New Proposed APA Accreditation Policies

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
KillerDiller

KillerDiller

Full Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2007
Messages
1,563
Reaction score
58
Points
4,641
Location
East Coast
  1. Psychologist
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
The APA is seeking comments on two proposed regulations regarding distance learning and telesupervision. The proposals and the venue for comments can be found here http://apaoutside.apa.org/AccredSurvey/public/ .

I figured people on this board would surely be interested in sharing their opinions.
 
My favorite comments:
Posted by: Michael Spellman
Representing: Behavioral Health Management Consultants
Role in Group: CEO
Members in Group: 11
Date Edited: 12/23/2009
Comments:
As an employer of psychologists I was in favor of psychology taking the initiative to allow and promote distance learning. In my role as employer, practice consultant, and chief of service at local hospitals I have now worked with quite a few distance trained psychologists. With hard data available, I have changed my mind. True, each of the distance trained doctors I know has an admirable grasp of most of the underlying knowledge of our field. They consistently have lacked, to worrisome levels, in three key ways: 1) They are inadequately professionalized. That is, they do not know what it means to think like and be a psychologist. As a result they conduct themselves in ways that make the profession seem unpredictable and unreliable. Moreover, although they know the ethics code, they process ethical decisions in ways that are worrisome. 2) Only one of them was competent in projective testing which, in many states, is the only function that distinguished us from other mental health professionals. 3) Although it has not been the case for all, perhaps because they trained in psych after a stint in the business world, a disproportionate number of the distance trained psychologists I know are willing to market themselves, negotiate fees, and structure treatment plans on business rather than clinical bases. I hope APA does not accredit distance learning centers. Distance learning is not a viable mode in which to train professionals.


Posted by: Lamar Hedley
Representing: Individual
Date Edited: 12/23/2009
Comments:
In order to survive in reputable fashion, APA must emphasize only the very highest in training standards for its accredited programs. APS is already mounting a large and powerful campaign to begin a new accreditation system that focuses on science-based education, which yet again reflects the schism within our field. The proliferation of professional school graduates and inadequate number of APA-approved internships should be alarming to everyone in our field, and any movement that leads to an increased number of "online" doctoral programs that further increases the number of doctoral graduates and internship shortages should be stopped in its tracks. Credible medical school education does not occur in an online environment, and clinical psychology is all about human interaction. The scientist-practitioner mentor model has been the sine qua non of our field and has produced scores of highly qualified, well-trained, and ethical psychologists. The experiences of classroom instruction, interaction with peers, staff, and mentors in a clinical training environment cannot be replicated in an online environment. While some specific courses may be amenable to distance learning, the number of these should be limited in any doctoral level program. Our field and our organization have a responsibility to the public and to our patients, and we must strive to maintain the highest possible standards for clinical training, to be on par with or exceed our medical colleagues.


Posted by: Philip Lanzisera
Representing: Individual
Date Edited: 12/23/2009
Comments:
Distance education cannot substitute for the kinds of faculty-student interaction that are necessary to foster the development of a psychologist. As the director of an accredited internship program, I would be loathe to accept any candidate from such a program. There is a place for distance learning. For example a student in a traditional program may want to take a specific course offered on-line at a differen institution with the approval of her or his program director. Technology can be very helpful in education. "Virtual patients" can help develop specific skills. Still, there is no substitute for contact with real people. The community atmosphere that develops when faculty and graduate students are in one place over a long period of time is a critical component in the development of a psychologist. Just as I doubt a virtual mother could substitute for a real mother, I doubt a virtual or distance mentor can substitute for someone you truly sit down with and discuss one's thoughts and hunches.


Did you notce most of the people who are in favor of this are from bottom of the barrel online programs, like walden
 
The first and third comments above are very astute obesrvations, particularly the 1st. I have tried to raise these issues with proponets of online doctoral training, but they simply dont get it. Actually, thats the most alarming fact about it, they just cant get it! When they hear these arguments, they dismiss them outright and give some garbage about not wanting to be conformists (or about how I'm a conformist) and how brick and mortar is soooo last century....:laugh:

What they dont realize is that the past of least resistance is also the path least respected and that that not everyone has the right to do everything--- a notion that is pervasive in our culture today. Guess, what if you cant get in to a program, you cant get into a program, sorry. If you are geographically flexible and cant put in the time commitment for a ph.d program, you dont go to ph.d program, simple as that. The fact that APA even needs to have this debate is embarrassing to the field. Although I have scrupples with APS's not so subtle disdain for the practitioner part of the profession (something ill never understand btw), at least they are trying to raise the bar for a field suffering from lack of repsect and market flooding rather than lower it. I simply can not understand a rationale for lowering standards and producing more doctoral psychs? Is that what the profession needs.....really?
 
Last edited:
How on earth would you train someone in, say, clinical interviewing online?
 
Thanks for posting this, KillerDiller. I don't have a problem with occasional use of Telesupervision, but online programs...yuck. edieb's pasted comments say it all. I'd like to see some of the people who posted on the comment page who said online programs are "equal" sit in on a week in my program and see how they do.
 
Why don't you post your comments on the link?
 
cara susanna said:
How on earth would you train someone in, say, clinical interviewing online?
Click to expand...

Magic. 😉 Seriously, though, I think the training required in clinical/counseling/school psych just can't be replicated online, and I don't know why the APA is even considering that it can/should be offered in this format. Purely didactic coursework maybe (I'm taking a purely didactic course online, for example, to fulfill a pre-req not offered by my university) but not the applied clinical and research training required in psych.
 
erg923 said:
The first and third comments above are very astute obesrvations, particularly the 1st. I have tried to raise these issues with proponets of online doctoral training, but they simply dont get it. Actually, thats the most alarming fact about it, they just cant get it! When they hear these arguments, they dismiss them outright and give some garbage about not wanting to be conformists (or about how I'm a conformist) and how brick and mortar is soooo last century....:laugh:

What they dont realize is that the past of least resistance is also the path least respected and that that not everyone has the right to do everything--- a notion that is pervasive in our culture today. Guess, what if you cant get in to a program, you cant get into a program, sorry. If you are geographically flexible and cant put in the time commitment for a ph.d program, you dont go to ph.d program, simple as that. The fact that APA even needs to have this debate is embarrassing to the field. Although I have scrupples with APS's not so subtle disdain for the practitioner part of the profession (something ill never understand btw), at least they are trying to raise the bar for a field suffering from lack of repsect and market flooding rather than lower it. I simply can not understand a rationale for lowering standards and producing more doctoral psychs? Is that what the profession needs.....really?
Click to expand...


Can you imagine the gravity the internship position will plunge into if we start accrediting online programs? It seems unfair that students who were able to obtain spots and make sacrifices to attend brick-and-mortar univeristies will have to compete with people who were unwilling to quit their day job while completing their doctorate.

If I recall correctly, all of the comments supporting online accreditation were posted by students from Walden, an online, unaccredited PhD program. It makes me wonder if these online schools are encouraging their students to comment in favor of this nut job proposal!
 
edieb said:
Can you imagine the gravity the internship position will plunge into if we start accrediting online programs? It seems unfair that students who were able to obtain spots and make sacrifices to attend brick-and-mortar univeristies will have to compete with people who were unwilling to quit their day job while completing their doctorate.

If I recall correctly, all of the comments supporting online accreditation were posted by students from Walden, an online, unaccredited PhD program. It makes me wonder if these online schools are encouraging their students to comment in favor of this nut job proposal!
Click to expand...

The second paragraph was pretty much what I was thinking when reading the comments.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Soon enough, there will be no more attending class (physically) in high school, college, or grad school
 
I TAed an online course this semester and it really showed me that it just isn't the same as an in-person class.
 
Just to play devil's advocate, I wonder if allowing APA accreditation for online programs might be a way to sort of forceably raise their standards. They are going to exist whether we like it or not, and if it becomes possible for high quality sites to become APA approved it will be much harder for the low quality sites to compete with them. In some ways it could be viewed as a way for the APA to control distance learning.

Not necesarily saying I think it's a good idea, just that it might not be quite black and white.
 
PsychPhDStudent said:
Thanks for posting this, KillerDiller. I don't have a problem with occasional use of Telesupervision, but online programs...yuck. edieb's pasted comments say it all. I'd like to see some of the people who posted on the comment page who said online programs are "equal" sit in on a week in my program and see how they do.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that part really gets me too. There are all these comments about how online education is more rigorous because brick and mortar institutions only require students to show up to class to get an A. If such traditional programs exist, why don't we just focus on revoking their accreditation?

Then there are several commenters who compare their online doctorate to their undergraduate courses. Wow, if these programs are more rigorous than an average undergraduate course, of course they deserve to be accredited 🙄.
 
KillerDiller said:
Then there are several commenters who compare their online doctorate to their undergraduate courses. Wow, if these programs are more rigorous than an average undergraduate course, of course they deserve to be accredited 🙄.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think the quote was saying that the online program was more rigorous than their local community college.
:smack:

As someone who is considering entering this field, the fact that this debate is even happening is disheartening. I feel like no medical school largely based on distance learning will ever be accredited by the AMA. Why would our profession shoot itself in the foot? Again? No patient would ever want to see a medical doctor trained online, and I feel like very few people would want therapy from someone who received most of their training online. I would even wager that many people would much rather see a masters level clinician from a respected brick and mortar institution than a Walden grad.

Not helping ourselves here, are we?
 
Last edited:
FadedC said:
Just to play devil's advocate, I wonder if allowing APA accreditation for online programs might be a way to sort of forceably raise their standards. They are going to exist whether we like it or not, and if it becomes possible for high quality sites to become APA approved it will be much harder for the low quality sites to compete with them. In some ways it could be viewed as a way for the APA to control distance learning.

Not necesarily saying I think it's a good idea, just that it might not be quite black and white.
Click to expand...

My response to this is that I don't care how much competition there is among online programs. It doesn't affect me. What I do care about is setting some standards for our profession. It's already too easy for students to graduate from APA accredited institutions without proper training in evidence-based treatments. Although I think that many psych classes can probably be taught online, I don't see how it's possible for online institutions to ensure their graduates have adequate practicum and research experiences. I mean, how can they control what is happening at training sites spread across the country?
 
futureapppsy2 said:
Magic. 😉 Seriously, though, I think the training required in clinical/counseling/school psych just can't be replicated online, and I don't know why the APA is even considering that it can/should be offered in this format. Purely didactic coursework maybe (I'm taking a purely didactic course online, for example, to fulfill a pre-req not offered by my university) but not the applied clinical and research training required in psych.
Click to expand...

I have only taken one class online, so I am clearly not an expert on online education. However, I found the class to be rigorous and rewarding. With that said, I agree that clinical and research training cannot be effectively taught online. I agree that intro/foundational courses based on readings and writing papers could function well in online format. I've taken clinical and research training courses and it is difficult for me to comprehend how it could even be taught online. I haven't taken video conferencing courses, but I think those could be more effective and a more viable option as opposed to online courses. But of course, face to face learning would be best.
 
KillerDiller said:
My response to this is that I don't care how much competition there is among online programs. It doesn't affect me. What I do care about is setting some standards for our profession. It's already too easy for students to graduate from APA accredited institutions without proper training in evidence-based treatments. Although I think that many psych classes can probably be taught online, I don't see how it's possible for online institutions to ensure their graduates have adequate practicum and research experiences. I mean, how can they control what is happening at training sites spread across the country?
Click to expand...

Well I think you misread my comment, I wasn't talking about how much competition there is in online programs (in fact I have no clue about that). I was just saying that it's possible that accrediting high quality programs might be a way to force programs to become high quality or go out of business. If this worked (and I'm not necesarily saying it would) this would up the standards for our profession, which you seem to agree is a good thing.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I urge everyone on this board to **POST** their comments in the Public Comments section of the proposal. Those comments will be taken into consideration on whether or not to adopt the online accreditation proposal!
 
FadedC said:
Well I think you misread my comment, I wasn't talking about how much competition there is in online programs (in fact I have no clue about that). I was just saying that it's possible that accrediting high quality programs might be a way to force programs to become high quality or go out of business. If this worked (and I'm not necesarily saying it would) this would up the standards for our profession, which you seem to agree is a good thing.
Click to expand...

However, the APA has accredited Fielding, which uses a "distributed learning" model. That has not led these programs to adopt similar models or to change what they offer. I think there will always be a demand for doctoral degrees if they are offered in an accomodating format. So I don't know that online schools will step up their standards just because some of them become accredited.

That being said, my comment was more to say that I don't care even if that does occur. I don't see how the best of the online programs can adequately control the quality of the training. So, pulling programs up to a lower bar still requires lowering the bar in the first place.
 
Psych528 said:
I have only taken one class online, so I am clearly not an expert on online education. However, I found the class to be rigorous and rewarding. With that said, I agree that clinical and research training cannot be effectively taught online. I agree that intro/foundational courses based on readings and writing papers could function well in online format. I've taken clinical and research training courses and it is difficult for me to comprehend how it could even be taught online. I haven't taken video conferencing courses, but I think those could be more effective and a more viable option as opposed to online courses. But of course, face to face learning would be best.
Click to expand...

I have taken one class with a video conferencing component, and there were lots of technology and general logistics associated difficulties, at least in that case.
 
Last edited:
The 1 online course I was forced to take in another degree program was the single biggest waste of time I've ever encountered. The technology was glitchy, the disconnect between the professor and the students was evident, and the class time was marred with frustration and discussions about technology problems.

I have posted at length my opposition to online classes, and when I have some more time this weekend, I'll draft a response for the APA article and also post it here.

I would STRONGLY encourage any user who wants to protect our profession to publicly post their responses at the website linked above. While I don't agree with APS' practice bias, they have a point about standards. We need to increase our standards, instead of wash them away under the veil of, "progress in technology".

Also, if you teach, PLEASE do not teach any online classes, because that will encourage this delivery method, which is not good for our field.
 
Are any of you as shaken up about this as I am? Usually, when I get a little temporal distance from something, I gain some perspective and it doesn't look so bad. This looks worse. A lot of the comments on that board are from mental health counselors talking about how this will level the playing field for them... WTF?

I started in a mental health counselor program because I wanted to take the easy way out. I didn't want to have to study for the GRE to earn above a 1000. I didn't want to court good letters of reference, etc. My classmates were largely of the same mind. However, the coursework in my program was SO mindnumbingly pointless -- ZERO courses on diagnosis, emprically supported therapy, stats, research, psychopathhology, etc It was all focused on supportive therapy -- basically a fly by the seat of your pants approach to dealing with the patients -- which is sad because nobody ever gets better.

In sum, there was no comparison between my university PhD clinical program and my 4 month stint in mymental health counseling progrma in terms of course content, difficulty, et cetera. I can't belief an MHC would think theire coursework is commensurate to ours....... I barely feel competent and know there is much more to learn after spending 7 years in my PhD program that was very rigorous, how can they feel competent after 2 years including a "supervised internship"

Even more importantly, what wll this do to our salaries, the internship situation and respect we garner in the field? Hi, I am Dr. XYZ, I graduated from University of the Rockies Online, lol.
 
APA has already implemented a policy that states that programs using distance learning are eligible to be accredited. The proposed regulation is an attempt to refine the existing guidelines not to decide whether DL programs should be accredited. This proposal does not address whether non-traditional programs should be accredited. APA has already made that decision.
 
Neuropsych2be said:
APA has already implemented a policy that states that programs using distance learning are eligible to be accredited. The proposed regulation is an attempt to refine the existing guidelines not to decide whether DL programs should be accredited. This proposal does not address whether non-traditional programs should be accredited. APA has already made that decision.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I already sorta knew that going into this and have educated myself over the course of the day. I figure that this process of refining the policy is as good a time as any to raise these issues, however.
 
I don't think I will be renewing my APA membership this year. I know, they are our advocates, but they are not in line with me. I will have to see what APS has to offer.
 
irish80122 said:
I don't think I will be renewing my APA membership this year. I know, they are our advocates, but they are not in line with me. I will have to see what APS has to offer.
Click to expand...

I'm in this boat, too. It sure doesn't seem like the APA is on our side. Actually, it seems more like a political trojan horse than anything else.
 
irish80122 said:
I don't think I will be renewing my APA membership this year. I know, they are our advocates, but they are not in line with me. I will have to see what APS has to offer.
Click to expand...

APA in general is a very poor advocate for the profession. It is a highly bureaucratic yet disorganized institution. There is no comparison between the effectiveness of the APA and the NASW, the social work association. APA could learn many lessons from NASW about grass-roots organization, mobilizing membership, lobbying political forces, pushing legislation etc... I am not a student affiliate with APA because of this. I am considering joining the APS as a student affiliate instead because it is more consistent with what I believe the profession needs.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I have to chuckle at all these folks who seem to basically live on these fora, yet are finding reasons to rage against distance education. :laugh:

I took Abnormal Psychology as a distance learning class. Most of the class failed miserably. Those of us who worked hard, and it was more difficult than any off-line class I had ever taken (that includes Calculus 1 through 3 and a slew of undergraduate computer science courses and graduate courses - some of which I took at Columbia University where I was working on an MS), received an "A." The rest complained a lot and a few even cried after taking some of the tests. Heck, Columbia University has an entire distance education department for some of their advanced degrees now.

Assuming a program is only easier just because distance is involved is ignorance, pure and simple. With the right standards, it can be easily as rigorous or more rigorous than an off-line course. I think the APA is making the right move here, and with the right oversight it can be a great thing.

Shouldn't some of you folks be writing letters to one another using quills and inkwells instead of using something as controversial as a computer? 🙄 :meanie:
 
QueueCumber said:
I have to chuckle at all these folks who seem to basically live on these fora, yet are finding reasons to rage against distance education. :laugh:

I took Abnormal Psychology as a distance learning class. Most of the class failed miserably. Those of us who worked hard, and it was more difficult than any off-line class I had ever taken (that includes Calculus 1 through 3 and a slew of undergraduate computer science courses and graduate courses - some of which I took at Columbia University where I was working on an MS), received an "A." The rest complained a lot and a few even cried after taking some of the tests. Heck, Columbia University has an entire distance education department for some of their advanced degrees now.

Assuming a program is only easier just because distance is involved is ignorance, pure and simple. With the right standards, it can be easily as rigorous or more rigorous than an off-line course. I think the APA is making the right move here, and with the right oversight it can be a great thing.

Shouldn't some of you folks be writing letters to one another using quills and inkwells instead of using something as controversial as a computer? 🙄 :meanie:
Click to expand...


I can understand that online classes might be as demanding as regular classes.. especially when it's all theory. But how can you possible teach clinical skills online? How do you learn? APA accreditation involves exactly this, programs that have things such as 'practicums' and 'supervision'
Of course it would be more comfortable to take online classes. Heck I would prefer it. But I don't think I would learn anything else than theory. Maybe I'm missing something.
 
I believe most of these programs do actually require a large chunk of both field work and time spent on in person training in a classroom. I think they still end up with a lot fewer hours of experience before their internship though (and generally no research experience).
 
terpskins10 said:
Soon enough, there will be no more attending class (physically) in high school, college, or grad school
Click to expand...

Perish the thought! There is a place for technology but not at the expense of face-to-face human interaction.

And, giving doctorates in psychology to people who only attended online schools is asking for trouble. There will be a higher than usual number of individuals in those programs who have mental illnesses related to social interaction: social phobia, avoidant personality disorder, etc. . . . I would hate to see these individuals go through their programs only to falter when they have go on internships. (BTW, I'm not saying everyone with these disorders would falter.)
 
QueueCumber said:
I have to chuckle at all these folks who seem to basically live on these fora, yet are finding reasons to rage against distance education. :laugh:

I took Abnormal Psychology as a distance learning class. Most of the class failed miserably. Those of us who worked hard, and it was more difficult than any off-line class I had ever taken (that includes Calculus 1 through 3 and a slew of undergraduate computer science courses and graduate courses - some of which I took at Columbia University where I was working on an MS), received an "A." The rest complained a lot and a few even cried after taking some of the tests. Heck, Columbia University has an entire distance education department for some of their advanced degrees now.

Assuming a program is only easier just because distance is involved is ignorance, pure and simple. With the right standards, it can be easily as rigorous or more rigorous than an off-line course. I think the APA is making the right move here, and with the right oversight it can be a great thing.

Shouldn't some of you folks be writing letters to one another using quills and inkwells instead of using something as controversial as a computer? 🙄:meanie:
Click to expand...


 Although you may have had a positive experience taking that class, most, if not all, graduate level work simply cannot be done over the internet. Even if most of your classmates performed poorly, there is no way to be certain whether that is because of their own lack of discipline or due to the coursework. I’m inclined to believe that most of the distance learning programs lack the rigorous nature of the classes offered at brick-and-mortar institutions.

You cannot learn how to conduct a clinical interview online. You cannot learn how to interact with patients or clients online. You cannot interact with professors or experts in the field the same way a person would be able to in a regular university. All of this requires in-person experience. It’s the experience of education in addition to the quality of coursework that is important. Is it really a service to the profession to make admission standards so lax and entry into the profession so easy?

There may be some exceptions, where only a few classes may be offered online while the rest are required to be taken in person. That’s a different story.
 
QueueCumber said:
Shouldn't some of you folks be writing letters to one another using quills and inkwells instead of using something as controversial as a computer? 🙄 :meanie:
Click to expand...

We've been over this here before. Coursework is a relatively small part of graduate training. Online coursework is probably not ideal for certain types of classes, but the bigger concern is the other oh, 75-80% of a doctorate that comes from being immersed in a multitude of different research and clinical settings, all of which are closely managed/observed by the program for quality control.
 
I'm astonished by the number of neo-Luddites inhabiting this forum...

I suggest sending recommendations for actual protocols to the APA rather than whining about it here. No online programs even exist yet. The only program even close to an online program requires extensive in-person hours (clinical and residential). I'm not sure what people are even complaining about except their own imagined fears. I don't see how people plan on helping others change when they can't even change their own misguided biases! If you are afraid for the future of your chosen field, then look within yourself first or you may be the reason this field has no future. 😀
 
QueueCumber said:
I'm astonished by the number of neo-Luddites inhabiting this forum...

I suggest sending recommendations for actual protocols to the APA rather than whining about it here. No online programs even exist yet. The only program even close to an online program requires extensive in-person hours (clinical and residential). I'm not sure what people are even complaining about except their own imagined fears. I don't see how people plan on helping others change when they can't even change their own misguided biases! If you are afraid for the future of your chosen field, then look within yourself first or you may be the reason this field has no future. 😀
Click to expand...

Of course there are fears about the quality of the programs and their students. And I am sure these fears are not 'imagined'. We were not whining, we were only responding to your comment. A lot of us actually contacted the APA about this issue. If the programs were realistically possible and of quality (at this time) I bet a lot of us would register; but how can you compare in-person programs to online ones? Let's say the supervision and clinical hours are in person. Even some research. Nothing can be compared to in-class discussions. Yes, I know, you can do those online. But we don't have the technology to do this in a quality manner. How about just day-to-day interactions with your peers, advisor, other professors? Informal discussions about research? It's not about biases - most of us are pretty young and are used to the technology. It's about missing out on the things that enrich grad life and educate you.

P.S. I am a computer nerd and I would love this possibility. But I am also true to myself in admitting that we are not there yet. I don't know if we will ever be.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Blue86 said:
Of course there are fears about the quality of the programs and their students. And I am sure these fears are not 'imagined'. We were not whining, we were only responding to your comment. A lot of us actually contacted the APA about this issue. If the programs were realistically possible and of quality (at this time) I bet a lot of us would register; but how can you compare in-person programs to online ones? Let's say the supervision and clinical hours are in person. Even some research. Nothing can be compared to in-class discussions. Yes, I know, you can do those online. But we don't have the technology to do this in a quality manner. How about just day-to-day interactions with your peers, advisor, other professors? Informal discussions about research? It's not about biases - most of us are pretty young and are used to the technology. It's about missing out on the things that enrich grad life and educate you.

P.S. I am a computer nerd and I would love this possibility. But I am also true to myself in admitting that we are not there yet. I don't know if we will ever be.
Click to expand...

Well, I disagree and I've participated in both off-line and online classes... 😉
 
Ollie123 said:
We've been over this here before. Coursework is a relatively small part of graduate training. Online coursework is probably not ideal for certain types of classes, but the bigger concern is the other oh, 75-80% of a doctorate that comes from being immersed in a multitude of different research and clinical settings, all of which are closely managed/observed by the program for quality control.
Click to expand...

There is a bit of a straw man argument happening in these arguments. Classes are touted as rigorous and a core area of training, while the "other" training is minimized. People who have completed traditional programs know that classroom training is only a small part of the actual training. Outside of class there are countless meetings with faculty members and research teams (formal and informal), consultation with other students, lab time, study groups, review sessions, mock assessment cases, lunch seminars, etc.

When face-to-face contact is brought up, the answer is the "residential seminars" that most of the programs offer. I was curious to see just how involved these seminars are, so I looked up an online program, and here is what I found:

Saybrook Online Clinical Psychology program's on campus meeting schedule for 1st year students.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Fall Semester 2009
  • Residential Orientation and Conference I September 12-19, 2009
  • Residential Weekend Oct. 10-11, 2009
  • Residential Weekend Nov. 14-15, 2009
  • Residential Weekend Dec. 12-13, 2009
  • Residential Conference II Jan. 9-16, 2010

Spring Semester 2010
  • Residential Weekend March 13-14, 2010
  • Residential Weekend April 10-11, 2010
  • Residential Weekend May 1-2, 2010
  • Residential Weekend June 5-6, 2010
  • Residential Conference III July 10-17, 2010
--------------------------------------------------------------------
It looks like 40 total days, which includes orientation time, is the equivalent amount of time they have allocated to meet equivalency of the first year at traditional programs. This also assumes each day is a full day, which most likely isn't the case.

For argument's sake, let's say the first week is orientation and some talk about various therapies. The next few meetings can be used to learn assessments. Let's start with the basics: WISC / WAIS / WMS / Woodcock-Johnson / etc. Looking back on your assessment training, who would feel comfortable learning these in a weekend? Add in learning all of the research behind them, practice administering the sub-tests, AND accurately scoring them? I know when I learned these assessments it took me awhile. We started with the WISC, and it took awhile to really feel comfortable with the assessments. Also, the understanding needs to be at the doctoral level, and not as a technician, because interpretation is only as good as your foundational knowledge of the assessment.

This is just one small area, let alone classes like Interviewing, Projective Assessment, etc.
 
Therapist4Chnge said:
There is a bit of a straw man argument happening in these arguments. Classes are touted as rigorous and a core area of training, while the "other" training is minimized. People who have completed traditional programs know that classroom training is only a small part of the actual training. Outside of class there are countless meetings with faculty members and research teams (formal and informal), consultation with other students, lab time, study groups, review sessions, mock assessment cases, lunch seminars, etc.

When face-to-face contact is brought up, the answer is the "residential seminars" that most of the programs offer. I was curious to see just how involved these seminars are, so I looked up an online program, and here is what I found:

Saybrook Online Clinical Psychology program's on campus meeting schedule for 1st year students.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Fall Semester 2009
  • Residential Orientation and Conference I September 12-19, 2009
  • Residential Weekend Oct. 10-11, 2009
  • Residential Weekend Nov. 14-15, 2009
  • Residential Weekend Dec. 12-13, 2009
  • Residential Conference II Jan. 9-16, 2010

Spring Semester 2010
  • Residential Weekend March 13-14, 2010
  • Residential Weekend April 10-11, 2010
  • Residential Weekend May 1-2, 2010
  • Residential Weekend June 5-6, 2010
  • Residential Conference III July 10-17, 2010
--------------------------------------------------------------------
It looks like 40 total days, which includes orientation time, is the equivalent amount of time they have allocated to meet equivalency of the first year at traditional programs. This also assumes each day is a full day, which most likely isn't the case.

For argument's sake, let's say the first week is orientation and some talk about various therapies. The next few meetings can be used to learn assessments. Let's start with the basics: WISC / WAIS / WMS / Woodcock-Johnson / etc. Looking back on your assessment training, who would feel comfortable learning these in a weekend? Add in learning all of the research behind them, practice administering the sub-tests, AND accurately scoring them? I know when I learned these assessments it took me awhile. We started with the WISC, and it took awhile to really feel comfortable with the assessments. Also, the understanding needs to be at the doctoral level, and not as a technician, because interpretation is only as good as your foundational knowledge of the assessment.

This is just one small area, let alone classes like Interviewing, Projective Assessment, etc.
Click to expand...

So it may be useful for you to define what you feel is adequate time to digest this material in your response to the APA's request for comments; that may help them define protocols that would give these new programs credibility. That would be more constructive than simply writing online programs off completely. 👍
 
QueueCumber said:
So it may be useful for you to define what you feel is adequate time to digest this material in your response to the APA's request for comments; that may help them define protocols that would give these new programs credibility. That would be more constructive than simply writing online programs off completely. 👍
Click to expand...
Honestly, I don't think there is a way to design a curriculum that meets the training standards of traditional programs, since many traditional programs are still lacking in certain areas. I think more training is needed to develop a complete clinician, but that has been pushed off on internship and post-docs, which some people are foregoing.....which is a scary thought.
 
Therapist4Chnge said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------

It looks like 40 total days, which includes orientation time, is the equivalent amount of time they have allocated to meet equivalency of the first year at traditional programs. This also assumes each day is a full day, which most likely isn't the case.
Click to expand...

Well I suspect their reasoning is that it's about 320 hours of class time. In terms of pure class time that's actually probably not all that far off from the time most first years spend in class. Of course there is no way you can digest as much information when it's as concentrated as that and you aren't studying on your own after every 2 hour class.
 
No, the MCAT measures different abilities than are required in graduate school for psychology. However, the training is similar in that hands-on experiences are extremely necessary. Why is it okay for therapists to be trained online but not doctors?
 
cara susanna said:
No, the MCAT measures different abilities than are required in graduate school for psychology. However, the training is similar in that hands-on experiences are extremely necessary. Why is it okay for therapists to be trained online but not doctors?
Click to expand...

You are comparing apples to oranges. If you want to be a medical doctor you are going into the wrong field. Clinical psychology is not as exact of a science. Likewise, there is no reason why a portion of a medical school program can't be online as long as other portions are not. No one is talking about putting entire programs online exclusively. The point is, to define a reasonable online and off-line balance.

As it stands now, there are a handful of two year degrees that easily take the place of the clinical side of a clinical psychology degree. These programs are run the same way as the first two years of a clinical psychology PsyD; in fact, they are often almost completely transferable between a school's MA and PsyD program. Formal clinical experience is garnered in off-site practicum/externships and internships in pretty much every program. So the only thing people can really be arguing here is that classes shouldn't be taught online. As someone who has taken online classes and off-line classes, I can tell you that in my experience online classes are harder in order to make up for a lack of in-class component. At this point it seems to me that I am dealing with people who have contempt prior to investigation. It may be wise to define how
rigorous online courses should be in the request for comments as well, if people fear it will be too easy.

It is simple, figure out what would be a reasonable amount of clinical, hands-on experience, and put it in the APA request for comments. Make a positive contribution! 🙂
 
Last edited:
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MCParent
APA no longer enforcing diversity criteria for accreditation
Replies
40
Views
9K
WisNeuro
WisNeuro
Sanman
New proposed HIPAA EHR rules
Replies
3
Views
1K
PsyDr
PsyDr
Neurocaterpillar
VA Neuropsychology Post doc - with APA accreditation on contingency
Replies
12
Views
2K
Neurocaterpillar
Neurocaterpillar
EnPsychlopedia
So…APA has granted its first master’s program accreditation and it’s concerning
2
Replies
57
Views
11K
Sanman
Sanman
E
Is APA accreditation on contingency hard to get?
Replies
1
Views
1K
AcronymAllergy
AcronymAllergy
Top Bottom