Arrrgh --- $*%&%& eppp!

[Geehova]

I've done med school ordered assessments for students having troubles for a few years. The modal student with problems is one that was marginal on some stat to begin with (e,g, low MCAT scores) and scores in the average range on IQ testing. They may have impeccable undergraduate records, 3.98 GPAs from top schools in molecular biology, whatever, but when they get into the bigger pond of medical school, they are just teetering over the edge with respect to bombing out. These are students that worked really, really hard, harder than their peers throughout middle, high, and undergraduate work. But, when they get to medical school, everyone works hard. They've lost their only advantage and they fall. They might make it given a perfect environment (e.g., your 20 something with no family pressures or other issues), but throw a little adversity in the mix, and they are in big trouble.

Of course there are other scenarios. Some students are brilliant, but mentally ill. Some never wanted to be there in the first place (pressured by family to become a physician) and aren't expending enough effort. The rare student has some sort of learning disability combined with really high skills in other domains that allowed them to get to this level.

In psychology, we take those students (and below) and put them in professional schools.

That last comment is taking it too far. The professional schools definitely take those people, as you're saying. However, the majority of professional school students are above that level in terms of ability. Furthermore, I've known plenty of hack clinicians coming out of solid university-based PhD programs. They might do fine in a research-oriented career, but I cringe at the thought that some of them are free to work with patients if they choose. This isn't due to "intrinsic" issues in most cases--it's the way they were trained in their program.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[strad48]

There are, by the way, many articles talking about predictors of success/failure on the EPPP. McGaha and Minder (1993) is a good read. Several variables were identified in this study predicting performance on the EPPP: enrollment rate of programs, and GREV+Q scores. Further, degree type also predicted performance:

Accreditation status—fully and provisionally accredited > probationary and non-APA-accredited; administrative housing—psychology department > education department or freestanding school; degree—PhD > PsyD > EdD;
and specialty—clinical > counseling > school.

Interesting. (and slightly disturbing since, if I pursue a post-certification doctorate, it will be an EdD.) When comparing degree or specialty, were the other variables kept constant? Was there discussion in the articles about why the difference in degree or specialty?

 

[Logic Prevails]

I haven't posted in probably 1-2 years, but I used to be a regular poster (some of you may recall). I am about 3 weeks away from writing the EPPP. I just popped on here looking for others who might be going through the same process.

I have prepped for about 2 months. I don't tend to get test anxiety, but can admit to having a minor "meltdown" last week when I realized I had less than a month to go and was not performing as well as I would have liked on the "online practice exams." Mind you, I think those test-prep manufacturers are cash cows that bank on candidate test anxiety. It's no secret that the online exams are harder than the actual one. That said, who wants to "chance" writing the EPPP when they are only scoring 65% on these stupid online exams? Who wants to guess the disparity in difficulty between the two? I won't bother ranting about the wording of these questions or the necessity of knowing outdated and disproven studies from the 60's, but some of the questions are just insane. I know my neuropsychology quite well and teach an undergraduate course in neuroscience, yet when the practice exam asked about "the peripheral cortex," I had no idea what they were getting at - a quick google search came up with next to nothing. These subtle things really throw you.

My own anxiety was alleviated somewhat when a colleague (who in my opinion was less intelligent, professional, and graduated from an inferior school with fewer years of training) passed the exam with minimal study or prep. It kind of pissed me off actually and has me again wondering about the validity of this thing. At any rate, I have myself now scoring 70%+ on those stupid exams and I don't see there being any way of me NOT passing this thing in 3 weeks. I wish I could talk myself into relaxing a bit more, but my "Type A" personality (along with the constant self-doubt that is instilled during most graduate training) will not allow me to do that in face of the consequences associated with not passing.

For the record, I also agree with the profession having multiple problems and being a bit of a disappointment - I would never encourage anyone to take this path.

Cheers everyone. I'll try to remember to post my outcome in 3 weeks.

As a follow-up... I passed with a healthy margin of error (about an 85%). Huge relief, as my job was potentially on the line with this one. Now I need to work on re-engaging my right hemisphere.

In my opinion, the test is one of study skills, an inappropriate measure of clinical competence (though they recognize this) and a poor measure of even clinical knowledge. That said, if you put in the time, learn what you have to (and in some cases "unlearn" what you know) to answer the questions, you will have a good chance at passing. Just one more hoop.

 

[Cosmo75]

Nice job!

 

[deleted176373]

Please Delete