conference

The recommendations outlined in the 1947 Shakow Report were so sweeping that they required a national consensus-building conference to achieve formal institutional adoption. In August 1949, seventy-three representatives from academic psychology departments, clinical training centers, the Veterans Administration, and the United States Public Health Service gathered at the University of Colorado in Boulder. Chaired by Victor Raimy, the two-week meeting—formally designated the National Conference on Graduate Education in Clinical Psychology and known colloquially as the Boulder Conference—convened to debate, refine, and ratify the institutional architecture proposed by Shakow’s committee.

David Shakow played a central intellectual role throughout the proceedings. The conference brought together experimental purists who feared clinical training would dilute psychology’s status as a natural science, and clinical practitioners who felt that academic requirements like foreign language exams, advanced calculus, and brass-instrument laboratory work were irrelevant to treating suffering patients. Shakow served as the bridge between these opposing factions. With measured diplomacy, deep historical knowledge, and practical examples from his Worcester experience, he convinced the attendees that scientific inquiry and clinical practice were functionally reciprocal. He argued that the clinical environment provided the vital hypotheses that laboratory science required, while laboratory methodology provided the self-correcting mechanisms necessary to protect clinical practice from dogmatic speculation.

The conference concluded with the unanimous adoption of what became universally known as the Scientist-Practitioner Model (or the Boulder Model). The Boulder Conference formally codified the Shakow recommendations into official APA policy. The clinical psychologist was formally defined as a dual professional: a researcher first and a practitioner second, equally comfortable in the psychophysics laboratory, the university lecture hall, and the consulting room. The conference established the national accreditation mechanism within the APA, establishing site-visit standards for evaluating university graduate programs and clinical internship sites based on the Shakow criteria. The model was rapidly integrated across major American universities, backed by millions of dollars in training grants from the National Institute of Mental Health and the Veterans Administration.

7.2 Controversies and Tensions in the Scientist-Practitioner Paradigm

Despite its rapid institutionalization, the scientist-practitioner paradigm created deep organizational, philosophical, and personal tensions that persisted for decades. The expectation that a single individual could achieve mastery in sophisticated multivariate statistics, neurophysiology, psychopathology, psychometric evaluation, and individual and group psychotherapy proved to be an immense pedagogical burden. From its inception, the Boulder Model faced criticism from both ends of the academic-applied spectrum.

Academic experimentalists continued to complain that clinical students consumed an excessive share of departmental resources, required expensive clinical supervision, and were secretly interested only in private practice rather than basic scientific careers. Conversely, many students and clinical supervisors argued that the traditional PhD dissertation was an artificial hurdle that failed to make students better therapists. They pointed out that many graduates of Boulder-model programs rarely published empirical research once they entered full-time clinical practice, raising questions about whether training clinical psychologists as academic researchers was an inefficient allocation of educational resources.

Shakow was acutely aware of these criticisms and addressed them repeatedly in his writings throughout the 1950s and 1960s. He remained an uncompromising defender of the scientific foundation, arguing that the true measure of the scientist-practitioner model was not merely the raw number of peer-reviewed papers an alumnus published in subsequent years, but their empirical frame of mind. Shakow insisted that an empirically trained clinician approaches every patient as an idiographic research investigation: formulating hypotheses, testing assumptions against behavioral data, modifying clinical interventions in response to outcomes, and remaining skeptical of dogmatic clinical claims. For Shakow, the empirical foundation was the only safeguard against clinical charlatanism, therapeutic fads, and uncontrolled clinical projection. The structural tensions inherent in the model eventually led to the development of alternative training models—most notably the Doctor of Psychology (PsyD) degree emerging from the Vail Conference of 1973—yet the Boulder Model formulated by Shakow remains the dominant, prestigious paradigm across academic clinical psychology.

8. Academic Leadership and Psychiatric Integration at the University of Illinois (1946–1954)

8.1 Transition to Academic Medicine

After eighteen years of groundbreaking work at Worcester State Hospital, David Shakow concluded that his institutional mission in central Massachusetts was complete. In 1946, he accepted an appointment as Professor of Psychology in the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Illinois College of Medicine in Chicago. This move marked a major transition in his career: he moved from a rural state psychiatric asylum directly into the heart of an urban medical center and academic medical establishment. The Illinois appointment positioned Shakow at the intersection of psychology, psychiatry, neurology, and academic medicine during a period when Chicago was an international capital of psychoanalytic thought and psychiatric education.

At Illinois, Shakow worked alongside prominent psychiatric figures, including Francis Gerty and Franz Alexander, the founding father of psychosomatic medicine. Shakow’s objective was to demonstrate how psychological science could be integrated into medical school education and psychiatric residency training. Historically, psychiatric education had been heavily reliant on clinical intuition and psychoanalytic theory, often detached from empirical psychological testing or quantitative research methods. Shakow systematically embedded psychological science into the psychiatric curriculum, instructing medical students and psychiatric residents in the principles of measurement, psychometrics, experimental design, and the scientific evaluation of cognitive functioning.

Concurrently, Shakow established expanded clinical research laboratories within the University of Illinois Neuropsychiatric Institute. He created a training pipeline that brought graduate students from the University of Chicago and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign into medical wards. In this academic medical environment, Shakow expanded his schizophrenia research while broadening his investigations to encompass a wider spectrum of psychiatric conditions, including affective disorders, psychosomatic illnesses, and organic brain damage. His presence at Illinois demonstrated that a psychologist could command profound intellectual respect within a medical school hierarchy, advancing the institutional status of clinical psychology as a full partner in psychiatric medicine.

8.2 Advancement of Psychotherapy Research Methodologies

During his tenure at the University of Illinois, Shakow pioneered an innovative research enterprise that broke long-standing clinical taboos: the empirical, objective study of the psychotherapy process itself. Until the late 1940s, psychotherapy—particularly psychoanalysis and psychoanalytically oriented psychotherapy—was treated as a private encounter. Therapists relied exclusively on retrospective case notes written hours after a session, a method vulnerable to memory distortion, selective perception, and theoretical bias. The actual verbal and non-verbal exchanges occurring within the consulting room were entirely hidden from empirical scrutiny.

Shakow believed that if psychotherapy claimed to be a legitimate healing science, it had to be subjected to the same objective observational standards as any other natural phenomenon. To accomplish this, he became an early adopter of sound recording technology, using wire recorders and later reel-to-reel magnetic tape recorders to capture complete, verbatim audio records of ongoing psychotherapy sessions. This was a radical and controversial methodological step. Psychoanalysts objected, claiming that the presence of recording devices would compromise patient confidentiality, distort transference dynamics, induce paranoia, and invalidate the therapeutic process.

Shakow responded with characteristic empirical patience. He conducted controlled studies demonstrating that when handled with full ethical consent and administrative transparency, both patients and therapists quickly habituated to the recording apparatus. He accumulated hundreds of hours of recorded sessions, creating an unprecedented archival database of real-time clinical discourse. Shakow and his research team developed micro-analytic coding systems to transcribe and analyze linguistic nuances, pauses, silences, pitch changes, affective shifts, and interpretive interventions. By breaking down therapeutic dialogue into quantifiable units, Shakow helped initiate the modern field of empirical psychotherapy research. His work demonstrated that therapeutic constructs—such as resistance, transference, empathy, and insight—could be operationalized, evaluated, and correlated with clinical outcomes, laying the groundwork for contemporary evidence-based practice.

9. Directorship at the National Institute of Mental Health (1954–1966)

9.1 Founding the Laboratory of Psychology at NIMH

In 1954, David Shakow reached the zenith of his institutional career when he was recruited to Bethesda, Maryland, by Seymour S. Kety, Scientific Director of the Intramural Research Program, and Robert H. Felix, Director of the National Institute of Mental Health. Felix and Kety sought to build the most comprehensive, interdisciplinary behavioral and biomedical research center in human history within the newly constructed Clinical Center at the National Institutes of Health. Shakow was invited to serve as the founding Chief of the NIMH Laboratory of Psychology, an intramural institution with virtually unprecedented federal resources and scientific autonomy.

Shakow designed the structural blueprint of the Laboratory of Psychology from its foundation. Rather than restricting the laboratory to clinical psychopathology, Shakow recognized that clinical problems could not be understood without a comprehensive grasp of normal human functioning across the lifespan. Consequently, he structured the laboratory into distinct yet mutually collaborative sections:

• Section on Clinical Psychology: Dedicated to psychopathology, psychotherapy process research, and diagnostic methodologies.
• Section on Developmental Psychology: Focused on early infant behavior, parent-child interaction, and child development trajectories.
• Section on Perception and Cognition: Investigating basic human sensory systems, information processing, and attentional mechanics.
• Section on Animal Behavior and Comparative Psychology: Conducting neurobehavioral, evolutionary, and conditioning studies to explore biological substrates.
• Section on Aging: Pioneering the scientific study of the psychological, cognitive, and neurobiological changes across normal and pathological aging processes.

To lead these sections, Shakow recruited top-tier scientists from across the globe, assembling an extraordinary group of minds that included Nancy Bayley (developer of the Bayley Scales of Infant Development), Marian Radke-Yarrow (a pioneer in developmental psychology and empathy), Herbert Lansdell, and Richard Neisser. Shakow fostered an institutional culture characterized by total scientific freedom, long-term exploration unburdened by short-term publishing pressures, and meticulous methodological rigor. Under his twelve years of leadership as Laboratory Chief, the NIMH Laboratory of Psychology became the premier psychological research institution in the world.

9.2 Intramural Research Programs and Methodological Standards

At NIMH, Shakow maintained an active personal research program alongside his vast administrative duties. He utilized the Clinical Center’s specialized metabolic wards and multidisciplinary teams to expand his longitudinal studies on schizophrenia. Patients admitted to the NIMH research wards were studied over years, allowing Shakow to refine his reaction-time paradigms and trace the temporal stability of the segmental set deficit across different phases of the illness.

The timing of Shakow’s NIMH directorship coincided with a massive revolution in psychiatry: the introduction of chlorpromazine (Thorazine) and the dawn of the psychopharmacological era. While many psychiatrists celebrated neuroleptics as an uncritical cure that would empty the asylums, Shakow applied his characteristic empirical skepticism. He integrated psychopharmacology into his laboratory paradigms, testing the objective cognitive effects of antipsychotic drugs on patient attention, reaction time, and motor coordination. Shakow was among the first to demonstrate that while phenothiazines dramatically attenuated florid positive symptoms (such as delusions and hallucinations) and reduced agitation, they did not fully resolve the underlying cognitive deficits of the segmental set—a fundamental clinical reality that modern neuropharmacology continues to confront.

Additionally, Shakow utilized NIMH resources to establish massive, multi-decade normative databases for human development and cognitive decline. Under his direction, the laboratory initiated groundbreaking longitudinal studies on the normal aging process, dispelling the myth that severe cognitive decline was an inevitable consequence of healthy aging. Shakow’s administrative leadership was defined by a quiet, supportive egalitarianism; he protected his scientists from federal bureaucratic interference, encouraged cross-disciplinary dialogue between neurophysiologists, psychoanalysts, and animal behaviorists, and demanded that all research emerging from the laboratory maintain the highest standards of statistical and ethical precision.

10. Epistemological Framework: Unifying Psychoanalysis and Experimental Science

10.1 Engagement with Psychoanalytic Thought

One of the most complex aspects of David Shakow’s intellectual identity was his deep, lifelong engagement with psychoanalytic theory. In the mid-twentieth century, American psychology was engaged in a bitter ideological war: academic psychology was dominated by strict behaviorism and psychophysical positivism, which rejected psychoanalysis as untestable, unscientific mythology; conversely, psychiatry was thoroughly dominated by Freudian psychoanalysis, which frequently dismissed experimental laboratory research as sterile and clinically irrelevant. Shakow refused to enlist in either camp, operating throughout his life as an intellectual bridge builder.

Shakow underwent personal psychoanalysis and maintained profound theoretical respect for Sigmund Freud’s formulations regarding unconscious dynamics, defense mechanisms, infantile sexuality, and the symbolic architecture of psychopathology. However, Shakow was never an uncritical disciple. He believed that psychoanalysis was a brilliant, highly intuitive system of observational hypotheses that desperately required the self-correcting discipline of experimental science. He maintained that psychoanalysis was crippled by its reliance on unverified retrospective clinical impressions, authoritarian dogmatism, and a refusal to expose its tenets to controlled empirical verification.

Shakow dedicated substantial scholarship to translating psychoanalytic concepts into testable, laboratory-operationalized hypotheses. His ultimate theoretical exploration of this reconciliation appeared in his 1966 book, With Freud and Oedipus: Psychoanalysis and Psychology (co-authored with David Rapaport). In this work, Shakow traced the historical relationship between the two disciplines, detailing how Freud had originally been a rigorous neurological researcher before abandoning laboratory science for clinical practice. Shakow argued that the future of both disciplines depended on an integrative synthesis: psychology needed psychoanalysis to prevent its laboratory paradigms from becoming trivial and detached from human emotion, while psychoanalysis needed experimental psychology to save it from becoming a secular religion. He believed that the dynamic constructs of Freud and the rigorous methodologies of Boring could—and must—coexist in the clinical scientist.

10.2 The Concept of the ‘Naturalistic Laboratory’

To bridge the divide between clinical intuition and experimental precision, Shakow articulated an epistemological model that he termed the “naturalistic laboratory.” He argued that traditional experimental psychology suffered from a fatal blind spot: by taking healthy animal or human subjects and placing them into completely sterile, artificial laboratory environments to perform disconnected tasks, researchers systematically stripped behavior of its ecological validity. While this approach maximized internal validity, it made it nearly impossible to understand how human beings function within complex social, institutional, and emotional realities.

Shakow proposed that the psychiatric hospital, the therapy clinic, and the community must be conceptualized as living laboratories. In these settings, behavioral phenomena could be continuously, unobtrusively, and naturalistically observed in their full ecological authenticity. However, unlike traditional anthropologists or purely qualitative clinicians, Shakow demanded that this naturalistic observation be paired with precise, quantitative measurement tools: calibrated rating scales, physiological monitoring, verbatim recording, and targeted psychomotor challenges introduced directly into the natural environment.

This epistemological synthesis represented a sophisticated contribution to the philosophy of science. Shakow argued that science does not consist of a specific piece of brass instrumentation or a controlled room; science is an attitude of systematic skepticism, disciplined observation, and self-correcting analysis. Whether one is measuring the firing of an axon, the reaction time of a patient pressing a telegraph key, or the linguistic markers of resistance during a psychoanalytic hour, the same fundamental empirical principles apply. By championing the naturalistic laboratory, Shakow provided clinical psychology with an epistemological rationale that validated clinical work as an authentic scientific endeavor.

11. Professional Honors, Ethical Advocacy, and Organizational Influence

11.1 Leadership in the American Psychological Association (APA)

Beyond his scientific contributions, David Shakow was a central institutional architect of the American Psychological Association during its critical post-war transition into a major professional and scientific organization. He played a foundational role in the creation and governance of APA Division 12 (the Society of Clinical Psychology), serving as its president in 1948 during the critical period when clinical training accreditation frameworks were being developed. His leadership ensured that Division 12 remained focused on scientific standards rather than degenerating into an insular guild union.

Shakow’s extensive contributions to the discipline were recognized through psychology’s highest honors. In 1963, the APA awarded him the prestigious Distinguished Scientific Contribution Award, acknowledging his revolutionary experimental investigations into schizophrenia, his reaction time paradigms, and his theoretical formulations of attentional impairment. This was a critical symbolic victory for the field of clinical psychology, as it demonstrated to the academic establishment that clinical research on psychiatric patients could achieve the highest levels of scientific recognition.

Thirteen years later, in 1976, the APA bestowed upon Shakow the Distinguished Professional Contribution Award, making him one of the exceptionally rare scholars in the history of American psychology to receive both the highest scientific and highest professional accolades. The 1976 award recognized his definitive work as the architect of the Scientist-Practitioner Model, his leadership of the 1947 training committee, and his decades of institutional leadership. Throughout his career, Shakow also served on countless federal advisory councils, including panels for the National Science Foundation, the World Health Organization, and the National Institute of Mental Health, directly shaping federal funding priorities and national mental health policy across three decades.

11.2 Ethical Stewardship and Professional Identity

Throughout his career, David Shakow served as the moral conscience of clinical psychology. In the post-war decades, as the demand for psychotherapy skyrocketed, practicing psychologists faced intense jurisdictional conflict with organized medicine and the American Psychiatric Association. Many psychiatrists viewed psychologists as non-medical technicians, demanding that psychologists be legally prohibited from conducting independent psychotherapy or diagnostic evaluations without direct medical supervision. Some psychologists responded with aggressive, combative professional rhetoric, seeking to break entirely from psychiatry and establish competitive commercial enterprises.

Shakow consistently advocated for a more principled and ethical approach to professional identity. He fiercely defended the autonomy of clinical psychology, insisting that psychologists were fully qualified to diagnose and treat mental illness independently, and he actively supported statutory licensing and certification laws to protect the public from untrained practitioners. However, he cautioned psychologists against adopting the insular guild mentality of commercial medicine. He warned that if psychology became merely a lucrative private-practice business focused exclusively on treating mild neuroses, it would betray its ethical social contract and abandon individuals suffering from chronic, severe psychiatric illnesses in state hospitals.

Furthermore, Shakow was a pioneer of institutional research ethics. Long before the establishment of modern Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) and the Belmont Report, Shakow insisted on absolute respect for the dignity and autonomy of psychiatric research participants. Working with individuals with severe psychotic disorders—a vulnerable population easily subjected to coercion—Shakow established strict protocols regarding informed consent, comfort, and the management of stress during laboratory testing. He viewed research participants not as passive specimens to be dissected, but as human collaborators in the collective scientific effort to understand psychiatric pathology.

12. Later Years, Death, and Enduring Legacy in Clinical Science (1966–1981 and Beyond)

12.1 Senior Research Psychologist Era and Late Writings (1966–1981)

In 1966, having reached the mandatory administrative retirement age of sixty-five as Chief of the NIMH Laboratory of Psychology, David Shakow stepped down from his managerial role. However, his intellectual life was far from over. He was immediately appointed Senior Research Psychologist within the NIMH Intramural Research Program, a post that allowed him to divest himself of administrative duties and devote his final fifteen years entirely to scholarship, writing, and mentorship.

During this golden twilight era, Shakow produced a series of reflective, historical, and autobiographical monographs that examined the evolution of clinical psychology. Working from his office in Bethesda, he published comprehensive retrospectives on the Worcester State Hospital experiment, documenting the lessons learned from that multidisciplinary psychiatric crucible. He continued to write on the philosophy of clinical science, examining how clinical judgment, intuition, and statistical prediction interact within the mind of the psychologist. In his final scientific writings, Shakow engaged with emerging neurochemical and genetic discoveries in schizophrenia, demonstrating how findings involving dopamine receptors and catecholamines could be integrated with his segmental set hypothesis.

David Shakow remained intellectually active and engaged with colleagues and trainees until his final days. On February 26, 1981, Shakow died in Bethesda, Maryland, at the age of eighty, following a heart attack. His death elicited tributes from leaders across the international psychological, psychiatric, and scientific communities. Memorial tributes published in the American Psychologist, the Archives of General Psychiatry, and major scientific journals celebrated him not only as a brilliant laboratory scientist and institutional leader, but as an exceptionally kind, humble, and generous mentor whose integrity had elevated an entire profession.

12.2 Contemporary Relevance and Lasting Impact

Four decades after his death, the imprint of David Shakow remains visible throughout contemporary clinical psychology, cognitive neuroscience, and mental health policy. His most visible institutional legacy—the Scientist-Practitioner Model—continues to serve as the dominant training philosophy for clinical psychology PhD programs accredited by the American Psychological Association, the Canadian Psychological Association, and international regulatory bodies. While the rise of professional schools of psychology and the PsyD degree offered alternative pathways to clinical practice, the Boulder Model remains the standard for producing clinical scholars who advance the frontiers of mental health science.

In the contemporary laboratory, Shakow’s empirical work has enjoyed an extraordinary modern resurgence. As cognitive neuroscience moved away from static anatomical lesion models toward dynamic network models of attentional control and executive dysfunction, Shakow’s reaction time paradigms and segmental set formulations were confirmed with high-density electroencephalography, magnetoencephalography, and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Modern studies exploring the failure of proactive cognitive control in schizophrenia directly cite Shakow’s Worcester papers, confirming that the breakdown of preparatory attentional sets is a core endophenotype of the disorder, linked to genetic risk factors and prefrontal cortical microcircuitry.

Shakow’s institutional legacy is actively commemorated through professional honors, most notably the prestigious David Shakow Early Career Award for Distinguished Scientific Contributions to Clinical Psychology, bestowed annually by APA Division 12 to recognize outstanding early-career scholars who embody Shakow’s ideal of rigorous empirical inquiry applied to clinical problems. Ultimately, David Shakow stands as the defining figure of modern American clinical psychology. In an era when psychology was fractured between detached academic laboratory science and unverified clinical practice, Shakow built a unified discipline, proving that the human mind can be measured with scientific precision while treated with deep clinical compassion.

Conclusion

The life and scholarship of David Shakow embody the highest ideals of the behavioral sciences. By refusing to accept the false dichotomy between the objective laboratory and the subjective clinic, Shakow rescued clinical psychology from becoming either a minor medical technician’s trade or a purely speculative enterprise. His eighteen years at Worcester State Hospital proved that an underfunded asylum could be transformed into a world-class scientific laboratory through methodological rigor, naturalistic observation, and interdisciplinary collaboration.

Through the 1947 Shakow Report and the 1949 Boulder Conference, he gave the profession its enduring structural architecture: the scientist-practitioner model. This framework ensured that generations of clinical psychologists would be trained as rigorous scholars capable of generating original scientific discoveries, evaluating clinical interventions, and providing ethical, evidence-based care. Concurrently, his experimental formulations of the segmental set hypothesis and reaction-time crossover phenomena anticipated the modern cognitive neuroscience of schizophrenia by half a century, providing the foundation for our current understanding of attentional control and executive dysfunction.

As clinical psychology continues to navigate challenges in an era of rapid neurotechnological expansion, artificial intelligence, and evolving healthcare systems, David Shakow’s epistemological framework remains fundamentally relevant. He demonstrated that true psychological science requires both quantitative measurement and clinical empathy. In David Shakow, American psychology found its great architect—a scholar whose vision, ethical stewardship, and commitment to human suffering permanently elevated the study and treatment of the human mind.

References

• American Psychological Association, Committee on Training in Clinical Psychology. (1947). Recommended graduate training program in clinical psychology. American Psychologist, 2(12), 539–558. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0056532
• Benjamin, L. T., Jr. (2005). A history of clinical psychology as a profession in America (and a glimpse at its future). Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 1(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.1.102803.143758
• Boring, E. G. (1950). A history of experimental psychology (2nd ed.). Appleton-Century-Crofts.
• Nuechterlein, K. H. (1977). Reaction time and attention in schizophrenia: A critical evaluation of the data and theories. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 3(3), 373–428. https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/3.3.373
• Raimy, V. C. (Ed.). (1950). Training in clinical psychology. Prentice-Hall.
• Rodnick, E. H., & Shakow, D. (1940). Set in the schizophrenic as measured by a composite reaction time index. American Journal of Psychiatry, 97(1), 214–225. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.97.1.214
• Rotter, J. B. (1981). David Shakow (1901–1981). American Psychologist, 36(9), 1007–1009. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0078028
• Shakow, D. (1946). The nature of deterioration in schizophrenic conditions. Nervous and Mental Disease Monographs, No. 70. Coolidge Foundation.
• Shakow, D. (1962). Segmental set: A theory of the formal process in schizophrenia. Archives of General Psychiatry, 6(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1962.01710190003001
• Shakow, D. (1969). Clinical psychology as science and profession: A forty-year odyssey. Aldine Publishing Company.
• Shakow, D. (1976). What is clinical psychology? American Psychologist, 31(8), 553–560. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.31.8.553
• Shakow, D. (1977). Segmental set: The adaptive process in the schizophrenia syndrome. American Psychologist, 32(2), 129–139. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.32.2.129
• Shakow, D., & Huston, P. E. (1936). Studies of motor function in schizophrenia: III. Speed of tapping. Journal of General Psychology, 15(1), 63–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.1936.9917907
• Shakow, D., & Rapaport, D. (1964). The influence of Freud on American psychology. International Universities Press.
• Wells, F. L. (1927). Mental tests in clinical practice. World Book Company.