Occupy the imbalance!

[DynamicDidactic]

How can we best address this concern?

make it bad for their bottom line?

if we can take money away from them then they might start rethinking their stance. Imagine if 10,000 members did not renew their membership, that would make a statement.

I am not an APA member and have no plans of joining.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[MCParent]

The membership retention of APA is already abysmally low. I do think people should join now, and force a critical mass at the division and board level... but if it fails due to the ineptitude of leadership to address these concerns in a meaningful way (as they, by and large, have failed to do for the last decade), I don't have any problem jumping ship to APS myself.

Edit: The low membership retention would actually work in favor of people advocating change and more rigorous training; if 1500 people joined APA and started screaming about the problem, that would have a big impact. The number of signatures on the petition outpaces membership in most divisons.

 

[JeyRo]

I was an APA member many years ago. It would cost me nearly 400 bucks to renew, and for what, exactly? I get all the journal articles I want at work with the VA databases. I don't need reduced prices on APA convention registration, as the VA covers that (when I do attend APA conventions). I don't need rental car or hotel discounts or whatever (my triple-A membership and Costco card pretty much does all of that fine). I don't really see what being an APA member gets me, although I suppose some people in the field consider it important. I already have a specialty practice organization I'm involved in anyways.

 

[MCParent]

I was an APA member many years ago. It would cost me nearly 400 bucks to renew, and for what, exactly? I get all the journal articles I want at work with the VA databases. I don't need reduced prices on APA convention registration, as the VA covers that (when I do attend APA conventions). I don't need rental car or hotel discounts or whatever (my triple-A membership and Costco card pretty much does all of that fine). I don't really see what being an APA member gets me, although I suppose some people in the field consider it important. I already have a specialty practice organization I'm involved in anyways.

I'm not going to disagree with you I wouldn't see a need to join in your position either. What APA has, that nothing else has, is control of accreditation standards. Membership (and getting involved, and not shutting up about the problem) would help influence that, but there are lots of other ways to do it--state boards for example, to encourage them to adopt good standards of training for licensure.

APA also influences federal funding and coverage under insurance (not that that is going especially well consistently).

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

The membership retention of APA is already abysmally low. I do think people should join now, and force a critical mass at the division and board level... but if it fails due to the ineptitude of leadership to address these concerns in a meaningful way (as they, by and large, have failed to do for the last decade), I don't have any problem jumping ship to APS myself.

Edit: The low membership retention would actually work in favor of people advocating change and more rigorous training; if 1500 people joined APA and started screaming about the problem, that would have a big impact. The number of signatures on the petition outpaces membership in most divisons.

This has been my plan. I threw my hat into the ring for one of the board positions, and hopefully I can get on the ballot and make it to the board.

 

[ClinPsychEnthus]

This has been my plan. I threw my hat into the ring for one of the board positions, and hopefully I can get on the ballot and make it to the board.

I completely agree on working towards change in organizations from the inside. Though it is difficult to hang in there and continually advocate (aka not shut up about the problems while they are still there), I've found in various contexts that perceived loyalty and investment help get one's voice heard. I totally agree that 1500 voices (or more!) can make an impact.

 

[4410]

The concept of captured internships may be the best direction to solve the problems of limited internships. Most of the students in professional schools are finding and completing internships so the problems with the imbalance is no way related to these students or schools. The internships may not be APA or APPIC accredited but they receive the required 2000 hours of supervised clinical practice under a licensed psychologists. I recently interviewed for a part time position with a CMHC who used to be part of a APA Accredited Consortium. They are a non profit agencies and chose to leave the consortium last year partily due to cost of supervision and paying predoctoral interns. They let all of their doctoral level psychologist go (three) and now contract with one psychologists three days per week for psychological evaluations. They shifted their individual and group psychotherapy caseloads to LPC and now have LPC interns replacing the psychology predoctoral interns. The interns are not paid but receive supervision without cost for up to two years. Maybe the answer as indicated in the articles from Mike Parent is to have unpaid internships for predoctoral internships and reserve paid internships for postdoctoral training. We are not allowed to be paid for three years of practicum so it would only make sense that everyone would be able to complete the predoctoral internship without payment. My guess is that if predoctoral internships were not paid that the number of available sites would triple. Another problems is that interns services are not billable services for most agencies. If we were similar to the MD degree in that we receive the doctoral degree before doing the internship, this would open up many avenues for reimbursement of our services where we complete internships.

Clearly, from reviewing these articles, it is very apparent of an ulterior agenda without adequate support to make the claims made by Mike Parent. There is not any simple formula as there is no continuity or consistency of many of the claims. For example, some FSPS as is the one I attend have limited admissions. We had eight students begin last year and this year we will have five students. My cohort had 16 students five years ago but now is down to 9 students as some withdrew and some decided to get the terminal MS degree and they sought LPC licensure.

You just will not be able to maintain a consistency, say all program may only accept six students per year even at Traditional University Settings. One thing that is not entertained in these articles in APAG is that there is an overall shifting of qualifications in the mental health field. The University I attend has a very large Community Counseling program with over 100 overall students and this is the bread and butter of the program. The PsyD clinical psychology program has close to 50 students and this is down from the first three years of the program when it was a new program. At one time there were more clinical psychology students than community counseling students but not so anymore. The PsyD clinical psychology program admissions classes are getting smaller and this is a good thing since we are in preparation for APA self and site study for accreditation.

All of this information on the APA website, especially the information from Parent and the University of Florida is based on collateral information that may not be overly accurate since some FSPS students opt to get the terminal masters degree and LPC licensure rather than apply for internship through the APPIC Match process. In my program those who want to complete an internship are able to find an internship without having to wait another year, so clearly the APPIC match information is not accurate about my program. Another thing is that frequently the information presented by internship sites may not be accurate. The internship site where I matched indicates every year that all of their students are from APA accredited program when this is not true. The three students in last years class were all from APA accredited programs, but the interns from this years class only has one who is from an APA accredited school psychology program. I am aware of other programs who have data provided by APPIC that is not accurate as they claim to only accept students who are from APA accredited programs. Some of our students have completed internships at these internship sites, and we are in the process of applying for APA accredition but we are not APA accredited at this time. Basically, the research group at Florida University would need to use other data besides APPIC data before making such claims.

 

[erg923]

Most of the students in professional schools are finding and completing internships so the problems with the imbalance is no way related to these students or schools.

Holy ****! That is the dumbest, most flawed statement I have ever seen you make on here. I stopped reading after that part...

BTW, Mike is very friendly and affable guy, who wants nothing but the best for the future of this profession. But, like me, he has very little tolerance for intellectually sloppy arguments such as yours.

He is also the very model of a scientist-practitioner, something we all psychologist should strive to be. I can assure his motives are to get rid of the imbalance. Nothing more.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

The concept of captured internships may be the best direction to solve the problems of limited internships.

The actual problem is the imbalance between the # of applicants and the # of available spots. One perspective is to increase the total # of available spots (address demand-side imbalance), the other perspective is to decrease the total # of applicants (address supply-side imbalance). The problem with the former is that there has been no compelling evidence to support expansion of the internship system, outside of, "we have students who need spots." A proper Needs Assessment should be done before expanding anything. Based on what I've seen with the proliferation of mid-level providers, we would do better as a profession to REGROUP and focus on areas of expertise, instead of wildly expand and hoping for the best.

Most of the students in professional schools are finding and completing internships so the problems with the imbalance is no way related to these students or schools.

Huh?

There are stats that show the uneven growth of enrollment at these programs over the past 10 years. A bunch of new "campuses" have popped up across the country, far outpacing university-based programs. More students are going into the match each year, with a larger % coming from these programs. So they are most definitely contributing to the imbalance. The scary thing is that the full impact is not being captured purely by APPIC statistics because a growing # of students are bypassing the APPIC process completely, so they are not even counted towards the imbalance.

.....They are a non profit agencies and chose to leave the consortium last year partily due to cost of supervision and paying predoctoral interns. They let all of their doctoral level psychologist go (three) and now contract with one psychologists three days per week for psychological evaluations. They shifted their individual and group psychotherapy caseloads to LPC and now have LPC interns replacing the psychology predoctoral interns. The interns are not paid but receive supervision without cost for up to two years.

It is not acceptable to have interns work for free. There are admittedly issues with insurance and what can be billed, though the solution should not include, "well...we just won't pay them." That cheapens the training and damages our profession.

Maybe the answer as indicated in the articles from Mike Parent is to have unpaid internships for predoctoral internships and reserve paid internships for postdoctoral training. We are not allowed to be paid for three years of practicum so it would only make sense that everyone would be able to complete the predoctoral internship without payment.

I am obviously not Mike, but based on a number of discussions I've had with him over the past couple of years, I do not believe this is an accurate interpretation of his viewpoint.

You just will not be able to maintain a consistency, say all program may only accept six students per year even at Traditional University Settings.

Why not? This has been the way it has been done for 40+ years...up until the 90s. Cap programs and the supply-side pressures go away.

 

[4410]

The APPIC statistics are not accurate as FSPS applicants are finding and completing internships. If you don't match on the APPIC selections, you can set up your own internship and complete your degree program. Many of the FSPS have their own consortium so their students may complete their internship and graduate with the doctoral degree and apply for licensure. I just do not agree that the FSPS are to blame for the unbalance as there really is not an unbalance for most of these programs due to captured or consortium. Most of the FSPS have used sound and effective business practices whereas the traditional university based programs have neglected to adequately train their students which includes an internship. It is not a FSPS problem but a traditional university based problem so blame the traditional university based programs for not providing adequate training for their students which involves a one-year internship.

I did not read the articles word by word but briefly scanned and there were a number of opinions quoted. The captured internships with limited or no pay sounds like the direction to go to increase the number of internships. APA needs to change this options and promote more internship sites. Sites need to be able to bill insurance during the internship training phase of doctoral education as there are not many grants to provide the funding for such education.

I am not trying to ruffle feathers but the problems is not a simple problem but is entirely to complex to be resolved by a "Witch Hunt" of sorts trying to place blame on training programs or internship sites as being the reason for the problems. It is not a problems for the FSPS as most of us are finding internships and some are APA or APPIC accredited but others are local internships with limited or lower pay than APA or APPIC accredited internships. APA and the traditional university programs need to allow students to do non APA accredited internships at lower pay or no pay so they may graduate. I believe the petition needs to be directed towards those programs that places restrictions on the types of internships that their students may complete and perhaps limit enrollment or acceptance numbers in those programs until they may have a higher rate of internship Match for their students.

Additionally, I believe that many psychologists are not willing take on interns as they are not reimbursed for their services and they have to reduce their billable hours due to supervision of the intern. It would be a much more positive incentive based system if the intern supervisors were paid additional money for the supervision of interns over a year long placement. If supervisors were paid $12,000 to $18,000 per year for having one or two interns, there would be a surplus of internship sites.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

The APPIC statistics are not accurate as FSPS applicants are finding and completing internships. If you don't match on the APPIC selections, you can set up your own internship and complete your degree program. Many of the FSPS have their own consortium so their students may complete their internship and graduate with the doctoral degree and apply for licensure. I just do not agree that the FSPS are to blame for the unbalance as there really is not an unbalance for most of these programs due to captured or consortium. Most of the FSPS have used sound and effective business practices whereas the traditional university based programs have neglected to adequately train their students which includes an internship. It is not a FSPS problem but a traditional university based problem so blame the traditional university based programs for not providing adequate training for their students which involves a one-year internship.

I did not read the articles word by word but briefly scanned and there were a number of opinions quoted. The captured internships with limited or no pay sounds like the direction to go to increase the number of internships. APA needs to change this options and promote more internship sites. Sites need to be able to bill insurance during the internship training phase of doctoral education as there are not many grants to provide the funding for such education.

I am not trying to ruffle feathers but the problems is not a simple problem but is entirely to complex to be resolved by a "Witch Hunt" of sorts trying to place blame on training programs or internship sites as being the reason for the problems. It is not a problems for the FSPS as most of us are finding internships and some are APA or APPIC accredited but others are local internships with limited or lower pay than APA or APPIC accredited internships. APA and the traditional university programs need to allow students to do non APA accredited internships at lower pay or no pay so they may graduate. I believe the petition needs to be directed towards those programs that places restrictions on the types of internships that their students may complete and perhaps limit enrollment or acceptance numbers in those programs until they may have a higher rate of internship Match for their students.

This is a significant problem, because by "creating your own internship," you're obviously circumventing the APPIC process, and in so doing, you're eschewing any semblance of a national standard in training. And the one thing psychology needs right now is a national standard given the variability in training standards across programs.

 

[4410]

This is a significant problem, because by "creating your own internship," you're obviously circumventing the APPIC process, and in so doing, you're eschewing any semblance of a national standard in training. And the one thing psychology needs right now is a national standard given the variability in training standards across programs.

How in the world can you make these generalizations? Just because an internship is not APA or APPIC accredited does in no way mandate that it is not a quality internship or meets a high standard. Additionally, having APA or APPIC accreditation does not ensure that the internship is high quality or within standards. A number of internships that are APA accredited were in phase II and many of the posters had terrible things to say about these internship sites and one had six slots still available in phase II.

Many of the students in the program I attend are finding high quality internships locally and meeting all of the requirements to meet licensure requirements. Do you really believe that the licensure board would permit students to become licensed if they did not complete a high quality internship?

 

[erg923]

Many of the students in the program I attend are finding high quality internships locally and meeting all of the requirements to meet licensure requirements.

I study published in Mad Magazine CAN be high quality. However, in a scientific profession, we choose to publish articles in peer reviewed journals to ENSURE that they are quality. Its the same principle. Get it?

Why do you believe "self-regulating" is acceptable? Is there another doctoral-level service profession that operates this way? How did you come to believe that is an acceptable standard?

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

How in the world can you make these generalizations? Just because an internship is not APA or APPIC accredited does in no way mandate that it is not a quality internship or meets a high standard. Additionally, having APA or APPIC accreditation does not ensure that the internship is high quality or within standards. A number of internships that are APA accredited were in phase II and many of the posters had terrible things to say about these internship sites and one had six slots still available in phase II.

I think medical school graduates should be able to make their own residency programs and not have to bother with the ACGME ones. They obviously know better than the rest of the field about what is needed to practice competently and ethically.

Many of the students in the program I attend are finding high quality internships locally and meeting all of the requirements to meet licensure requirements. Do you really believe that the licensure board would permit students to become licensed if they did not complete a high quality internship?

Yes.

 

[4410]

I guess we just will have to agree to disagree on this one. Maybe you can disband from APA and begin the NACP or the Society of Clinical Psychologists (SCP) and develop a competitive association rival for APA. Only students from SCP accredited programs will be allowed to apply for SCP internships. Heck, the way things are going, APA probably will merge with the American Psychiatric Association and all Psychologist will then be Medical Psychologists with RxP privileges.

Beginning to sound or mimic the WWF which was replaced by the WWE for professional wrestling. Now the WWF is like a minor league wrestling program but the Wrestle Mania is under the WWE. Disband APA and it will probably merge with ACA and NASP when there is a new association just for Doctoral Level Clinical Psychologist...oh excuse me PhD scientist-practitoner only Psychologist association. I guess us PsyD will have to resolve that we are only wanabee psychologists and start our own association called the NSPPA or Non-Scientific Professional Psychologists Association. If you are not aware, some of this disbanding is already happening in Louisiana as the Medical Psychologist are licensed under the Louisiana Board of Medicine and they have left the LPA or Louisiana Psychological Association and formed the Louisiana Academy of Medical Psychologists. They even have separate conferences and both had their conferences last week.

 

[futureapppsy2]

So... do people who take internships outside of match (APA/APPIC) generally go the private practice or non-academic research route? It seems like most job job-postings I've seen on listservs require an APPIC, if not an APA, internship.

And, um, I'm embarrassed to know this, but the WWF actually changed its name to WWE as a result of an intellectual property dispute with the World Wildlife Foundation (WWF). And there already are some competing professional groups for psychologists that emphasize EBT, scientific training, and stricter accredition standard than those currently used by the APA, such as APS and APCS. Heck, there's even a movement for another recognized accrediting system (http://www.pcsas.org/). Nothing is going to change overnight, of course, but I think it will be very interesting to watch, as professional psychology is undergoing a time of stress and potentially transition at the moment.

Interestingly, from the PCSAS website:

PCSAS is seeking recognition by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA). At its meeting on May 2-3, 2011, the CHEA Board of Directors reviewed the recommendation of the CHEA Committee on Recognition regarding the eligibility application submitted by the Psychological Clinical Science Accreditation System (PCSAS). The Board of Directors determined that PCSAS is eligible to undertake a recognition review. PCSAS subsequently has completed a self-evaluation and is providing CHEA with evidence that it meets the CHEA recognition standards. CHEA requires an observation visit to a decision-making meeting of the accrediting organization to observe decision-making activities as these relate to CHEA eligibility and recognition standards. A CHEA observer attended the PCSAS Review Committee meeting on December 10, 2011. In March of 2012, the CHEA Committee on Recognition will review PCSAS's self-evaluation and application for recognition, along with the report of the observation visit and any third-party comments. They will make a recommendation to the CHEA Board of Directors. The CHEA Board of Directors, in May 2012, will make the final determination of PCSAS's recognition status.

Will be very interesting to see what comes of this.

(Personally, I don't think the clinical science model will work for *all* training programs, but I think the APA's decision to accredit FSPS has really hurt this field. I think things would be better off all-around if all training came from smaller (cohorts of 20 or less), university-based programs, preferably ones that offer substantial funding. There are plenty of good, funded university-based programs that focus mainly on training clinicians with a strong grounding in research, and I don't really see how any benefits from FSPS's--students, the profession, the public, etc).

 

[erg923]

I guess us PsyD will have to resolve that we are only wanabee

You have an interesting inferiority complex...

 

[4410]

You have an interesting inferiority complex...

Oh I can now rest easy.....that sounds much better than having a sloppy cognitive processes!! Maybe it is not too late to be saved once I buy the Idiots guide to psychodynamic therory.

 

[MCParent]

Maybe the answer as indicated in the articles from Mike Parent is to have unpaid internships for predoctoral internships and reserve paid internships for postdoctoral training.

Heh. Yeah, I never said anything like that, ever, and think it's a stupid idea. The rest of your post is gibberish. Once again, although it appears to be fun to engage in debate in which you just make up things and post them as fact, that's really not how it's supposed to be done.

I'd like to think I'm friendly, but I don't suffer fools or un-logic.

 

[4410]

Heh. Yeah, I never said anything like that, ever, and think it's a stupid idea. The rest of your post is gibberish. Once again, although it appears to be fun to engage in debate in which you just make up things and post them as fact, that's really not how it's supposed to be done.

I'd like to think I'm friendly, but I don't suffer fools or un-logic.

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.

 

[paramour]

Please, pray tell, how do you improve match rates if there are no spots to match?

 

[deleted176373]

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

 

[AcronymAllergy]

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?

 

[KillerDiller]

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.

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.

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.

 

[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.

 

[4410]

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.

 

[erg923]

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.

 

[KillerDiller]

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.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

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.

 

[4410]

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.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

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.

 

[paramour]

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.

 

[paramour]

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... ).

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Pragma]

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

 

[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.

 

[4410]

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.

 

[Pragma]

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.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

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.

 

[psyman]

.

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.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

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.

 

[deleted176373]

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.

 

[erg923]

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...

 

[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.

 

[MCParent]

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.

 

[PsyDLICSW]

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.

 

[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.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

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/about/program-choice.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.

 

[4410]

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.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

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.