PhD/PsyD Comprehensive List: Formal Post-Doc vs. Post-Doc Hours

[mcktofu]

Thank you in advance for your input on the following questions, contributing members.

A colleague and myself were having a conversation on the difference between pursuing a formal post-doctoral training position versus accruing post-doctoral supervised hours (e.g., psychological assistant), with respect to training, licensure, ABPP certification, etc.. I offered to seek out a comprehensive list on how each path might play out in shaping one'e career, and as much as this forum is an incredible resource, thought I'd best start here. These are the key topics I've gathered so far from Dr. Pope's state board licensure page, searching through other SDN threads, and my own understanding of the process. These comments of mine will be in the form of a question (as I'm still 100% unsure myself), and am looking for confirmation from those with personal experience on the process.

1) A formal post-doc is REQUIRED for licensure in certain states? Would anyone be able to share a list of those states with this forum, having compiled this information either themselves or have it available from their academic program? If this is indeed the case, a formal post-doc training position will certainly "future proof" an individual who may relocate to a different state, whereas someone who held a position accruing post-doctoral supervised hours may have more difficulty in doing so.

2) Why are a good number of formal post-docs not APA accredited? We obviously emphasize accreditation in our internship training, so what might be some reasons that same priority does not carry over into this stage of training? As an add-on to #1, do certain states who already require a formal post-doc position also need that post-doc to be APA accredited?

3) Is a formal post-doc training position REQUIRED, perhaps PREFERRED, for ABPP board certification?

4) Any known miscellaneous factors that make a formal post-doc training position more valuable than someone who completed the required post-doc hours in an ad hoc way? Please assume both are fully licensed to practice in any given state. How might an employer (e.g., VA, academic position) judge two near identical applicants with their post-doc training being the only difference?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[bmedclinic]

I'll try to help out, but the information I provide is based on my knowledge and searches and is not comprehensive.

1. As far as I can tell (searching ASBPP info), no state appears to REQUIRE a "formal" postdoc- assuming formal means APPIC or APA accredited.

2. The answer to #2 is related to #1- it's not required, so why bother?

3. I can only answer this for a few- clinical and geropsychology- no. For Neurpsychology, yes, I believe it is. For clinical health psych, it is one path to sitting for ABPP, but other methods (2 years of work experience) are allowed so long as other requirements are met. In CHP, a health psychology postdoc (not sure if it needs to be APA accredited) allows you to sit for ABPP directly after postdoc.

4. I'd guess in systems- administration, VA, academia much more important. Honestly, dependent on how far someone is in their career, I suspect later on it might not make much of a difference, but this is purely my speculation based on people I've seen successful in many settings and knowing their background.

 

[docma]

[QUOTE="Why are a good number of formal post-docs not APA accredited? We obviously emphasize accreditation in our internship training, so what might be some reasons that same priority does not carry over into this stage of training? As an add-on to #1, do certain states who already require a formal post-doc position also need that post-doc to be APA accredited? [/QUOTE]
Formal accreditation through APA is very expensive in terms of time and funding for a site. It may improve their competitiveness and standing within certain specialities, but for many good post-docs is it not necessary or worth it, since they can get strong field of applicants and fill positions without it. And once you are licensed that is the typically the critical requirement and it is the nature of your actual clinical experience that matters most to the employer

However, in some states or organizations they may do it because it then allows them to bill insurance companies for services or meet state licensing requirements with less paperwork. For example, Kaiser accredited their post-docs so they did not have to go through getting each of their individual post-docs qualified as a psych assistant. I know that many states require supervised post-doctoral hours but I am not aware of any that require the post-doc to be APA accredited.

One good resource for information about post-doctoral requirements across states is here: http://www.nationalregister.org/abo...ents-postdoctoral-trainees-and-psychologists/ and the ASPPB site is also very helpful as you understand issues in licensure mobility. Typically everything is easier if you get licensed first where you complete your hours.

 

[cara susanna]

I think the biggest advantage to a formal post doc is built-in supervision and didactic training (such as seminars).

 

[WisNeuro]

^ What she said.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I think the biggest advantage to a formal post doc is built-in supervision and didactic training (such as seminars).

This often gets de-emphasized when not in a teaching hospital or VA, but I think it is an essential part of post-doc/fellowship training.

When I completed fellowship we averaged 4-6hr of formal didactic training per wk, which I know is outside of the norm, but ultimately it was incredibly helpful to stretch my knowledge base.

 

[futurepsydoc]

This often gets de-emphasized when not in a teaching hospital or VA, but I think it is an essential part of post-doc/fellowship training.

When I completed fellowship we averaged 4-6hr of formal didactic training per wk, which I know is outside of the norm, but ultimately it was incredibly helpful to stretch my knowledge base.

I agree with T4C (see above). Having completed a formal post-doc, the training is clearly outlined and includes dedicated training and supervision activities. In many cases, post-docs also receive training in supervision itself, whereby there is ample opportunity to supervise students at some point in their training. Unfortunately, opportunities for training in supervision is not offered within doctoral programs or internships. These additional aspects of advanced training are not necessarily offered in non-formal post-doc settings, especially if the post-doc is in a small private practice.

 

[deleted343839]

+1 to the above. Also, formal postdocs usually provide better networking opportunities. And many clinical postdocs still provide a little protected time for research and scholarly activity, or at least the opportunity to put in a few extra hours to contribute academically. These things may not matter so much for licensure, but they can help on the job market.

For most trainees I would recommend a formal postdoc (not necessarily accredited, but a structured program that includes didactic training and supervised experience). If you are dead-set on a private practice career, geographically settled, and can find a solid arrangement for supervision and mentoring on the business of practice, then an informal postdoc could meet your needs.

In many cases, post-docs also receive training in supervision itself, whereby there is ample opportunity to supervise students at some point in their training. Unfortunately, opportunities for training in supervision is not offered within doctoral programs or internships.

That's not necessarily true, though these opportunities might be more available to postdocs.

 

[futurepsydoc]

+1 to the above. Also, formal postdocs usually provide better networking opportunities. And many clinical postdocs still provide a little protected time for research and scholarly activity, or at least the opportunity to put in a few extra hours to contribute academically. These things may not matter so much for licensure, but they can help on the job market.

For most trainees I would recommend a formal postdoc (not necessarily accredited, but a structured program that includes didactic training and supervised experience). If you are dead-set on a private practice career, geographically settled, and can find a solid arrangement for supervision and mentoring on the business of practice, then an informal postdoc could meet your needs.



That's not necessarily true, though these opportunities might be more available to postdocs.

Thank you for pointing that out. You are correct. I meant to say that these opportunities are not offered that frequently. My apologies.

 

[WisNeuro]

Thank you for pointing that out. You are correct. I meant to say that these opportunities are not offered that frequently. My apologies.

Although much more frequently in formal postdoc settings. Primarily in settings with trainees at different levels (prac students, interns, postdocs). Always something to ask about when interviewing at programs. It can be invaluable experience at the postdoc level.