PhD/PsyD Question about clinical psychology faculty

[polarbearscafe]

Is quality of training a concern at an APA accredited clinical psychology PhD program if multiple faculty members did not obtain a degree themselves in clinical psychology?

Thank you so much for your input!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Justanothergrad]

No. There are plenty of well regarded clinical programs that have several faculty not trained in clinical. There are much better markers for problematic programs.

 

[polarbearscafe]

No. There are plenty of well regarded clinical programs that have several faculty not trained in clinical. There are much better markers for problematic programs.

Thanks! BTW, what are some of these better markers?

 

[Justanothergrad]

Thanks! BTW, what are some of these better markers?

Match rate at Accredited Internship site
Not being a diploma mill / for profit schools (Argosy, etc.)
License rate
Faculty esteem within the field (i.e., programs with a number of ABPPs or Fellows are going to produce better outcomes)

 

[deleted343839]

Faculty esteem within the field (i.e., programs with a number of ABPPs or Fellows are going to produce better outcomes)

Is that true? I can think of a quite a few successful faculty members who have strong publication and funding records but are neither fellows nor ABPP.

Actually, I would find it a little odd if multiple clinical area core faculty were not trained in clinical or counseling psychology. For affiliated/joint faculty, it doesn't matter.

 

[Justanothergrad]

Is that true? I can think of a quite a few successful faculty members who have strong publication and funding records but are neither fellows nor ABPP.

Actually, I would find it a little odd if multiple clinical area core faculty were not trained in clinical or counseling psychology. For affiliated/joint faculty, it doesn't matter.

I think of it as evidence of but not evidence against. If you see a lot of fellows or ABPP then it is a plus. Like you said, plenty of good folks don't have them as well.

 

[bmedclinic]

also i recall seeing one of the argrosy's that had an ABPP working for them. So, let's not go ABPP carte blanche for a program.

 

[WisNeuro]

also i recall seeing one of the argrosy's that had an ABPP working for them. So, let's not go ABPP carte blanche for a program.

Everyone has a price for which they will sell their integrity

 

[Ollie123]

The bulk of the faculty should probably be clinically trained (though I'm not sure I'd discriminate clinical vs. counseling, etc.), but its not out of the ordinary to have a handful of experimental folks in the clinical section (or vice versa).

ABPP doesn't seem a good marker for anything but neuropsych. We can talk all day about whether or not it should be the standard, but reality is that in many subfields almost no one pursues it and there is absolutely no incentive to do so. Particularly among university-side academics at research universities. I look at the folks at the top of the field in my area and some aren't even licensed. Not a single one is boarded. In fact, the boarded ones are usually less productive (understandable since its geared towards clinicians...)

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Anyone who has an ABPP for neuropsych or rehab psych I trust. I'm less familiar w. the processes and level of rigor of the other specualty areas, but I suspect it isn't a given. That said, compared to the dozens of "mail away" credentials and fake diplomates out there...ABPP is still far far better gauge.

 

[Ollie123]

AABPP is still far far better gauge.

Certainly beats the heck out of the alternates and I'd much rather see ABPP then an alphabet soup of junk. That's because the alphabet soup is worse than nothing though I just don't think number of boarded vs. non-boarded means anything outside of neuropsych. Particularly in the research world, the best departments usually have very few/no boarded faculty (no one wants to give up the research time to bother with it). Pick a topic outside neuro and almost invariably the go-to leaders in the field will not be boarded. Neuro/Rehab created a culture of it even among researchers, but its just not there for the rest of the field.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

Is quality of training a concern at an APA accredited clinical psychology PhD program if multiple faculty members did not obtain a degree themselves in clinical psychology?

I think you ask a very useful question in regards to training program., which does not correspond to a categorical yes/no response. As the previous posters are pointing out, it is difficult to ascertain the quality of clinical training by looking over the credentials of the tenure faculty members. I think the more valid indicators are how much emphasis the program, as a whole, places on clinical training. You can have a program full of ABPPs and clinical psychologists who don't care about practice/training or vice versa.

The potentially more valid manner to asses quality of training is to know the amount of hours programs want you to be doing clinical work, if there is a champion for clinical training within the program, the range of practica opportunities, and the types of supervisors available. The core faculty may teach the classes but most of my clinical training did not come from core faculty.

With that said, if the program has 1 clinical psychologist and 10 non-clinical psychologists, I would be concerned as to the importance that program places on clinical training.

 

[bmedclinic]

For the sake of discussion, is there a single metric more important than APA internship match rate? I guess you could make a case for EPPP pass rate, but I'd think APA match rate would be far more discriminating than EPPP pass rate. I cant think of anything closer to a successful outcome measure (not that matching to an APA internship means someone's career will be successful, etc).

 

[WisNeuro]

For the sake of discussion, is there a single metric more important than APA internship match rate? I guess you could make a case for EPPP pass rate, but I'd think APA match rate would be far more discriminating than EPPP pass rate. I cant think of anything closer to a successful outcome measure (not that matching to an APA internship means someone's career will be successful, etc).

Debt load would be my #1. That's an instant dis-qualifier. After that I'll look at accredited match rates and other stats.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

For the sake of discussion, is there a single metric more important than APA internship match rate? I guess you could make a case for EPPP pass rate, but I'd think APA match rate would be far more discriminating than EPPP pass rate. .

For me, the real issue is these indicators are most likely not an indicator of the quality of training. EPPP score most likely represent the test taking abilities of the individual (since very little on that test is taught in clinical programs). Match rates most likely indicate the respectability of the program and the quality of the individual trainee. Neither one of these tell us the quality of training of a program.

But as a very thin proxy, I guess match rates may suffice. But I stick by my previous post if someone were interested in actually finding a program that provides a high level of clinical training.

 

[ClinicalABA]

Back when I was faculty in an APA internship program, i don't remember ever having discussions about the training areas of the faculty in applicants grad programs. Never came up. It would be difficult data to compile and use for evaluation and prediction. I wouldn't worry about it DIRECTLY negatively impacting internship competitiveness. If you are considering a clinical program with many non clinical faculty, you should ask who does the clinical training (adjuncts? community based therapists leading clinical teams?) and where (dept based training clinic? Affiliated community clinic?).

In regards to using APA internship rates as a measure of programs- it's an important metric, for sure. Remember, though, that its reported as a percentage. You should most definitely look at the numbers that go into that percentage. In smaller programs, there may only be 4 or 5 applicants per year, and one person not getting an internship can change a percentage by 20-25 points. I'd suggest that for such programs- which are likely mentor model- the match rates for the specific mentor are more important. For the 4 years I was at my program, we had 100% overall match one year, and 3 years where 1 student didn't match (out of ~5 applicants). Non-matched students came exclusively from one mentor. Outcome was predictable- emphasis on qualitative (actually narrative) research for diss; a lot of "therapist as client" stuff- applying to highly competitive internships in northeast metro areas.

Look at trends and relationships between mentors and specific internships as well. Certain mentors send a steady stream of interns to certain placements. Similarly, placements will look to specific mentors for future interns. In my program, our mentors "groomed" us for specific internships. I was introduced to internship faculty at conferences, encouraged to join and volunteer for SIGS where internship faculty were involved, included on research projects/chapters/symposia/ etc. that were in line with the work of these internship faculty. I knew about such things when I applied. Ask prospective mentors what there past students did for internship, postdoc, and career. Look for trends and patterns.

 

[bmedclinic]

good points dynamic and wisneuro.