Internship accreditation and quality

[KRCM]

I agree, although perhaps they thought the interviews didn't go well...? That, or they REALLY wanted/needed to stay in CA.

Is there any data to show that psychologist and training programs at APA sites are superior to APPIC or CAPIC? Clearly, good psychologists work for many different sites, not just APA.

The only major difference between APA vs non-APA is that there is a governing body (APA) ensuring that the sites are maintaining a certain standard of training? Besides that, is there any real difference.

Granted, I on only applied to APA sites and I am currently completing my APA internship this year. I agree APA is important. But I do not understand why someone from an APPIC or CAPIC would have so much trouble, compared to someone from an APA site.

Please, give me your knowledge. I will be forever in your debt.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[erg923]

Is there any data to show that psychologist and training programs at APA sites are superior to APPIC or CAPIC?

The only major difference between APA vs non-APA is that there is a governing body (APA) ensuring that the sites are maintaining a certain standard of training? Besides that, is there any real difference.

Uh, does there really need to be? If you were looking at pediatricians for your child, I am willing to bet that your first or second questions would be" "Are you certified by the American Board of Pediatrics?" Why do you think this is? Could it be that the public/the consumer/you value training that meets a certain standard when entrusting care of loved ones?

 

[KRCM]

Uh, does there really need to be? If you were looking at pediatricians for your child, I am willing to bet that your first or second questions would be" "Are you certified by the American Board of Pediatrics?" Why do you think this is? Could it be that the public/the consumer/you value training that meets a certain standard when entrusting care of loved ones?

How did I know you were going to answer? What a shocker.

There are probably many non APA sites that offer good training. They just choose not to become APA accredited for whatever reason (lack of resources, etc). Does not mean they do not offer good training. APA obviously looks better on paper as it ensures the possibility of a solid training experience.

 

[CBTFTW]

Granted, I on only applied to APA sites and I am currently completing my APA internship this year. I agree APA is important. But I do not understand why someone from an APPIC or CAPIC would have so much trouble, compared to someone from an APA site.

I don't know the stats for the rest of your questions, so I'll leave those alone, but it makes perfect sense that career-wise, someone from an APPIC or CAPIC internship would have more trouble than someone from an APA site: less flexibility and a worse reputation. On an individual level, some non-APA sites are probably great. However, without an APA internship, certain career paths are closed (federal work) or all but closed (many AMCs) to you because of a perception, probably right overall, that APA sites provide better training.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

How did I know you were going to answer? What a shocker.

There are probably many non APA sites that offer good training. They just choose not to become APA accredited for whatever reason (lack of resources, etc). Does not mean they do not offer good training. APA obviously looks better on paper as it ensures the possibility of a solid training experience.

Is there any data? I honestly don't know, but I'd doubt it, given how difficulty that sort of outcome research is to design.

Are there APPIC/CAPIC sites that offer good training? I'm sure there are, but for me, it's a matter of stewardship of the field. We should be working toward adhering to a universal minimum set of standards, and APA accreditation currently represents such a standard. As best I can remember, one of the main differences between APA and CAPIC is that the latter allows for unpaid internships, which is something I certainly don't support. There may also be differences in the amount/type of supervision required, amount of didactics provided, and number of psychologist supervisors available. These are all the sorts of things that I feel are very important to training, and about which I don't feel we should compromise.

Could someone come out with a set of standards that offers similar outcomes/training to APA accreditation? Sure, but why? We already have the standards in place, now we just need folks to implement and adhere to them.

 

[erg923]

How did I know you were going to answer? What a shocker.

There are probably many non APA sites that offer good training. They just choose not to become APA accredited for whatever reason (lack of resources, etc). Does not mean they do not offer good training. APA obviously looks better on paper as it ensures the possibility of a solid training experience.

Well, first, would you care to answer my question regarding the pediatrician?

And how in the hell are employers and the public to know this and/or decipher which ones are really equivelants and which ones are crap?

Come on man, Is your whole argument here really just: "Well, of course my training was good! Back off and trust me damn it, I'm a doctor!"

I would lastly counter your argument with this: This business about accredidation is seen as common sensical in Medicine. Why do think this is? Why do you think some in this profession are fighting this notion? This argument that we have to show differences in outcome amongst the two is silly. Thats not the primary issue. As a fellow clinical scientist, I would encourage you dig a little deeper here and see if you can think of another reason why aspiring to accredit health training programs at the highest standard (and by the chief governing body of this profession) is important, both for the health of the field, and for the public/public relations. I look forward to your thoughts on this.

 

[CheetahGirl]

...

 

[FionaGoode]

I don't know about you guys, but I believe this conversation is suitable for a new/different thread. Let's focus more on doing what we can to help/support the Phase II'ers rather than discuss accreditation. After all, this is the internship interview thread.

 

[KRCM]

Well, first, would you care to answer my question regarding the pediatrician?

And how in the hell are employers and the public to know this and/or decipher which ones are really equivelants and which ones are crap?

Come on man, Is your whole argument here really just: "Well, of course my training was good! Back off and trust me damn it, I'm a doctor!"

I would lastly counter your argument with this: This business about accredidation is seen as common sensical in Medicine. Why do think this is? Why do you think some in this profession are fighting this notion? This argument that we have to show differences in outcome amongst the two is silly. Thats not the primary issue. As a fellow clinical scientist, I would encourage you dig a little deeper here and see if you can think of another reason why aspiring to accredit health training programs at the highest standard (and by the chief governing body of this profession) is important, both for the health of the field, and for the public/public relations. I look forward to your thoughts on this.

You are right. I am wrong.