New Internship Imbalance Article

[DynamicDidactic]

Can't seem to find an online link for this

The Internship Match: New Perspectives From Longitudinal Data
Robert L. Hatcher

For years the annual quest for internship positions has left many doctoral students in professional psychology stranded without a placement. For some time this situation grew increasingly dire for those entering the match sponsored by the Association of Psychology Postdoctoral and Internship Centers (APPIC), which faced a steep and apparently inexorable rise in applicant numbers. This study examined this situation using longitudinal data from doctoral programs regarding internship placement, enrollment, and attrition, coupled with APPIC data on match participants and outcomes. Results showed that more than 50% of APPIC’s rise in applications between 2008 and 2013 was attributable not to expansion of doctoral programs as feared, but to a shift in the percentage of applicants seeking positions through the APPIC match versus outside of it, a shift that seemed to plateau by 2013. Further, even as match registrations increased during this period, initial enrollments in accredited doctoral programs actually declined by 11.3% between 2008 and 2013; these enrollees constitute the bulk of students destined to enter the match between 2012 and 2017, thus presaging a significant improvement in match outcome during the coming years. However, the situation is complicated by the decision of American Psycho- logical Association governance to expect accredited doctoral programs to use accredited internships exclusively by 2020. Projections of possible outcomes based on this new standard are offered. Despite strenuous efforts to grow accredited positions, adopting this standard would substantially reduce the number of available internships. Additional funding and support for internships will be needed to accomplish this goal.

Some quotes:

Much of the alarming 18% rise in APPIC registrants between 2008 and 2013 turns out to have been attributable to a shift in application strategy, primarily among students from clinical PS [practitioner-scholar]. In 2008, only 72% of these students applied to APPIC, rising to 87% in 2013.

Prospects for the APPIC match are likely to be further improved as a result of the 11.3% decline in initial enrollments across all accredited doctoral programs that took place between 2007 and 2013.

there is a good chance that the imbalance crisis could be substantially resolved as early as 2017 or 2018.

The commitment by APA governance to the exclusive use of accredited internships by 2020 faces an uncertain future, as the range of model projections to that date suggested a likely shortfall of substantial proportions.

To prevent this undesirable outcome will require a steeper increase in accredited positions or a further decrease in enrollments

Perhaps the most influential governance factor of this type is the CoA’s IR D-4.7, whose goal of 50% placement in accredited positions was met by 83% of programs in clinical, counseling, and C&I in 2014. The 17% of programs not meeting this goal contributed 52% of the 1,390 registrants without accredited internships in 2014, and would likely contribute the majority of the shortfall predicted for 2020 (see Hatcher, 2013). The 50% standard is not rigidly enforced by the CoA, as it is one of a range of quality indicators that are integrated in making accreditation assessments. However, if the CoA were to join with APA governance in placing greater emphasis on the accredited match rate, many of these programs would be hard-pressed to meet it and thereby remain accredited.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Peacemaker36]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/tep0000097

 

[cara susanna]

Wait, if I'm understanding this correctly, the number of APPIC match participants went up because more people were going through APPIC instead of outside of it? That's kind of the opposite of what we've been thinking on SDN (which is that match rates are improving because more people are going outside of APPIC), isn't it?

 

[DynamicDidactic]

Wait, if I'm understanding this correctly, the number of APPIC match participants went up because more people were going through APPIC instead of outside of it? That's kind of the opposite of what we've been thinking on SDN (which is that match rates are improving because more people are going outside of APPIC), isn't it?

I know I was concerned that a lot of people were going to CAPIC and other informal internships but this is the first evidence showing that is not the case. I will say its nice to read but I am not all that excited about the quality of non-accredited APPIC internships. So, lets see how this roller coaster of a process changes by 2020.

 

[OneNeuroDoctor]

When I was applying for internship in 2010 and 2011 we were informed that APA required all doctoral level psychologist students to apply through APPIC. My program had their first graduating class in 2009 and were in the process of applying for APA accreditation in 2010 once their first class had graduated. Before the requirement to apply through APPIC the first two classes of 4 in the first cohort and 8 in the second cohort were all able to find internships and at least half were in APA accredited sites. After we were required to begin going through APPIC with larger cohorts up to 25 only about 20% of our students were matched with APA accredited internships and I was fortunate to be one of those students. Here we are at 2015 and the program is closing due to what was indicated that to obtain APA accreditation that 50% of students need to be in APA accredited internships. After reading this article that APA is not going to strictly enforce this rule, the program could have stayed open, but the Chair of the program had indicated to students and faculty that in 2017 this was going to be required, 50% or more of students attend APA accredited internships.

It seems that there is much misinformation flowing about the imbalance and it appears that APA may not be able to reach the requirement logically of having all students complete an APA accredited internship since only about half of the current internships are APA accredited. From the site directors I have talked with about this matter, they would like to have more interns and would like to apply for APA accreditation but it is an expensive process and very time consuming regarding paperwork. There is a rule of thumb that if you are already accredited by CARF, JC, or another accredited agency that this should grandfather you into being APA accredited as most of the same standards are evident for accreditation bodies. It seems to be a method for APA to generate income that seem much higher than necessary. I have been informed that sometimes administrators will not pay the site visit fees and that psychologists responsible for the internship program have had to pay out of their own pocket to maintain their APA accreditation. Additionally, it seems that APA favors internship sites that are with the federal government or large teaching hospitals over private practice and community mental health centers.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

I guess I have drawn the short straw this time to highlight the errors in your post.

When I was applying for internship in 2010 and 2011 we were informed that APA required all doctoral level psychologist students to apply through APPIC.

not an APA requirement

After we were required to begin going through APPIC with larger cohorts up to 25 only about 20% of our students were matched

again, not an APA requirement and your sentence makes it sound like APA forced your program to increase cohort size.

as posted above, 13% of practitioner-scholar students did not apply to APPIC for internship in 2013.

 

[OneNeuroDoctor]

I know now that it is not a requirement but the program Chair was misinformed and felt that using the APPIC Match and having half of cohort complete APA internships would increase the probability of the program obtaining APA accredited internships.

This had some influence on my outcome in not matching in 2010 as I had an opportunity in the post match due to an APA site that did not participate in the match that year due to new ownership of the rehab hospital that did not authorize funding. In August the new owner authorized funding and they had three slots they needed to fill quickly. We were not allowed to apply because they did not participate in the match.

Being a new program it started out small and gradually had more students apply and gain admissions. My cohort was 13 and several cohorts were in the 20 range but in 2012 there were only 6 in the cohort and in 2013 the program stopped admitting students and is in teach out with only a handful close to graduating or left in the program.