APA CoA: Notice of Public Comment - Standards of Accreditation

[DynamicDidactic]

New standards for training has opened up for comment
http://apps.apa.org/accredcomment/default.aspx

I am not sure what to think of this. On one hand the term "evidence-based" is all over the document. However, there is nothing in here about match rates, EPPP rates, or keeping programs honest to any objective standard at all. Unaccredited internships are still allowed, it seems the required outcome data section has been severely reduced. It does request that records of distal outcomes be maintained (up to 10 years), particularly employment settings.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Justanothergrad]

New standards for training has opened up for comment
http://apps.apa.org/accredcomment/default.aspx

I am not sure what to think of this. On one hand the term "evidence-based" is all over the document. However, there is nothing in here about match rates, EPPP rates, or keeping programs honest to any objective standard at all. Unaccredited internships are still allowed, it seems the required outcome data section has been severely reduced. It does request that records of distal outcomes be maintained (up to 10 years), particularly employment settings.

A lack of focus on match rates and EPPP scores is silly. It leaves us creating programs that are sub-part without a focus on what is important in terms of training- are the clinicians able to obtain a given criteria of skill (EPPP) and are they able to enter a workforce in a marketable and standardized way (Match rates). I am yet to see much of anything worthwhile come out of the whole accreditation standards honestly- at least recently. They are not able to respond to the focus of MH needs we are facing as psychologists in our current financial and political environment.

The term evidence-based is equally useless imho since in the void outside of academia, so few practices are. Public clinics rely on process groups (which are impossible by their fluid nature to predict and validate given the variance between members, sessions, etc) and on programs they design. Sure, they may be based on CBT concepts, but is that a EBT or is it an assumption of EBT without evidence and an assumption of validity based on extracted content is a horrible idea (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955). That is aside from the entire argument about common factors producing greater portions of variance (Wampold's C.V.). Although I am a huge fan of EBT as a basis of Tx, I have a lot of criticisms of their development, inclusion for training, etc and I am yet to see the focus on them satisfy my criticisms of the same.

 

[cara susanna]

I wish some of the comments would bring up the lack of match rates or EPPP pass rates in the proposed standards. So far they haven't.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

When I can carve out some time I'm going to draft a response, as this conversation has a number of inter-related factors, some of which haven't been discussed (enough).