Does APA accreditation matter..?

[venicebeach]

California Institute of Integral Studies (CIIS) was APA accredited, but the school decided not to continue with APA.

According to admissions, there were many reasons they made this decision. The primary factors are: 1) many states do not require APA for licensure, and 2) the program takes a more relational approach versus a cognitive-behavioral focus.

Is it essential for a school to be APA accredited? How does this affect internship?

What is the reputation of the school in the psychology community? Does that help compensate for the lack of accreditation?

Thanks.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[WisNeuro]

Yes, APA accreditation does matter. Many internships require that your program be APA accredited. Many jobs (VAs, most healthcare systems) require you to have graduated from an accredited program.

This school is not well regarded, so I fail to see how it would make up for the ill-informed decision to forgo APA accreditation.

 

[Temperance]

According to admissions, there were many reasons they made this decision. The primary factors are: 1) many states do not require APA for licensure, and 2) the program takes a more relational approach versus a cognitive-behavioral focus.

These are terrible reasons to not renew or pursue APA accreditation. Theoretical orientation is not part of APA accreditation requirements, so the line about not doing a cognitive-behavioral approach is bull****. You can read the accreditation standards yourself here.

 

[psych.meout]

These are terrible reasons to not renew or pursue APA accreditation. Theoretical orientation is not part of APA accreditation requirements, so the line about not doing a cognitive-behavioral approach is bull****. You can read the accreditation standards yourself here.

And why would you want to severely limit where your students are able to practice or get jobs?

These reasons are pathetically transparent.

 

[WisNeuro]

So, they did not make the decision to forgo accreditation. APA revoked it in 2011 and CIIS lost their appeal of the revocation. What kind of BS are they feeding you? Considering the incredibly low bar that is APA accreditation, this is laughable.

 

[singasongofjoy]

What?! Oh no, no, no. Just run away and don't look back, pal.

 

[PsyDr]

That's like a billionaire telling you to pursue your passion because money doesn't matter.

 

[PsyDuck90]

Pretty sure APPIC requires programs to be APA-accredited for students to enroll in the match, so you'd be cutting yourself off from every worthwhile internship.

 

[Sanman]

California Institute of Integral Studies (CIIS) was APA accredited, but the school decided not to continue with APA.

According to admissions, there were many reasons they made this decision. The primary factors are: 1) many states do not require APA for licensure, and 2) the program takes a more relational approach versus a cognitive-behavioral focus.

Is it essential for a school to be APA accredited? How does this affect internship?

What is the reputation of the school in the psychology community? Does that help compensate for the lack of accreditation?

Thanks.

 

[Sanman]

Interesting…if you don’t mind sharing, where did you find this information?

Check the bottom of their wikipedia page under accreditation for further info.

CIIS wiki

 

[psych.meout]

Pretty sure APPIC requires programs to be APA-accredited for students to enroll in the match, so you'd be cutting yourself off from every worthwhile internship.

I think I read somewhere that they can still participate in the post match vacancy, but I could be wrong.

 

[venicebeach]

Thanks, Sanman.

For those interested, here is what I found on Wikipedia:
“The Doctor of Psychology (PsyD) program in Clinical Psychology is not accredited by the American Psychological Association (APA). The program received APA accreditation in 2003, but accreditation was revoked in 2011, and CIIS's appeal of the revocation denied in 2012 on the basis that it was "not fully consistent with the Guidelines and Principles for Accreditation of Programs in Professional Psychology", notably "several requirements in the following areas: Domain B: Program Philosophy, Objectives, and Curriculum Plan; Domain C: Program Resources; Domain E: Student-Faculty Relations; Domain F: Program Self-Assessment and Quality Enhancement."[22][23][24] CIIS applied for APA accreditation in June 2016, but voluntarily withdrew its application in June 2017.[25]”

 

[Mama Bear]

According to admissions, there were many reasons they made this decision. The primary factors are: 1) many states do not require APA for licensure, and 2) the program takes a more relational approach versus a cognitive-behavioral focus.

If they said they opted out of accreditation because it was a Wednesday and sort of cloudy outside, that would make just as much sense.

To answer your question, APA accreditation is only essential if you want to get hired somewhere.

 

[PsyDuck90]

I think I read somewhere that they can still participate in the post match vacancy, but I could be wrong.

Yeah, I think they can. But why put yourself in the position to only have options from those sites? Also, if I remember correctly from perusing the list last time, a lot of the positions left on there were APPIC members but not APA-accredited.

 

[calimich]

agree with others. Among similar programs, Palo Alto/PGSP and Wright Institute have better reputations, IMO.

 

[psych.meout]

Yeah, I think they can. But why put yourself in the position to only have options from those sites? Also, if I remember correctly from perusing the list last time, a lot of the positions left on there were APPIC members but not APA-accredited.

My understanding that there were quite a few accredited sites in the vacancy in the past few cycles and yet there were still so many unmatched people. Probably a mix of people unwilling or unable to move for internship and those who just don't have the CV for them (e.g. bad programs).

 

[PsyDuck90]

My understanding that there were quite a few accredited sites in the vacancy in the past few cycles and yet there were still so many unmatched people. Probably a mix of people unwilling or unable to move for internship and those who just don't have the CV for them (e.g. bad programs).

Fair enough. I did a cursory look last year out of curiosity since I'm applying this cycle, and I recalled a lot of non-accredited sites, but I also wasn't looking that intensely. Either way, the number of sites available in post-match vacancy is still significantly less then in phases 1 and 2, and the applicant has significantly less control over where they apply to. So I wouldn't, personally, want post-match vacancy to be my Plan A.

 

[R. Matey]

the program takes a more relational approach versus a cognitive-behavioral focus.

I know it's not the point of the thread, but it's worth pointing out that this is a false dichotomy. CBT can be delivered incredibly compassionately and relationally if you receive adequate training, which is significantly more likely to happen in an accredited program.

 

[psych.meout]

I know it's not the point of the thread, but it's worth pointing out that this is a false dichotomy. CBT can be delivered incredibly compassionately and relationally if you receive adequate training, which is significantly more likely to happen in an accredited program.

They're just repeating the standard mischaracterization of CBT proffered by diploma mills, psychodynamic/psychoanalytic focused professionals, etc.

 

[WisNeuro]

I know it's not the point of the thread, but it's worth pointing out that this is a false dichotomy. CBT can be delivered incredibly compassionately and relationally if you receive adequate training, which is significantly more likely to happen in an accredited program.

It's pretty common with the anti-CBT folks. Anyone who says that CBT has no focus on relational issues within the therapeutic framework, has never actually been trained in CBT, or they are simply an incompetent clinician.

 

[R. Matey]

They're just repeating the standard mischaracterization of CBT proffered by diploma mills, psychodynamic/psychoanalytic focused professionals, etc.

Right, it just blows my mind that any program would think teaching less than half of the equation of what we know works in psychotherapy is somehow sufficient for independent clinical practice.

 

[ClinicalABA]

Another issue is that non-APA accredited programs are not required to publish their outcome data, so you'd know real data on things like internship, licensure, and attrition rates. Basically, you'd be investing a LOT of money (life altering debt, even without undergrad loans, in one of the highest COL areas in the country/world) without any objective information on likely outcomes.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Not to pile on to what's already been said, but short answer: yes. Longer answer: yes, very.

APA accreditation is viewed by most in the field as the minimum standard (with APS accreditation being essentially synonymous in that regard). Related to what ClinicalABA mentioned above, APA accreditation includes many protections for the trainee such as ensuring appropriate due process and grievance procedures, adequate resources and staffing, sufficient supervision, and an adequate breadth and depth of coursework. Could a program offer all that without being APA-accredited? Sure. Is it likely? Probably not, since there would then be little reason not to pursue accreditation.

It's true that not many states at present explicitly require APA accreditation, but without it, the licensure process can become much more onerous. The burden is then on to you demonstrate to the board that your program was equivalent to an APA-accredited program, such as by submitting syllabi and other course materials. And as has been mentioned above, APPIC is requiring that programs be APA-accredited in order for their students to participate in the first two phases of the internship match, and many employers require that applicants have completed an APA-accredited program. So even if one could secure an internship and get licensed, the potential employer pool would be substantially reduced.

 

[WisNeuro]

To sum it all up, OP caveat emptor.

 

[ClinicalABA]

I know this isn't completely related but

I was told the APA encyclopedia of psychology is just an encyclopedia and it wasn't accepted by people on this forum as a valid source of information. On its surface it seems odd to be dismissive of a university which does not have APA accreditation and then state with certainty and authority that something published by the same body means nothing. I could be wrong though.

Apples and oranges, but you know that, right? An encyclopedia from anywhere is likely not qreat source of up to date scientific information. Plus, APA doesn't publish the outcome statistics- the training program does.

 

[psych.meout]

Right, it just blows my mind that any program would think teaching less than half of the equation of what we know works in psychotherapy is somehow sufficient for independent clinical practice.

Well, it is a diploma mill that can't get or keep accreditation, so it's not really all that surprising that they are so terrible at teaching or understanding therapy.

Not to pile on to what's already been said, but short answer: yes. Longer answer: yes, very.

APA accreditation is viewed by most in the field as the minimum standard (with APS accreditation being essentially synonymous in that regard). Related to what ClinicalABA mentioned above, APA accreditation includes many protections for the trainee such as ensuring appropriate due process and grievance procedures, adequate resources and staffing, sufficient supervision, and an adequate breadth and depth of coursework. Could a program offer all that without being APA-accredited? Sure. Is it likely? Probably not, since there would then be little reason not to pursue accreditation.

It's true that not many states at present explicitly require APA accreditation, but without it, the licensure process can become much more onerous. The burden is then on to you demonstrate to the board that your program was equivalent to an APA-accredited program, such as by submitting syllabi and other course materials. And as has been mentioned above, APPIC is requiring that programs be APA-accredited in order for their students to participate in the first two phases of the internship match, and many employers require that applicants have completed an APA-accredited program. So even if one could secure an internship and get licensed, the potential employer pool would be substantially reduced.

This is what actually blows my mind. Why would anyone think that it's still acceptable to allow non-accredited programs to lead to licensure? Like, would you think this was acceptable for medicine and be amenable to a getting surgery from someone who went to a non-accredited med school?

I know this isn't completely related but

I was told the APA encyclopedia of psychology is just an encyclopedia and it wasn't accepted by people on this forum as a valid source of information. On its surface it seems odd to be dismissive of a university which does not have APA accreditation and then state with certainty and authority that something published by the same body means nothing. I could be wrong though.

Holding a grudge, are we?

 

[foreverbull]

I know it's not the point of the thread, but it's worth pointing out that this is a false dichotomy. CBT can be delivered incredibly compassionately and relationally if you receive adequate training, which is significantly more likely to happen in an accredited program.

On the relational side, it’s also insulting to imply that relational theory isn’t congruent with APA accreditation and/or evidence based practice given that IPT is an evidence based treatment for depression and we also have Short-term Dynamic Psychotherapy and TLDP that have research support. As if CBT is the only evidence-based treatment/practice allowed or accepted. CIIS has had a lot of faculty turnover lately, I’ve heard through word of mouth.

Back to the topic, OP, APA accreditation will help open doors professionally as a standard and requirement for some job sites. Some folks do get by without it, but with far more limited career options (most college counseling sites, hospitals, VA jobs, etc. require APA-accredited program completion). In a state like CA that is very saturated with psychologists (or any state, really), I wouldn’t suggest limiting your marketability or career options. You may go into grad school thinking you want to work at X site, but come out with a very different career plan, and with APA-accreditation, you’ll have more doors open to you if that does happen. Why make yourself less marketable to employers? Five to seven years is a long time to practice and change your mind about where you want to end up.

 

[psydoc57]

California Institute of Integral Studies (CIIS) was APA accredited, but the school decided not to continue with APA.

According to admissions, there were many reasons they made this decision. The primary factors are: 1) many states do not require APA for licensure, and 2) the program takes a more relational approach versus a cognitive-behavioral focus.

Is it essential for a school to be APA accredited? How does this affect internship?

What is the reputation of the school in the psychology community? Does that help compensate for the lack of accreditation?

Thanks.

Yes APA accreditation does matter; APA is the major (and respected) professional accrediting body similar to medicines' Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME). You would not be advised to go to a non-approved medical school so the same with clinical or counseling psychology. It is tied to internships, residency, and fellowship and definitely tied to state board licensure. It matters.

 

[ClinicalABA]

Speaking of apples and oranges........

If your implication here is that a post to a website message board by some mostly anonymous person shouldn't be considered to be the most up to date and factual source of info, then I absolutely agree. That's why I encourage potential applicants to look at the more objective outcome data, and I assume that's why accredited programs are required to publish that data as part of the minimum standards.

 

[WisNeuro]

Just to pre-empt the inevitable Mod post, we should try to keep conversation to the OP's question, specifically as the tangent here is active in another thread.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Look at it from the hiring perspective...if 95% or more applicants come from APA-acred programs, and 90% (just picked a number) of them went to an APA-acred internship (not available to non-APA acred program students)....what incentive does the employer have to take the outlier who didn't do either of those things? Now what if that position was in a major metro city that is already flooded with applicants...so instead of 3-5 applicants for 1 position it's 30+?

How does someone who wouldn't come from an APA-acred program, wouldn't come from an APA-acred internship, and didn't complete a formal fellowship or post-doc bc they weren't competitive...how do they compete w. applicants who did all of those things? I'm not talking about the 1% outlier w. 20 pubs, from a brand-name program, etc...I'm talking about the wholly mediocre student with a 3.4 and decent but otherwise generic LORs. They wouldn't compete bc the non-APA acred person would never make the first cut because many employers BAR applications that aren't from APA-acred programs. That student could eventually get licensed probably, somewhere...but who would risk hiring them? I wouldn't.

I've reviewed dozens of apps for jobs and too many to count apps for internships and fellowships, and the first cut is always APA-acred or trash. Next is APA-acred internship or trash. Then I look at the applications. From there it depends about training experience, fit, and need. My last hire was an experienced mid-level, who I chose above a handful of licensed clinical psychologists because their stats were solid and the licensed psychologists all had red flags in training. This was for a purely counseling position with some group interventions, no assessment. Also, never online. I don't care about undergrad degrees that are online, but anything grad-level is a no-go either.

 

[modestmousktr]

2) the program takes a more relational approach versus a cognitive-behavioral focus.

I know others have said this, but run as far as you freaking can! This is a boldfaced lie, and honestly gross that they wouldn't even be transparent about the fact that they cannot, or for whatever reason do not want to, be APA-accredited. My program was APA-accredited, fully funded, and EXTREMELY psychodynamic and interpersonal, something I carry with me to this day, and has served me well in applying to prestigious internships, especially ones serving a depressed population as IPT is an EBP. Learning and doing CBT is not a requisite to APA-accreditation and it's odd they would take this tactic, it seems very manipulative for students interested in this approach who don't have mentorship to recognize it is predatory.

What is it that drew you, or potentially interested you, in CIIS? Can you find this elsewhere? It would be a waste of your time and money to pursue this degree based on the barriers an unaccredited program would present with you, even IF the training was phenomenal (which, based upon their lack of transparency, it won't be).

 

[psych.meout]

I know others have said this, but run as far as you freaking can! This is a boldfaced lie, and honestly gross that they wouldn't even be transparent about the fact that they cannot, or for whatever reason do not want to, be APA-accredited. My program was APA-accredited, fully funded, and EXTREMELY psychodynamic and interpersonal, something I carry with me to this day, and has served me well in applying to prestigious internships, especially ones serving a depressed population as IPT is an EBP. Learning and doing CBT is not a requisite to APA-accreditation and it's odd they would take this tactic, it seems very manipulative for students interested in this approach who don't have mentorship to recognize it is predatory.

What is it that drew you, or potentially interested you, in CIIS? Can you find this elsewhere? It would be a waste of your time and money to pursue this degree based on the barriers an unaccredited program would present with you, even IF the training was phenomenal (which, based upon their lack of transparency, it won't be).

It's not really all that odd for them to use that tactic. They have to find some way to attract students who would otherwise be turned off by the lack of accreditation. If they create a false dichotomy of "accredited=CBT-only vs unaccredited=relational/psychodynamic/interpersonal/etc. approach" it creates the impression that accreditation is not a minimum bar for general quality, but rather a sign of elitism, corporatism (e.g., supporting big pharma), and other aspersions. It leaves the unaccredited programs as the David vs these accredited Goliaths, instead of being exposed as the diploma mills they are.

 

[Sanman]

It's not really all that odd for them to use that tactic. They have to find some way to attract students who would otherwise be turned off by the lack of accreditation. If they create a false dichotomy of "accredited=CBT-only vs unaccredited=relational/psychodynamic/interpersonal/etc. approach" it creates the impression that accreditation is not a minimum bar for general quality, but rather a sign of elitism, corporatism (e.g., supporting big pharma), and other aspersions. It leaves the unaccredited programs as the David vs these accredited Goliaths, instead of being exposed as the diploma mills they are.

Said another way. APA accreditation matters only if:
1. You want to be licensed as a clinician
2. You want to be hired in a job as a healthcare professional

If neither of those things matter to you have fun, but you may want to save your money and just be a life coach.