How does your program handle prelims/quals/comps?

[futureapppsy2]

I'm curious about how programs handle these exams, and what you think about them. Are they meaningful? Valid? What, if anything, would you change?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Ours essentially involved independently handling a clinical case, then writing up an in-depth review (along with the report) and participating in oral exams covering both the case and pretty much everything else the committee thought we should know at that point. I felt that, given its direct applicability to practice, it was a worthwhile process from which I learned quite a lot.

 

[CheetahGirl]

Likewise, our qualifying exam involved independent treatment of a clinical case, followed by an intense write-up looking at the case from several different theoretical orientations (including the one applied in vivo) and an oral exam by a committee. I also feel ours was worthwhile and I learned a lot (beyond what was actually done) when retrospectively examining the case. I felt made me a stronger clinician through the process.

Validity relied on empirical literature that we cited throughout our paper (several distinct sections liken to a mini-dissertation/case study). After speaking with folks in programs who had Psych GRE-like quals (does anyone do that anymore!?), this approach was much more beneficial because of the intensity that went into it. Also it makes one a more succinct writer because there were page limits on sections.

 

[mpwb]

In my program, students can choose between writing a psych bulletin type review paper or comprehensive exams covering a chosen speciality plus the standard topics like psychopathology, assessment, ethics, multicultural, research methods, etc. Most students in my program choose the review paper with hopes to publish but I did the exam and was very happy I did. I thought it was great to review material from all my courses and mentally put things together, making connections I may not have when taking the classes.


Posted using SDN Mobile

 

[haRtwin]

Similar to CheetahGirl and AA, the comps at my program require students to complete a major project. Students can write a literature review or grant proposal, conduct an empirical study or case study, or publish a paper. I prefer this system over the traditional comps because most of the projects are a nice segue into the dissertation. We're a research heavy program, so most students opt for something that they can eventually publish.

 

[BuckeyeLove]

Oral defense for both an assessment (redacted/ sanitized report) and therapy case (therapy case involved a taped/ transcribed session) with supporting, literature-based write-ups. Similar to the boarding defense for some of the ABPP specialities, on a smaller scale.

 

[psychtalk1274]

The eppp serves as our comps.

 

[cara susanna]

We have several content areas and are asked two questions from each (could be anything). We then have to write responses to them, with only a list of sources as a reference.

 

[G Costanza]

Our exams are two parts:

Work Sample- We provide an in-depth written case review to our committee two weeks proir to an oral defense. During the defense presentation, we also show three video clips highlighting the progress of the client over time and use of clinical interventions.

Written Portion- we are given four fairly lengthy questions and have to respond in writing within three weeks. Two of the question topics must be on counseling psychology and research. The other two are selected by the student from a list of about 10 choices. The committee then reviews the responses for pass/fail.

I found the both experiences surprisingly interesting. The work sample was fairly easy for me but the written portion can be exhausting. Most students try to take the three weeks off or do them during the holiday break (nice vacation right?)

I appreciated how much effort my committee put into tailoring the written questions for my future area of study and growth. It made the process feel like I was getting something out of it rather than just checking off another box towards graduation.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Wow, I'm starting to wish I had a lot of your guys' comps, honestly.

Ours are given over three, nine-hour days (we first see the prompts that morning and have to submit our products by the end of the work day):
-Content (we're given a general area of coursework to study but the format of the exam can vary from short answer to writing a short manuscript [10-15 pages]. No notes or other material can be used, and we're encouraged to memorize citations)
-Research design (we have to write a full research proposal, minus intro, on a specific topic we're assigned that day. We're not allowed to look up anything on the topic other than what's given in the prompt, and the prompts are deliberately chosen so that they don't relate our research)
-Research critique (we critique a manuscript as if we were reviewing it for a journal, but with more detail than most reviews [typically 5-6 pages])

Outside of that, we need a first author systematic review/meta, a first author journal article manuscript (has to be submitted but doesn't have to be accepted), a first author national conference presentation, and a "substantial contribution" to a federal grant app. (Those are just the research requirements, of course--that doesn't include the clinical).

 

[docma]

I am struck by the broad diversity of these approaches. And wondering which schools use the EPPP as a comp?

 

[Anais-In]

My small PsyD program handles them really differently, so I'll be interested to hear what you guys think. I found it a really beneficial learning process, if somewhat artificial.

Our comps consist of three parts: clinical interview, report, and defense.

The clinical interview consists of us interviewing an actor for 50 minutes while videotaped. The goal of this will be to gather as much information as you can for an assessment while also using clinical skills and building rapport. Your video is reviewed by the comps committee, and they pick out a five minute segment to watch during your defense. You have to watch the video and explain why you approached things the way you did, and answer any questions the committee has about your process.

After the clinical interview, we are given 24 hours to decide which assessment measures we would want based on the information we have learned. We are allowed to choose up to 8 measures (out of a possible 10 - the tests are from a real client so they worked with what they had). We have to be able to defend why we chose each measure and why we excluded others. Once we submitted our choices, we were sent PDF's of the protocols. I was unfamiliar with many of the measures (ex: had not yet used to the WJIII), so had to learn about each of them, choose the ones I wanted, and then learn how to interpret the scores. It was a good amount of work.

We had ten days to write up a report that included history, assessment results, case conceptualization, and treatment plan. All of this had to fit into a 15-page (double spaced) document - this was not easy! You had to learn to be really concise and really highlight the most pertinent information. You were not allowed to talk about the case with anyone (partners, other psychologists, friends, people on web forums - no one).

After handing in our report we had a week to prepare for our defense. Then we had a one hour defense where we were grilled about the clinical interview, the assessment measures/how we interpreted them, our case conceptualization and our treatment plans.

They are tough and out of the six of us, only one got distinction and one had to rewrite. Last year two people had to rewrite and none got distinction.

So although it's really artificial, all of the information is taken from a real case, and I found it a really useful (if stressful) process that helped me feel more confident about assessment reports, case conceptualization, and writing concisely and under time pressure. Interested to hear all your thoughts, though!

 

[mewtoo]

Ours are given over three, nine-hour days (we first see the prompts that morning and have to submit our products by the end of the work day):
-Content (we're given a general area of coursework to study but the format of the exam can vary from short answer to writing a short manuscript [10-15 pages]. No notes or other material can be used, and we're encouraged to memorize citations)

That just seems like torture!

 

[futureapppsy2]

I am struck by the broad diversity of these approaches. And wondering which schools use the EPPP as a comp?

I don't know, but I really like that idea--it's so practical. I know some school psych PhD programs use the school psych license test as their comps, too.

I tend to think product-based comps (e.g., write an article, write a systematic review, present a case study, etc) seem more practical than exam-based comps (excluding licensing exams), but I think you could easily make an argument the other way if you conceptualized them as an independent "core knowledge evaluation" rather than a "professional skills" evaluation.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I like the idea of the EPPP being included in grad school, but I go back and forth about whether I'd want it completely in lieu of a more "traditional" comp exam. I just feel like I learned so much from mine that would not have been had by studying for the horribly-unapplicable EPPP. Using the EPPP of course wins huge points for practicality, though.

I wonder perhaps if it became a criteria that the EPPP be passed before graduating that it might then make it easier for internship sites to find ways to be able to bill for interns' services...?

 

[CheetahGirl]

After speaking with folks in programs who had Psych GRE-like quals (does anyone do that anymore!?)...

Maybe this is what I was referring to in my original response...I believe it was an EPPP-type exam, but not the EPPP itself.

AA, I think it would be beneficial for the EPPP to be included in grad school because it is there & then that you could pinpoint if you had difficulties with conceptualization, assessment, diagnostic treatment, intervention, research methods, ethics, sociocultural, professional issues, etc. and seek assistance to understand your specific difficulties. However, I feel these areas were addressed in the written part of our exam and the oral part of our comps became a discussion among colleagues for faculty to bring up points that may not have been considered in the student's written exam.

My first encounter with EPPP will be when I review for it. I suppose time will tell if our approach full prepared us for what is in store, but I haven't heard of any graduates of my program ever having problems passing (and most pass first time around & announce it joyfully on Facebook. Ha! I suppose you would NOT announce it if you did not pass. )

 

[WJPSYCH]

In my program the prelim depends on your area of emphasis (child or adult). For adult emphasis, students write a critical review of the literature--psych bulletin style. The paper is written independently over 3 months, and is reviewed like a journal--accept (minor revisions), R&R (major revisions), or reject (fail). For the child emphasis, prelims are a 1-2 day marathon that includes an on the spot clinical case conceptualization and treatment plan, a multiple choice exam (a la the EPPP), and a research methods/critical review essay.

The lack of consistency even within my own program is frustrating. I like the idea of the finished product, a potentially publishable critical review. However, the process drags on for three plus months. The other prelim (child emphasis) is more of a discrete event; in one day you take and know whether you passed or failed the qualifying exam.

I would rather there be a critical review type project instead of an experimental (or quasiexperimental thesis), followed by a qualifying examination (essays and/or multiple choice and a practical), and then the traditional dissertation. I know many individuals in my program design dissertation quality (and length) theses which can delay progress. I like the idea of writing a critical review early on--gaining knowledge that can feed a dissertation and lead to a review style pub. Also, having the prelim or qualifier happen (and not drag on and on) is important. It was torture to write for three months with no feedback, revise, resubmit, and await a decision. That whole process took 5-6 months and I was in limbo the entire time (hoping, but not knowing, that I would be advanced to doctoral candidacy).

 

[perhaps11]

Our prelim consists of writing a psych bull-type review (with the intent of publishing) that identifies gaps in literature and serves as a springboard for our program of research going forward, barring any changes of interest between grad school and beyond. We submit a proposal to a committee of three faculty members (our adviser and 2 random faculty from the entire psych faculty pool, not just clinical). We then are given an extended amount of time to write it up without any help from our advisor or any faculty member. Once finished, we submit to our committee who then vote on whether or not it passes. Ideally, we eventually submit to an appropriate journal. I'm in a clinical science program (FWIW).

 

[WisNeuro]

We had an 8-hour long essay exam. We got to choose between several questions in several content areas and had to write comprehensive answers, citing relevant literature. This was not open book.

I believe they have changed the comp system now to more of a comprehensive review, or a first author publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

 

[thewesternsky]

We had to answer five essay questions related to assessment, treatment, and clinical theory over three days. This was open-book and didn't take place in a testing situation.... People wrote in their offices and/or at home. Interesting to see the diversity between programs here!

 

[KillerDiller]

We had two sets of qualifying exams--one for clinical work and one for research. Similar to others, our clinical comps were an oral presentation and defense using a de-identified assessment or therapy case we had conducted on practicum. I think it was a 30-45 minute presentation and then a similar amount of time for the question/answer and defense portion. I honestly can't remember, though. We also had to write a very thorough report and submit this to our evaluation committee before the defense. Revisions of the report were usually required before we would pass.

Our research comps involved a half-day period during which we received a research article with the abstract and discussion sections removed. We then had to answer a series of essay questions either critiquing or justifying the statistical analyses the authors ran and the research design they chose. The article was always pulled from a reputable journal and was not an example of "bad" methodology, which made it an interesting mental exercise. Our answers were then evaluated by a committee to determine if we were able to sufficiently discuss the issues involved in each question.

I thought both of these exams were a good balance of being challenging and useful.