Occupy the imbalance!

[Therapist4Chnge]

...is based on the date of the application which is the site study application. Sometimes this goes back two and almost three years. 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 was selected but now they are APA accredited/approved dating back several years, or the 2010 and 2011 internship group. Those interns who completed or will complete in the next three months now have completed or will complete an APA accredited internship.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[4410]

The programs in the application process are all listed on the APA accreditation website that is posted by AA. Most recent updates were on April 25, 2012 and this is when some ten programs or more were either approved retroactively back to the site study date for either their psychology program, predoctoral internship or postdoctoral internship program. Based on each site students or interns now from APA accredited programs it could range in the 100-200 or more range and this basically makes the APPIC Match data flawed or erroneous to some extent. Basically the studies by the University of Florida and the study quoted earlier in this thread have used flawed data to draw conclusions about clinical psychology training program using EPPP scores and using Match rate with APA or non APA accredited programs. Using EPPP data is flawed due to it being common for doctoral level trained psychologists having up to three times to take and pass the test. Some psychologists pass on the first attempt but some do not pass until the third attempt. Basically, these studies are confounded due to these variables and should in no way be utilized by APA to make any decisions about psychology training and internship programs or rather the quality of training programs.

 

[MCParent]

I'm almost 100% certain that the retro date is the second day of the site visit. I don't remember offhand where that info is in the CoA regs.

Anyway, 4410, is your contention that that drop seriously makes a difference to the bucket?

 

[4410]

I'm almost 100% certain that the retro date is the second day of the site visit. I don't remember offhand where that info is in the CoA regs.

Anyway, 4410, is your contention that that drop seriously makes a difference to the bucket?

Due to APA accreditation programs internships changing on either a quarter basis or when the accreditation committee meets the data may be flawed. Some programs were just updated on April 25 and some of the approvals are retroactive one to two years. If you are using data to try to make justification of programs qualification it would seem necessary to have accurate data or your study is meaningless and may be interpreted based on bias or agenda or lying with statistics. Many sites will not accept applications form some types of programs so basically this could be a reason for lower match rate regardless of the quality of the program. It is a stretch to imply that programs are poor quality due to not having high match rate with APA accredited internship programs.

In my specific case, I have now matched with an APA accredited internship as well as three other students going to this site. We are all from non APA accredited programs so we have matched with an APA accredited internship based on the recent update on April 25, 2012 CoA accredited programs. The two intern classes before us now can count this site as an APA accredited site on their CV and all future job applications. If you have ten or more similar incidents for graduate programs or internships becoming accredited, the numbers of students could be substantial when looking at the "Big Picture!" and the imbalance may not actually be due to what your are purporting it to be caused by---14 or 15 some FSPS programs. Most of the students in FSPS find internships but not many APA accredited internships since normally APA accredited internships only accept students from APA accredited programs. Basically the data is flawed and any statistical significance based on annotated or archival types of data should not be used in evaluation of quality of clinical psychology programs, especially when the data is contantly changing based on programs being in the process of being reviewe or initial accreditation.

It is ridiculous to imply that a FSPS program is low quality due to students having substantial amounts of loans or being unfunded and somehow then generalizing that it must be poor quality due to lower EPPP pass rate when most States allow up to three times to pass the EPPP and many pass the exam by the third administration.

 

[erg923]

The two intern classes before us now can count this site as an APA accredited site on their CV and all future job applications.

No. They can not. It is NOT retroactive to previous intern classes. If unaccredited when you go through (and no site visit the year you are there), you have completed a non-accredited internship. Period. We have been over this before. Do not perpetuate this myth to future student/applicants.

PS: Do not respond with a "that guy I knew that one time." I do not care.

 

[MCParent]

Many sites will not accept applications form some types of programs so basically this could be a reason for lower match rate regardless of the quality of the program.

Your logical flaw: Yes, possible. However, EPPP scores support weaker training outcomes as well.

The two intern classes before us now can count this site as an APA accredited site on their CV and all future job applications.

No, they can't.

If you have ten or more similar incidents for graduate programs or internships becoming accredited, the numbers of students could be substantial when looking at the "Big Picture!" and the imbalance may not actually be due to what your are purporting it to be caused by---14 or 15 some FSPS programs.

THINK about the argument you're making. If this were the case the same programs would not consistently demonstrate weak outcomes. And, the change woud impact people across programs, not just FSPS.

Basically the data is flawed and any statistical significance based on annotated or archival types of data should not be used in evaluation of quality of clinical psychology programs

That's just silly. The data are not flawed.

It is ridiculous to imply that a FSPS program is low quality due to students having substantial amounts of loans or being unfunded and somehow then generalizing that it must be poor quality due to lower EPPP pass rate when most States allow up to three times to pass the EPPP and many pass the exam by the third administration.

Again, really THINK about your arguments. Yes, you can take the EPPP multiple times. So, weak schools produce people who are consistently taking it multiple times. If a small school had the same number of failures and re-takes, they would have the same % pass/fails rates.

Honestly man, READ the existing research and generate some opinions based on actual fact, rather than deciding what you feel like you want to believe and then making up "facts" to support your preexisting conclusion.

Sigh.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

It is NOT retroactive. If unaccredited when you go through (and no site visit the year you are there), you have completed a non-accredited internship. Period. We have been over this before. Do not perpetuate this myth to future student/applicants.

PS: Do not respond with a "that guy knew that one time" thing. I do not care.

I believe erg's correct here, yep. Per the link I posted above, the APA site itself indicates that only those individuals enrolled in the program when the site visit occurs are retroactively affected (and obviously anyone who enrolls there afterward), and the effective date becomes the final date of that site visit.

 

[4410]

I believe erg's correct here, yep. Per the link I posted above, the APA site itself indicates that only those individuals enrolled in the program when the site visit occurs are retroactively affected (and obviously anyone who enrolls there afterward), and the effective date becomes the final date of that site visit.

It is retroactive back to the site visit application date and in some situations this is two years or more since the revisions or changes may take some time. It is based on if you are enrolled in the graduate program or completing an internship at the time of the site application and it is retroactive to that date.

 

[erg923]

It is retroactive back to the site visit application date and in some situations this is two years or more since the revisions or changes may take some time. It is based on if you are enrolled in the graduate program or completing an internship at the time of the site application and it is retroactive to that date.

face palm...

 

[4410]

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.

Did you read the two letters where one psychologist indicates the need to unite training and internship attitudes for training of PsyD/PhD degree psychologists rather than dividing or claiming that there is a shortage of internships due to FSPS and PsyD schools. He indicates that the 2011 Match Statistics reveal only a 10% difference between PhD and PsyD trained psychologists and this is a small difference.

In 1987 there was a surplus of internships but in 1994 only seven years later there was a shortage of internship sites. Here we are almost 18 years later.

The second letter was from a psychologist who used to be the Training Director of a major medical facility in New York City that had clinical psychology internships. In the 90's when the shortage of internships was beginning she endorsed changes of the system with APA. It seems that there are labor laws or legal mandates restricting APA from labor/wage types of activities. APA accredits clinical psycholgy training programs including predoctoral and postdoctoral internships but it has no legal authorization to mandate increasing internship sites or restricting graduate school admission. Her solution is not to place blame on APA but on the individual graduate programs and they should be required to have in place internship sites for all of the students they admit into their program every year. She believes APA needs to mandate or require the individual graduate program to have dedicated internship sites for each of their students.

Their are four male candidates and one female candidate running for APA president this year. The female candidate wrote briefly about the imbalance of APA accredited internship sites. This is her brief statement:

"The ongoing crisis in our psychology educational system has resulted in a serious imbalance between the number of graduate students seeking internships and the availability of accedited positions. In addition, with our country's economic difficulties, the job market for early career psychologists is challenging. We must take bold steps toward collaboratively addressing these crises and establishing solutions and recommendations for model and novel internships and jobs."

One of the candidates has a PsyD degree from a professional school. His focus is on stereotypes of PsyD psychologists being scapegoated unfairly by the profession as not being competent, and in the future there will be a need for more psychologists. He indicates that APA membership is decreasing every year and less than half of all psychologists are now members of APA. APA needs to change so many of these former member will again become members of APA so the organization may be a political force representing all psychologists, not just PhD degree psychologists. If I could vote I wonder who you might believe I might endorse?

 

[MCParent]

What's a "10% difference" supposed to mean? 10% in what? Sounds like a number either made up or misunderstood.

The idea that facts are scapegoating is so stupid it doesn't deserve a reply. The myopic, vain, and irresponsible ignoring of the facts by apa governance is one of the biggest contributors to the imbalance.

 

[MCParent]

Incidentally, I find it laughably ignorant when my work is called scapegoating or fingerpointing. Keilin and Rudolfa did degree type difference research, which is less specific than what I did and would better fit that bill, but the same is never levelled against them. I assume its because I'm a student.

 

[MCParent]

The petition has been submitted to the APA, CPA, and multiple boards and committees within APA.

 

[psychgirl77]

The petition has been submitted to the APA, CPA, and multiple boards and committees within APA.

Awesome! Thanks for making that happen. It was sad to see nothing happen with the original petition.

 

[MCParent]

Awesome! Thanks for making that happen. It was sad to see nothing happen with the original petition.

Even with 1/3 the signatures and no actual submission, it was seen.

And, for sure. I want a better future for all students in psych, and for the profession. I'll follow it as far as I need to.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

The petition has been submitted to the APA, CPA, and multiple boards and committees within APA.

Thanks for all the hard work.

 

[cara susanna]

Yay! Let's hope for some results.

 

[thewesternsky]

Awesome! Thanks for your hard work with the petition and other initiatives.

 

[neuronic]

Not sure how many others have seen this, but the APA has responded to the internship imbalance petition.

"The APA Board of Directors has received the petition related to the internship imbalance that you emailed to several APA staff, governance members and groups on May 1st. This message serves as an initial response from all the APA groups from which you requested a reply.

We would like you to know that APA shares your concerns about the imbalance and is troubled by the impact it is having on students and the profession. In reviewing the requests in the petition, it appears that the majority are requests that relate to program accreditation. Since the APA Commission on Accreditation (APA-CoA) is responsible for formulating accreditation policy that is informed by the field, we are referring your petition to APA-CoA for response.

We would also like to make sure that you are aware that the APA-CoA currently has a proposed revision to an implementing regulation that addresses one of your requests. The proposed revision is currently out for public comment and we encourage you to comment. You can find the proposed revision to the implementing regulation on thresholds for internship placement at:
http://apaoutside.apa.org/AccredSurvey/Public/ProjectMenu.asp?t=080003&ProjectID=31.

Because APA shares your concerns, it has been involved - and will continue to be involved in a
number of efforts to mitigate the imbalance. APA continues to advocate annually for the Graduate Psychology Education Program (GPE), which provides nearly $3 million for training in professional psychology. Moreover, the US Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) has recently announced an additional $5 million to be awarded to expand internship training in areas of national need. Our efforts to address the imbalance, as you note, are coordinated with those undertaken by the Council of Chairs of Training Councils, a group partially supported by APA. We will also be reviewing new proposed initiatives at our upcoming June meeting of the Board of Directors."

 

[MCParent]

Thanks for posting! A pdf is on the Occupy FB group.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Here is the text of the resolution You can leave comments at this link: http://apaoutside.apa.org/AccredSurvey/Public/ProjectMenu.asp?t=172836&ProjectID=31

In 2008 – 2011, the APA-CoA defined the threshold for the annual monitoring of doctoral program internship placement to be 75% of the students seeking internships placed in either accredited or APPIC member internships. In 2011, CoA informed training communities through public comment on this IR that it was changing how that threshold was defined to be the proportion of students placed in accredited (either APA or CPA) internships only. At that time, the metric to be used as a threshold was to be the lowest 5% of accredited clinical and counseling doctoral programs. Much has changed since the last period of public comment.

A number of groups including the Council of Chairs of Training Councils (CCTC), students (including those involved in APAGS) as well the APA Board of Educational Affairs have been asking for changes in the requirements for licensure as a professional psychologist. Those groups have put forward a proposal to the field that would require accreditation at both doctoral and internship program levels for licensure. Specifically, they have proposed that accreditation at the doctoral level be required for licensure effective 2015 and that accreditation of both doctoral and internship programs be required for licensure effective 2019. The argument put forward is based upon the need to better ensure and demonstrate to the public the quality of psychologists eligible to provide services to the public. Further, the climate of healthcare reform in the U.S. and the need for psychologists to be involved in integrated care also have been critical in CoA's review of the need for stronger linkages between accreditation and licensure, including the need to strengthen the expectation that students complete accredited internships. If professional psychologists are to be able to engage in the healthcare system of the future, they will need to bring the same level of validated quality assurance to all aspects of their education, training, and credentialing as other health care professionals.

Currently, psychology is the only major healthcare field where one can be licensed as a practitioner and not have graduated from an accredited program. CoA understands that moving toward this requirement of accredited internships for licensure represents a substantial change in the profession and will affect many programs and students. Thus, the CoA is considering the following action to support programs in reaching the licensure standard. As currently set, the D- 4.7 (b) threshold for internship placement by doctoral programs does little to assist programs or the profession in making significant progress toward a licensure standard. Therefore, the CoA envisions a two-step process in setting this threshold, including identifying how the majority of programs are performing with respect to this enhanced quality standard and then developing a graduated series of thresholds designed to support programs in reaching the enhanced standard proposed by the field in 2019. To better understand the challenges doctoral programs, students, and the CoA face in meeting enhanced quality standards related to placement in accredited internships, the CoA reviewed the current data on the number of students in accredited doctoral programs seeking internships and the number of slots available in accredited internship programs.

The data available for 2011 indicated that there is a 34% gap between the number of students seeking internship from accredited programs in counseling and clinical psychology, and the number of available internship slots in accredited programs. In other words, 66% of students from accredited doctoral programs currently seeking accredited internships obtained them. To that end, CoA is seeking public comment on initially setting the three-year threshold of match to accredited internship programs at 50% -- this percentage reflects a threshold that is below the national match rate, but should capture programs for which match to accredited internships is a considerable challenge.

Recall that these D4-7(b) thresholds trigger a request for purposes of each program's annual review that more information be provided to CoA – the CoA believes that by setting the threshold in this way, programs will be prompted to thoughtfully consider factors involved in their low match rates, and the CoA will be in a position to aggregate information about these factors and support program efforts to improve match rates. Consistent with D.4-7(b), the CoA would periodically review this threshold and revise as appropriate. In this manner, the CoA hopes to assist in bringing programs in line with the goal of having the standard for all licensure to be linked to students completing both accredited doctoral and internship programs. For more information on how the CoA will consider the internship Match during annual and periodic review, please review the five (5) proposed implementing regulations that are designed to further clarify the process utilized by the CoA in reviewing doctoral programs. These are concurrently available for public comment along with the proposed threshold for IR D.4-7(b).

The CoA will make the proposed changes available for a period of public review and comment. The public comment period is scheduled to begin on April 23, 2012 and continue through July 16, 2012. In an effort to promote thoughtful discussion, the CoA is providing an electronic-based comment form for public comment submission. Comments and other information, including the users' identity, will be public. Email addresses used in the registration will be kept confidential. The CoA will consider all comments received and make any appropriate revisions prior to approval of the final version of D.4-7(b). On behalf of the CoA, thank you for your review and comments. Please contact the APA Office of Program Consultation and Accreditation (750 First Street, N.E., Washington, DC 20002-4242; (202) 336-5979; email [redacted]) with any questions or concerns.

 

[MCParent]

Here is the text of the resolution You can leave comments at this link: http://apaoutside.apa.org/AccredSurvey/Public/ProjectMenu.asp?t=172836&ProjectID=31

In the proposed revision, the consequence of missing the marks is that a program gets "looked at."

Yeah. That needs to be commented on.

 

[futureapppsy2]

I noticed that, too. smh.

 

[roubs]

Did I miss their justification for watering down the "getting looked at" threshold from 75% to 50% match rate? Or maybe I am misunderstanding how it works?

 

[roubs]

When they state something like

"Currently, psychology is the only major healthcare field where one can be licensed as a practitioner and not have graduated from an accredited program."

I wonder why it doesn't lead them to conclude that more aggressive steps are necessary?

 

[MCParent]

Did I miss their justification for watering down the "getting looked at" threshold from 75% to 50% match rate? Or maybe I am misunderstanding how it works?

They now specify that they mean APA/CPA match rate--before, at 75%, that wasn't clear. 50% is supposed to be based on a value that will pick out the 5% lowest preforming schools. As there are only enough APA/CPA slots for about 56% of applicants, I personally think 50% is an ok number to start with as this gets implemented.

 

[cara susanna]

Seems like more APA hemming and hawwing to me, but maybe I'm cynical.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Seems like more APA hemming and hawwing to me, but maybe I'm cynical.

Yeah, it doesn't seem very decisive. Kind of like "send a memo to discuss forming an interest group to consider the possibility of asking about starting a committee to examine the problem." Still, at least it's something.

 

[roubs]

I do try to give huge organizations the benefit of the doubt because I imagine it's a lot more complicated to try and create something than it is to be an outside agitator yelling "do something." Outside agitator status is prolly a lot more fun and satisfying.

 

[MCParent]

I do try to give huge organizations the benefit of the doubt because I imagine it's a lot more complicated to try and create something than it is to be an outside agitator yelling "do something." Outside agitator status is prolly a lot more fun and satisfying.

I'd agree. At the Board of Directors level, this is more about "HEY, this is a PROBLEM. We're not going to shut up about it." So, the expected response should be this kind of short acknowledgement. It should be more substantive when the responses from places like the National Council of Schools of Professional Psychology, Council of Chairs of Training Councils, APAGS, APPIC, the Committee on Accreditation, etc., come in.

 

[cara susanna]

Oh roubs, your rationality is not welcome here!

 

[futureapppsy2]

Oh roubs, your rationality is not welcome here!

Hey now, remember that we're all scientists and (wannabe/gonnabe) "fake" doctors) here!

 

[cara susanna]

Oh, no one is rational when it comes to politics... and things that make us afraid, like not matching.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

They now specify that they mean APA/CPA match rate--before, at 75%, that wasn't clear. 50% is supposed to be based on a value that will pick out the 5% lowest preforming schools. As there are only enough APA/CPA slots for about 56% of applicants, I personally think 50% is an ok number to start with as this gets implemented.

Yeah, I think I saw mention that at 75%, it was APA, APPIC, and perhaps equivalent to those; at 50%, it's APA/CPA, which I feel is an improvement at least.

 

[MCParent]

There are still a few days to make comments on revisions APA is making to important policies!

http://apaoutside.apa.org/AccredSurvey/Public/

The revision to D4.7 is the most important--it deals with match rates and accreditation. I've already posted my comment.

For those who don't know how this works, APA MUST reply to these comments when they revise the policy proposals. This is essentially the only direct line members have straight into policy. I'd encourage everyone to read over the proposal, read the current comments (and talk about them here and on the Occupy FB group!), and post their own comments!

 

[psyman]

There are still a few days to make comments on revisions APA is making to important policies!

http://apaoutside.apa.org/AccredSurvey/Public/

The revision to D4.7 is the most important--it deals with match rates and accreditation. I've already posted my comment.

For those who don't know how this works, APA MUST reply to these comments when they revise the policy proposals. This is essentially the only direct line members have straight into policy. I'd encourage everyone to read over the proposal, read the current comments (and talk about them here and on the Occupy FB group!), and post their own comments!

So, if the requirement becomes APA program and APA internship for licensure, what will this mean for those who have only one of either? If someone is licensed in their state before this became standard, they would be grandfathered I assume?

 

[MCParent]

So, if the requirement becomes APA program and APA internship for licensure, what will this mean for those who have only one of either? If someone is licensed in their state before this became standard, they would be grandfathered I assume?

State boards would actually implement it, not APA. Yeah, the recommendation from APA is supposed to be that people who graduate prior to enacting would get grandfathered in.

 

[MCParent]

Buttons are ordered! Backchannel my if you want one at convention, especially if you'd like to take a bunch and give them to your friends

 

[DynamicDidactic]

any updates? nothing on twitter, I can't see facebook, and the blogs are dead. fill us in.

 

[MCParent]

any updates? nothing on twitter, I can't see facebook, and the blogs are dead. fill us in.

I was at APA all last weekend and I've been in my own job search I'd meant to update twitter while I was at APA but had some tech/timing issues.

I had some talks with folks at APA that went great. The occupy work group is really pretty far along on the undergrad education web site/presentation materials so hopefully there will be some material released there soon. The internship stimulus package (3M from APA to support development of accredited internships) passed at the board of directors (this was FAST too, and really well-supported), so that's good on that side. On the other side, there are more and more discussions about accountability and responsibility that will hopefully translate into real action soon. If anyone went to the BEA presentations at APA, there will be discussion about EVERYTHING in the current guidelines and policies stuff for doc programs and internships, leaving open the possibility for enforcing responsibility on the side of doc programs. External pressure, and knowing that students are on top of this, really does help push people in APA toward actual action.

Yeah, thanks for keeping me accountable on it. I'll keep the twitter going this week more than I have been, now that I'm back from APA.

Edit: Oh, the tumblr site was a giant pain; I don't think I can keep that up. The weebly site is much better; I'll try to start posting more actual content on there shortly, and once the undergrad ed web site is up and running there will be much more to see there.

 

[MCParent]

For everyone serious about getting involved, APAGS is searching for new committee members. I was a subcommittee chair for two years and a subcom member before that, and this is an excellent way to get involved and start changing things. It doesn't take a ton of time, and it's great experience (this kind of thing is EXACTLY what most job applicants DON'T have).

***********************

APAGS SUBCOMMITTEE POSITIONS – APPLY TODAY

It’s that time of year again! APAGS has several positions that are now open as a result of previous subcommittee members rotating off. Each of our subcommittees have varying responsibilities and roles. The APAGS' subcommittees include the Committee on Ethnic Minority Affairs (CEMA), the Advocacy Coordinating Team (ACT), the Committee for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Concerns (CLGBTC) and the Convention Committee. For more information on APAGS subcommittees and positions, please visit our website (http://www.apa.org/apags/governance/join/run/application.aspx).

The deadline for applications is Wednesday, September 5th at 12:00PM (EDT).

 

[MCParent]

also, as I've got more time to work on the web site, I'm going to be building more content in. Suggestions on material are welcome! A major theme is going to be application of psychological science to internship and professional issues, so the first thing I'm thinking of is an REBT take on understanding applying for internship and the stress that goes with it (evident in those APPIC free responses). Stuff like that. Contributors welcome ;-)

 

[DynamicDidactic]

a nice guide, backed up by empirical findings, on what to consider when applying to programs as an undergrad.

maybe a "how to" get involved.

 

[MCParent]

Response from the APA Committee on Accreditation to the petition is attached!