Internship Imbalance V2.0: Program Disparities in Unmatched Intern Applicants

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

Therapist4Chnge

Neuropsych Ninja
Moderator Emeritus
Verified Member
Faculty
Verified Expert
15+ Year Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2006
Messages
22,380
Reaction score
4,315
Internship Imbalance V1.0 can be found HERE.

I came across an interesting study in Training and Education in Prof. Psychology that takes a deeper look into the match statistics.

Abstract: Predoctoral internship represents an important capstone in the training of clinical and counseling psychologists. However, in the past decade there has been growing concern over the number of applicants to internship who have not been matched to an internship site. We investigated the scope of the internship match problem by assessing program-level contributions to the number of unmatched internship applicants. Results from analysis of the 2000–2006 internship match report indicated that 15 programs (less than 4% of the total number of programs under analysis) contributed over 30% of the unmatched applicants for that same time period. Suggestions are made for implementing new policies aimed at limiting future internship site supply–demand disparities and ensuring quality internship placements.

Parent, M. C., & Williamson, J. B. (2010). Program Disparities in Unmatched Internship Applicants, Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 4, 116-120.
Members don't see this ad.
 
"Of the 15 unequal contributors, 14 were PsyD programs and one was a PhD program. All but one were APA accredited as of July 2009."

The obvious question is, which programs? Though the paper doesn't do so, it wouldn't be difficult to identify them--just take the APPIC data and find a set of 14 PsyD programs and one PhD that had 4808 internship applicants between 2000 and 2006 (mean 320.53 applicants during this time * 15 programs) and an average match rate of 59.81% during that span. There are some obvious candidates for producing classes that large with match rates that low, and a limited number of permutations of them. Programs with these stats deserve to be identified in all their glory.
 
^

Yes, but, IMO, one of the ways the field could deal with the problem is to find out what programs are disproportionately contributing to the match imbalance and then try to ameliorate it by addressing those issues at those specific programs/types of programs (most likely through stricter accredition requirements and/or decreases in cohort size [as previously suggested by T4C], but that would require actual action on the part of the APA).

Edited: To be clear, I didn't mean naming the specific schools but rather giving more info on the type of school (e.g., stand-alone v. university-based, cohort size, etc).
 
Last edited:
Members don't see this ad :)
Good article. Necessary article. I have mixed feelings on calling out individual schools. While I grow weary of the complete lack of accountability they are assigned in the internship debacle, I'm not sure how much it adds in this situation. Most folks with any knowledge/experience in the field probably have a decent idea who they are anyways. if it was calling out specific APA schools. Its also worth noting that this is an APA journal. APA has often let politics trump science, and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they refused to let specific accredited schools get called out in the interest of protecting them.
 
While not naming the programs is kind of burying one's head in the sand, I guess anonymity of research subjects to protect their reputations isn't that foreign of a concept.
 
The point of the article as I read it was to change the focus of attention to the problem away from "this is a problem for everyone" to "a few programs contribute unevenly to the problem." Naming the programs seems counterproductive to me because (a) it would probably just generate more of that politic-y "we're in this together" stuff, and (b) the problem schools could easily change in one or two years, making the info quickly outdated. It's trivial to find the programs with the match report--and I'm guessing everyone already knows which ones they are anyway.
 
jnine said:
While not naming the programs is kind of burying one's head in the sand, I guess anonymity of research subjects to protect their reputations isn't that foreign of a concept.
Click to expand...
To be clear, I didn't mean naming the specific schools but rather giving more info on the type of school (e.g., stand-alone v. university-based, cohort size, etc).
 
I think the article confirms what a lot of folks on the forum have been saying--that the problem isn't a some big, profession-wide thing to be kumbayaed away, but rather pretty endemic to a small number of programs that negatively impact the rest of us that should be isolated and remedied.
 
JockNerd said:
I think the article confirms what a lot of folks on the forum have been saying--that the problem isn't a some big, profession-wide thing to be kumbayaed away, but rather pretty endemic to a small number of programs that negatively impact the rest of us that should be isolated and remedied.
Click to expand...

"Isolated and remedied," eh?

Delbert Grady had a similar thought about his own family problems...

"Perhaps they need a good talking to, if you don't mind my saying so. Perhaps a bit more. My girls, sir, they didn't care for the Overlook at first. One of them actually stole a pack of matches, and tried to burn it down. But I "corrected" them sir. And when my wife tried to prevent me from doing my duty, I "corrected" her." :smuggrin:
 
I was going to object but upon further consideration the analogy seems apt.
 
JockNerd said:
I think the article confirms what a lot of folks on the forum have been saying--that the problem isn't a some big, profession-wide thing to be kumbayaed away, but rather pretty endemic to a small number of programs that negatively impact the rest of us that should be isolated and remedied.
Click to expand...

Given the recent APA thread about how/what the APA is doing (or not doing) in regard to advancing the field....I'm not sure if the above is true anymore. Yes I think there are a small % of programs contributing to a larger % of the problem, but how are other factors (like APA's unwillingness to address the problem head-on) impacting the internship imbalance?
 
I definitely think the lack of bold leadership by the APA contributes to the problem.
 
I emailed the researchers to ask why they didn't name names in the study when it came out. He said that he didn't mention names in the article because he didn't think it was fair to make it personal--and it is always possible that the article is read decades from now and doesn't reflect changes that are made in a program/school. (Didn't part of Drexel Univ. College of Medicine exist as a homeopathic school originally?)

However, it isn't hard for anybody to figure out/guess what these program were/are using the same publically available data.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

N
Neuropsych Internship chances
Replies
3
Views
736
ihaveanxpsyd
I
R
APA internship applicant with past disciplinary action
Replies
27
Views
2K
RowlingStone
R
N
Internship list - too competitive??
Replies
15
Views
2K
ninim
N
D
APPIC Internship Drug Tests
Replies
23
Views
2K
surviving2021
S
R
Internship Questions - Competitiveness, Hours, etc.
Replies
26
Views
2K
psych.meout
P
Top