Internship imbalances strike again!

[Menolly]

only allow as many Doctoral candidates as their are internship opportunities from the previous year. Problem solved.

I like this idea, but would modify it to be the mean of the last few years, maybe last three years. With small cohorts, there can be variation year to year. Influencing the variation is the fact that many graduate students are in their late twenties or early thirties and having children, and therefore may desire a more flexible schedule that delays completion of courses, dissertation, internship, etc. Programs should not be penalized for supporting clinicians with families, in my opinion. So there should be some way for accounting for this in the metric.

It sounds like the length of graduate school varies quite a bit by state and by type of program. In NYC, most of my colleagues from various schools were enrolled in doctoral programs for six or seven years -- I only know one person who applied for internship in the fourth year and he had a master's before entering his doctoral program. So five years plus a year of internship seems standard around here, and often I run into people who are at six years or seven years and still have not applied for internship. And I feel there are currently too many clinical hours needed before you apply to internship. Several of my former supervisors have indicated that in the past, internship was where you received most of your clinical training. Now it seems you need to have the equivalent of internship training before you even apply. I'd move it more to a medical model where the degree was granted (maybe in three years!) prior to the bulk of clinical training, which is then gained in a residency format.

Back on the parenting issue: For those seeking part-time internships (again, for example, due to parenting issues), non-accredited internships are the only option barring I think four choices scattered around the country. If you are going to do a part-time internship AND a part-time post-doc, this process can easily turn into a 9 or 10 year commitment. Not for the faint of heart, and realistically it is very often the case that a spouse/partner is shouldering the financial burden of this long process. What could be done? To improve timely graduation, offer high-quality daycare at the schools, mentoring, tuition remission and stipends. This could be encouraged by offering incentives via the APA accreditation process for programs to recognize non-traditional routes through graduate school.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[psyman]

I don't see how an APPIC internship is a lower standard than an APA internship. Mine was APPIC only and met APA standards on their own. They couldn't AFFORD to be APA. Someone please show me how an APPIC training site is not as good as APA. Otherwise, stop talking about "lowering the standard." And while I'm at it, my training on internship was far better than some friends who had APA positions. The system is screwed up with now dated and arbitrary "standards" for internship.

 

[WisNeuro]

I have a hard time believing credible internship sites have a huge problem with the 2200 annual fee if they have a large enough patient load to warrant a training program. Not too mention the grants that APA has that offset some of the costs.

 

[psyman]

I have a hard time believing credible internship sites have a huge problem with the 2200 annual fee if they have a large enough patient load to warrant a training program.

As I understand it, from talking with multiple site directors, it's not solely the cost. The work involved in getting APA accreditation and keeping it is a deterrent for them when they are overworked already. I mean, how does it benefit them to be APA and do all that work? As I said, these sites otherwise meet all APA requirements (the ones where I've worked or talked to).

What a waste of $2200! Give that to the interns!

 

[WisNeuro]

As someone who has actually been involved with the accreditation process, it's really minimal work, and, you should be doing the documentation that they need regardless. It's essentially just showing site visitors a binder you have kept updated when visit time comes around. I don't see how documenting the training experiences you offer is a deterrent. It's something you need to do for recruitment and planning for future trainees anyway.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

As someone who has actually been involved with the accreditation process, it's really minimal work, and, you should be doing the documentation that they need regardless.

I wouldn't say it is, "minimal work." My internship site went through re-acred. during the year I was there and it was *a lot* of work, albeit spread across the better part of a year and between the 4-5 committee members.

As for cost…sometimes the added cost is adding faculty/clinical supervisors to meet the APA recommendations of the site visitors. I'm not sure if this is a common hurdle, but I know of at least one site that had this as a barrier. Also, internship training sites rarely if ever break even let alone make a profit. It is hard to go to leadership and get something approved that will cost more money than it can support.

As for APA v. non-acred sites…I'm more worried about the sites that don't pay, have minimal supervision, etc. I know of some APPIC sites that have wonderful training experiences, but for one reason or another don't pursue APA-acred. We need a line in the sand for standards because the alternative is a free for all of training.

 

[WisNeuro]

I've been through 4 of these (2 grad, 1 internship, 1 postdoc) and besides the self-study, it's not a big deal as long as people have been keeping documentation up to date. The work seems to come in when people are not keeping track of what they need to and have to go back and retroactively do it, which takes much longer than if they had done it in a timely manner in the first place.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

I don't see how an APPIC internship is a lower standard than an APA internship. Mine was APPIC only and met APA standards on their own. They couldn't AFFORD to be APA. Someone please show me how an APPIC training site is not as good as APA. Otherwise, stop talking about "lowering the standard." And while I'm at it, my training on internship was far better than some friends who had APA positions. The system is screwed up with now dated and arbitrary "standards" for internship.

I do not believe anyone is saying that APPIC-only training sites are all of low quality. I would think there are some good APPIC-only sites that are better than some APA-accredited sites. Unfortunately, there will be a greater variability in training quality at APPIC-only sites b/c these sites are not accredited and thus have no independent oversight. Accreditation sets minimal standards that employers/training programs/outside observers know were met. However, non-accredited sites can do whatever they choose/want, which is troubling. For example, I know of unaccredited sites that provide very little supervision and almost no didactic components in their training. Basically, interns are used as cheap labor as opposed to being provided an education experience. There are sites that do not even have to pay the interns. In turn, people tend to clump all APPIC-only sites as lower quality, which is a fallacy. Yet, this heuristic is pervasive and, from my point of view, understandable.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I want to say that I put up a post a couple years ago that at least somewhat described some of the differences required by APPIC vs. CAPIC vs. APA, at least as far as I could tell based on their published materials. search of the forums might turn it up.

My understanding is that the difference between APPIC and APA is relatively small, but is more than just documentation. And I agree with T4C's take overall--at some point we have to draw a line in the sand and define a minimal standard. I'm personally for supporting APA accreditation as that minimal standard, particularly if they can streamline the application/accreditation process, as they've been saying they would.

 

[erg923]

I don't see how an APPIC internship is a lower standard than an APA internship. Mine was APPIC only and met APA standards on their own. They couldn't AFFORD to be APA. Someone please show me how an APPIC training site is not as good as APA. Otherwise, stop talking about "lowering the standard." And while I'm at it, my training on internship was far better than some friends who had APA positions. The system is screwed up with now dated and arbitrary "standards" for internship.

When you submit an article to a journal for publication, should they just publish it cause you, your professor, and your collaborators are smart and likely do good work? No. A team of people review it first, right?

Peer review exists for a reason. Its a good faith attempt to ensure quality of training, even if its imperfect. There is ZERO reason why a health service profession, where patients lives are on the line, should have capstone clinical training that is not accredited by the profession's governing body. Its embarrassing. And it looks sloppy.

 

[psyman]

When you submit an article to a journal for publication, should they just publish it cause you, your professor, and your collaborators are smart and likely do good work? Peer review exists for a reason...

Last I checked, only 40-50% internships are APA, the "maximum standard" in the field. Is that an adequate percentage? I wonder what percentage of medical residencies meet their maximum standard? 50% is low, particularly when your degree is dependent on internship!

 

[erg923]

Last I checked, only 40-50% internships are APA, the "maximum standard" in the field. Is that an adequate percentage? I wonder what percentage of medical residencies meet their maximum standard? 50% is low, particularly when your degree is dependent on internship!

No. I thought I made it pretty clear I think the number should be 100% of internships offered are accredited, or in process. Students shouldn't have an "unaccredited" option.

 

[Ollie123]

Like others said, I don't think APPIC is universally bad. I do think its a lower standard. Actually if we want to get technical, its pretty darn close to "No standards". Because there really are exceedingly few as its not an accreditation body....so no matter how crummy your internship is, you can pretty much be in APPIC. That doesn't mean all will be terrible. It does mean they allow for the "We pay interns $0 a year to see 40 patients a week with 30 minutes of biweekly supervision that occurs with whatever clinician had a client not show up that day" internships we're seeing all too frequently these days. APA provides some assurance that minimal standards have been met.

I agree its not great that there are so many unaccredited internships. There probably always will be unless our whole educational system is dramatically overhauled and some very heavy regulations are put in place. We can do a lot more to make it a less attractive option though, by doing what we can to curb the imbalance. The problem is not too few internships...its too many unqualified applicants. The hugely disproportionate match rates across programs is no coincidence. The system isn't perfect and sometimes great students absolutely get caught in the middle, but that doesn't mean the solution is to lower the standards further just for the short-term benefit of those students.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Like others said, I don't think APPIC is universally bad. I do think its a lower standard. Actually if we want to get technical, its pretty darn close to "No standards". Because there really are exceedingly few as its not an accreditation body....so no matter how crummy your internship is, you can pretty much be in APPIC. That doesn't mean all will be terrible. It does mean they allow for the "We pay interns $0 a year to see 40 patients a week with 30 minutes of biweekly supervision that occurs with whatever clinician had a client not show up that day" internships we're seeing all too frequently these days. APA provides some assurance that minimal standards have been met.

I agree its not great that there are so many unaccredited internships. There probably always will be unless our whole educational system is dramatically overhauled and some very heavy regulations are put in place. We can do a lot more to make it a less attractive option though, by doing what we can to curb the imbalance. The problem is not too few internships...its too many unqualified applicants. The hugely disproportionate match rates across programs is no coincidence. The system isn't perfect and sometimes great students absolutely get caught in the middle, but that doesn't mean the solution is to lower the standards further just for the short-term benefit of those students.

I actually think that APPIC (unlike CAPIC) requires that sites pay interns, and that their overall standards for member programs are fairly similar to APA's accreditation requirements. I forget the exact nature of the differences between the two, but I believe part of the idea behind APPIC membership is that they hope it's a stepping stone programs use to then apply for accreditation.

 

[erg923]

I actually think that APPIC (unlike CAPIC) requires that sites pay interns, and that their overall standards for member programs are fairly similar to APA's accreditation requirements. I forget the exact nature of the differences between the two, but I believe part of the idea behind APPIC membership is that they hope it's a stepping stone programs use to then apply for accreditation.

Yes, but it's basically an honors system, right? It's like telling journal editors, of course I had enough statistical power! What? You actually want to review it an see for yourself?!

 

[Ollie123]

I actually think that APPIC (unlike CAPIC) requires that sites pay interns, and that their overall standards for member programs are fairly similar to APA's accreditation requirements. I forget the exact nature of the differences between the two, but I believe part of the idea behind APPIC membership is that they hope it's a stepping stone programs use to then apply for accreditation.

I stand corrected, you are right. Their criterion appear "somewhat" similar to APAs (though not exactly). That said, its still very concerning that like erg mentioned it seems to be completely on the honor system. I know the APPIC site I did a practicum at would have very much struggled with APA accreditation since they frankly did a large number of sketchy things (e.g. supervision was "on the books" but interns reported rarely ever actually getting it, otherwise violating the criterion I saw all over the place) that I'm doubtful they could have gotten away with (or at least would have been more difficult) for an accredited site.

Definitely an imperfect system, but I stand by my usual statement....we need to be raising the bar, not lowering it. The internship imbalance stinks, but more internships is the proverbial band-aid on the broken limb.

 

[psyman]

[QUOTE="I know the APPIC site I did a practicum at would have very much struggled with APA accreditation since they frankly did a large number of sketchy things (e.g. supervision was "on the books" but interns reported rarely ever actually getting it, otherwise violating the criterion I saw all over the place) that I'm doubtful they could have gotten away with (or at least would have been more difficult) for an accredited site.

Definitely an imperfect system, but I stand by my usual statement....we need to be raising the bar, not lowering it. The internship imbalance stinks, but more internships is the proverbial band-aid on the broken limb.[/QUOTE]

I have experience at APA sites. I can tell you that sites show the APA what they want to show. Their oversight has the reach of alligator arms. And it relies on interns to report the negative/bad things about a site. Does that seem like a conflict on interest? I certainly would pause before complaining about my site for a number of reasons. I've seen this first hand. Obviously, the alternative is not "no oversight" but I think some of you guys have a false sense of security with APA accreditation and you may look down on APPIC-only sites universally and unfairly.

 

[erg923]

Psyman,
Do you think that how our training is viewed by the public and other health professions should be taken into consideration here?

This again comes back to the overarching notion of "due dilegence." Are we, as a profession, doing our due deligence to ensure competence and oversight of training. Peer reviewed accredited is obviously part of that due dilegence. I "look down" on site that are not doing their due deligence.

 

[psyman]

Psyman,
Do you think that how our training is viewed by the public and other health professions should be taken into consideration here?

This again comes back to the overarching notion of "due dilegence." Are we, as a profession, doing our due deligence to ensure competence and oversight of training. Peer reviewed accredited is obviously part of that due dilegence. I "look down" on site that are not doing their due deligence.

This profession pushed 50% of its students into non-APA site and made their degree dependent on internship. Many APA programs don't require (or will change their requirement for it on a case by case basis) an APA internship and more than half of internships are not APA. Doesn't that send a message about the value of an APA internship? Then suddenly, APA will again become a required standard (some of you hope). That doesn't seem fair.

You are ignoring my point.

 

[erg923]

This profession pushed 50% of its students into non-APA site and made their degree dependent on internship. Many APA programs don't require (or will change their requirement for it on a case by case basis) an APA internship and more than half of internships are not APA. Doesn't that send a message about the value of an APA internship? Then suddenly, APA will again become a required standard (some of you hope). That doesn't seem fair.

You are ignoring my point.

The profession did/does none of that. Programs do that. You know what programs I am talking about too...

The only point I am able to dechipher is that you do not find value in having the capstone clinical training experience accredited by the governing body of the profession. Every other health service profession sees things quite differently. Not sure why we should be an excpetion to this.

 

[psyman]

The profession did/does none of that. Programs do that. You know what programs I am talking about too...

The only point I am able to dechipher is that you do not find value in having the capstone clinical training expereince accredited by governing body of the profession. Every other health service profession sees things quite differently.

The profession accredited those programs as APA (which you don't seem to value ironically).

Ug. I'm not advocating for no training oversight by APA for internship. I give up.

 

[erg923]

The profession accredited those programs as APA (which you don't seem to value ironically).

Ug. I'm not advocating for no training oversight by APA for internship. I give up.

I realize that APA program accredidation is a minimal bar with flaws, yes. The govenring body sanctioned/looked the other way, certainly not "pushed" though, a poor practice. Shocking. What's your point?

 

[erg923]

Ug. I'm not advocating for no training oversight by APA for internship. I give up.

But you are, apparently, advocating that interships that are not peer reviewed (APPIC) are equatable (ie., just as good as) to those that are (APA). This notion is simply not accepted in any other health service professions? Why do you think that is?

 

[Ollie123]

I have experience at APA sites. I can tell you that sites show the APA what they want to show. Their oversight has the reach of alligator arms. And it relies on interns to report the negative/bad things about a site. Does that seem like a conflict on interest? I certainly would pause before complaining about my site for a number of reasons. I've seen this first hand. Obviously, the alternative is not "no oversight" but I think some of you guys have a false sense of security with APA accreditation and you may look down on APPIC-only sites universally and unfairly.

Oh I hold no doubt that happens too...but some oversight is better than none, right? If the argument is for increased oversight of accredited sites, I would strongly support that - I was under the impression you were arguing for lowering the bar (don't bother with APA, APPIC is just as good). I agree the situation is unfortunate and that APA has made many missteps and is largely responsible for creating this mess. However, I adamantly believe the solution is not unaccredited internships - its greater oversight of accredited internships and DRAMATICALLY greater oversight of graduate programs (along with a host of other changes). Would it suck for someone to go through the process and then not be able to practice because they couldn't secure an APA internship? Yup (though I believe most people could if they were willing to stay longer). That doesn't mean the only solution is to give up and embrace lower standards.

 

[smalltownpsych]

I think what kartman is saying is that the APA has been a big part of the problem which I agree with to an extent. Unfortunately, the lack of oversight and lowering of standards by the APA is what has created the imbalance by allowing schools to enroll way more students than could be reasonably accepted for internships. So does it really make sense to lower the other part of the standard and allow way more internships than can reasonably be employed? Also, is the number really 50% of internships are not APA? That is bad.

 

[erg923]

Also, is the number really 50% of internships are not APA? That is bad.

That is true. But that in no one way lends credence to this persons argument that APPIC and APA are equatable. Its like arguing that non-peer reveiwed research is equatable in quality and rigor to peer reviewed research. Could be. But how they hell do you know? That's what peer review is for!

Do away with all non apa internship training sites by 2020. The numbers of internship applicants would rapidly shrink to a number commesurate with training slots, because there is simply no where else do go, literally. Cohorts of 50 and 60 people would no longer exist.

 

[psyman]

Oh I hold no doubt that happens too...but some oversight is better than none, right? If the argument is for increased oversight of accredited sites, I would strongly support that - I was under the impression you were arguing for lowering the bar (don't bother with APA, APPIC is just as good). I agree the situation is unfortunate and that APA has made many missteps and is largely responsible for creating this mess. However, I adamantly believe the solution is not unaccredited internships - its greater oversight of accredited internships and DRAMATICALLY greater oversight of graduate programs (along with a host of other changes). Would it suck for someone to go through the process and then not be able to practice because they couldn't secure an APA internship? Yup (though I believe most people could if they were willing to stay longer). That doesn't mean the only solution is to give up and embrace lower standards.

I would be one of those caught after getting an APPIC only internship. When more than half of internships are not APA, I think it would really suck to make APA a standard for practice. That's all I'm saying. Particularly when my program is APA.

I've actually seen job postings that ask for someone who is EITHER masters or doctoral licensed as a psychologist which specifically states the doctoral licensed person must have an APA internship. How much sense does that make? That masters level person didn't have any doctoral training and NO doctoral internship. But me with my APPIC only internship can't get that job over a master's person?

I really feel many of you don't understand the position some of us are in.

 

[erg923]

I've actually seen job postings that ask for someone who is EITHER masters or doctoral licensed as a psychologist which specifically states the doctoral licensed person must have an APA internship. How much sense does that make? That masters level person didn't have any doctoral training and NO doctoral internship. But me with my APPIC only internship can't get that job over a master's person?

Those are written by HR departments. One wouldnt expect them to think about such issues, although I obvioulsy get the point you are making.

I really feel many of you don't understand the position some of us are in.

I get that you chose to rank and accept an unaccredited internship and yes, I understand how that hinders ones prospects in the job market. An understandable decision, but certainly a questionable one given the naturally occurring consequences that I presume you were aware of.

I also get that you dont want to be labeled as unlicensable, and I think we have been clear that there would be a cutpoint date in the near future, so that those currently in process would not be cut-out

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I'm sure we all know at least a handful of folks who either had to go through the match multiple times or who matched at non-APA sites. However, I think it's also fair to note that while ~1/3 of folks match to non-accredited internships, large proportions of those folks come from the "chronic offender" programs that have been brought up in other threads. Likewise, many also come from unaccredited doctoral programs. There's also, for better or worse, a significant split by degree type (which I'm sure is driven in part by the aforementioned chronic offender programs). Thus, the imbalance sucks, but it disproportionately affects different folks.

I agree with the general idea that we need to be establishing (first) and then raising (second) universal standards in our field. It's why I support mandating ABPP boarding for neuropsych, and it's why I'd support a blanket requirement of APA accreditation at both the internship and grad school levels (with grandfathering, as would be necessary).

 

[463951]

I would be one of those caught after getting an APPIC only internship. When more than half of internships are not APA, I think it would really suck to make APA a standard for practice. That's all I'm saying. Particularly when my program is APA.

I've actually seen job postings that ask for someone who is EITHER masters or doctoral licensed as a psychologist which specifically states the doctoral licensed person must have an APA internship. How much sense does that make? That masters level person didn't have any doctoral training and NO doctoral internship. But me with my APPIC only internship can't get that job over a master's person?

I really feel many of you don't understand the position some of us are in.

These APPIC sites need to step up and get accredited, or get phased out. This is anecdotal, but I am familiar with a handful of APPIC sites, and they are pretty much the same – the pay is $15,000/year (that's with no benefits!), 60 hour work weeks (hours that are not uncommon for an internship, but that's slave labor at that salary IMO), supervision is hit or miss, and didactics are pathetic. I'm sure there are some decent APPIC sites that haven't gotten accredited yet for whatever reason, and hopefully @psyman, your internship was one of the better ones. I do understand the position you are in, I know a couple of people that have done (or are doing) APPIC internships, and it sucks for a lot of reasons. As AA mentioned, we need to have mandatory APA accreditation at the grad school level and at the internship level. However, it is not fair to those that completed an APPIC internship already, and these students should be grandfathered in. As far as students that attended an unaccredited school? If it's a school like Saybrook or Capella or whatever, I say, they should have known what they were getting themselves into. But if its an Argosy or an Alliant who blatantly lied to students about accreditation, I feel differently about that.

 

[Menolly]

If we had a system similar to medicine about internship, what would be the drawbacks? We could say the degree would be granted prior to internship. Doctoral programs would meet APA accreditation standards about number of pre-doctoral hours, earned either in-house or on externships, and then the APA and the licensing process in each state would be in charge of the internship requirement and include that with post-doctoral hours. No license, no private practice, so what would be the downside? The current process drags out the degree process, placing unnecessary financial burden on the student. And, it's not like the doctoral programs have any control over the quality of internships, unless they offer them in-house. On the upside of this approach, internship sites would be able to list their students as having completed their degrees like MDs. Any chance that would improve the billable rate, thus providing an incentive for sites to take on more interns?

 

[erg923]

Perhaps this hypothetical example might help some to understand the impact of accredidation of a peer reviewing body for health service professions.

Keep in mind, we dont service ourselves, folks. We serve the public. Try to imagine this headline on the front page of the NY Times and on every cable news channel...

"Department of Veterans Affairs Announces Plan to Hire Psychologists With Unaccredited Residencies to Treat our Nations Heroes"

The overarching point, @psyman, being that it matters little whether YOU think your training is "just as good" as those fancy APA sites. It really matter more if others view your training as equivalant. And, as you are apprently finding out as you look for a job, it matters a great deal.

 

[psyman]

Perhaps this hypothetical example might help some to understand the impact of accredidation of a peer reviewing body for health service professions.

Keep in mind, we dont service ourselves, folks. We serve the public. Try to imagine this headline on the front page of the NY Times and on every cable news channel...

"Department of Veterans Affairs Announces Plan to Hire Psychologists With Unaccredited Residencies to Treat our Nations Heroes"

The overarching point, @psyman, being that it matters little whether YOU think your training is "just as good" as those fancy APA sites. It really matter more if others view your training as equivalant. And, as you are apprently finding out as you look for a job, it matters a great deal.

I understand accreditation and peer review and its benefits, my god. I'm not advocating against either. When the field allows less than half of internships to be APA, that suggests something about the need/value of an APA internship, whether that's intended or not.

You chose to only respond to the first sentence of one of my previous posts. And I wonder if the VA hires master's level clinicians? Now, I've asked you to ignore my posts before, so please...seriously.

 

[WisNeuro]

The "field" has only so much control over things. So, I don't know how much they are "allowing" things when money rules the day in Washington and those schools churning out poorly trained students wanting to be doctors are paying representatives to vote certain ways. And yes, the VA does hire master's level people, for certain jobs. They are not hired into psych positions, I've only seen masters level people in MFT type positions. Otherwise you see social workers doing some basic kinds of therapy. They are not eligible for our GS-13 positions as far as I know.

 

[erg923]

I understand accreditation and peer review and its benefits, my god. I'm not advocating against either. When the field allows less than half of internships to be APA, that suggests something about the need/value of an APA internship, whether that's intended or not.

You chose to only respond to the first sentence of one of my previous posts. And I wonder if the VA hires master's level clinicians? Now, I've asked you to ignore my posts before, so please...seriously.

No, I will not "ignore" your posts. You can ignore mine though.

If you choose to post your arguments of position on public message board, I believe it is well within my right to respond with an alternate view/position.

We are not in kindergarten here, and I did not steal your toy or poke you in the eye. Responding/countering your arguments and positions seems very reasonable and fair.

 

[psyman]

The "field" has only so much control over things. So, I don't know how much they are "allowing" things when money rules the day in Washington and those schools churning out poorly trained students wanting to be doctors are paying representatives to vote certain ways. And yes, the VA does hire master's level people, for certain jobs. They are not hired into psych positions, I've only seen masters level people in MFT type positions. Otherwise you see social workers doing some basic kinds of therapy. They are not eligible for our GS-13 positions as far as I know.

As that MFT position is clinical, could a clinical psychologist get that position if they wanted to?

 

[WisNeuro]

Sure, I don't know why they would go for a position two GS levels below what they could get though.

 

[erg923]

Sure, I don't know why they would go for a position two GS levels below what they could get though.

I think he was asking if they would turn it into a "psychologist" position if one applied. And I think the answer is no. You app would be tossed from the cert..or it lilkely wouldn't even get on the HR cert sent to the service chief.

We just had a MHC social worker leave my clinic and I suggested a psychologist replacement. I was told, nope. Its funding is for a GS-11/12 grade only.

 

[WisNeuro]

Oh, no. A position is what it was written for, they can't change a position once they have posted it as is. They would have to repost it and go through the process again.

 

[psyman]

So they'll hire a masters level person for clinical work, but not a psychologist without an APA internship. Got it.

 

[WisNeuro]

They will hire a masters level person for certain types of clinical work. Not GS-13 type positions. I think you're thinking of the issue way too simply.

 

[erg923]

When the field allows less than half of internships to be APA, that suggests something about the need/value of an APA internship, whether that's intended or not.

I think thats actually the point, right? The field has allowed this to happen and it is markedly incongruent with how the market operates. That is, the market values accredited training and wants its providers to have accredited training. Hence, places like VA, DOD, and many hospitals will not hire psychologists with unaccredietd internships. The field has screwed up, I agree.

 

[psyman]

They will hire a masters level person for certain types of clinical work. Not GS-13 type positions. I think you're thinking of the issue way too simply.

Nonetheless, the statement is true though, right?

I think thats actually the point, right? The field has allowed this to happen and it is markedly incongruent with how the market operates. That is, the market valued and wants accredited training from it providers. Hence, places like VA, DOD, and many hospitals will not hire psychologists with unaccredietd internships. The field has screwed up, I agree.

Well, some of the market wants APA. Also, the market makes assumptions about the availability of APA internships (and even just APPIC internships) that are dated. My year there were only enough internships (APA and APPIC) for 80% of applicants. So about 1,000 students couldn't get an internship (APPIC or APA) AT ALL because there weren't enough positions. Given this fact, people do get pushed to take APPIC only positions, because of one other real option, not get ANY internship. Remember that less than 50% of all APPIC positions are APA.

I don't know what I'm advocating at this point. Understanding maybe?

 

[WisNeuro]

It's true, but not an accurate perception of the clinical responsibilities associated with the different positions. They are far from equivalent.

 

[WisNeuro]

Well, some of the market wants APA. Also, the market makes assumptions about the availability of APA internships (and even just APPIC internships) that are dated. My year there were only enough internships (APA and APPIC) for 80% of applicants. So about 1,000 students couldn't get an internship (APPIC or APA) AT ALL because there weren't enough positions. Given this fact, people do get pushed to take APPIC only positions, because of one other real option, not get ANY internship. Remember that less than 50% of all APPIC positions are APA.

This is also somewhat misleading. Once you subtract the diploma mills from the equation, the number is significantly different. For example, go look at the match rate for clinical PhD programs. That number is very high.

 

[erg923]

Well, some of the market wants APA. Also, the market makes assumptions about the availability of APA internships (and even just APPIC internships) that are dated. My year there were only enough internships (APA and APPIC) for 80% of applicants. So about 1,000 students couldn't get an internship (APPIC or APA) AT ALL because there weren't enough positions.

I don't know what I'm advocating at this point. Understanding maybe?

The market doesnt care about how how plentiful or scarce APA internships are. Why would they? That's not there concern. They are in a business and they worry about business things...as they should.

 

[psyman]

Perhaps this hypothetical example might help some to understand the impact of accredidation of a peer reviewing body for health service professions.

Keep in mind, we dont service ourselves, folks. We serve the public. Try to imagine this headline on the front page of the NY Times and on every cable news channel...

"Department of Veterans Affairs Announces Plan to Hire Psychologists With Unaccredited Residencies to Treat our Nations Heroes"

The overarching point, @psyman, being that it matters little whether YOU think your training is "just as good" as those fancy APA sites. It really matter more if others view your training as equivalant. And, as you are apprently finding out as you look for a job, it matters a great deal.

So alternatively they've allowed the headline: "Half of all graduating psychologists have unaccredited internships and are treating YOU!"

(You, being the public)

 

[WisNeuro]

No, the VA does not hire Psychologists with unaccredited internships.

 

[erg923]

So alternatively they've allowed the headline: "Half of all graduating psychologists have unaccredited internships and are treating YOU!"

John Q bricklayer means less to politicians than john Q veteran.

But yes I agree. You are now arguing many of our points. Presenting unknown training quality to the public is bad...AND it would look bad if written into a headline such as that.

 

[WisNeuro]

Well, it's a good thing that we have a choice as consumers. I, personally, would ask for the training qualifications of a practitioner before I sought out treatment.