whats the difference between the two degree's doctoral project? When I read about the doctoral projects/dissertations for PsyD on school's webpage, they seem to have pretty much similar outlines compared to PhD dissertation.
PsyD vs PhD Dissertation?
- Thread starter titanz7
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2011
- Messages
- 3,455
- Reaction score
- 909
I am not intimately familiar with the variety of Psy.D. institutions out there, but of the ones I have seen, there is no comparison. In fact, I have actually heard of Psy.D. students paying Ph.D. students to complete their statistics and write the results section for them.
There is a reason that we even have these two different degrees. My understanding before selecting a graduate program was that the "dissertation project" involved in Psy.D. programs was much less work, and accounted for a large proportion of the difference in minimum time commitments for programs (4 years in a Psy.D. vs. 5 years in a Ph.D). My dissertation (Ph.D.) took an entire year, and I know some other Ph.D. people who had more involved projects that took 2-3 years to complete.
Sanman
O.G.
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2000
- Messages
- 5,529
- Reaction score
- 8,353
It really depends on the program. I went to a university-based psyd program and I completed an empirically based dissertation (requried by my program) in psychophysiology. Other programs let their students complete a variety of projects and the depth of the final project/dissertation is really up to the school/committee. However, PsyD programs to not put as much emphasis on research publications and academia as some PhD programs might. For example, my program was a bit more liberal on allowing students to use archival data.
As for people paying others to complete stats, etc., people always look for shortcuts. I know more than one PhD student that has done the same. I've also tutored more than one PhD student in stats.
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2008
- Messages
- 7,654
- Reaction score
- 6,395
Haha, excellent!
Seriously, though, there's a wide range of quality and scope in dissertations across and within both PsyD and PhD programs. Although you expect a higher minimal level of quality from small-cohort university-based PhD and PsyD programs. it is to some degree what the student is willing to put in to it. Admittedly, I do side-eye the quality of dissertations coming from FSPS in general, although I'm sure there's been some good ones to come out of them as well.
I do know of a couple of FSPS who will let people just do a clinical case study or lit review (not a meta-analysis, which a lot of single-case research people end of doing for dissertations, in my experience) as a "doctoral project," which is not advisable, IMO.
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2010
- Messages
- 1,548
- Reaction score
- 7
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2011
- Messages
- 3,455
- Reaction score
- 909
It may be a myth, but I have heard that some PsyD programs don't even require a dissertation.
Isn't the entire point of the degree to be less research-oriented and provide more of an emphasis on clinical practice than a PhD? If dissertations were equivalent, then how do PsyD programs take a shorter amount of time to complete?
Isn't the entire point of the degree to be less research-oriented and provide more of an emphasis on clinical practice than a PhD? If dissertations were equivalent, then how do PsyD programs take a shorter amount of time to complete?
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2010
- Messages
- 1,548
- Reaction score
- 7
Some require a masters going in. I know Pepperdine isn't the only one. Widener...? Can't recall. I'm sure T4C will have some good thoughts on this.
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2011
- Messages
- 3,455
- Reaction score
- 909
Well this is from Psi Chi's website:
The differences between clinical PhD and clinical PsyD programs are quantitative, not qualitative. The primary disparity is in the relative emphasis on research: Boulder programs aspire to train producers of research; Vail programs train consumers of research. PsyD programs require some research and statistics courses; you simply cannot avoid research sophistication in any APA-accredited program. The clinical opportunities are very similar for students in both types of programs. Indeed, research has substantiated that PsyD programs provide slightly more clinical experience and clinical courses but less research experience than Boulder-model, PhD programs (Tibbits-Kleber & Howell, 1987).
I know competent practitioners from PsyD programs. But with this particular question (dissertations and the production of research), it seems to me that on average there ARE going to be differences here. While I am sure that some PsyD programs have rigorous requirements for dissertations, the laughable "dissertations" I have seen from local programs makes it seem pretty unregulated.
I thought that by definition PsyD programs were less focused on research. The research training capstone (i.e., dissertation) would then be a logical point of difference between the two degrees, one would think...
The differences between clinical PhD and clinical PsyD programs are quantitative, not qualitative. The primary disparity is in the relative emphasis on research: Boulder programs aspire to train producers of research; Vail programs train consumers of research. PsyD programs require some research and statistics courses; you simply cannot avoid research sophistication in any APA-accredited program. The clinical opportunities are very similar for students in both types of programs. Indeed, research has substantiated that PsyD programs provide slightly more clinical experience and clinical courses but less research experience than Boulder-model, PhD programs (Tibbits-Kleber & Howell, 1987).
I know competent practitioners from PsyD programs. But with this particular question (dissertations and the production of research), it seems to me that on average there ARE going to be differences here. While I am sure that some PsyD programs have rigorous requirements for dissertations, the laughable "dissertations" I have seen from local programs makes it seem pretty unregulated.
I thought that by definition PsyD programs were less focused on research. The research training capstone (i.e., dissertation) would then be a logical point of difference between the two degrees, one would think...
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2010
- Messages
- 1,548
- Reaction score
- 7
Okay, but if you don't mind me saying so, Pragma, you've admitted before that your PsyD experience is essentially limited to FSPS folks, not uni-based, right? Previous threads on this topic indicate that uni-based PsyD students, at least those willing to post, aren't thrilled to get tarnished with the FSPS PsyD stigma. There's a difference there.
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2011
- Messages
- 3,455
- Reaction score
- 909
Yes I agree that there must be variability, and that Uni-based PsyD programs probably train students better with regard to this topic.
But isn't there a difference between a PsyD and a PhD by definition here?
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2011
- Messages
- 3,455
- Reaction score
- 909
I'll add one other thought. If dissertations were considered equivalent, then i don't understand what the purpose of having the two different degrees is. I understand that some people may view this comment as somewhat inflammatory, but then could you explain to me what the differences between the degrees actually are?
Some people act as if these are equivalent. If that were the case, I would have gone to a PsyD program in my hometown and spent one less year of my life in training.
Some people act as if these are equivalent. If that were the case, I would have gone to a PsyD program in my hometown and spent one less year of my life in training.
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2010
- Messages
- 1,548
- Reaction score
- 7
I guess I worry that these "PhD vs PsyD" discussions can begin slanting towards just beating up on PsyD folks.
Since we've already veered a bit off topic, I'd be interested in any stats on:
a. percentage of uni-based (clinical/counseling psych) PhD folks who publish some portion of their dissertation
b. percentage of uni-based (clinical/counseling psych) PhD folks who publish new research (other than their dissertation) subsequent to graduating
Not a "challenge," just genuinely interested.
Since we've already veered a bit off topic, I'd be interested in any stats on:
a. percentage of uni-based (clinical/counseling psych) PhD folks who publish some portion of their dissertation
b. percentage of uni-based (clinical/counseling psych) PhD folks who publish new research (other than their dissertation) subsequent to graduating
Not a "challenge," just genuinely interested.
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2011
- Messages
- 3,455
- Reaction score
- 909
Fair enough, but I think it is important to be explicit about what the Vail model actually means, rather than just saying "it varies" and avoiding a difficult conversation.
I don't have the numbers you are looking for, but would be interested too. However, publications can also be skewed. I'd want to know impact factor/who has PAID to have their work published, etc in the context of those percentages.
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2010
- Messages
- 1,548
- Reaction score
- 7
I don't think anyone on sdn is trying to avoid difficult conversations. We're here trying to avoid working on our research!
Sure. That would be good to know. Curious what you specifically mean by "PAID" though. Assuming you mean vanity publishing, open access publishing with fees ala Bentham Open, Sage Open, etc.?
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2011
- Messages
- 3,455
- Reaction score
- 909
Yeah. I think there is a difference between getting your work published in a journal with a low acceptance rate and responding to one of the daily emails out there asking for you to publish your work in an open-access, pay-for-publication journal.
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2010
- Messages
- 1,548
- Reaction score
- 7
You'll get no disagreement from me there.
Though it should be noted that even impact factor is a little trickier than it looks on the face of it. I think it varies tremendously by discipline.--ie. disciplines and subfields with fewer scholars may publish in journals which confer prestige within their own sub/field, but which have lower IFs than middling journals in more densely populated research areas.
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2006
- Messages
- 22,382
- Reaction score
- 4,330
I believe the original intent was to produce more psychologists who primarily provided clinical work. A lot has changed in the 39 years since the Vail Conference, so the aspirational goals v. actual outcomes are quite a bit different. From what I've been told (I wasn't around in 1973 nor familiar with the professional scene), there were far few psychologists and a higher % were academics who did not provide clinical services, which is quite a bit different from today. 40 years ago (and before), the thrust of training was in research, and the majority of students did not receive significant patient contact hours until internship. Practica like we know it today was far far different. It made sense in 1973 to look at training pathes that had more of a focus on providing clinical interventions. What was lost in all of this was the fact that research was still a CORNERSTONE of generalist training. The false dichotomy of "Ph.D. for research and Psy.D. for clinical practice" has since founds its way into the mix, and it really has mucked things up.
Now (almost all) Ph.D. and Psy.D. programs provide practica training and face to face contact hours, as this is what is needed to be competitive for an APA-internship, which is explicitly designed for clinical training. The push for more and more hours is a by-product of the competition and contrast in training models, as the time needs to be spent somewhere...right? This is represented by a contrast in average degree completion times...with Ph.D. students averaging about a year more to finish.
*a bit tangential*
An interesting twist to the completion time difference (my hypothesis at least) is that many Psy.D. programs push for their students to have their research requirements met BY the start of internship, so they can get more students through on time. More programs (Ph.D. & Psy.D.) seem to be pushing for students to be farther along to apply for internship, both to avoid the "limbo" of not having a degree because of pending/stalled dissertations and also to be more competitive on the interview trail. My internship site asked specifically about research progress, and it was my perception that students who were farther along in their research were viewed more favorably than those who were still grinding it out to get their proposal accepted.
No internship site wants to have former interns in "limbo" because it looks bad for them and it scares top applicants away. My site offered 4-8hrs per week of protected research time for interns to finish their dissertations. Most internship sites do not, but I thought this allowed for them to protect their interns from getting stuck in "limbo".
I haven't kept up with this, sorry. I do know that some counseling programs will require an MA/MS to be elligible to apply, but it is still in the minority of all programs.
+1
Pragma...(this may just be my perception of your posts), but the tone of your posts often leave me with the impression you toss the baby out with the bath water in regard to Psy.Ds. and you don't bother to consider that uni-based Psy.Ds can have equal training as a Ph.D. Maybe I am completely off, but that is how it comes across to me.
As a Psy.D. from a uni-based program, I definitely get irked sometimes with the broad generalizations and assumptions made by some on here about Psy.Ds. I know I'm an exception working in R1 institutions (one uni didn't even have Psy.D. as a degree option in their HR system
), so I don't assume this is the norm, but there are many talented Psy.Ds who work in the VA system, University Counseling centers, and similar places that represent the degree for what it was intended to be when psychologists came together in Vail.- Joined
- Oct 7, 2006
- Messages
- 22,382
- Reaction score
- 4,330
As to not worry the Ph.D. doctoral students, fellows, and psychologists out there...if down the road you want to collaborate with me on research, I will not hold your Ph.D. training against you.
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2011
- Messages
- 3,455
- Reaction score
- 909
So what is the difference then? Do you consider a Ph.D. and a Psy.D. to, by definition, provide equivalent training? I recognize that there is variability in both Ph.D. and Psy.D. programs, but for someone asking a question here like the OP, I think it is important to provide distinctions. It seems you might not think there is a difference.
+1
Pragma...(this may just be my perception of your posts), but the tone of your posts often leave me with the impression you toss the baby out with the bath water in regard to Psy.Ds. and you don't bother to consider that uni-based Psy.Ds can have equal training as a Ph.D. Maybe I am completely off, but that is how it comes across to me.
As a Psy.D. from a uni-based program, I definitely get irked sometimes with the broad generalizations and assumptions made by some on here about Psy.Ds. I know I'm an exception working in R1 institutions (one uni didn't even have Psy.D. as a degree option in their HR system
I will apologize if I have come off as snarky with regard to Psy.D. programs. I admit that my experiences have been limited to meeting FSPS students. While I have known some Psy.D. students on practicum that i thought were awesome clinicians (and was jealous at some of their electives they got to take that I didn't get to take), I have never had a positive experience with a Psy.D. student and research.
But I am limited by my experiences with regard to research. On a couple of posters I have done in the past with clinical supervisors, I was a co-author with a Psy.D. student (not by my own choice). It was a terrible experience, and I had to put in many more hours with handholding and providing statistical tutoring than I feel was reasonable or justified. There was a clear lack of competency in basic research methods and statistics, and this person had already finished their "dissertation project." The fact that I had to pick up the slack irked me.
So I don't mean to ignore the fact that there are great Psy.D. programs and graduates of these programs. But I am jaded by my experiences, and I acknowledge it.
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2010
- Messages
- 1,548
- Reaction score
- 7
What I actually meant was, "I bet T4C will have something good to add to this discussion of PsyD vs PhD." And unsurprisingly, you did!
Though I remember reading someone (probably you) post a virtually identical explanation of the genesis and rationale for the Vail model before in another thread. I guess these discussions have a way of coming around again.
I think that the "PsyD stigma" is a big part of how I ended up here (unhappy in another field, hoping to transition back to psych) instead of graduated and licensed by now. It leaks out into other fields too; recently a co-author in another discipline was sniffing and making sour faces about the PsyD, and s/he doesn't know a damn thing about psych.
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2007
- Messages
- 1,977
- Reaction score
- 7
Wait a gosh darned sec! Folks can pay to have their articles published?! Where have I been? I seem to recall seeing or hearing about a few places that basically allowed "anything" to be published, but I didn't realize that people were paying for their stuff to get published (I'm wondering if the places I had heard about and these latter places are actually one & the same; hmmm.)
If I had only known . . . My CV would be AWESOME!
---
Agreed with Pragma re: jealousy over PsyD students' electives and practicum options as well. There have been a few times that I've actually had the passing thought "Oh, why didn't I look at PsyD programs?" (but I suspect that has more to do with being a product of the lack of options in my own program; not necessarily that I would truly prefer a PsyD program).
Where have I been? I seem to recall seeing or hearing about a few places that basically allowed "anything" to be published, but I didn't realize that people were paying for their stuff to get published (I'm wondering if the places I had heard about and these latter places are actually one & the same; hmmm.) If I had only known . . . My CV would be AWESOME!
---
Agreed with Pragma re: jealousy over PsyD students' electives and practicum options as well. There have been a few times that I've actually had the passing thought "Oh, why didn't I look at PsyD programs?" (but I suspect that has more to do with being a product of the lack of options in my own program; not necessarily that I would truly prefer a PsyD program).
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2010
- Messages
- 1,548
- Reaction score
- 7
Wait a gosh darned sec! Folks can pay to have their articles published?!
Yeah, when I got this through my uni-email account I just about threw up:
"SAGE Open accomplishes global open access by using a business model in which its expenses are recovered by an author publication fee charged after acceptance. The fee currently stands at the special introductory rate of $395 (regular fee: $695) for each published article. Authors who do not have the means to cover the publication fee may request a waiver after acceptance."
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2011
- Messages
- 3,455
- Reaction score
- 909
So are you suggesting that Ph.D. programs take a year longer because they don't encourage people to get their dissertation done? Because everyone was encouraged in my program.
Also, since the topic of this thread is about dissertations, would you argue that Psy.D. students are inherently more efficient at their dissertation research? By your logic, you seem to think of these programs as having equivalent dissertation standards (I couldn't disagree more), and that must mean that Psy.D. students, on the whole, do a better job at finishing faster?
Sorry, your reasoning for the time difference confuses me. I looked into Psy.D. programs when I was on the graduate school market, and generally their shorter-than-PhD argument was a selling point.
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2010
- Messages
- 1,548
- Reaction score
- 7
Maybe it would be helpful to differentiate between:
a) various programs' advertised normative time to degree
b) various programs' actual mean time to degree (I know my program looks a lot different "on paper" than "in reality")
c) expectations of students, which may or may not be formally articulated on departmental websites--i.e. it may very well be that uni-based PsyD students take the same amount of coursework and take the same amount of time to complete their empirical dissertations as uni-based PhD students do, but that on the whole, PsyD students are finishing faster because they are diverting less time and energy towards teaching obligations, conference prep, multiple publications, committee work and other university service, and that these "diversions" hold PhD students up relative to PsyD students. I'm not asserting that that's the case, but it's something that could be investigated.
Anecdotally, one of the PsyD programs mentioned above, Pepperdine, seems to advertise 4 years, but a good chunk of students take longer, and they all come in with masters degrees in hand. Last time I checked, the clin psych program on my R1 campus has a 4-year track, and that includes the masters.
a) various programs' advertised normative time to degree
b) various programs' actual mean time to degree (I know my program looks a lot different "on paper" than "in reality")
c) expectations of students, which may or may not be formally articulated on departmental websites--i.e. it may very well be that uni-based PsyD students take the same amount of coursework and take the same amount of time to complete their empirical dissertations as uni-based PhD students do, but that on the whole, PsyD students are finishing faster because they are diverting less time and energy towards teaching obligations, conference prep, multiple publications, committee work and other university service, and that these "diversions" hold PhD students up relative to PsyD students. I'm not asserting that that's the case, but it's something that could be investigated.
Anecdotally, one of the PsyD programs mentioned above, Pepperdine, seems to advertise 4 years, but a good chunk of students take longer, and they all come in with masters degrees in hand. Last time I checked, the clin psych program on my R1 campus has a 4-year track, and that includes the masters.
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2007
- Messages
- 1,977
- Reaction score
- 7
Yeah, I don't know about the whole dissertation completion thing...
We're required to have our proposals completed before even applying for internship. We must be able to collect all data prior to leaving for internship, and then we're strongly encouraged to have as much work completed as possible before leaving. More recently, we've had an increase in students defending prior to leaving for internship (again, recommended whenever possible).
This is why the whole "dissertation proposal must be approved" being listed as criteria for some internship sites came as a surprise to me. I sort of thought it was required of all doctoral programs until recently.
And, YIKES!
Does anyone know if these are very popular (i.e., are many articles actually published this way)?
We're required to have our proposals completed before even applying for internship. We must be able to collect all data prior to leaving for internship, and then we're strongly encouraged to have as much work completed as possible before leaving. More recently, we've had an increase in students defending prior to leaving for internship (again, recommended whenever possible).
This is why the whole "dissertation proposal must be approved" being listed as criteria for some internship sites came as a surprise to me. I sort of thought it was required of all doctoral programs until recently.
And, YIKES!
Does anyone know if these are very popular (i.e., are many articles actually published this way)?
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2011
- Messages
- 3,455
- Reaction score
- 909
There is a number of personal factors that influence actual program completion time. But I must say, all of the PsyD programs I researched years back advertised 4 years (minimum) to completion. Every PhD program advertised 5-6 (minimum). I believe that difference is significant.
Related to the OP's question, I did find this old article:
http://www.apa.org/monitor/jan00/ed1.aspx
As for criticism that the PsyD is unscientific, Peterson, the grand dean of the PsyD, is quick to counter that the degree is based in science. PsyD students, he says, are trained as "local scientists" who apply the scientific method to problems in the field. Most programs require a dissertation or dissertation-like project, but students cover a wider range of topics than those allowed in PhD programs. Many students publish papers on their local research.
While I am sure some people have completed impressive dissertations in uni-based PsyD programs, I think the entire training philosophy is different (right?). Forgive me, but I scoff at the 10-20 page "dissertation projects" that I have seen. I think it behooves us to answer the OPs question realistically. According to this article, I guess some PsyD programs don't even require a dissertation...
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2011
- Messages
- 3,455
- Reaction score
- 909
This could very well be true that it contributes to lengthy time to completion. But I think there is an inherent difference when there is a difference in minimum time to completion between the types of programs. I believe a large chunk of that difference is attributable to dissertation differences (on average).
Edit: i wonder if there are any schools out there that offer both degrees, and provide an explanation for the time difference.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2011
- Messages
- 3,455
- Reaction score
- 909
I am not sure how representative this program is, but Loma Linda has both degrees and both are APA-acredited.
http://www.llu.edu/behavioral-health/psychology/index.page
My review of their program descriptions suggests that not only does the PhD degree require a minimum of one a additional year, and that the "doctoral project" reflects a big difference between programs.
I have no familiarity with the actual program, but this example suggests to me inherent differences between the degree types and requirements for dissertation work.
http://www.llu.edu/behavioral-health/psychology/index.page
My review of their program descriptions suggests that not only does the PhD degree require a minimum of one a additional year, and that the "doctoral project" reflects a big difference between programs.
I have no familiarity with the actual program, but this example suggests to me inherent differences between the degree types and requirements for dissertation work.
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2008
- Messages
- 7,563
- Reaction score
- 6,768
The sad thing that is open access journals are often a good idea. But by open access, we mean free to read, not pay to publish. -_-
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2007
- Messages
- 1,977
- Reaction score
- 7
This is what I thought. Now I'm wondering though if people who were talking about those open access journals in the past were paying to publish...
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2010
- Messages
- 1,548
- Reaction score
- 7
I know--it's a sneaky misappropriation of the term, isn't it?
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2008
- Messages
- 7,654
- Reaction score
- 6,395
I agree (and would never pay to publish, at least barring some huge shift in publishing practices), but how do you pay for journals without charging someone at some point (either for subscriptions or publishing costs)?
IMO, it would make a lot of sense if journals just stopped printing hardcopies and published electronically only, although that wouldn't take care of upkeep costs.
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2011
- Messages
- 3,455
- Reaction score
- 909
I am not sure if the lack of replies to my posts above reflects anything at this point, but I admit that I am sensitive about how we describe ourselves and our training at times. Someone saying that a Psy.D. degree (regardless of uni-based or not) is equivalent to a Ph.D. really makes me upset for more than one reason. The training is different.
1) My degree had a longer minimal time to completion and strict dissertation standards.
2) They are by definition different models of training
3) Even in cases where Psy.D. students write kick-butt dissertations, isn't the focus different?
All I am saying is own your degree. I have acknowledged that I think local Psy.D. students got more extensive clinical training than I did. I'm pretty sure they would look at what I did research-wise and say I got a lot more extensive training in that area.
T4C, I hope that you don't take it personally because I know you have mentioned high involvement in academics and that you took a clinical faculty job at an R1. But I do have a hard time hearing people compare my dissertation requirements to those of most Psy.D. programs. Your dissertation may very well have been superior to mine, but I get a bad taste in my mouth when people suggest that the requirements are the same. Because it seems to me that most of the time, they are NOT. If they were, it would be stupid to go to a PhD program if you are concerned about time to completion, as most of these programs require you to be there for longer.
1) My degree had a longer minimal time to completion and strict dissertation standards.
2) They are by definition different models of training
3) Even in cases where Psy.D. students write kick-butt dissertations, isn't the focus different?
All I am saying is own your degree. I have acknowledged that I think local Psy.D. students got more extensive clinical training than I did. I'm pretty sure they would look at what I did research-wise and say I got a lot more extensive training in that area.
T4C, I hope that you don't take it personally because I know you have mentioned high involvement in academics and that you took a clinical faculty job at an R1. But I do have a hard time hearing people compare my dissertation requirements to those of most Psy.D. programs. Your dissertation may very well have been superior to mine, but I get a bad taste in my mouth when people suggest that the requirements are the same. Because it seems to me that most of the time, they are NOT. If they were, it would be stupid to go to a PhD program if you are concerned about time to completion, as most of these programs require you to be there for longer.
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2006
- Messages
- 22,382
- Reaction score
- 4,330
That isn't what I wrote or implied at all. I'm not sure if you are being purposefully obtuse, or if something was missed in translation (quite possible given the medium), but I'll try again. One of the original goals of the Vail Conference was to develop a path that produced more clinicians. Keep in mind this happened in 1973, so almost 40 years have gone by since then, so a certain amount of change was expected. The changes include:
1. Clinical/Talk-Therapy training was shifted from Internship and/or through Institutes (e.g. psychoanalytic..done after licensure) to earlier in the learning experience. People who trained 25-30 years ago did not start practica (w face to face talk therapy) during their 2nd/3rd/4th/etc years of schooling. This shift caused the # of client contact hours to increase, which was my point about programs needing, "more hours."
2. In the past few years, APPIC has reported that the average # of contact hours between Psy.D. and Ph.D. applicants for APPIC Match have been about the same, if not slightly higher for some Ph.D. students. This has been explained a few different ways, though I believe it is because many Ph.D. students are taking an extra year to get farther in their dissertation before applying to internship, so they are less likely to get caught in "limbo" after internship. It is easy to get disconnected from ppl/resources after internship, which is why many DCs and Internship Directors are pushing for students to get farther in their research before applying to internship. Some programs have adjusted their expectations, others haven't.
3. Research requirements are often different between most Psy.D. and Ph.D. programs. Maybe a Ph.D. program will require their students to take a stats class that is only offered through the Dept. of Mathematics (real example) or maybe a mentor is expecting you to finish X-number of manuscripts before s/he will let you move forward in your research (real..and rough example). Maybe a Psy.D. student is able to use archival data, so their collection period is drastically shorter (real example). I'm not going to make a judgment on which research training is better because the purpose of the training is different, but I can say that given the above examples AND the recent trend of having equivalent reported contact hours from Psy.D. and Ph.D. students to APPIC, it is not a huge leap to say that a Ph.D. can often take a year longer to complete. The APPIC data support this assertion.
4. Some of the original points discussed as part of the Vail Model have not translated as intended, at least not with some of the less rigorous Psy.D. programs out there. The research component of the training was meant to train students to be consumers of research, and there was less emphasis on being primarily producers of research. However, this difference was never meant to be so drastic as you seem to imply with your examples. If there are students that ill prepared to handle some simple data, then that is a problem....regardless if they are from a Ph.D. or Psy.D. program. I think you correctly admitted to some bias, whether it was because of a sampling error (you have only work with a couple of local FSPS students), a rater bias (contrast effect, halo effect, etc), or a host of other factors. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and experiences, though I think you read far too much into my prior post.
*edit to add*
If you read some of my posts on here (particularly in the past 3 years since I've seen/met more psychologists "in the Real World"), you'll notice I am supportive of raising standards (across the board), cutting programs that consistently fail their students, and having research be a more active part of training AND every day practice. I didn't know what I didn't know until I got out and saw some of the differences. I am not saying all training is equal..because it is not, but it bothers me when people paint with a wide brush across an entire degree.
Now...back to my work.
Last edited:
Certainly not all PsyDs are created equal. I don't doubt many a strong dissertation has come out of Rutgers PsyD program. A general problem in the field is that when people hear PsyD, they generally think "Argosy" before they think "Rutgers". If nothing else, sheer numbers likely play a role in driving that. I can't speak to all campuses, but the local Argosy students complete what I can only call a fake dissertation that is more like an elongated class paper than what most of us likely think of as a dissertation. They are generally not even systematic reviews, but qualitative reviews of some topic of their choosing. I recently learned that many of them even hire editors to help them with the writing process, which absolutely astounds me given that the writing process is well...really the only thing they DO have to be capable of to complete it.
At least relative to folks in these programs, I actually see PhD students pushing more to get their dissertations done. Those at the local Argosy just have to PROPOSE sometime before they leave for internship. That actually makes sense to me since they aren't doing real dissertations anyways, so there's no reason they can't do them on internship. It is more or less mandatory that we do original data collection, so we have a lot more pressure to at least get that much done since...well....we kind of have to since we're leaving.
RE: Pay-to-publish journals, my opinion actually varies. I like the idea of open access journals. Some (e.g. PLoS One) have an impact factor better than the majority of psychology journals (4.4) and even with being pay-to-publish reject around 30% of manuscripts. I can't verify this, but they at least claim that they review purely for technical merit (i.e. is it scientifically sound) and not for importance or for whether your results are "interesting". Again there is pluses and minuses to that - eliminates the file drawer problem. Given I seem to have an uncanny ability to produce exclusively null findings despite extremely sound scientific procedures (or perhaps because of it!), I can appreciate that. However, it could certainly contribute to literature clutter if left unchecked. I personally can't imagine paying > $1000 out of pocket to publish something, but they encourage it to be written into grants. Economically I'm not sure how I feel about that given the current funding situation, but I think its worth putting it on the table as a viable model that may have merits. Of course, these journals are a far cry from these random vanity publishers who seem to target naive students - as soon my thesis went up on Proquest I got no less than three offers to "publish" my study for a fee, some of whom got slightly offended when i informed them I was planning to publish in a visible outlet.
At least relative to folks in these programs, I actually see PhD students pushing more to get their dissertations done. Those at the local Argosy just have to PROPOSE sometime before they leave for internship. That actually makes sense to me since they aren't doing real dissertations anyways, so there's no reason they can't do them on internship. It is more or less mandatory that we do original data collection, so we have a lot more pressure to at least get that much done since...well....we kind of have to since we're leaving.
RE: Pay-to-publish journals, my opinion actually varies. I like the idea of open access journals. Some (e.g. PLoS One) have an impact factor better than the majority of psychology journals (4.4) and even with being pay-to-publish reject around 30% of manuscripts. I can't verify this, but they at least claim that they review purely for technical merit (i.e. is it scientifically sound) and not for importance or for whether your results are "interesting". Again there is pluses and minuses to that - eliminates the file drawer problem. Given I seem to have an uncanny ability to produce exclusively null findings despite extremely sound scientific procedures (or perhaps because of it!), I can appreciate that. However, it could certainly contribute to literature clutter if left unchecked. I personally can't imagine paying > $1000 out of pocket to publish something, but they encourage it to be written into grants. Economically I'm not sure how I feel about that given the current funding situation, but I think its worth putting it on the table as a viable model that may have merits. Of course, these journals are a far cry from these random vanity publishers who seem to target naive students - as soon my thesis went up on Proquest I got no less than three offers to "publish" my study for a fee, some of whom got slightly offended when i informed them I was planning to publish in a visible outlet.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2011
- Messages
- 3,455
- Reaction score
- 909
One of the original goals of the Vail Conference was to develop a path that produced more clinicians. Keep in mind this happened in 1973, so almost 40 years have gone by since then, so a certain amount of change was expected. The changes include:
1. Clinical/Talk-Therapy training was shifted from Internship and/or through Institutes (e.g. psychoanalytic..done after licensure) to earlier in the learning experience. People who trained 25-30 years ago did not start practica (w face to face talk therapy) during their 2nd/3rd/4th/etc years of schooling. This shift caused the # of client contact hours to increase, which was my point about programs needing, "more hours."
2. In the past few years, APPIC has reported that the average # of contact hours between Psy.D. and Ph.D. applicants for APPIC Match have been about the same, if not slightly higher for some Ph.D. students. This has been explained a few different ways, though I believe it is because many Ph.D. students are taking an extra year to get farther in their dissertation before applying to internship, so they are less likely to get caught in "limbo" after internship. It is easy to get disconnected from ppl/resources after internship, which is why many DCs and Internship Directors are pushing for students to get farther in their research before applying to internship. Some programs have adjusted their expectations, others haven't.
3. Research requirements are often different between most Psy.D. and Ph.D. programs. Maybe a Ph.D. program will require their students to take a stats class that is only offered through the Dept. of Mathematics (real example) or maybe a mentor is expecting you to finish X-number of manuscripts before s/he will let you move forward in your research (real..and rough example). Maybe a Psy.D. student is able to use archival data, so their collection period is drastically shorter (real example). I'm not going to make a judgment on which research training is better because the purpose of the training is different, but I can say that given the above examples AND the recent trend of having equivalent reported contact hours from Psy.D. and Ph.D. students to APPIC, it is not a huge leap to say that a Ph.D. can often take a year longer to complete. The APPIC data support this assertion.
4. Some of the original points discussed as part of the Vail Model have not translated as intended, at least not with some of the less rigorous Psy.D. programs out there. The research component of the training was meant to train students to be consumers of research, and there was less emphasis on being primarily producers of research. However, this difference was never meant to be so drastic as you seem to imply with your examples. If there are students that ill prepared to handle some simple data, then that is a problem....regardless if they are from a Ph.D. or Psy.D. program. I think you correctly admitted to some bias, whether it was because of a sampling error (you have only work with a couple of local FSPS students), a rater bias (contrast effect, halo effect, etc), or a host of other factors. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and experiences, though I think you read far too much into my prior post.
*edit to add*
If you read some of my posts on here (particularly in the past 3 years since I've seen/met more psychologists "in the Real World"), you'll notice I am supportive of raising standards (across the board), cutting programs that consistently fail their students, and having research be a more active part of training AND every day practice. I didn't know what I didn't know until I got out and saw some of the differences. I am not saying all training is equal..because it is not, but it bothers me when people paint with a wide brush across an entire degree.
Now...back to my work.
T4C, I got that impression when you said this: An interesting twist to the completion time difference (my hypothesis at least) is that many Psy.D. programs push for their students to have their research requirements met BY the start of internship, so they can get more students through on time.
I've always viewed the training models as fundamentally different. I think the reason that most PhD programs have higher minimal required time in the program (a priori) is largely explained by the intended scope of the dissertations.
I really don't mean better or worse when comparing the degrees. I just think it is different. I sacrificed electives, etc as a part of seeking a research degree, and would view myself as a better clinician in some areas had I had more of the clinical opportunities/emphasis offered in a Psy.D. program. I think as a result of that shifted emphasis, I had an easier time getting a job focused on research/teaching.
I don't think that a Psy.D. precludes anyone from doing research, but I wouldn't consider the research training or dissertations to be the same (generally speaking). But I'd also say that the Psy.D. folks I have seen in academia do tend to have primarily clinical appointments, with research being a low priority.
Finally, I am sorry for painting broad strokes about the Psy.D. degree based on negative experiences with FSPS students. That said, I also have had positive (clinical) interactions with these students. Sometimes I find the "Uni-based" vs. FSPS Psy.D. distinction to be a little cumbersome, although I understand the reasons why.
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2011
- Messages
- 55
- Reaction score
- 0
Oh thank the tiny Christmas Jesus. Just this forum has been missing- a debate on PsyD vs PhD and lumping all PsyDs with FSPS. Not to mention broad generalities.
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2011
- Messages
- 3,455
- Reaction score
- 909
I thought the statistics consultant stuff was bad enough. Having an editor seems silly, because presumably you'd be doing drafts under the supervision of a faculty mentor. I mean, do these places have overt academic integrity policies?
Sanman
O.G.
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2000
- Messages
- 5,529
- Reaction score
- 8,353
Maybe I should be thankful that my chair read my dissertation several times. Of course, those readings did lead to me going backwards and altering my dissertation several times. On the other hand, it did get me to a smooth (if delayed) defense.
Sanman
O.G.
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2000
- Messages
- 5,529
- Reaction score
- 8,353
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2011
- Messages
- 3,455
- Reaction score
- 909
I'm fully aware that there is variability between programs, and sometimes within programs. I know that people with Psy.D.s go on to be productive scholars, and people with PhDs sometimes go into practice 100%. Your use of the term "better" seems a bit sensitive.
I wasn't talking about expertise so much as what the minimal standards are for training. To me, if you have two programs where the minimal time to complete the degree is reported to be 5 years in one, while it is 4 years in the other, presumably there isn't as much to be done in the latter program if there is an entire year difference in required training time. The way it has always been explained to me is that the thesis and dissertation requirements account for a big part of the difference.
People who take longer do so for various reasons. Some may be building more skills or some may dedicate less time to completing their requirements. But I am talking about structural differences in program timelines, not case-by-case reasons to spend more time training.
I agree. I am a uni-based PsyD student and I do not like being associated with FSPSs with bad reputations. My program is university based in a public, state supported university. My program has a dissertation requirement, but it is more liberal in allowing qualitative research, single subject, and archival data. I think it depends on the individual program, not PhD/PsyD. My interpretation of the difference between my program's dissertation and a PhD dissertation is that the PhD dissertation has to be quantitative and mostly related to one's advisor's line of research. My program's dissertation, again, is more liberal in terms of the types of data and design. Also if a student has an interest that differs from the majority of the faculty, that student is encouraged to pursue that interest and faculty (those with as similar interests as possible) work with the student to gain knowledge in that area and the student is encouraged to pursue the project.
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2011
- Messages
- 827
- Reaction score
- 16
I have an agenda, so I'm going to hijack this thread for a minute and ask about this. How would you describe a lack of competency in basic research and statistics? What is a basic level of statistical/research knowledge--are we talking knowing only t-tests, only knowing mean/median/mode, or something more like ANOVA or regression and nothing more advanced than that? My agenda is to make sure that *I* am statistically competent, so I want to know how I should strive. I've heard people scoff at theses that "just use t-tests" so that is what I think when I think "basic statistics". But maybe it's more than that? Maybe ANOVAs and regressions are basic, too? That's the level I'm at, and I want more, so I want to know if that's appropriate
.I can't speak for Pragma, but for me "basic competency" is less about running the analyses and more about being able to read (and understand!) analyses. If someone is planning on going 100% clinical - that is what I think the goal should be, and I think that was the original intent of the Vail model (though many schools have obviously pushed that to giving doctorates to people with undergrad-level knowledge).
t-tests, mean/median/mode are the bare, bare basics - I'd worry if someone got ADMITTED to grad school without knowing that, its shameful when UGs don't know it. ANOVA/Regression I would also place in the "basics" category, as most other techniques are based on these. I'd go a little further than that before declaring someone has "basic competency" in stats. Some things (post-hocs, power analysis, etc.) are important to understand. This is a personal belief, but I think especially for folks planning on clinical careers, meta-analysis is an absolute necessary. Again, I'm not talking about knowing how to compute power for a meta-analysis of imaging data with nothing but a calculator, but given its role in EBP I think a basic foundation (knowledge of common effect size measures, how to catch common flaws, etc.) is crucial.
Basically - I'd say its sufficient when one can read the bulk of the literature in top tier journals and "get" the results section, at least noting any major flaws (i.e. why are they running ANOVA when they have a categorical DV?), even if some of the more nuanced issues elude them.
t-tests, mean/median/mode are the bare, bare basics - I'd worry if someone got ADMITTED to grad school without knowing that, its shameful when UGs don't know it. ANOVA/Regression I would also place in the "basics" category, as most other techniques are based on these. I'd go a little further than that before declaring someone has "basic competency" in stats. Some things (post-hocs, power analysis, etc.) are important to understand. This is a personal belief, but I think especially for folks planning on clinical careers, meta-analysis is an absolute necessary. Again, I'm not talking about knowing how to compute power for a meta-analysis of imaging data with nothing but a calculator, but given its role in EBP I think a basic foundation (knowledge of common effect size measures, how to catch common flaws, etc.) is crucial.
Basically - I'd say its sufficient when one can read the bulk of the literature in top tier journals and "get" the results section, at least noting any major flaws (i.e. why are they running ANOVA when they have a categorical DV?), even if some of the more nuanced issues elude them.
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2006
- Messages
- 22,382
- Reaction score
- 4,330
AKA being a consumer of research....which I believe is consistant with the original development of the Psy.D.
The barebones stuff should include: understanding the various types of validity, what factors can impact reliability (and why), why research design impacts matters, why statistical significance can't tell the whole story, limits of generalizability, pitfalls of a poorly designed meta-analysis, why "The Dead Salmon Study" is important, etc. None of this is 'high level' stuff, but it is all absolutely vital to understanding the any journal article. There is way more, but these are some of the areas I find interesting...so that's what I'll highlight.
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2010
- Messages
- 1,548
- Reaction score
- 7
I found that helpful, Ollie (Edit: T4C, too). Stats training in my doctoral program was abysmal. I know there's a competing thread on this, but I'd be interested in hearing from the folks here who made/responded to the stats critique what particular book(s) they'd recommend in order to "catch up" on stats/research design.
Last edited:
