Counting integrated reports for internship

SDN Members don't see this ad. (About Ads)

Hi all,
I have a question for you all. So far, I've had a ton of conflicting answers when I've asked people in my program, so I figured I would post her and go with whatever the majority says.

My question is about how to count integrated reports. APPIC instructions state: "This section should NOT include reports written from an interview that is only history-taking, a clinical interview, and/or only the completion of behavioral rating forms, where no additional psychological tests are administered. The definition of an integrated psychological testing report is a report that includes a review of history, results of an interview and at least two psychological tests from one or more of the following categories: personality measures, intellectual tests, cognitive tests, and neuropsychological tests."

My confusion with these instructions is what exactly constitutes a behavioral rating form. Do self-report sympom inventories fall under this category? If so, do reports that include only the BDI, PCL, etc. along with a comprehensive interview/history not count as integrated reports?

I have written 33 psychodiagnositc reports consisting of a comprehensive interview (which assessed functioning in nearly every possible domain), history, and at least two assessments such as the BDI, PCL, Mississippi, BAI, etc. These reports are very comprehensive-- usually at least 5 pages single-spaced-- and provide a multi-axal diagnoses and treatment reccomendations. Would you all count these as "integrated reports" for internship applications? I was initially afraid that counting these reports would be misleading, but since you have to report the number of each assessment that you used for a report, I thought that couting those reports may be OK as sites would be able to figure out what you are counting as a report. So, do you think I should I count these 33 reports as integrated reports?

The answer to this question makes a big difference for me because my number of integrated reports will be either 35 or 2, depending on whether those types of reports should be counted. If I don't count those 33 reports, I figured I should probably try to get my integrated report number up before November when it will be time for me to apply.

Thanks for all your help!

Originally Posted by ilikepsych

Hi all,
I have a question for you all. So far, I've had a ton of conflicting answers when I've asked people in my program, so I figured I would post her and go with whatever the majority says.

My question is about how to count integrated reports. APPIC instructions state: "This section should NOT include reports written from an interview that is only history-taking, a clinical interview, and/or only the completion of behavioral rating forms, where no additional psychological tests are administered. The definition of an integrated psychological testing report is a report that includes a review of history, results of an interview and at least two psychological tests from one or more of the following categories: personality measures, intellectual tests, cognitive tests, and neuropsychological tests."

My confusion with these instructions is what exactly constitutes a behavioral rating form. Do self-report sympom inventories fall under this category? If so, do reports that include only the BDI, PCL, etc. along with a comprehensive interview/history not count as integrated reports?

I have written 33 psychodiagnositc reports consisting of a comprehensive interview (which assessed functioning in nearly every possible domain), history, and at least two assessments such as the BDI, PCL, Mississippi, BAI, etc. These reports are very comprehensive-- usually at least 5 pages single-spaced-- and provide a multi-axal diagnoses and treatment reccomendations. Would you all count these as "integrated reports" for internship applications? I was initially afraid that counting these reports would be misleading, but since you have to report the number of each assessment that you used for a report, I thought that couting those reports may be OK as sites would be able to figure out what you are counting as a report. So, do you think I should I count these 33 reports as integrated reports?

The answer to this question makes a big difference for me because my number of integrated reports will be either 35 or 2, depending on whether those types of reports should be counted. If I don't count those 33 reports, I figured I should probably try to get my integrated report number up before November when it will be time for me to apply.

Thanks for all your help!

Self-report symptom measures do not fall under any of the required categories from which tests must fall (personality, intellectual, cognitive, or neuropsych), so no these would not be integrated reports unless you were giving a personality measure (PAI, MMPI, etc.) and maybe some brief cognitive screen as part of your intake. It doesn't matter how long or detailed a report is - APPIC has a pretty specific definition for what counts.

I think integrative reports is meant to capture reports written from testing experience. Self reports are not really testing in the same way that giving, scoring, and interpreting things like the MMPI, WAIS, WJ, etc. are.

Originally Posted by psycscientist

Self-report symptom measures do not fall under any of the required categories from which tests must fall (personality, intellectual, cognitive, or neuropsych), so no these would not be integrated reports unless you were giving a personality measure (PAI, MMPI, etc.) and maybe some brief cognitive screen as part of your intake. It doesn't matter how long or detailed a report is - APPIC has a pretty specific definition for what counts.

I think integrative reports is meant to capture reports written from testing experience. Self reports are not really testing in the same way that giving, scoring, and interpreting things like the MMPI, WAIS, WJ, etc. are.

This. I'd written a few dozen "interview plus" reports myself, but unless there was something in there beyond a BDI and MMSE (like, as psycscientist mentioned, a PAI or MMPI, or even perhaps a WASI+), I didn't count it as an integrated report.

An integrated report includes a history, an interview, and at least two tests from one or more of the following categories: personality assessments (objective, self-report, and/or projective), intellectual assessment, cognitive assessment, and/or neuropsychological assessment. These are synthesized into a comprehensive report providing an overall picture of the patient/client.

there are many different assessments but just some examples.
most common personality assessments: MCMI, MMPI, Myers-Briggs, PAI

most common intellectual assessments: Stanford-Binet 3, TONI-3, WAIS III and WAIS IV

I will clump these together, common cognitive assessments and/or neuropsychological assessments: Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Exam, Brief Rating Scale of Executive Function, Dementia Rating Scale - II, California Verbal learning Test, Continuous Performance Test, Delis Kaplan Executive Function System, Finger Tapping, Grooved Pegboard, Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure, Trailmaking Test A & B, Wechsler Memory Scale III, Wisconsin Card Sorting Test

So you will need at least 2 of the tests mentioned (or similar assessments).

Originally Posted by ilikepsych

Hi all,
My confusion with these instructions is what exactly constitutes a behavioral rating form. Do self-report sympom inventories fall under this category? If so, do reports that include only the BDI, PCL, etc. along with a comprehensive interview/history not count as integrated reports?

From APPIC, Symptom Inventories:
Beck Depression Inventory
Hamilton Depression Scale
Beck Anxiety Inventory
Adult Manifest Anxiety Scaled

anything similar to that would not count for an integrated report.

btw, what is the PCL? Psychopathy Checklist or PTSD checklist?

Ok, thanks. As a follow-up, how many integrated reports do you think someone should have in order to be qualified for VA sites that have a focus on assessment as part of the internship (e.g, West LA VA)? I am not planning on applying for neuropsych positions, but do plan on applying to several generalist-type VA sites that emphasize assessment as part of their training.

Originally Posted by DynamicDidactic

btw, what is the PCL? Psychopathy Checklist or PTSD checklist?

I'd guess the PTSD Checklist...as it sounds like a common grouping from the VA system, most likely for PTSD rule in/out. we had the same grouping, but we always added an MCMI, MMPI, etc.

Remember that your experience will also be reflected in other ways regarding the use of measures that are not formally "tests" and that while you cannot count the symptom inventory/interview assessments toward "integrated report" totals, you will be able to record your use of instruments like these and can highlight your skill with these kinds of assessments. There are sites that will definitely value your kind of experience. You may be at a disadvantage at some sites that just use an integrated report number "cut-off" but many sites look at other things first. My guess is that this will vary even among VAs. Meanwhile, if you can integrate some WASI, Cognistat, MOCA or the like into your interviews you could be able to count those.

I believe this is a source of confusion in my program as well. I also seem to recall that our clinic started pushing students to use symptom inventories/checklists (e.g., BDI, BAI, etc.) on a regular basis each & every session so they could "integrate" them into their intake reports, treatment summaries, termination reports, or what have you and then (voila!) consider them integrated reports. Or at least this was the rationale passed down to students to get them to buy into it with minimal complaint.

And then we have other folks who say that they're not integrated reports unless the assessments are from across multiple categories, so one would require a cognitive and a personality test. But, if I'm reading the OP's quote correctly, then one "simply" needs two tests from ANY of those given categories and they don't necessarily need to be different ones?

Originally Posted by paramour

I believe this is a source of confusion in my program as well. I also seem to recall that our clinic started pushing students to use symptom inventories/checklists (e.g., BDI, BAI, etc.) on a regular basis each & every session so they could "integrate" them into their intake reports, treatment summaries, termination reports, or what have you and then (voila!) consider them integrated reports. Or at least this was the rationale passed down to students to get them to buy into it with minimal complaint.

And then we have other folks who say that they're not integrated reports unless the assessments are from across multiple categories, so one would require a cognitive and a personality test. But, if I'm reading the OP's quote correctly, then one "simply" needs two tests from ANY of those given categories and they don't necessarily need to be different ones?

They don't need to come from different categories, but symptom inventories don't come from ANY of the categories. So don't count for integrated reports.

Originally Posted by psycscientist

They don't need to come from different categories, but symptom inventories don't come from ANY of the categories. So don't count for integrated reports.

Yeah, I figured that out about the sx checklists (good information to pass along, if anyone will listen). I was curious about the multiple category issue (sans sx checklist), as I wanted to confirm I was interpreting that one correctly. Thanks!

Originally Posted by paramour

Yeah, I figured that out about the sx checklists (good information to pass along, if anyone will listen). I was curious about the multiple category issue (sans sx checklist), as I wanted to confirm I was interpreting that one correctly. Thanks!

The way the guideline reads to me is that it'd count as an integrated report if at least two tests from the listed domains were given, even if the tests fell within the same domain. This seems like it'd make more sense with the cognitive/neuropsych domains than the intelligence/personality domains (e.g., giving the halstead-reitan to a client vs. administering the MMPI and PAI to the same person), overall, though.

I also wouldn't doubt that some people get confused, and count as integrated reports those which only contain a BDI, BAI, and maybe an MMSE or something.

Our DCT specifically contacted APPIC and confirmed that things do not need to span multiple clusters (i.e. you can "integrate" two psychoed tests and it counts).

What would people consider things like structured diagnostic interviews? They clearly aren't symptom checklists, but I certainly wouldn't call the SCID a "Personality" measure. I've done a few cases that involved a PAI, a half-dozen self-reports, and a pretty extensive battery of structured diagnostic interviews (SCID-I, SCID-II, ADIS, etc.) that it would seem ridiculous not to count as an integrated report given they were more extensive than some full neuro batteries I've done, but I'm not certain they would meet the definition. The guidelines refers to "clinical" interviews but I get the impression they are just talking about a typical unstructured intake interview, not necessarily structured administration of validated interviews.

Maybe I should start giving both the MMPI and PAI for the sake of "convergent validity"

I think the intention of asking about integrated reports to begin with is to identify who has actually had experience with doing a complete sequence of interview, administration, scoring, interpretation AND then composing a report that integrates results and observations leading to conclusions that can be shared with interdisciplinary staff/clients/families. This does involve more that discussing a client's self-report findings and is more congruent with the kind of work required in applied settings (versus the kind of demonstration-of-knowledge reports done for an assessment class.) It is the ability to integrate information from different sources and give them contextual meaning relevant to a specific case that is key.

Originally Posted by Ollie123

What would people consider things like structured diagnostic interviews? They clearly aren't symptom checklists, but I certainly wouldn't call the SCID a "Personality" measure. I've done a few cases that involved a PAI, a half-dozen self-reports, and a pretty extensive battery of structured diagnostic interviews (SCID-I, SCID-II, ADIS, etc.) that it would seem ridiculous not to count as an integrated report given they were more extensive than some full neuro batteries I've done, but I'm not certain they would meet the definition.

I don't think this is "canon" so to speak, but I consider SCIDs as clinical interviews. So, you would generate an integrated report by administering the PAI, self-report measures, and a SCID because you would be integrating a personality measure (the PAI) with a clinical interview. However, just administering a SCID with some self-report symptom measures would not generate an integrated report.

Sigh, if I could have counted clinical interviews + symptom checklists as integrated reports, I could have applied to some of the more assessment heavy internships. The idea that some people are doing this is maddening, though not surprising.

Originally Posted by KillerDiller

I don't think this is "canon" so to speak, but I consider SCIDs as clinical interviews. So, you would generate an integrated report by administering the PAI, self-report measures, and a SCID because you would be integrating a personality measure (the PAI) with a clinical interview. However, just administering a SCID with some self-report symptom measures would not generate an integrated report.

Sigh, if I could have counted clinical interviews + symptom checklists as integrated reports, I could have applied to some of the more assessment heavy internships. The idea that some people are doing this is maddening, though not surprising.

I counted reports from my research lab based on SCID +Hamilton Despression Rating Scale as "Integrated reports" when I went through the match. I was indeed integrating multiple pieces of data (the interview info itself, documented medical history/chart, my clinical judgment of that with the current presentation) with a quantification of symptomatology.

Originally Posted by erg923

I counted reports from my research lab based on SCID +Hamilton Despression Rating Scale as "Integrated reports" when I went through the match. I was indeed integrating multiple pieces of data (the interview info itself, documented medical history/chart, my clinical judgment of that with the current presentation) with a quantification of symptomatology.

So how would that differ conceptually from doing an unstructured or structured (but non-SCID) clinical interview and some symptom checklists? We know the above do not count as integrated reports, so I'm not sure why doing a SCID itself would cross into integrated territory.

Originally Posted by KillerDiller

So how would that differ conceptually from doing an unstructured or structured (but non-SCID) clinical interview and some symptom checklists? We know the above do not count as integrated reports, so I'm not sure why doing a SCID itself would cross into integrated territory.

It doesn't.

Originally Posted by erg923

It doesn't.

Ohhh, so you're just admitting to being one of those people ...fair enough. Kinda wish I was too. Assessment experience was definitely a weak spot in my application. Lucky for me I still matched.

Originally Posted by KillerDiller

Ohhh, so you're just admitting to being one of those people ...fair enough. Kinda wish I was too. Assessment experience was definitely a weak spot in my application. Lucky for me I still matched.

The point was 1. to illustrate the vaguary. 2. to show that people are going to count really whatever they can, so long as the can justify it to some degree. This will continue to happen so long as sites are focused on a quantitative aspects of anything. Human beings will almost invatiably overestimate/overstate experiences that look good or that we know employers are looking for. Combine this with a little desperation to stand out due to an massive supply/demand imbalance and...voila!

Aside from getting you through the initial screening process, the AAPI means nothing once you have an interview. Hopefully, people who fudge on their applications are exposed at that part of the process.

My take back when I was filling out my application was basically that if I didn't have to calculate some type of standardized score for the measure, it didn't count as an integrated report. I also tended to lowball my assessment hours, though, so that probably represents an overly-conservative mindset overall.

I personally wouldn't consider a SCID to make a report "integrated," at least according to APPIC. But if someone had a SCID and a half-dozen other self-report inventories in a report, I also wouldn't feel that they'd "unfairly" added it to their count.

I suppose in the end, I was just fortunate that my underestimating approach didn't end up costing me an internship spot. I can certainly understand why people would feel pressured to count any and everything they possibly can to make themselves appear competitive.

Originally Posted by AcronymAllergy

My take back when I was filling out my application was basically that if I didn't have to calculate some type of standardized score for the measure, it didn't count as an integrated report. I also tended to lowball my assessment hours, though, so that probably represents an overly-conservative mindset overall.

I personally wouldn't consider a SCID to make a report "integrated," at least according to APPIC. But if someone had a SCID and a half-dozen other self-report inventories in a report, I also wouldn't feel that they'd "unfairly" added it to their count.

I suppose in the end, I was just fortunate that my underestimating approach didn't end up costing me an internship spot. I can certainly understand why people would feel pressured to count any and everything they possibly can to make themselves appear competitive.

Edit: Hello, I am ____, doctoral candidate from _____. I did 987 integrated reports and have over 2,000 face-to-face hours.

Interviewer: Why the hell do you have that many hours? Trouble getting your dissertation proposal through?

Originally Posted by Pragma

Edit: Hello, I am ____, doctoral candidate from _____. I did 987 integrated reports and have over 2,000 face-to-face hours.

Interviewer: Why the hell do you have that many hours? Trouble getting your dissertation proposal through?

Hey now, I'm sure it was a very complicated and demanding dissertation...

From what I know, we've had a large proportion of people come through my (neuro) lab with >2k face-to-face hours by the time they hit their fourth and fifth years. But yeah, after a certain point, it kind of gets/looks ridiculous. Sadly, with the imbalance the way it is now, I don't see people becoming more conservative with their guesstimates anytime soon, which is only going to further skew the numbers.

Originally Posted by AcronymAllergy

I suppose in the end, I was just fortunate that my underestimating approach didn't end up costing me an internship spot. I can certainly understand why people would feel pressured to count any and everything they possibly can to make themselves appear competitive.

Yeah, I also feel very lucky. I think I got the issues of integrated reports and assessment hours confused. I came to the conclusion early on that time spent giving clinical interviews went under therapy instead of assessment. I guess I thought that contact hours should only count as assessment hours if they lead to an integrated report. I'm now pretty sure that's wrong, but I didn't end up re-thinking it until filling out the APPIC application. By then it was too late to change it.

Originally Posted by KillerDiller

Yeah, I also feel very lucky. I think I got the issues of integrated reports and assessment hours confused. I came to the conclusion early on that time spent giving clinical interviews went under therapy instead of assessment. I guess I thought that contact hours should only count as assessment hours if they lead to an integrated report. I'm now pretty sure that's wrong, but I didn't end up re-thinking it until filling out the APPIC application. By then it was too late to change it.

I honestly don't remember what I did with my non-neuro assessment/intake hours. I believe in the end, I counted them as assessment hours (although the reports didn't get listed as integrated), with my therapy hours only capturing my time spent in sessions. But the whole APPIC application process is a dissociated blur at this point.

Originally Posted by AcronymAllergy

Hey now, I'm sure it was a very complicated and demanding dissertation...

From what I know, we've had a large proportion of people come through my (neuro) lab with >2k face-to-face hours by the time they hit their fourth and fifth years. But yeah, after a certain point, it kind of gets/looks ridiculous. Sadly, with the imbalance the way it is now, I don't see people becoming more conservative with their guesstimates anytime soon, which is only going to further skew the numbers.

To have 2,000 face-to-face hours means that you have worked the equivalent of 1 year, full time just seeing patients, not counting didactics, report-writing, case management, or anything else.

I recall prac's being 20 hours a week. I suppose if I did 4 full years of practicum with 10 solid face-to-face hours every week, without no-shows, I could get to that many hours.

Just seems like an over-estimate to me, and I when I hear about people crediting themselves for FTF hours for report-writing or no-shows, it makes me about as annoyed as when they inflate other credentials.

I took the more conservative approach that you did. I applied during my third practicum year so that I could be all "interned" and finished in 5 years. My hours kept me from a couple of sites, but I landed an APA-accredited spot in a desirable area with geo-restrictions. There's more to an application than hours, people! Meet the threshold but don't get carried away!

Originally Posted by Pragma

To have 2,000 face-to-face hours means that you have worked the equivalent of 1 year, full time just seeing patients, not counting didactics, report-writing, case management, or anything else.

I recall prac's being 20 hours a week. I suppose if I did 4 full years of practicum with 10 solid face-to-face hours every week, without no-shows, I could get to that many hours.

Just seems like an over-estimate to me, and I when I hear about people crediting themselves for FTF hours for report-writing or no-shows, it makes me about as annoyed as when they inflate other credentials.

I took the more conservative approach that you did. I applied during my third practicum year so that I could be all "interned" and finished in 5 years. My hours kept me from a couple of sites, but I landed an APA-accredited spot in a desirable area with geo-restrictions. There's more to an application than hours, people! Meet the threshold but don't get carried away!

Agreed, agreed. In the case of my lab, we begin seeing clients/patients our first semester, with the typical caseload being one to two evals (~6.5 hours each, give or take) per week. For non-neuro stuff, we bump ourselves down to one/week (or keep it at two if you want) while tacking on a 20-hour externship elsewhere, which probably includes about 8-10 actual face-to-face hours. For a year or so, I also added on a non-externship practica at a forensic facility, although that was only 1/2 to 1 day/week. We very occasionally assessed on weekends, although generally only if the work was forensic. From what I remember, I still may not have topped 2k assessment hours (I erred for more one-assessment than two-assessment weeks my first year or two), although we certainly had some borderline-manic folks who burned the midnight oil fairly consistently.

All in all, though, just glad I matched, and also glad you and many others here did as well.

Originally Posted by AcronymAllergy

Agreed, agreed. In the case of my lab, we begin seeing clients/patients our first semester, with the typical caseload being one to two evals (~6.5 hours each, give or take) per week. For non-neuro stuff, we bump ourselves down to one/week (or keep it at two if you want) while tacking on a 20-hour externship elsewhere, which probably includes about 8-10 actual face-to-face hours. For a year or so, I also added on a non-externship practica at a forensic facility, although that was only 1/2 to 1 day/week. We very occasionally assessed on weekends, although generally only if the work was forensic. From what I remember, I still may not have topped 2k assessment hours (I erred for more one-assessment than two-assessment weeks my first year or two), although we certainly had some borderline-manic folks who burned the midnight oil fairly consistently.

All in all, though, just glad I matched, and also glad you and many others here did as well.

Wow, that sounds like an extremely heavy number of hours. Were they billing? Edit: If I had that schedule, I wouldn't have been able to get as much research done. The only way I would have taken on even more hours would have been to be paid as a tech.

I've never heard of that much face-to-face time for a practicum. The most neuro I ever did on practicum was one assessment per week (6-8 hours ftf time, add supervision, scoring, didactics/rounds, writing to even it out), and some sites do less than half of that. I thought one full battery every two weeks (with about 25 total neuro cases) was more typical in a practicum year, and I heard people complain about that being too much work.

I honestly never checked into the billing much (my own "head in the sand"-edness, especially as an early student), but I believe it was generally billed. Pretty much everything was either private pay or free care, depending on the clinic, though. But yeah, my research productivity during my first three years, outside of my thesis and one first-author pub, was fairly non-existent. The senior students in our lab kept cranking things out, although as I mentioned, they were pretty serious workaholics.

For me, during the first two years, as I mentioned, the case load was much closer to one eval/week than two. But we did keep up at least that one eval for nearly the entirety of our time in the program. I'm sure I could've told my advisor that I didn't want to conduct them anymore once I'd started signing on for externships, but I wanted to get as much experience as I could. Even then, I didn't ever feel it was unmanageable--two evals/week is basically two full-time days, with another two days being spent at my externship site (primarily intakes with a little therapy mixed in), and the remaining day being writing/research/etc. time. I'm sure your and others' research productivity dwarfs mine as a result of all that, though, so I'm certainly having to play catch-up there.

Edit: Looking at/thinking about it, the schedule reminds me a bit of the "typical" internship work week, so that might be a good general basis of comparison.

Originally Posted by AcronymAllergy

I honestly never checked into the billing much (my own "head in the sand"-edness, especially as an early student), but I believe it was generally billed. Pretty much everything was either private pay or free care, depending on the clinic, though. But yeah, my research productivity during my first three years, outside of my thesis and one first-author pub, was fairly non-existent. The senior students in our lab kept cranking things out, although as I mentioned, they were pretty serious workaholics.

For me, during the first two years, as I mentioned, the case load was much closer to one eval/week than two. But we did keep up at least that one eval for nearly the entirety of our time in the program. I'm sure I could've told my advisor that I didn't want to conduct them anymore once I'd started signing on for externships, but I wanted to get as much experience as I could. Even then, I didn't ever feel it was unmanageable--two evals/week is basically two full-time days, with another two days being spent at my externship site (primarily intakes with a little therapy mixed in), and the remaining day being writing/research/etc. time. I'm sure your and others' research productivity dwarfs mine as a result of all that, though, so I'm certainly having to play catch-up there.

Edit: Looking at/thinking about it, the schedule reminds me a bit of the "typical" internship work week, so that might be a good general basis of comparison.

The more power to you! Wait, so were some of your hours through your research team?

On my 20 hour neuro practicum during my 4th year, I was also doing 20 hours of research assistantship work (non-clinical), teaching a class each term, and finishing my dissertation. I couldn't have imagined putting more than the 20 hours of practicum towards clinical work too. But if those additional hours were part of a clinical research lab, then I could definitely see it as manageable and how the AAPI numbers being pumped up to these higher levels for some folks.

Originally Posted by Pragma

The more power to you! Wait, so were some of your hours through your research team?

On my 20 hour neuro practicum during my 4th year, I was also doing 20 hours of research assistantship work (non-clinical), teaching a class each term, and finishing my dissertation. I couldn't have imagined putting more than the 20 hours of practicum towards clinical work too. But if those additional hours were part of a clinical research lab, then I could definitely see it as manageable and how the AAPI numbers being pumped up to these higher levels for some folks.

I'm honestly not sure how most other programs work, but in mine, our research and practicum/clinical teams are basically the same thing. A lot of our research is based on data we gather from clinical evaluations, so being able to blend the two ends up being a very efficient (and appreciated) setup. Actually, even on my externships, all of my research was based out of data gained through clinical work/databases we setup.

I never did any RAing myself, but did TA my first couple years, and then taught my own class before moving on to solely clinical funding sources.

So to answer your question: in general, yep, my research time was essentially one and the same as my clinical time. The only outside time I spent was on lit searching and writing; all of the actual data collection and entry was fairly automated through excel spreadsheets, or was a part of our clinical activities and so was worked into practica hours.

Not counting my thesis, which was a separate, interesting, and painful experience.

Originally Posted by AcronymAllergy

I'm honestly not sure how most other programs work, but in mine, our research and practicum/clinical teams are basically the same thing. A lot of our research is based on data we gather from clinical evaluations, so being able to blend the two ends up being a very efficient (and appreciated) setup. Actually, even on my externships, all of my research was based out of data gained through clinical work/databases we setup.

I never did any RAing myself, but did TA my first couple years, and then taught my own class before moving on to solely clinical funding sources.

So to answer your question: in general, yep, my research time was essentially one and the same as my clinical time. The only outside time I spent was on lit searching and writing; all of the actual data collection and entry was fairly automated through excel spreadsheets, or was a part of our clinical activities and so was worked into practica hours.

Not counting my thesis, which was a separate, interesting, and painful experience.

Yes that sounds very efficient. I had heard about some of those types of labs where you built up clinical hours as a part of research, but my research area never allowed for that type of thing. Sounds ideal for preparing you for clinical posts like internship and postdoc.

Originally Posted by Pragma

Yes that sounds very efficient. I had heard about some of those types of labs where you built up clinical hours as a part of research, but my research area never allowed for that type of thing. Sounds ideal for preparing you for clinical posts like internship and postdoc.

It's been an interesting experience, if nothing else. Although a more accurate description, given my personal leaning toward clinical work, might be that my research was built up as a part of my clinical hours. I suppose I just lucked out in that my research interests happen to line up well with clinically-obtainable information. Either that, or my interests have slowly been molded to fit the status quo.

The downside is that, personally, I wouldn't consider myself to have as much of a true "research mind" as someone like yourself who has had more true-to-life lab experience. My dissertation is forcing a bit of that on me, but again, I'm nowhere near the levels you, JonSnow, Ollie, and others here regularly deal in.

Originally Posted by AcronymAllergy

It's been an interesting experience, if nothing else. Although a more accurate description, given my personal leaning toward clinical work, might be that my research was built up as a part of my clinical hours. I suppose I just lucked out in that my research interests happen to line up well with clinically-obtainable information. Either that, or my interests have slowly been molded to fit the status quo.

The downside is that, personally, I wouldn't consider myself to have as much of a true "research mind" as someone like yourself who has had more true-to-life lab experience. My dissertation is forcing a bit of that on me, but again, I'm nowhere near the levels you, JonSnow, Ollie, and others here regularly deal in.

It really depends on what you want to do. Being a part of a research lab, writing grants, and implementing the grants when you obtain funding has been an awesome experience for me. But I never viewed myself as a clinician long-term. Friends of mine who were clinically-minded hating having to do their research lab work and viewed it as an annoyance. I suppose some of my clinical work felt that way for me (less of a priority), but I never hated it.

I just felt like I got a lot more out of my research lab where we mentored students (actually learning how to supervise people) and worked as a team a lot on big, probably overly-abstract research ideas. But it's cool to get lots of funding and I feel that my lab skills are quite transferrable to my career objectives.

Now maybe I lucked out getting a good internship with considerably LESS than 1000 contact hours, but I think it pays to mention that internships sites, despite being clinical places, appreciate other parts of your application. If you know what you are talking about, have good recs, and write well, it goes a long way.

Originally Posted by KillerDiller

Yeah, I also feel very lucky. I think I got the issues of integrated reports and assessment hours confused. I came to the conclusion early on that time spent giving clinical interviews went under therapy instead of assessment. I guess I thought that contact hours should only count as assessment hours if they lead to an integrated report. I'm now pretty sure that's wrong, but I didn't end up re-thinking it until filling out the APPIC application. By then it was too late to change it.

Originally Posted by AcronymAllergy

I honestly don't remember what I did with my non-neuro assessment/intake hours. I believe in the end, I counted them as assessment hours (although the reports didn't get listed as integrated), with my therapy hours only capturing my time spent in sessions. But the whole APPIC application process is a dissociated blur at this point.

Grrr! Every time I *think* I have this figured out, I then start to question it. So do intakes count as intervention/therapy or as assessment?

Because if they're assessment, I've been worried about nothing. It's practically most of my hours at my one external practicum site. But, everyone else & their mother who has worked at this site in the past (and my program) tells me that all intakes are intervention/therapy and NOT assessment hours (after I had been counting them as assessment). Sooo then I had zilch . . .

And more recently, I've started hearing folks from other programs say as I initially believed, i.e., intakes are assessments. I'm completely & uuuuudderly confuzzled by this point.

Stupid hours.

Haha now I'm not even sure how they should be counted. I want to say that I stuck them under assessment, but that might've been my overly-conservative attempt to not "inflate" my therapy/intervention hours with anything other than therapy/intervention. Given that I'm neuro, many of us tend to fall on the lower end of the intervention hours spectrum, so I didn't want to come across as trying to pad that category.

Many of our intakes were consults, so they never led to (or were intended to lead to) treatment. That might've colored my view of them being categorized as assessment rather than intervention. But again, I'm not sure what the right answer is.

I now want to go back and count them as assessment "because I can" and because it will help me tremendously (or so I think). Of course, then I'm screwed on intervention hours, but I can live with this for the time being. <bangheadondesk>

Out here in the real world, intakes can be either or both, which is of course no help. Perhaps you can count depending on what was actually done: was your primary task to reach a diagnosis and assess readiness for treatment/case disposition: that seems like assessment to me and you are honing your clinical interview skills. However, if it is an "initial session" for someone you will continue to see or someone who comes in with an accurate self-diagnosis and you go right into supportive or CBT interventions to increase coping/stabilization, then it is an intervention. Do not let counting the numbers drive you over the edge. Essays and your overall clarity about who you are and what you want to do on internship are likely to have more "effect size" in this crazy process

Originally Posted by paramour

Grrr! Every time I *think* I have this figured out, I then start to question it. So do intakes count as intervention/therapy or as assessment?

Because if they're assessment, I've been worried about nothing. It's practically most of my hours at my one external practicum site. But, everyone else & their mother who has worked at this site in the past (and my program) tells me that all intakes are intervention/therapy and NOT assessment hours (after I had been counting them as assessment). Sooo then I had zilch . . .

And more recently, I've started hearing folks from other programs say as I initially believed, i.e., intakes are assessments. I'm completely & uuuuudderly confuzzled by this point.

Stupid hours.

Yeah, I have no clue what the "correct" answer is either. If your site tells you to put them in as therapy, you may just want to listen to that. On the other hand, Docma's suggestion sounds good too.

Originally Posted by docma

Out here in the real world, intakes can be either or both, which is of course no help. Perhaps you can count depending on what was actually done: was your primary task to reach a diagnosis and assess readiness for treatment/case disposition: that seems like assessment to me and you are honing your clinical interview skills. However, if it is an "initial session" for someone you will continue to see or someone who comes in with an accurate self-diagnosis and you go right into supportive or CBT interventions to increase coping/stabilization, then it is an intervention. Do not let counting the numbers drive you over the edge. Essays and your overall clarity about who you are and what you want to do on internship are likely to have more "effect size" in this crazy process

Whatever gets 90801 paid...lol.

Originally Posted by paramour

Grrr! Every time I *think* I have this figured out, I then start to question it. So do intakes count as intervention/therapy or as assessment?

Because if they're assessment, I've been worried about nothing. It's practically most of my hours at my one external practicum site. But, everyone else & their mother who has worked at this site in the past (and my program) tells me that all intakes are intervention/therapy and NOT assessment hours (after I had been counting them as assessment). Sooo then I had zilch . . .

And more recently, I've started hearing folks from other programs say as I initially believed, i.e., intakes are assessments. I'm completely & uuuuudderly confuzzled by this point.

Stupid hours.

I counted mine on intervention hours. There is a section there on intake/structured interview. I had to go back to my AAPI just to verify