HELP! MSPP, FIT, Argosy, Uni of Hartford, Nova

[Pragma]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Primarily, the whole concept of clinical psychology training must get back on track and reduce or eliminate research requirements for these students and require development of clinical skills during the doctoral degree programming. PhD programs have fallen short as their students lack of developing clinical skills and their model is entirely limited due to research requirements and out dated, whereas PsyD programs have taken the initiative to reduce research requirements to produce high quality clinicians that the PhD programs have neglected due to their outdated curriculum requiring research and stat emphasis.

😱 Are you serious? Are we in Vail?

That was the argument years ago because some programs were neglecting clinical training. Clearly, this is no longer an issue (at least for accredited programs).

Edit: Might I add that I hear about Psy.D. students paying for Ph.D. students to write up their statistics for the "research projects" because they have no clue how to do a t test. How can you be a consumer of the intervention literature if you are research illiterate?

 

[4410]

😱 Are you serious? Are we in Vail?

That was the argument years ago because some programs were neglecting clinical training. Clearly, this is no longer an issue (at least for accredited programs).

MSPP is an accredited program.

 

[Pragma]

MSPP is an accredited program.

I didn't say anything about MSPP. I responded to your ridiculous comment about Ph.D. programs.

 

[erg923]

As usual, most of this post is wrong. But here's a good example of something very wrong.

How do you know this? Where is the data on which you are basing this? It's not on their web site. It's not reflected in the APPIC data I posted.

Unfortunately, your behind is not a legitimate source from which to retrieve data.

Its not suprising he doesnt value emprical data of any kind. Just look at his attitude towards science for goodness sake.

If it were up to him, psychologists would have the same training and job description as a social worker or LPC with a few years of clinical experience and the progress of clinical psychological science would be turned over to...I guess a whole other profession? I'm not sure.

Its really an interesting view of what a psycholgist is. I've honestly never heard anything like it..even from the most ardent Vail model advocates. I wonder if this attitude is being preached by some roque Psy.D faculty members or something. I really cant see that though...

 

[4410]

😱 Are you serious? Are we in Vail?

That was the argument years ago because some programs were neglecting clinical training. Clearly, this is no longer an issue (at least for accredited programs).

Edit: Might I add that I hear about Psy.D. students paying for Ph.D. students to write up their statsitics for the "research projects" becasue they have no clue how to do a t test. How can you be a cosnumer of the intervention literature if you are research illiterate?

This is misinformation as all PsyD programs have statistic and research courses. Besides research should not even be required for clinical psychology training. You are making up information and I have known PhD students who need assistance with their analysis of their research project as well. PhD students also fail the EPPP. Such generalizations do a disservice on the quality of education for PsyD programs and the field of psychology as a whole.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

This is misinformation as all PsyD programs have statistic and research courses. Besides research should not even be required for clinical psychology training. You are making up information and I have known PhD students who need assistance with their analysis of their research project as well. PhD students also fail the EPPP. Such generalizations do a disservice on the quality of education for PsyD programs and the field of psychology as a whole.

Why? It's a doctorate degree. If research is not something you want to be involved in to some degree/in some capacity, why pursue doctoral training as opposed to becoming an LPC or social worker with additional supervision and exposure to psychotherapy?

Without these skills that are developed through training in research methods, what differentiates a doctoral-level provider from a master's-level provider? And keep in mind that knowledge of research techniques and psychometric principles is (IMO, anyway) essential to properly interpreting psychological assessment instruments.

Edit: As for the two anecdotes provided, the first is different from the second in that the hypothetical Ph.D. student is conducting their own research/analyses and asking for help (as would be appropriate in any situation, clinical or research, where you need assistance); the hypothetical Psy.D. student (and please, no one take this as a remark against Psy.D. students as a whole; I'm simply responding to the two specific situations mentioned above) paid someone else to do the work for him/her. Not the same thing at all.

 

[Pragma]

This is misinformation as all PsyD programs have statistic and research courses. Besides research should not even be required for clinical psychology training. You are making up information and I have known PhD students who need assistance with their analysis of their research project as well. PhD students also fail the EPPP. Such generalizations do a disservice on the quality of education for PsyD programs and the field of psychology as a whole.

Then why have I been offered money by Psy.D. students to do their statistics for them (and turned them down on principle)? Misinformation? I suppose you have a crystal ball.

I am not bashing all Psy.D. students. Just ones from programs that clearly don't train them well. You obviously don't think quality research training is important. That's a shame.

 

[NotTheHoff]

Whether it is student loans, Federal Grants, paying your own tuition etc....Education may be public or private. The whole concept of non profit for public institutions is Bogus as many of these institutions receive donations and these are million dollar donations. Bottom line is Tax payers are paying for peoples education regardless of student loans or tuition waivers or research and teaching assistantships. FSPP with the PsyD in clinical psychology are not diploma mills as students in these program most likely have to work harder than other types of programs and many of them are minorities, older students with families, and nontraditional students. MSPP accepts many minority students who may not gain admittance into a traditional PhD program. A diploma mill is where you buy a diploma without having to work much on your degree. FSPP PsyD programs normally are 5 to 7 year programs. How can you logically and morally make statements that these are diploma mills, when in fact the majority of these programs are APA accredited and their students pass the EPPP and become licensed psychologist. By calling these schools diploma mills, you are basically saying APA accreditation is a fraud, and if this is true then you most likely could expand this logic to the whole profession of psychology is a fraud.

Essentially, the need exist for alternative educational programs for psychologists is the need to have diverse community of psychologists. Traditional PhD programs have failed severely to meed the needs of the community in training of psychologists, especially clinical psychologists. Training standards for clinical psychologists need to be clarified and re-standardized because the current model is out of date and needs to be revised to reflect current trends. Clinical psychology training must be directed at developing and maintaining clinical skills rather then basically an upward extension of undergraduate education in general psychology and then expect all of the clinical training to occur in predoctoral internship and postdoctoral internship. PhD programs are notorious for having students acquire statistics and research during their program of study that reduces the students time for acquiring clinical skills, training, and supervision. This is not needed for becoming a clinical psychologist. Many Dissertations are normally a meaningless book that sits gathering dust on a University library shelf for eternity. A clinical psychologist does not need to complete a Dissertation...such a waste of time when they need to be focusing and developing clinical skills. PsyD programs are trending towards the right direction in having a CRP but some of these programs lost focus and are trying to have their students meet the same requirements of many PhD programs, which are basically using slave labor for professors to publish research. Clinical psychology doctoral programs do not need their students wasting their precious time and energy on padding a professors research publications so they may advance in the field.

Primarily, the whole concept of clinical psychology training must get back on track and reduce or eliminate research requirements for these students and require development of clinical skills during the doctoral degree programming. PhD programs have fallen short as their students lack of developing clinical skills and their model is entirely limited due to research requirements and out dated, whereas PsyD programs have taken the initiative to reduce research requirements to produce high quality clinicians that the PhD programs have neglected due to their outdated curriculum requiring research and stat emphasis. Many masters level programs leading to the LPC recognized years ago that a thesis or dissertation were not required to be a high quality clinician and basically they are taking over the field of clinical psychology, since many of us spend our time bickering about redundant issues related to dissertation, research, and other issues that don't belong in the curriculum for doctoral level clinical psychologists.

Ho. Lee. Crap.

I really hope one day you see beyond the surface of research and statistics and understand how those are necessary skills for long-term clinical competence. The mindset you are reflecting is like those "outdated" clinicians who learn how to practice one or two skills and never grow. The skills they have coming out of graduate school are the same ones they use decades later, only acquiring minimal growth through anecdotal experience and never acclimating to the improved understanding of human thoughts/feelings/behaviors within the psychological community. This is how we get clinicians using 30-year-old techniques that have since been replaced by improved models; they lack the foundation to understand how to choose the best practice for a specific client in a specific context at a specific period in time.

Ask yourself: in 15 years, how are you going to know what instruments or techniques to use in practice? Are you simply going to use 15-year-old materials because that's all you know? Are you going to just do whatever a supervisor or charismatic speaker tells you is the way to go without having the ability to properly critique the validity of those materials in a certain context? Are you going to "go with your gut"?

 

[4410]

Then why have I been offered money by Psy.D. students to do their statistics for them (and turned them down on principle)? Misinformation? I suppose you have a crystal ball.

I am not bashing all Psy.D. students. Just ones from programs that clearly don't train them well. You obviously don't think quality research training is important. That's a shame.

You are making misinformed generalizations to substantiate your training and agenda. The model of requiring clinical psychology doctoral students to actively complete research during their training is out dated. Some of these programs restrict your graduation from the PhD program dependent upon your Dissertation being published. Such a waste of time for clinical psychology students. The majority of research in clinical psychology is meaningless anyway, especially at the doctoral level and the Dissertation is primarily utilized as a method of acquiring additional research publications for professors. Clinical psychology professors should not be required to publish research, their primary purpose should be directed at students developing doctoral level clinical psychology skills to become practicing psychologists.

 

[Psychadelic2012]

Why? It's a doctorate degree. If research is not something you want to be involved in to some degree/in some capacity, why pursue doctoral training as opposed to becoming an LPC or social worker with additional supervision and exposure to psychotherapy?

Without these skills that are developed through training in research methods, what differentiates a doctoral-level provider from a master's-level provider?

I would argue that even masters-level grads/providers should have good research training, because the better clinicians will know how to read the research. Any clinician who doesn't understand research or scoffs at it (whether due to bias or to spend more time on their clinical work, whatever that means) is doing the mental health field a disservice. We've all seen therapists and supervisors who "use their intuition," go by what they learned decades ago, or just reach for an old book rather than for a peer-reviewed paper, when deciding what intervention to use. That needs to be controlled in this profession, regardless of the "level"!

 

[cara susanna]

What about assessment? I'm assuming you agree that assessment is an important clinical skill. But it's also HIGHLY based in research: confidence intervals, reliability, validity, test error, etc. How can you deny that a research background is important for understanding assessment?

 

[Psychadelic2012]

You are making misinformed generalizations to substantiate your training and agenda. The model of requiring clinical psychology doctoral students to actively complete research during their training is out dated. Some of these programs restrict your graduation from the PhD program dependent upon your Dissertation being published. Such a waste of time for clinical psychology students. The majority of research in clinical psychology is meaningless anyway, especially at the doctoral level and the Dissertation is primarily utilized as a method of acquiring additional research publications for professors. Clinical psychology professors should not be required to publish research, their primary purpose should be directed at students developing doctoral level clinical psychology skills to become practicing psychologists.

😱 Wow. Okay, now I am going to choose to see that you are heartily joking. HA!! This is hilarious! Good one!

 

[Pragma]

You are making misinformed generalizations to substantiate your training and agenda. The model of requiring clinical psychology doctoral students to actively complete research during their training is out dated. Some of these programs restrict your graduation from the PhD program dependent upon your Dissertation being published. Such a waste of time for clinical psychology students. The majority of research in clinical psychology is meaningless anyway, especially at the doctoral level and the Dissertation is primarily utilized as a method of acquiring additional research publications for professors. Clinical psychology professors should not be required to publish research, their primary purpose should be directed at students developing doctoral level clinical psychology skills to become practicing psychologists.

Ok, I give up.

I guess my "agenda" is in question. But really, this is terribly sad. I'd call it borderline unethical if you bring this attitude towards providing interventions. You might want to run your thoughts by your training professors and see what they say.

 

[CPsychYeah]

Saw the above picture on facebook a few days ago and thought it was appropriate for this conversation. It's funny (to me, anyway), but it's also the attitude that I feel should be adopted by all competent providers in our field.

 

[4410]

Its not suprising he doesnt value emprical data of any kind. Just look at his attitude towards science for goodness sake.

If it were up to him, psychologists would have the same training and job description as a social worker or LPC with a few years of clinical experience and the progress of clinical psychological science would be turned over to...I guess a whole other profession? I'm not sure.

Its really an interesting view of what a psycholgist is. I've honestly never heard anything like it..even from the most ardent Vail model advocates. I wonder if this attitude is being preached by some roque Psy.D faculty members or something. I really cant see that though...

I value and use empirical data and use psychometric theory daily in my practicum and my job setting. You can learn and use research methods without being required to complete research. Research is of value but I don't believe it should be required for doctoral training in clinical psychology. People waste two to three years of time working with a Dissertation committee and completing a Dissertation when the time and effort needs to be devoted to clinical psychology training and supervision. The majority of licensed psychologist never do any research after their Dissertation. The Dissertation is bogus and should not be required to be a clinical psychologists.

It is quite a stretch to imply that people are not able to evaluate test instruments or research unless they have done research themselves. Research and empirical data is important but should not be required for doctoral level clinical psychology training besides the normal statistics and research courses and comprehensive exams covering statistics and research in the clinical psychology curriculum.

 

[Pragma]

I value and use empirical data and use psychometric theory daily in my practicum and my job setting. You can learn and use research methods without being required to complete research. Research is of value but I don't believe it should be required for doctoral training in clinical psychology. People waste two to three years of time working with a Dissertation committee and completing a Dissertation when the time and effort needs to be devoted to clinical psychology training and supervision. The majority of licensed psychologist never do any research after their Dissertation. The Dissertation is bogus and should not be required to be a clinical psychologists.

It is quite a stretch to imply that people are not able to evaluate test instruments or research unless they have done research themselves. Research and empirical data is important but should not be required for doctoral level clinical psychology training besides the normal statistics and research courses and comprehensive exams covering statistics and research in the clinical psychology curriculum.

Now who is making generalizations? My dissert was done in under a year. It was an incredible exercise that greatly expanded my clinical knowledge. It is also what made my degree "doctoral"

Edit: Oh yeah maybe don't knock it until you try it?

 

[4410]

😱 Are you serious? Are we in Vail?

That was the argument years ago because some programs were neglecting clinical training. Clearly, this is no longer an issue (at least for accredited programs).

Edit: Might I add that I hear about Psy.D. students paying for Ph.D. students to write up their statistics for the "research projects" because they have no clue how to do a t test. How can you be a consumer of the intervention literature if you are research illiterate?

One of the MD psychiatrist where I work frequently consults with me about clinical psychopharmacology since I have completed the postdoctoral clinical psychopharmacology training for psychologists. I guess I should say No to her and tell her that her training was not adequate. Bottom line is that a person can be research literate without having to go through the tasks of completing research. Most committees nowadays have the statistic analysis completed by a person or consultant rather than the student do it, since everything is on the computer. I have actually had to do all of the statistical analysis of my first thesis back in 1979 by hand with manually making up graphs and typing on a typewriter my first thesis as we had no computers in 1979.

 

[KillerDiller]

MSPP accepts many minority students who may not gain admittance into a traditional PhD program....Essentially, the need exist for alternative educational programs for psychologists is the need to have diverse community of psychologists. Traditional PhD programs have failed severely to meed the needs of the community in training of psychologists, especially clinical psychologists.

If this were the case, then we wouldn't see the exact same percentages of minority students in PhD programs as we do in PsyD programs. You continue to post this misinformation even when confronted with the hard data to the contrary.

Clinical psychology training must be directed at developing and maintaining clinical skills rather then basically an upward extension of undergraduate education in general psychology and then expect all of the clinical training to occur in predoctoral internship and postdoctoral internship. PhD programs are notorious for having students acquire statistics and research during their program of study that reduces the students time for acquiring clinical skills, training, and supervision. This is not needed for becoming a clinical psychologist. .

If any of this were the case, PhD students wouldn't have higher (yes higher) numbers of clinical intervention and assessment hours than PsyD students when applying for the pre-doctoral internship. They also would not match and pass the EPPP at higher rates. Traditional PhD students spend as long as FSPS students at practicums and clinical training, but because they do not also retain full-time or part-time jobs while in school, they conduct research and learn how to contribute to the science of the discipline in addition to their clinical work.

Many Dissertations are normally a meaningless book that sits gathering dust on a University library shelf for eternity. A clinical psychologist does not need to complete a Dissertation...such a waste of time when they need to be focusing and developing clinical skills. .

Lastly, if research and clinical work were independent constructs, students wouldn't be conducting research that requires performing therapy and conducting clinical assessments. Yet they are. They are also conducting research that informs treatment of the minority populations you mentioned. I don't have any hard data on publication rates (not that your "many" is hard data either), but I would expect that most students hope to publish their dissertation in academic journals. The work is then read by many other psychologists...at least, those of us trained in interpreting research studies.

 

[Pragma]

One of the MD psychiatrist where I work frequently consults with me about clinical psychopharmacology since I have completed the postdoctoral clinical psychopharmacology training for psychologists. I guess I should say No to her and tell her that her training was not adequate. Bottom line is that a person can be research literate without having to go through the tasks of completing research. Most committees nowadays have the statistic analysis completed by a person or consultant rather than the student do it, since everything is on the computer. I have actually had to do all of the statistical analysis of my first thesis back in 1979 by hand with manually making up graphs and typing on a typewriter my first thesis as we had no computers in 1979.

I think just saying "no" is sufficient for responding to this post.

 

[KillerDiller]

One of the MD psychiatrist where I work frequently consults with me about clinical psychopharmacology since I have completed the postdoctoral clinical psychopharmacology training for psychologists.

How did you manage to complete the postdoctoral psychopharm training when you haven't completed your doctorate yet? Just how many outside things do they have you doing during your supposedly full time clinical program?

 

[erg923]

How did you manage to complete the postdoctoral psychopharm training when you haven't completed your doctorate yet? Just how many outside things do they have you doing during your supposedly full time clinical program?

He didn't. 🙄

And even he did, psychiatists, of all specialities, would most certainly NOT be consulting with him. I might be able to buy it if he said FM doc...but psychiatrist...um NO.

 

[4410]

Maybe if we were engineers. . . but without forcing the research component, I think we risk getting clinicians like AA highlighted in his best clinician website ever post. There are a lot of dumbarses interested in psychology and the basic psychology major at most universities is garbage can easy. We need the rigor at the graduate school level to weed out the idiots.

So undergraduate training in psychology needs to be changed as well...I agree. My oldest son who is in his middle 30's is an engineer and graduated from one of the top engineering programs in the nation. He was required to take Calculus I during his freshmen year and he failed the course despite having two years of Calculus in his private Catholic High School. He was put on probation and lost some of his scholarship funding due to failing this one course. The engineering school required incoming freshmen to take this course during their freshmen year as all of the other courses required a through knowledge of Calculus. There were 15 students admitted into the Engineering BS program and he was the only American Caucasian student and the rest were Asian, Indian, and African students, and many had their primary education in their home countries. The course is only offered during the fall semester so he had to retake it the next year. He passed it the second time around but it delayed his graduation and it was a five year program so it took him six years to graduate.

He is now a highly successful software engineer living in San Diego, California working as a self-employed consultant making money I could only dream of ever making.

Engineering and Psychology are not the same, especially clinical psychology. My son at the BS level had a faculty mentor and beginning field placements his second year of his BS degree. Basically, his BS degree most likely trained him at the level of a PhD/PsyD in clinical psychology. He was not doing any research in his Engineer BS degree training but he was having field placements every semester working with Engineers that mentored him. With his BS degree he had job offers all over the World and almost moved to Europe when he was 23-years old. His first job title was as a Senior Engineer and he was supervising techs and making a six figure salary. Basically his training at the BS level provided him with a career with high salary and many opportunities. This does not happen for BS psychology students. He has never done research or published a thesis or dissertation. In fact in his profession advancing to the MS or PhD degree is not recommended as these are for low paying university positions. He works solely in private industry without having any research training.

His BS degree in Engineering provided him with everything he needed to know about his field and he is highly qualified. Admissions at the BS level in Engineering was selective as you were required to already have the advance math courses at the high school level. All of the fifteen students finished the BS degree program and many of them moved back to their home countries.

You cannot equate Engineering with Psychology as the BS degree is the recommended level of training for Engineering. On the other hand, Psychologist want to be Doctors so programs have watered down undergraduate training and shifted the bulk of training at the doctoral level rather than the BS level, as is evident for Engineers.

 

[4410]

He didn't. 🙄

And even he did, psychiatists, of all specialities, would most certainly NOT be consulting with him. I might be able to buy it if he said FM doc...but psychiatrist...um NO.

Yes I did, during my doctoral training, I was allowed to enroll and complete a two-year clinical psychopharmacology training with licensed psychologists and some predoctoral and postdoctoral students. Many psychiatrist have limited research training and no statistic training. This is a psychiatrist I work with and she knows I have gone through the training so we consult with each others since I am a clinician and we have the same clients. Psychiatrist have limited training in psychopharmacology and most of it occurs in their residency training but many psychiatrist at one time practices were in primary care and later on in their career switched to psychiatry. Psychiatry training has limited coursework over psychopharmacology but they get the bulk of their training during residency rotations and shadowing and being supervised by psychiatrists.

 

[Pragma]

He didn't. 🙄

And even he did, psychiatists, of all specialities, would most certainly NOT be consulting with him. I might be able to buy it if he said FM doc...but psychiatrist...um NO.

Must be a crappy psychiatrist 🙄

 

[NotTheHoff]

Must be a crappy psychiatrist 🙄

I will concede that a psychiatrist who lacks competence in psychopharmacology is slightly worse than a clinical psychologist who lacks research/stats competence.

 

[4410]

Must be a crappy psychiatrist 🙄

She is highly respected psychiatrist that listens to clinicians and we work as a treatment team. No turf issues...she does not seem to understand the difference between a PhD and PsyD nor does she know anything about statistics/research as her program did not have any courses over research. You are a misguided psychologist resorting to your own personal agenda without looking at reality.

 

[ClinicalABA]

Basically his training at the BS level provided him with a career with high salary and many opportunities. This does not happen for BS psychology students.

Partly because the psych major is often the last refuge of those students who couldn't spell "calculus", let alone pass it. Is it me, or is mediocrity tolerated much more at all levels of training in our field, relative to many other disciplines?

 

[Pragma]

She is highly respected psychiatrist that listens to clinicians and we work as a treatment team. No turf issues...she does not seem to understand the difference between a PhD and PsyD nor does she know anything about statistics/research as her program did not have any courses over research. You are a misguided psychologist resorting to your own personal agenda without looking at reality.

Ok, that's enough. You know nothing about me, and I don't have an agenda. I have a set of experiences and a foundation of training.

I have no idea why you are talking about psychiatry right now. We were talking about whether psychologists need research training. I work with psychiatrists all the time too (I am working in a psychiatry department), but I do not advise them on psychopharmacology. To do that would violate the APA Ethics code, as I would be practicing beyond my level of competence.

But, you are clearly gifted and such ethical rules would not apply to you. Nor would there be a need for understanding empirical research through practical training. Somehow you have completed postdoctoral training prior to completing predoctoral training, are able to decipher "agendas" and "misinformation" over the internet anonymously, and have figured out all of the answers to the education system (let's just have psychologists earn BAs like engineers do).

 

[erg923]

Ok, that's enough. You know nothing about me, and I don't have an agenda. I have a set of experiences and a foundation of training.

I have no idea why you are talking about psychiatry right now. We were talking about whether psychologists need research training. I work with psychiatrists all the time too (I am working in a psychiatry department), but I do not advise them on psychopharmacology. To do that would violate the APA Ethics code, as I would be practicing beyond my level of competence.

But, you are clearly gifted and such ethical rules would not apply to you. Nor would there be a need for understanding empirical research through practical training. Somehow you have completed postdoctoral training prior to completing predoctoral training, are able to decipher "agendas" and "misinformation" over the internet anonymously, and have figured out all of the answers to the education system (let's just have psychologists earn BAs like engineers do).

Did they have a shamanism class in your program?

4410 does not strike me as the most psychologically sophisticated person, to say the least. There is an interesting blend of pretentiousness/presumption, pathologic lying, black and white thinking, projection, perseveration, circumstiatiality, disorganization, and resistance to feedback that makes for an interesting Axis II presentation. 😉 The model doctoral student/practicum student/intern...sigh

We can only pray, right?

 

[4410]

4410 does not strike me as the most psychologically sophisticated person, to say the least. There is an interesting blend of pretentiousness/presumption, pathologic lying, black and white thinking, projection, perseveration, circumstiatiality, disorganization, and resistance to feedback that makes for an interesting Axis II presentation. 😉

Whew....I was worried for a minute that I might be psychotic but I only have a personality disorder. I won't need to take meds. I guess I need to go out and buy my Mega Million Lottery tickets, as obviously I have no chance of ever being a psychologists due to my inadequate training. How did the admission committee not catch that I have a personality disorder? I guess all selection committees will need to require a personality assessment with the GRE before allowing people like me to get advanced training.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Per the APA, these are their requirements for admission to a postdoctoral psychopharm program (found here: http://www.apa.org/education/grad/rxp-designation-criteria.pdf):

1. Be a graduate of a doctoral program in psychology;
2. Hold a current state license as a psychologist; and
3. Practice as a "health services provider" psychologist as defined by state law, where applicable, or as defined by the APA.

Thus, any program admitting pre-doctoral students into a postdoctoral psychopharm class is in violation of APA policy, which also means they're likely in violation of statutory regulations, which are based on APA policy. At the very least, these programs could (and should) have their APA accreditation removed.

I would also imagine that if someone were somehow allowed to complete this coursework pre-doctorally, they would not be eligible to sit for the PEP or to be licensed as an MP, as both of those criteria are based on the individual having completed the class postdoctorally and in accordance with APA principles.

As for psychiatrists not receiving research training--psychiatrists and psychologists approach and treat mental illness from different vantage points. They don't require intensive research training to do their jobs; we do.

 

[4410]

Per the APA, these are their requirements for admission to a postdoctoral psychopharm program (found here: http://www.apa.org/education/grad/rxp-designation-criteria.pdf):

1. Be a graduate of a doctoral program in psychology;
2. Hold a current state license as a psychologist; and
3. Practice as a "health services provider" psychologist as defined by state law, where applicable, or as defined by the APA.

Thus, any program admitting pre-doctoral students into a postdoctoral psychopharm class is in violation of APA policy, which also means they're likely in violation of statutory regulations, which are based on APA policy. At the very least, these programs could (and should) have their APA accreditation removed.

I would also imagine that if someone were somehow allowed to complete this coursework pre-doctorally, they would not be eligible to sit for the PEP or to be licensed as an MP, as both of those criteria are based on the individual having completed the class postdoctorally and in accordance with APA principles.

As for psychiatrists not receiving research training--psychiatrists and psychologists approach and treat mental illness from different vantage points. They don't require intensive research training to do their jobs; we do.

I went through in 2007 and APA adopted these standards in 2009. I was interested in the training and enjoyed going through it. I plan on beginning a different program in 2013 as I will be doing my internship and the standards provide that people doing their internship and are working towards licensure may begin the training. I will be licensed before finishing up the two year training. It is my understanding that there are some "grandfathering" options available for those of us who finished before the 2009 changes in clinical psychopharmacology training, and that I will be able to take the PEP exam when I become a licensed psychologists. However, I am going to go through the training again as clinical psychopharmacology is a field where lifelong training and updating of credentials will be required, similar to the field of clinical psychology where the doctoral degree is viewed as the beginning level of training.

 

[syzergy]

This thread entertains me.

 

[PsyDLICSW]

I'm from Florida. FIT is private. I don't think there's any funding there.

My bad. A friend from Florida mentioned that there was a public university funded PsyD in Florida, si I assumed it was FIT. My mistake

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

FSPP with the PsyD in clinical psychology are not diploma mills as students in these program most likely have to work harder than other types of programs and many of them are minorities, older students with families, and nontraditional students. MSPP accepts many minority students who may not gain admittance into a traditional PhD program.

1. "work harder than other types of programs" is a common line fed to students who take alternative paths that allow the student to work part/full-time and still do the doctoral training. In reality this is not the case, but it helps fend off the cognitive dissonance.

2. Look at the APPIC Match stats, the demographics for Ph.D. and Psy.D. are basically the same (if not slightly higher @ Ph.D. programs) for minorities.

By calling these schools diploma mills, you are basically saying APA accreditation is a fraud, and if this is true then you most likely could expand this logic to the whole profession of psychology is a fraud.

I have serious issues with what has happened to the meaning of "APA Acred" within the world of Psychology. There are some really poor programs out there who are doing a disservice to their students and the field, yet they somehow hold on to their APA-acred (or go on Probation...instead of having it yanked at the first sign of serious problems).

PhD programs are notorious for having students acquire statistics and research during their program of study that reduces the students time for acquiring clinical skills, training, and supervision.

The APPIC Match Stats disagree with you. Look at the avg. hours reported by program.

Primarily, the whole concept of clinical psychology training must get back on track and reduce or eliminate research requirements for these students and require development of clinical skills during the doctoral degree programming.

It is clear that you have NO UNDERSTANDING of what is needed to be a competently trained doctoral-level clinician. Research drives clinical work. Frankly, all of your ramblings about research and training are ill-informed, as exhibited by the constant corrections by other posters. Please stop making us all dumber for reading your posts.

One of the MD psychiatrist where I work frequently consults with me about clinical psychopharmacology since I have completed the postdoctoral clinical psychopharmacology training for psychologists.

Where are you exactly in your overall training? Are you licensed at the doctoral level? Have you passed the PEPP yet? Based on your disjointed, ill-informed, and overly generalized post about psychostimulants in the Drug Testing thread, I think we all should pray that you never are given access to a prescription pad.

This thread entertains me.

I love your avatar…and that comic. 😀

 

[Pragma]

This thread entertains me.

Are you not entertained???

😆

 

[psychguy819]

I have gotten into all of the above schools (MSPP, FIT, Argosy, Uni of Hartford, Nova) and want some of your opinions. Right now I am between NOVA and MSPP. I live in Miami so NOVA seems like a good fit for me but when I went to the MSPP interview I knew I would have to make a tough decision. The main reason holding me back from MSPP right now is their 2 half year internships I saw on their website in lieu of the full year internship. And to clarify, the Argosy University I was accepted to is the university located in Tampa, Fl.

I would recommend either University of Hartford or FIT and automatically rule-out MSPP, Nova, and Argosy (for reasons that I am sure have been discussed at length with this post). Both Hartford and FIT are excellent PsyD programs with high APA-match rates, but Hartford will cost less. I, too, was accepted at Hartford this year and thought it was a solid program! Congrats and good luck with your decision!

EDIT: I was PMed by a current student of Hartford. After hearing of his/her experience at Hartford, I rescind my recommendation to that program.

 

[deleted176373]

Whew....I was worried for a minute that I might be psychotic but I only have a personality disorder. I won't need to take meds. I guess I need to go out and buy my Mega Million Lottery tickets, as obviously I have no chance of ever being a psychologists due to my inadequate training. How did the admission committee not catch that I have a personality disorder? I guess all selection committees will need to require a personality assessment with the GRE before allowing people like me to get advanced training.

I am rather surprised that they don't require a formal assessment, it would certainly weed some inappropriate people out.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

 

[Pragma]

Whew....I was worried for a minute that I might be psychotic but I only have a personality disorder. I won't need to take meds. I guess I need to go out and buy my Mega Million Lottery tickets, as obviously I have no chance of ever being a psychologists due to my inadequate training. How did the admission committee not catch that I have a personality disorder? I guess all selection committees will need to require a personality assessment with the GRE before allowing people like me to get advanced training.

Aren't you an "expert" that psychiatrists consult with? Medications are a common evidence-based treatment for Axis II disorders.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21320390

But I know you don't really think clinical psychologists need to understand research and all.

 

[cara susanna]

Where are all of the psychiatry people who post on here? I bet they wouldn't be happy to hear that supposedly trained psychiatrists are consulting prescribing psychologists! Frankly, I would be offended, too.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Where are all of the psychiatry people who post on here? I bet they wouldn't be happy to hear that supposedly trained psychiatrists are consulting prescribing psychologists! Frankly, I would be offended, too.

I get consulted by physicians (not psychiatrists, typical physiatrists and IM), though they tend to be someone I've seen...so it makes it an easier conversation because we both know the patient.

 

[cara susanna]

On medication, though?

 

[AcronymAllergy]

On medication, though?

I believe T4C has completed the psychopharm course, so I wouldn't be surprised if he's asked medication-related questions, especially given that I've more than once heard of PCP's asking former psychologist supervisors (without psychopharm training) for similar input. Mind you, I truly doubt any of the physicians would take the psychologist's response without critical evaluation, but I don't know that it's exceedingly uncommon for the question to be posed, at least in a general sense (e.g., "do you think an antidepressant would help?").

I'd imagine this probably happens more often (although even then, it might not necessarily be common) in areas where psychiatrists are hard to come by and/or are booked for months ahead of time.

 

[Kappadocia]

I would recommend either University of Hartford or FIT and automatically rule-out MSPP, Nova, and Argosy (for reasons that I am sure have been discussed at length with this post). Both Hartford and FIT are excellent PsyD programs with high APA-match rates, but Hartford will cost less. I, too, was accepted at Hartford this year and thought it was a solid program! Congrats and good luck with your decision!

EDIT: I was PMed by a current student of Hartford. After hearing of his/her experience at Hartford, I rescind my recommendation to that program.

Now I'm curious to know what changed your mind lol

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

On medication, though?

Yes. They know my background training and appreciate input on the more technical side of things, as I talk more about sub-receptors, interactions, etc...that they don't know as much about (though they obviously have a lot more 'real world' experience with the meds). We have access to psychiatry, but we have had mixed results and our patients tend to cause more questions than answers from them. I don't mind giving my 2 cents, but ultimately it is up to them to decide. I'm hoping to get licensed to prescribe in the next 6 months or so, though I still don't want it to be more than 1 tool in my toolbox.

 

[cara susanna]

Interesting, I guess I thought most doctors had a bad view towards prescribing psychologists.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Interesting, I guess I thought most doctors had a bad view towards prescribing psychologists.

It may depend on the speciality...I work primarily with PM&R, Neurology, RadOnc, and NeuroSurg. Most of the patients have acquired TBIs and/or various neurological disorders that have psych-like challenges...though not actual psych dx's. I also don't proactively jump in and make recommendations if it isn't an attending or resident I have a working relationship with because I don't want to step on the toes of other providers.

A number of places I have talked to about faculty positions have viewed my training as a nice addition, as it helps inform my clinical practice. I don't have an intention to prescribe as a primary area of practice (or even practice at all), though I'm pursuing licensure in the event something changes and/or I somehow lose interest in my neuropsych work and want to significantly alter my career path. I would have gone to medical school if I primarily wanted to prescribe.

 

[Pragma]

Interesting, I guess I thought most doctors had a bad view towards prescribing psychologists.

I think it depends on the setting. Psychiatrists - yes (their turf). However, physiatrists and people in some settings where mental health issues aren't the primary concern may welcome input. But that is just it - input. Not decision-making, not "expertise" in the sense that someone has attended medical school and understands the entire human body.

I don't think we are here to debate the merits of prescription privileges, but from the lobbying efforts of the AMA, I think it is clear that most physicians aren't keen on the idea. There is a reason we only have 2 states that allow it after years of time and money spent lobbying. Personally, I don't think it is a good idea, and I work in a subspecialty (neuro) where I understand things on a neurochemical level fairly well.

Now, someone who has not completed their doctorate at all advising a psychciatrist about what medications to give just sounds ridiculous.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Now I'm curious to know what changed your mind lol

Are they the program with the funky class schedule?

*edit* nevermind..I think that was Antioch. I talked with them way back when about their program, and I wasn't very impressed by the mentorship options. I'm not sure of Harford's reputation.

 

[cara susanna]

Now, someone who has not completed their doctorate at all advising a psychciatrist about what medications to give just sounds ridiculous.

That's what I was referring to when I commented about them finding it offensive, not the "consulting psychologists" in general. Just FYI. 🙂