Occupy the imbalance!

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

Originally Posted by 4410

To state that 14 PsyD and one PhD programs are the problems is just plain ignorance because there are many more factors that are not controlled and the APPIC Match information is not a factual or accurate representation of empirical information but primarily collateral information.

Not really, this view has been supported in the literature. It's clear that reducing the number of less desirable applicants for internship would reduce the overall demand which would relieve much of the stress on the system. There are several programs that are contributing to the problem and are generating future clinicians at a pace that the available internship resources cannot handle.

The problem is two fold.

1. Generating applicants that are not competitive for internship.
2. Generating applicants in excess of what can be supported by the available resources for continued training.

In both cases, schools that generate high numbers of less desirable applicants to internships are responsible for this problem. It would be less clear if these clinician assembly lines were producing highly competitive candidates in vast numbers, but they are not. Certainly, I am not maligning individuals who attend these programs, because I have met very talented graduates from every program, but we have to look at the overall outcomes from these programs and not just the exceptional individual who may happen to shine when graduating from one of these 15 programs. If these 15 programs alone did not graduate students there would be several hundred less applicants fighting over the same number of slots. Stating that this is not a significant part of the problem is rubbish. Are there other problems, yes, of course there are, but this is the low hanging fruit on the tree.

Clearly these 15 programs (as well as all programs) have a responsibility to do the following:

1. Ensure they are generating competitive applicants.
2. Ensure that accredited internship opportunities exist for their applicants.

M

Originally Posted by 4410

I just scanned the links and noticed your name and I am not saying you implied this but that this seems to be one realistic solution to the shortage of internships. There are options that are much more realistic than the suggestions from your information which is based on misinformation. How can you realistically generalize that schools that don't have a specific pass rate on the EPPP or that do not have a specific rate of matching on APPIC are low quality programs and need to be eliminated. How can you place blame on APA or on FSPS or the students who attend these programs as they have as much of a right as students in other programs to compete for APA or APPIC internships. There are reasonable pluses and minus but clearly it is discrimination or just plain ignorance to make statements that the problem is FSPS or the students who attend these programs. Traditional University Programs may need to adjust their requirements and improve their training programs by improving their internship match rate. To state that 14 PsyD and one PhD programs are the problems is just plain ignorance because there are many more factors that are not controlled and the APPIC Match information is not a factual or accurate representation of empirical information but primarily collateral information.

You asked above how an internship being non-APA/non-APPIC mandated that it was low quality, so I'll respond to that point first before addressing this one. I never said that if an internship is non-APA then it's guaranteed to be low quality; I simply said that by circumventing the limited standards we do have (and the fact that they're limited is evident by there being APA internships that, as you mentioned, may not offer stellar training either), you're limiting the field by preventing the application of a national standard, and are participating in an internship for which there's limited ability to vouch for its standards.

As for the post above, it's obvious that the current system is churning out too many graduates for the training (and particularly infrastructure) system to handle. The option, then, is to address the problem on the front end (e.g., accept fewer students) or the back end (e.g., create more internships). Problem is, if you go with the latter option, there's nothing to suggest that the programs currently with large cohorts that are also producing a disproportionate number of individuals who don't match to internships won't just accept more students. The objective data we have indicate that a handful of programs are producing these applicants; why would we ignore than data, and instead just assume that all programs offer equally-adequate training?

Originally Posted by 4410

How can you realistically generalize that schools that don't have a specific pass rate on the EPPP or that do not have a specific rate of matching on APPIC are low quality programs and need to be eliminated.

Simple. One can say these things because these schools are consistently churning out students who fail to meet the discipline's post-training standards. You could claim that the APA/APPIC internships are biased against these FSPSs (thus contributing to their low match rates), but you can't claim that the EPPP is biased against them. The outcome data supports the notion that these schools are either 1) admitting individuals who are unlikely from the start to be able to meet training standards 2) not providing the necessary preparation and assistance to students to meet those standards, or some combination of the above.

Originally Posted by 4410

Traditional University Programs may need to adjust their requirements and improve their training programs by improving their internship match rate.

Agreed. If a particular traditional university program has a poor match rate or EPPP pass rate, then they should reform their program. FSPSs may look like they are the target because they tend to have the worst outcomes, but I doubt anyone on here would defend a traditional program with the same stats simply because it is a traditional program.

Originally Posted by 4410

To state that 14 PsyD and one PhD programs are the problems is just plain ignorance because there are many more factors that are not controlled and the APPIC Match information is not a factual or accurate representation of empirical information but primarily collateral information.

Just because something is quasi-experimental in design does not mean it isn't factual or empirical. Yes, there are preexisting differences between FSPSs and traditional schools. Something about how they are different is leading to poor professional outcomes for FSPS students. To act like FSPSs produce just as desirable modal outcomes as traditional programs is willful ignorance at this point.

People attending / working for / profiting from the FSPS will always dig in their heels on this issue because the lower quality of these programs reflects poorly on their own life choices. It's in APA's own interest to strongarm them because the large # of poor quality graduates are contributing to wage deflation. These schools are just cashing in on the federal student loan gravy train/bubble and taking advantage of the fact that a lot of post-BA/BS students are realizing their liberal arts degrees qualify them to work at Starbucks.

Originally Posted by roubs

People attending / working for / profiting from the FSPS will always dig in their heels on this issue because the lower quality of these programs reflects poorly on their own life choices. It's in APA's own interest to strongarm them because the large # of poor quality graduates are contributing to wage deflation. These schools are just cashing in on the federal student loan gravy train/bubble and taking advantage of the fact that a lot of post-BA/BS students are realizing their liberal arts degrees qualify them to work at Starbucks.

The reason for students seeking out educational opportunities in PsyD programs is due to the high quality of clinical psychology training in these programs. The EPPP is a poor indicator of clinical psychology training and is not an accurate outcome to measure the quality of a clinical psychology program. The EPPP needs to be adapted or changed to reflect what it purports to measure. Clinical Psychologist have already passed comprehensive exams during their training in their doctoral program, so why is it necessary to have another exam five years later over this subject matter?

Clinical Psychologists numbers are basically a minority in the Mental Health field as there are many more LPC, LCSW, and LMFT that will see clients for $60 to $100 per hours. This is the reason for wage reductions not PsyD clinical psychologists. I know some clinical psychologist who will not accept Medicaid/Medicare clients or insurance and are completely self-pay at a rate between $180 to $200 per hour. They may only have ten clients whereas a LPC will charge $75.00 per hour and have 30 clients and they both have basically the same income. Maybe the psychologists should reduce their rate to $100 per hour and attract more clients but many psychologists will not see a client at this rate but refer them to a LPC or actually share an office with an LPC. Some psychologists have five LPC's working for them at a lower rate, so maybe psychologists are at some blame for the wage deflation. Some psychologists may only work two or three days a week but hire LPC to work five days a week for them.

Originally Posted by 4410

Clinical Psychologists numbers are basically a minority in the Mental Health field as their are many more LPC, LCSW, and LMFT that will see clients for $60 to $100 per hours. This is the reason for wage reductions not PsyD clinical psychologists. I know some clinical psychologist who will not accept Medicaid/Medicare clients or insurance and are completely self-pay at a rate between $180 to $200 per hour. They may only have ten clients whereas a LPC will charge $75.00 per hour and have 30 clients and they both have basically the same income. Maybe the psychologist should reduce their rate to $100 per hour and attract more clients but many psychologists will not see a client at this rate but refer them to a LPC or actually share an office with an LPC. Some psychologists have five LPC's working for them at a lower rate, so maybe psychologists are at some blame for the wage deflation. Some psychologists may only work two or three days a week but hire LPC to work five days a week for them.

Um, why is this paragraph even here? What does it add to your point? How does it refute the point made by Roubs?

You can say your program's Psy.D. training is "top notch" till the cows come home, but the evidence (based on your posts) suggests that your training program has NOT provided you with the ability to effectively argue scientifically, nor how to evaluate evidence appropriately. I think these are valuable skills for a clinical psychologist to have. So does most of the world. You, apparently, do not. Further, even the one of two posts you have made here about clinical issues have largely been disagreed with. So, I think we can safely make the argument that you don’t appear to be very well trained in clinical application either.

Originally Posted by 4410

Clinical Psychologist have already passed comprehensive exams during their training in their doctoral program, so why is it necessary to have another exam five years later over this subject matter?

Because students attend unaccredited programs and unaccredited internships and thus there is no way of knowing whether their training has met even the bare minimum standards of the field. Qualifying exams are set by the schools, thus there is no clear way of knowing how one qualifying exam may compare to another.

"It's not a good measure" is not an adequate explanation of why students from a particular brand of school routinely have difficulty passing the EPPP. It is one of the only objective measures these programs have allowed to remain in place; they subvert all other attempts at standardization and accreditation.

Originally Posted by KillerDiller

Because students attend unaccredited programs and unaccredited internships and thus there is no way of knowing whether their training has met even the bare minimum standards of the field. Qualifying exams are set by the schools, thus there is no clear way of knowing how one qualifying exam may compare to another.

"It's not a good measure" is not an adequate explanation of why students from a particular brand of school routinely have difficulty passing the EPPP. It is one of the only objective measures these programs have allowed to remain in place; they subvert all other attempts at standardization and accreditation.

This. Objective (or at least as objective as possible) measures of professional competency, administered post-graduation, are the norm in a variety of mental health and healthcare-related fields. I (and apparently many others) am of the opinion that psychology should be held to this same standard, particularly because (as KillerDiller mentioned) we're so horrible at deciding on and enforcing an adequate unified national training standard at all levels of training.

Originally Posted by erg923

Um, why is this paragraph even here? What does it add to your point? How does it refute the point made by Roubs?

You can say your program's Psy.D. training is "top notch" till the cows come home, but the evidence (based on your posts) suggests that your training program has NOT provided you with the ability to effectively argue scientifically, nor how to evaluate evidence appropriately. I think these are valuable skills for a clinical psychologist to have. So does most of the world. You, apparently, do not. Further, even the one of two posts you have made here about clinical issues have largely been disagreed with. So, I think we can safely make the argument that you don’t appear to be very well trained in clinical application either.

Actually this paragraph is relevant because LPC, LCSW, and LMFT outnumber both PhD/PsyD clinical psychologist by ten to one. They are basically garnering the market share in the mental health business and laughing all the way to the bank. Many psychologists have priced themselves out of the competitive market due to their ego inflation and they have a much smaller market share. The psychologists who are surviving in this economy have reduced their rate and are accepting Medicaid/Medicare and third party insurance. A good number of psychologists are practicing part-time at a high rate but teaching adjunct at many of these professional schools to fullfill their income and survival needs. If you take away the professional schools, many of the faculty in these programs who have PhD degrees from APA accredited programs with APA accredited internship will be without jobs or forced to work with the indigent population to survive in a market heavily loaded with master's level licensed therapist.

Originally Posted by 4410

Actually this paragraph is relevant because LPC, LCSW, and LMFT outnumber both PhD/PsyD clinical psychologist by ten to one. They are basically garnering the market share in the mental health business and laughing all the way to the bank. Many psychologists have priced themselves out of the competitive market due to their ego inflation and they have a much smaller market share. The psychologists who are surviving in this economy have reduced their rate and are accepting Medicaid/Medicare and third party insurance. A good number of psychologists are practicing part-time at a high rate but teaching adjunct at many of these professional schools to fullfill their income and survival needs. If you take away the professional schools, many of the faculty in these programs who have PhD degrees from APA accredited programs with APA accredited internship will be without jobs or forced to work with the indigent population to survive in a market heavily loaded with master's level licensed therapist.

Personally, I don't find the argument of "FSPS are good for the field because they provide employment for psychologists" to be a particularly valid rationale for supporting the existence of such programs. But that's just me, others might disagree.

Originally Posted by 4410

If you take away the professional schools, many of the faculty in these programs who have PhD degrees from APA accredited programs with APA accredited internship will be without jobs or forced to work with the indigent population to survive in a market heavily loaded with master's level licensed therapist.

Oh, the horror!

There are people who actually want to work with those indigent folks. I don't think there's much need to force anyone.

Originally Posted by AcronymAllergy

Personally, I don't find the argument of "FSPS are good for the field because they provide employment for psychologists" to be a particularly valid rationale for supporting the existence of such programs. But that's just me, others might disagree.

Personally, I find that most of the people I know who practice part-time and teach/adjunct at FSPS programs are from FSPS programs. So this must mean that those individuals are the ones who need more help finding employment--not the PhD graduates? --> Based on my purely anecdotal evidence of the handful of folks I know (hey, it seems to be going around... ).

I think he is tilting at windmills, but...

Originally Posted by 4410

Actually this paragraph is relevant because LPC, LCSW, and LMFT outnumber both PhD/PsyD clinical psychologist by ten to one. They are basically garnering the market share in the mental health business and laughing all the way to the bank.

It is time to bring this out again, since you continue to make these sweeping opinions and parade them around as facts....

While they typically win on "bang for your buck" since they can get out and earning much quicker than a psychologist, their billing rates and salaries are generally much less. Where is your data to support this?

Originally Posted by 4410

Many psychologists have priced themselves out of the competitive market due to their ego inflation and they have a much smaller market share.

There is downward pressure from insurance companies, which is a far different mechanism. The market share (within the pool of clinicians who accept insurance) has changed because there are more providers with less training willing to work for less. Lower reimbursement rates = more people leaving the insurance market.

Originally Posted by 4410

The psychologists who are surviving in this economy have reduced their rate and are accepting Medicaid/Medicare and third party insurance.

Taken right from the APA Legislation & Advocacy page:

About 28,000 psychologists are Medicare providers but another 3,000 who once participated have left the program due largely to low reimbursement rates.

This has been a big topic on various list servs, and it appears more and more providers are LEAVING Medicare and 3rd party insurers because they cannot afford to accept such poor rates.

Originally Posted by 4410

A good number of psychologists are practicing part-time at a high rate but teaching adjunct at many of these professional schools to fullfill their income and survival needs.

FSPS pay less than traditional university programs. Anyone who has spent 30 seconds exploring adjunct positions knows this to be fact.I'm sure someone who has looked recently can comment further.

Originally Posted by 4410

If you take away the professional schools, many of the faculty in these programs who have PhD degrees from APA accredited programs with APA accredited internship will be without jobs or forced to work with the indigent population to survive in a market heavily loaded with master's level licensed therapist.

Many faculty WANT to work with indigent populations. As for market correction....it will eventually RAISE salaries and INCREASE competition. This is macroeconomics 101.

Originally Posted by AcronymAllergy

Personally, I don't find the argument of "FSPS are good for the field because they provide employment for psychologists" to be a particularly valid rationale for supporting the existence of such programs. But that's just me, others might disagree.

+1

So let me get this correct.

EPPP is a bad indicator of training.
APA/APPIC internship standards are a bad indicator of training.
What each individual school decides comps should be is a way better indicator of training.

Originally Posted by roubs

So let me get this correct.

EPPP is a bad indicator of training.
APA/APPIC internship standards are a bad indicator of training.
What each individual school decides comps should be is a way better indicator of training.

Passing the EPPP in no way ensures having quality clinical skills.
Non APA/APPIC internships may be as good or better standards than APA/APPIC internships. A number of facilities continue to have interns but do not participate in APA/APPIC anymore. Does this now mean they suddenly became low quality since they withdrew or discontinued participating in the Match?

Comprehensive exams over general psychology should meet the requirement for passing the EPPP. Why is there even a need for a separate tests once you have completed your doctoral degree? Passing the EPPP in no way correlates with being a competent clinical psychologists.

Originally Posted by 4410

Passing the EPPP in no way ensures having quality clinical skills.
Non APA/APPIC internships may be as good or better standards than APA/APPIC internships. A number of facilities continue to have interns but do not participate in APA/APPIC anymore. Does this now mean they suddenly became low quality since they withdrew or discontinued participating in the Match?

Comprehensive exams over general psychology should meet the requirement for passing the EPPP. Why is there even a need for a separate tests once you have completed your doctoral degree? Passing the EPPP in no way correlates with being a competent clinical psychologists.

Passing the EPPP is a legal requirement to practice as a clinical psychologist. You can have mad skillz as a clinician, but won't be a clinical psychologist without being able to pass the test.

Originally Posted by 4410

Passing the EPPP in no way ensures having quality clinical skills.
Non APA/APPIC internships may be as good or better standards than APA/APPIC internships. A number of facilities continue to have interns but do not participate in APA/APPIC anymore. Does this now mean they suddenly became low quality since they withdrew or discontinued participating in the Match?

Comprehensive exams over general psychology should meet the requirement for passing the EPPP. Why is there even a need for a separate tests once you have completed your doctoral degree? Passing the EPPP in no way correlates with being a competent clinical psychologists.

Because if not all schools training individuals to be clinical psychologists can even be counted on to adhere to/abide by/live up to what semblance of a national training standard we have, how can they be trusted to adequately and objectively assess their students? The only option would be to have a nationally-certified/agreed-upon comp exam, which would be the exact same thing as the EPPP. Again, national post-graduate licensing exams are the norm in healthcare and mental health as a whole; why should psychology be any different.

As for internships, as I mentioned before: an internship being non-APA doesn't ensure that it's low-quality, but you do have to ask why the internship isn't yet accredited. There are obviously a variety of reasons, but ultimately the end result is that essentially no one other than the program itself can vouch for the quality of the training. And that's obviously not an objective or scientific way of assessing a program's quality.

Originally Posted by AcronymAllergy

.

As for internships, as I mentioned before: an internship being non-APA doesn't ensure that it's low-quality, but you do have to ask why the internship isn't yet accredited. There are obviously a variety of reasons, but ultimately the end result is that essentially no one other than the program itself can vouch for the quality of the training. And that's obviously not an objective or scientific way of assessing a program's quality.

Many internships are not APA because of the time and money involved in jumping through the hoops to gain accreditation. I wish we could take the money involved in that process and pay it to the interns instead of paying fees to the stupid APA.

And look, I come from one of the PsyD schools that cost too much and admit too many students and even I disagree with most everything 4410 writes. He's just trying to justify his own situation and choices. Everyone else can see that but him. Most of the reason I check this board these days is to read erg's responses to him.

Originally Posted by psyman

Many internships are not APA because of the time and money involved in jumping through the hoops to gain accreditation. I wish we could take the money involved in that process and pay it to the interns instead of paying fees to the stupid APA.

And look, I come from one of the PsyD schools that cost too much and admit too many students and even I disagree with most everything 4410 writes. He's just trying to justify his own situation and choices. Everyone else can see that but him. Most of the reason I check this board these days is to read erg's responses to him.

Trust me, I completely understand about not having APA accred at the internship level owing to prohibitive costs (monetarily and administratively), and I'd definitely be all for APA streamlining the process. Unfortunately, it's the best we've got at the moment; my statement was just that without accreditation, it's much harder to ascertain and ensure the quality of training provided by the program. Again, not saying that all non-APA sites provide poor training, as I know this obviously isn't the case.

Originally Posted by 4410

The reason for students seeking out educational opportunities in PsyD programs is due to the high quality of clinical psychology training in these programs.

So let me get this right, students are passing up funded university programs to attend high quality clinical training at free standing professional programs?

Anyone believing that would need to examine the deleterious effects of their crack habit. Students are choosing these programs when they cannot gain admission to funded programs. Nearly no one wants to spend $100,000 or more on an education they could obtain for a greatly reduced cost at a more prestigious university with funding.

The EPPP is a poor indicator of clinical psychology training and is not an accurate outcome to measure the quality of a clinical psychology program. The EPPP needs to be adapted or changed to reflect what it purports to measure. Clinical Psychologist have already passed comprehensive exams during their training in their doctoral program, so why is it necessary to have another exam five years later over this subject matter?

Do you have any empirical support for this hypothesis? I somehow doubt it.

Graham, J. M. and Kim, Y.-H. (2011), Predictors of doctoral student success in professional psychology: characteristics of students, programs, and universities. J. Clin. Psychol., 67: 340–354. doi: 10.1002/jclp.20767

I'll let you read and evaluate the research for yourself.

Clinical Psychologists numbers are basically a minority in the Mental Health field as there are many more LPC, LCSW, and LMFT that will see clients for $60 to $100 per hours.

This is the reason for wage reductions not PsyD clinical psychologists.

I know some clinical psychologist who will not accept Medicaid/Medicare clients or insurance and are completely self-pay at a rate between $180 to $200 per hour.

They may only have ten clients whereas a LPC will charge $75.00 per hour and have 30 clients and they both have basically the same income. Maybe the psychologists should reduce their rate to $100 per hour.

So the answer is for psychologists to lower their fees? That sounds like autistic thinking.

Psychologists need to highlight the differences between psychologists and other allied mental health professionals.

Clinical psychologists bring something unique to the table just as Ph.D. trained psychologists bring a unique and valuable perspective to the table, a perspective that is different from our Psy.D. brethren who have their own unique and valuable training.

As much as many might like to equate a Ph.D. to a Psy.D., it's simply not possible, the training is different. Not better, not worse, but different. In general, many free standing professional programs attract a student population with lower level of overall educational success making it even more difficult to compare outcomes of the two training models side by side.

Originally Posted by Markp

Do you have any empirical support for this hypothesis? I somehow doubt it.

Graham, J. M. and Kim, Y.-H. (2011), Predictors of doctoral student success in professional psychology: characteristics of students, programs, and universities. J. Clin. Psychol., 67: 340–354. doi: 10.1002/jclp.20767

I'll let you read and evaluate the research for yourself.

I don't think 4410 reads anything that is to science-y...

I don't mean to change the subject here, but I was reading the American Psychologist monitor for May and I saw the candidates for APA president. I would like to know which candidate is the best candidate for addressing the imbalance. One candidate talked about the imbalance but I do not agree with his solution (APA should make more internships and he does not support requiring and encouraging APA accredited internships with the given imbalance). What do you think? Who is going to address this imbalance in the most productive way? I think that as students and APA student affiliates, we should think about this.

Originally Posted by PsyDLICSW

I don't mean to change the subject here, but I was reading the American Psychologist monitor for May and I saw the candidates for APA president. I would like to know which candidate is the best candidate for addressing the imbalance. One candidate talked about the imbalance but I do not agree with his solution (APA should make more internships and he does not support requiring and encouraging APA accredited internships with the given imbalance). What do you think? Who is going to address this imbalance in the most productive way? I think that as students and APA student affiliates, we should think about this.

Thanks for changing the subject away from 4410's ridiculousness. Pretty sure that person is not a real grad student anyway.

Are those candidate statements online?

I can make a request to each of the candidates to address the issues brought up in the petition and give their response. I think there's some ridiculous bureaucracy around what the candidates can and cannot say, but I can put it out there.

Originally Posted by MCParent

Thanks for changing the subject away from 4410's ridiculousness. Pretty sure that person is not a real grad student anyway.

Are those candidate statements online?

I can make a request to each of the candidates to address the issues brought up in the petition and give their response. I think there's some ridiculous bureaucracy around what the candidates can and cannot say, but I can put it out there.

I got the hard copy of the monitor yesterday and they ususally send me an e-mail later with an electronic copy. I can PM it to you as soon as I get it.

The APPIC Match statistics do not reflect changes in internship sites as of April 25, 2012 or other updates in accredited internships every year. A number of graduate programs and internship sites were recently approved and the students who completed their program or internships at these sites are now considered APA accredited programs and internships retroactively one to two years based on the application date of their self study. My guess is this has affected 100 to 200 students and interns from the last two-three years and now my internship beginning this year is an APA approved internship. I am from a FSPS PsyD clinical psychology program and my guess is that a good number of the other interns who are now considered completing an APA accredited internship or beginning one of these recently approved internships this year are from these program who were recently approved, a good number are from PsyD programs. At my internship site alone this reflect 12 interns from the last two years (four from 10, four from 11 and now four from 12). One of the School Psychology programs that recently was APA approved goes back one year and they normally graduate 10-15 students per year so this could affect up to 30 students.

Additionally the graduate programs that were recently APA approved with retroactive dates based on their application for self and site study is not reflected accurately in the APPIC statistics as now there are probably 100 to 200 more students from the past three years who may claim that they graduated from an APA accredited internship. Therefore, due to these changes the APPIC Match statistics are a flawed method of determining program quality as it is not a static statistic but a dynamic statistic that need to be monitored ongoing rather than just at the end of the Match. Furthermore, the APPIC post match process is still ongoing with some APA accredited sites still looking for interns.

Originally Posted by 4410

The APPIC Match statistics do not reflect changes in internship sites as of April 25, 2012 or other updates in accredited internships every year. A number of graduate programs and internship sites were recently approved and the students who completed their program or internships at these sites are now considered APA accredited programs and internships retroactively one to two years based on the application date of their self study. My guess is this has affected 100 to 200 students and interns from the last two-three years and now my internship beginning this year is an APA approved internship. I am from a FSPS PsyD clinical psychology program and my guess is that a good number of the other interns who are now considered completing an APA accredited internship or beginning one of these recently approved internships this year are from these program who were recently approved, a good number are from PsyD programs. At my internship site alone this reflect 12 interns from the last two years (four from 10, four from 11 and now four from 12). One of the School Psychology programs that recently was APA approved goes back one year and they normally graduate 10-15 students per year so this could affect up to 30 students.

Additionally the graduate programs that were recently APA approved with retroactive dates based on their application for self and site study is not reflected accurately in the APPIC statistics as now there are probably 100 to 200 more students from the past three years who may claim that they graduated from an APA accredited internship. Therefore, due to these changes the APPIC Match statistics are a flawed method of determining program quality as it is not a static statistic but a dynamic statistic that need to be monitored ongoing rather than just at the end of the Match. Furthermore, the APPIC post match process is still ongoing with some APA accredited sites still looking for interns.

I could be wrong, but I believe (per: http://www.apa.org/ed/accreditation/...ce.aspx?item=8) that the accreditation is only "retroactive" to/becomes effective on the last date of the CoA's site visit, not on the date of application.

And no, the APPIC 10-year stats don't include updated data, this is very true. Then again, 100-200 students over a three-year period (if that's an accurate approximation of the true number of now-accredited site graduates), spread out across all doctoral programs and internship sites, might not make a substantive difference. Also, many of the numbers quoted here and elsewhere on SDN are based on data from individual schools' websites in addition to the APPIC data.

It is based on the date of the application which is the site study application. Somehow the self study is the beginning phase of the process before making the site study. Sometimes the application for the site study goes back two and almost three years, if their are revisions requested by the accreditation review team. If there are ten program and normally based on what I can tell there are at least ten or more being considered for application of APA accreditation/approval it could range to be several hundred or mores students/interns affected. This is also the case for internship sites applying for APA accreditation/approval. The internship I applied to was not APA accredited when I applied and when I matched on February 24th, 2012, but now they are APA accredited/approved dating back several years. Those interns from 2010 and the 2011 interns who will complete in the next three months now have completed or will complete an APA accredited internship. Furthermore, I am now accepted to an APA accredited/approved internship so the data for this recent class or the APPIC Match statistics is or should be updated to reflect these changes as now there are four interns from my site who should now be counted as having been selected to APA accredited/approved internship site. All four of the interns at my site are from non APA accredited programs so if you look at 10-15 sites becoming accredited on a yearly basis and it is after the APPIC final match statistics, the number of interns now at an APA accredited internship site from non accredited program may substantially affect the statistics.

Originally Posted by 4410

A number of graduate programs and internship sites were recently approved and the students who completed their program or internships at these sites are now considered APA accredited programs and internships retroactively one to two years based on the application date of their self study. My guess is this has affected 100 to 200 students and interns from the last two-three years and now my internship beginning this year is an APA approved internship. I am from a FSPS PsyD clinical psychology program and my guess is that a good number of the other interns who are now considered completing an APA accredited internship or beginning one of these recently approved internships this year are from these program who were recently approved,

....there are probably 100 to 200 more students from the past three years who may claim that they graduated from an APA accredited internship. Therefore, due to these changes the APPIC Match statistics are a flawed method of determining program quality as it is not a static statistic but a dynamic statistic that need to be monitored ongoing rather than just at the end of the Match. Furthermore, the APPIC post match process is still ongoing with some APA accredited sites still looking for interns.

Originally Posted by 4410

...is based on the date of the application which is the site study application. Sometimes this goes back two and almost three years. If there are ten program and normally based on what I can tell there are at least ten or more being considered for application of APA accreditation/approval it could range to be several hundred or mores students/interns affected. This is also the case for internship sites applying for APA accreditation/approval. The internship I applied to was not APA accredited when I applied and was selected but now they are APA accredited/approved dating back several years, or the 2010 and 2011 internship group. Those interns who completed or will complete in the next three months now have completed or will complete an APA accredited internship.

The programs in the application process are all listed on the APA accreditation website that is posted by AA. Most recent updates were on April 25, 2012 and this is when some ten programs or more were either approved retroactively back to the site study date for either their psychology program, predoctoral internship or postdoctoral internship program. Based on each site students or interns now from APA accredited programs it could range in the 100-200 or more range and this basically makes the APPIC Match data flawed or erroneous to some extent. Basically the studies by the University of Florida and the study quoted earlier in this thread have used flawed data to draw conclusions about clinical psychology training program using EPPP scores and using Match rate with APA or non APA accredited programs. Using EPPP data is flawed due to it being common for doctoral level trained psychologists having up to three times to take and pass the test. Some psychologists pass on the first attempt but some do not pass until the third attempt. Basically, these studies are confounded due to these variables and should in no way be utilized by APA to make any decisions about psychology training and internship programs or rather the quality of training programs.

I'm almost 100% certain that the retro date is the second day of the site visit. I don't remember offhand where that info is in the CoA regs.

Anyway, 4410, is your contention that that drop seriously makes a difference to the bucket?

Originally Posted by MCParent

I'm almost 100% certain that the retro date is the second day of the site visit. I don't remember offhand where that info is in the CoA regs.

Anyway, 4410, is your contention that that drop seriously makes a difference to the bucket?

Due to APA accreditation programs internships changing on either a quarter basis or when the accreditation committee meets the data may be flawed. Some programs were just updated on April 25 and some of the approvals are retroactive one to two years. If you are using data to try to make justification of programs qualification it would seem necessary to have accurate data or your study is meaningless and may be interpreted based on bias or agenda or lying with statistics. Many sites will not accept applications form some types of programs so basically this could be a reason for lower match rate regardless of the quality of the program. It is a stretch to imply that programs are poor quality due to not having high match rate with APA accredited internship programs.

In my specific case, I have now matched with an APA accredited internship as well as three other students going to this site. We are all from non APA accredited programs so we have matched with an APA accredited internship based on the recent update on April 25, 2012 CoA accredited programs. The two intern classes before us now can count this site as an APA accredited site on their CV and all future job applications. If you have ten or more similar incidents for graduate programs or internships becoming accredited, the numbers of students could be substantial when looking at the "Big Picture!" and the imbalance may not actually be due to what your are purporting it to be caused by---14 or 15 some FSPS programs. Most of the students in FSPS find internships but not many APA accredited internships since normally APA accredited internships only accept students from APA accredited programs. Basically the data is flawed and any statistical significance based on annotated or archival types of data should not be used in evaluation of quality of clinical psychology programs, especially when the data is contantly changing based on programs being in the process of being reviewe or initial accreditation.

It is ridiculous to imply that a FSPS program is low quality due to students having substantial amounts of loans or being unfunded and somehow then generalizing that it must be poor quality due to lower EPPP pass rate when most States allow up to three times to pass the EPPP and many pass the exam by the third administration.

Originally Posted by 4410

The two intern classes before us now can count this site as an APA accredited site on their CV and all future job applications.

No. They can not. It is NOT retroactive to previous intern classes. If unaccredited when you go through (and no site visit the year you are there), you have completed a non-accredited internship. Period. We have been over this before. Do not perpetuate this myth to future student/applicants.

PS: Do not respond with a "that guy I knew that one time." I do not care.

Originally Posted by 4410

Many sites will not accept applications form some types of programs so basically this could be a reason for lower match rate regardless of the quality of the program.

Your logical flaw: Yes, possible. However, EPPP scores support weaker training outcomes as well.

The two intern classes before us now can count this site as an APA accredited site on their CV and all future job applications.

No, they can't.

If you have ten or more similar incidents for graduate programs or internships becoming accredited, the numbers of students could be substantial when looking at the "Big Picture!" and the imbalance may not actually be due to what your are purporting it to be caused by---14 or 15 some FSPS programs.

THINK about the argument you're making. If this were the case the same programs would not consistently demonstrate weak outcomes. And, the change woud impact people across programs, not just FSPS.

Basically the data is flawed and any statistical significance based on annotated or archival types of data should not be used in evaluation of quality of clinical psychology programs

That's just silly. The data are not flawed.

It is ridiculous to imply that a FSPS program is low quality due to students having substantial amounts of loans or being unfunded and somehow then generalizing that it must be poor quality due to lower EPPP pass rate when most States allow up to three times to pass the EPPP and many pass the exam by the third administration.

Again, really THINK about your arguments. Yes, you can take the EPPP multiple times. So, weak schools produce people who are consistently taking it multiple times. If a small school had the same number of failures and re-takes, they would have the same % pass/fails rates.

Honestly man, READ the existing research and generate some opinions based on actual fact, rather than deciding what you feel like you want to believe and then making up "facts" to support your preexisting conclusion.

Sigh.

Originally Posted by erg923

It is NOT retroactive. If unaccredited when you go through (and no site visit the year you are there), you have completed a non-accredited internship. Period. We have been over this before. Do not perpetuate this myth to future student/applicants.

PS: Do not respond with a "that guy knew that one time" thing. I do not care.

I believe erg's correct here, yep. Per the link I posted above, the APA site itself indicates that only those individuals enrolled in the program when the site visit occurs are retroactively affected (and obviously anyone who enrolls there afterward), and the effective date becomes the final date of that site visit.

Originally Posted by AcronymAllergy

I believe erg's correct here, yep. Per the link I posted above, the APA site itself indicates that only those individuals enrolled in the program when the site visit occurs are retroactively affected (and obviously anyone who enrolls there afterward), and the effective date becomes the final date of that site visit.

It is retroactive back to the site visit application date and in some situations this is two years or more since the revisions or changes may take some time. It is based on if you are enrolled in the graduate program or completing an internship at the time of the site application and it is retroactive to that date.

Originally Posted by 4410

It is retroactive back to the site visit application date and in some situations this is two years or more since the revisions or changes may take some time. It is based on if you are enrolled in the graduate program or completing an internship at the time of the site application and it is retroactive to that date.

face palm...

Originally Posted by PsyDLICSW

I don't mean to change the subject here, but I was reading the American Psychologist monitor for May and I saw the candidates for APA president. I would like to know which candidate is the best candidate for addressing the imbalance. One candidate talked about the imbalance but I do not agree with his solution (APA should make more internships and he does not support requiring and encouraging APA accredited internships with the given imbalance). What do you think? Who is going to address this imbalance in the most productive way? I think that as students and APA student affiliates, we should think about this.

Did you read the two letters where one psychologist indicates the need to unite training and internship attitudes for training of PsyD/PhD degree psychologists rather than dividing or claiming that there is a shortage of internships due to FSPS and PsyD schools. He indicates that the 2011 Match Statistics reveal only a 10% difference between PhD and PsyD trained psychologists and this is a small difference.

In 1987 there was a surplus of internships but in 1994 only seven years later there was a shortage of internship sites. Here we are almost 18 years later.

The second letter was from a psychologist who used to be the Training Director of a major medical facility in New York City that had clinical psychology internships. In the 90's when the shortage of internships was beginning she endorsed changes of the system with APA. It seems that there are labor laws or legal mandates restricting APA from labor/wage types of activities. APA accredits clinical psycholgy training programs including predoctoral and postdoctoral internships but it has no legal authorization to mandate increasing internship sites or restricting graduate school admission. Her solution is not to place blame on APA but on the individual graduate programs and they should be required to have in place internship sites for all of the students they admit into their program every year. She believes APA needs to mandate or require the individual graduate program to have dedicated internship sites for each of their students.

Their are four male candidates and one female candidate running for APA president this year. The female candidate wrote briefly about the imbalance of APA accredited internship sites. This is her brief statement:

"The ongoing crisis in our psychology educational system has resulted in a serious imbalance between the number of graduate students seeking internships and the availability of accedited positions. In addition, with our country's economic difficulties, the job market for early career psychologists is challenging. We must take bold steps toward collaboratively addressing these crises and establishing solutions and recommendations for model and novel internships and jobs."

One of the candidates has a PsyD degree from a professional school. His focus is on stereotypes of PsyD psychologists being scapegoated unfairly by the profession as not being competent, and in the future there will be a need for more psychologists. He indicates that APA membership is decreasing every year and less than half of all psychologists are now members of APA. APA needs to change so many of these former member will again become members of APA so the organization may be a political force representing all psychologists, not just PhD degree psychologists. If I could vote I wonder who you might believe I might endorse?

What's a "10% difference" supposed to mean? 10% in what? Sounds like a number either made up or misunderstood.

The idea that facts are scapegoating is so stupid it doesn't deserve a reply. The myopic, vain, and irresponsible ignoring of the facts by apa governance is one of the biggest contributors to the imbalance.

Incidentally, I find it laughably ignorant when my work is called scapegoating or fingerpointing. Keilin and Rudolfa did degree type difference research, which is less specific than what I did and would better fit that bill, but the same is never levelled against them. I assume its because I'm a student.

The petition has been submitted to the APA, CPA, and multiple boards and committees within APA.

Originally Posted by MCParent

The petition has been submitted to the APA, CPA, and multiple boards and committees within APA.

Awesome! Thanks for making that happen. It was sad to see nothing happen with the original petition.

Originally Posted by psychgirl77

Awesome! Thanks for making that happen. It was sad to see nothing happen with the original petition.

Even with 1/3 the signatures and no actual submission, it was seen.

And, for sure. I want a better future for all students in psych, and for the profession. I'll follow it as far as I need to.

Originally Posted by MCParent

The petition has been submitted to the APA, CPA, and multiple boards and committees within APA.

Thanks for all the hard work.

Yay! Let's hope for some results.

Awesome! Thanks for your hard work with the petition and other initiatives.

Not sure how many others have seen this, but the APA has responded to the internship imbalance petition.

"The APA Board of Directors has received the petition related to the internship imbalance that you emailed to several APA staff, governance members and groups on May 1st. This message serves as an initial response from all the APA groups from which you requested a reply.

We would like you to know that APA shares your concerns about the imbalance and is troubled by the impact it is having on students and the profession. In reviewing the requests in the petition, it appears that the majority are requests that relate to program accreditation. Since the APA Commission on Accreditation (APA-CoA) is responsible for formulating accreditation policy that is informed by the field, we are referring your petition to APA-CoA for response.

We would also like to make sure that you are aware that the APA-CoA currently has a proposed revision to an implementing regulation that addresses one of your requests. The proposed revision is currently out for public comment and we encourage you to comment. You can find the proposed revision to the implementing regulation on thresholds for internship placement at:
http://apaoutside.apa.org/AccredSurv...3&ProjectID=31.

Because APA shares your concerns, it has been involved - and will continue to be involved in a
number of efforts to mitigate the imbalance. APA continues to advocate annually for the Graduate Psychology Education Program (GPE), which provides nearly $3 million for training in professional psychology. Moreover, the US Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) has recently announced an additional $5 million to be awarded to expand internship training in areas of national need. Our efforts to address the imbalance, as you note, are coordinated with those undertaken by the Council of Chairs of Training Councils, a group partially supported by APA. We will also be reviewing new proposed initiatives at our upcoming June meeting of the Board of Directors."

Thanks for posting! A pdf is on the Occupy FB group.

Here is the text of the resolution You can leave comments at this link: http://apaoutside.apa.org/AccredSurv...6&ProjectID=31

In 2008 – 2011, the APA-CoA defined the threshold for the annual monitoring of doctoral program internship placement to be 75% of the students seeking internships placed in either accredited or APPIC member internships. In 2011, CoA informed training communities through public comment on this IR that it was changing how that threshold was defined to be the proportion of students placed in accredited (either APA or CPA) internships only. At that time, the metric to be used as a threshold was to be the lowest 5% of accredited clinical and counseling doctoral programs. Much has changed since the last period of public comment.

A number of groups including the Council of Chairs of Training Councils (CCTC), students (including those involved in APAGS) as well the APA Board of Educational Affairs have been asking for changes in the requirements for licensure as a professional psychologist. Those groups have put forward a proposal to the field that would require accreditation at both doctoral and internship program levels for licensure. Specifically, they have proposed that accreditation at the doctoral level be required for licensure effective 2015 and that accreditation of both doctoral and internship programs be required for licensure effective 2019. The argument put forward is based upon the need to better ensure and demonstrate to the public the quality of psychologists eligible to provide services to the public. Further, the climate of healthcare reform in the U.S. and the need for psychologists to be involved in integrated care also have been critical in CoA’s review of the need for stronger linkages between accreditation and licensure, including the need to strengthen the expectation that students complete accredited internships. If professional psychologists are to be able to engage in the healthcare system of the future, they will need to bring the same level of validated quality assurance to all aspects of their education, training, and credentialing as other health care professionals.

Currently, psychology is the only major healthcare field where one can be licensed as a practitioner and not have graduated from an accredited program. CoA understands that moving toward this requirement of accredited internships for licensure represents a substantial change in the profession and will affect many programs and students. Thus, the CoA is considering the following action to support programs in reaching the licensure standard. As currently set, the D- 4.7 (b) threshold for internship placement by doctoral programs does little to assist programs or the profession in making significant progress toward a licensure standard. Therefore, the CoA envisions a two-step process in setting this threshold, including identifying how the majority of programs are performing with respect to this enhanced quality standard and then developing a graduated series of thresholds designed to support programs in reaching the enhanced standard proposed by the field in 2019. To better understand the challenges doctoral programs, students, and the CoA face in meeting enhanced quality standards related to placement in accredited internships, the CoA reviewed the current data on the number of students in accredited doctoral programs seeking internships and the number of slots available in accredited internship programs.

The data available for 2011 indicated that there is a 34% gap between the number of students seeking internship from accredited programs in counseling and clinical psychology, and the number of available internship slots in accredited programs. In other words, 66% of students from accredited doctoral programs currently seeking accredited internships obtained them. To that end, CoA is seeking public comment on initially setting the three-year threshold of match to accredited internship programs at 50% -- this percentage reflects a threshold that is below the national match rate, but should capture programs for which match to accredited internships is a considerable challenge.

Recall that these D4-7(b) thresholds trigger a request for purposes of each program’s annual review that more information be provided to CoA – the CoA believes that by setting the threshold in this way, programs will be prompted to thoughtfully consider factors involved in their low match rates, and the CoA will be in a position to aggregate information about these factors and support program efforts to improve match rates. Consistent with D.4-7(b), the CoA would periodically review this threshold and revise as appropriate. In this manner, the CoA hopes to assist in bringing programs in line with the goal of having the standard for all licensure to be linked to students completing both accredited doctoral and internship programs. For more information on how the CoA will consider the internship Match during annual and periodic review, please review the five (5) proposed implementing regulations that are designed to further clarify the process utilized by the CoA in reviewing doctoral programs. These are concurrently available for public comment along with the proposed threshold for IR D.4-7(b).

The CoA will make the proposed changes available for a period of public review and comment. The public comment period is scheduled to begin on April 23, 2012 and continue through July 16, 2012. In an effort to promote thoughtful discussion, the CoA is providing an electronic-based comment form for public comment submission. Comments and other information, including the users’ identity, will be public. Email addresses used in the registration will be kept confidential. The CoA will consider all comments received and make any appropriate revisions prior to approval of the final version of D.4-7(b). On behalf of the CoA, thank you for your review and comments. Please contact the APA Office of Program Consultation and Accreditation (750 First Street, N.E., Washington, DC 20002-4242; (202) 336-5979; email [redacted]) with any questions or concerns.