New Proposed APA Accreditation Policies

[Therapist4Chnge]

As it stands now, there are a handful of two year degrees that easily take the place of the clinical side of a clinical psychology degree.

I disagree. The necessary training cannot be compartmentalized and boiled down to the bare minimums and still be considered a comparable replacement for the training. The "clinical" side is not taught in the first two years and then abandoned for research and other pursuits. The real clinical learning starts with the first course and continues throughout training, internship, post-doc, etc. One of the major differences in training is not only the depth and breadth of the training, but also the approach to learning.

Of course, insurance companies would like to minimize the differences, I don't believe them to be close in training or scope.

These programs are run the same way as the first two years of a clinical psychology PsyD; in fact, they are often almost completely transferable between a school's MA and PsyD program.

This is very program specific, and I don't believe accurate in the actual learning. I'll take my assessment example again.....is it the exact same class with the same training? Some universities may have psychopathology, psychobio, or similar with MA and Psy.D/Ph.D. students, but I doubt they have the same assessment classes. The training I'd argue is the difference between being a technician and being the head mechanic. The first has a general understanding of their area, but the latter is charged with dealing with the entire entity.

Formal clinical experience is garnered in off-site practicum/externships and internships in pretty much every program. So the only thing people can really be arguing here is that classes shouldn't be taught online.

Many univerisities have an on-site clinic where they have close oversight of the students. There are also experiences off-site, but there is still a "local" component that is hard to replicate. I can only speak to how my program handled supervision, though we had an on-site supervisor as well as a faculty member who also provided supervision. There was a great deal of back and forth as well as being able to consult with other professors in their areas. For example, I had a substance abuse case and I consulted with a faculty member about specific assessments that would be most appropriate to use, as they were an expert in the area.

As someone who has taken online classes and off-line classes, I can tell you that in my experience online classes are harder in order to make up for a lack of in-class component. At this point it seems to me that I am dealing with people who have contempt prior to investigation. It may be wise to define how rigorous online courses should be in the request for comments as well, if people fear it will be too easy.

It is simple, figure out what would be a reasonable amount of clinical, hands-on experience, and put it in the APA request for comments. Make a positive contribution!

I don't believe it to be a "hard" v. "easy" comparison, as the purpose is to train and ensure competence. Face to face classroom training allows for a level of training that online training has not fully captured, nor do I believe will be able to aproximate.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[QueueCumber]

No? To which specialty? Medicine is not an exact science. What are you trying to say exactly?

I didn't say medicine is an exact science, but in comparison to clinical psychology it is more exact and exacting. I get the feeling some of you people went into this field thinking you would get to play medical doctor...

 

[futureapppsy2]

I didn't say medicine is an exact science, but in comparison to clinical psychology it is more exact and exacting. I get the feeling some of you people went into this field thinking you would get to play medical doctor...

Thinking that health care professions (and psychologists do deal with serious medical conditions/situations--e.g., suicidality, homicidality, self-injury, eating disorders, psychosis, domestic violence, etc) require rigorous, in-person training does not equal "wanting to play medical doctor."

 

[QueueCumber]

I disagree. The necessary training cannot be compartmentalized and boiled down to the bare minimums and still be considered a comparable replacement for the training. The "clinical" side is not taught in the first two years and then abandoned for research and other pursuits. The real clinical learning starts with the first course and continues throughout training, internship, post-doc, etc. One of the major differences in training is not only the depth and breadth of the training, but also the approach to learning.

You are creating a straw man argument here. I didn't say a licensed PsyD or PhD is comparable to an MA with licensure, but the PsyD is certainly being marginalized by MAs with licensure and licensed MAs are easily taking the place of a PsyD by offering the same earning benefits (e.g. the ability to diagnose and treat therapeutically with much less time requirements). Most of the world certainly seems to care less whether you have a PsyD or an LMA. Most people don't know the difference between one kind of therapist and another and most don't care either.

To make matters even more comical, the type of school, the name of the school and the type of treatment are not as important as the therapeutic alliance when it comes to treating people. Some people go into this field with a sincere lack of ability to work with other people and never develop it. It leaves me scratching my head, but I guess they can always do pure research or just give people assessment tests.

This is very program specific, and I don't believe accurate in the actual learning. I'll take my assessment example again.....is it the exact same class with the same training? Some universities may have psychopathology, psychobio, or similar with MA and Psy.D/Ph.D. students, but I doubt they have the same assessment classes. The training I'd argue is the difference between being a technician and being the head mechanic. The first has a general understanding of their area, but the latter is charged with dealing with the entire entity.

So what is the problem with allowing these interchangeable classes to be taken online while making the other aspects an off-line requirement? I don't see any good reasons being given on your part for why this already dichotomous methodology can't be applied to off-line vs. online elements of a program.

Many univerisities have an on-site clinic where they have close oversight of the students. There are also experiences off-site, but there is still a "local" component that is hard to replicate. I can only speak to how my program handled supervision, though we had an on-site supervisor as well as a faculty member who also provided supervision. There was a great deal of back and forth as well as being able to consult with other professors in their areas. For example, I had a substance abuse case and I consulted with a faculty member about specific assessments that would be most appropriate to use, as they were an expert in the area.

Are you saying that supervisors at internships and practica aren't experts also?

How would you know this is hard to replicate? Have you experienced both ways of doing things, or are you just assuming that this is the case?

I don't believe it to be a "hard" v. "easy" comparison, as the purpose is to train and ensure competence. Face to face classroom training allows for a level of training that online training has not fully captured, nor do I believe will be able to aproximate.

Here we are again. Though it has been mentioned several times throughout this thread that there is significant face-to-face time requirement according to the APA documents linked to at the beginning of this thread, the argument is still being brought back to this false belief that there is no face-to-face requirements. If you have a specific number in mind for an adequate number of face-to-face hours, please send it to the request for comments, but please stop insinuating over and over again that there are no face-to-face requirements. It is pure deception.

 

[DrMaxPsyD]

This is very program specific, and I don't believe accurate in the actual learning. I'll take my assessment example again.....is it the exact same class with the same training? Some universities may have psychopathology, psychobio, or similar with MA and Psy.D/Ph.D. students, but I doubt they have the same assessment classes. The training I'd argue is the difference between being a technician and being the head mechanic. The first has a general understanding of their area, but the latter is charged with dealing with the entire entity.

I'll concede to this point. In my Masters program which leads to licensure, we were given an overview of each assessment tool and taught (hands on) to do the WAIS, BASC, MMPI and the PAI (sure Im forgetting a few others) but there's no way I'd feel comfortable going out and completing these assessments on my own without further training. So while I am able to read and interpret the reports but do feel that I need more training.

I think it is also important to note that as it relates to assessments, depending on your state, masters level clinicians are not legally able to provide this service and thus many schools inly give an overview of the various tests and assessments. I think if the move is made to give MA level folks assessment rights then you might see a move to give more in depth training (in class and internship) in this area.

 

[QueueCumber]

You seem like a "psychology is more art than science" kind of guy. I get the feeling there are lots of these types of people playing psychologist in our field.

Strangely enough, I've been the one asking for some scientific thinking in this thread... It seems the discussion of on-line elements to doctoral psychology programs raises a lot of fear with little basis. It seems that people are fairly entrenched in their points of view and I don't see much logic in the posts I've read so far. I have seen a lot of hearsay, assumptions and biases though.

This isn't something that is going to go away, so it would be nice if people found constructive criticisms to submit, so they could help mold these new models, rather than whining about it. In any case, I have work to do... Good day!

 

[DrMaxPsyD]

I don't think it's possible. There's just too much information to cram into a masters program to come out with a suitable knowledge base to do assessments.

It is possible, but would mean changing the paradigm of Masters program as they stand today. This could include giving students an assessment "track" which would mean extra courses/internship but it would lead to them having more in depth and thorough training in this area.

In one of my doctoral programs there are 5 assessment courses with two of them being assessment labs and 1 an assessment practicum. Masters level programs could easily go this route.

 

[DrMaxPsyD]

I don't agree.


That's not the problem. The problem is theory/knowledge base. They can learn the tests and general interpretation. But, to learn process takes a lot more emphasis on theory/knowledge. For example, what is a semantic dementia? What are the differentials that should be considered (e.g., logopenic, alzheimer's, primary progressive aphasia), etc. . .? What differentiates corticobasalganglionic degeneration from progressive supranuclear palsy? Does fronto-temporal dementia respond to bipolar medications? If you see an older patient presenting with mania like symptoms, how would you differentiate bipolar from FTD? How do all of these present? When do they usually start (epidemiologically)? What's the prognosis? Are they clinical or pathology based diagnoses? What can be done, if anything, to treat them? What medical conditions can cause depression-like symptoms, problems in attention, etc. . .why? Is ADHD related to obsessive compulsive disorder, borderline personality disorder, etc? What's the overlap? There's just too much.

Much of the assessment role is based on interview and behavioral observation, not test result analysis (though important). By emphasizing tests and lowering the bar, we yield all of the above to other professionals (e.g., physicians, speech pathologists *shudder*, and the like). We need to stop blurring the lines between doctoral and masters and really push to improve the quality of the field. This is why I support movements, like recently highlighted, at APS, that attempt to emphasize science in the field. Anything moving away from that harms the field further in my opinion.

I don't see it that way so we have to agree to disagree. If MA level students are able to take the same courses and complete the same practicums within their masters programs and cover the same topics you mentioned, I dont see the difference outside of protecting the scope of practice.

The issues to be covered, the way you present them it's almost as if a MA level student couldn't possibly cover that depth and breadth of information in *gasp* a Masters program.

 

[edieb]

To make matters even more comical, the type of school, the name of the school and the type of treatment are not as important as the therapeutic alliance when it comes to treating people. Some people go into this field with a sincere lack of ability to work with other people and never develop it. It leaves me scratching my head, but I guess they can always do pure research or just give people assessment tests

Yes, but the research shows skill in the delivery of empirically based treatments potentiate the effect of the therapeutic alliance!

 

[psich]

I must agree with Jon Snow. The entire playing field of the doctorate degree is different than that of the Master's. And despite the fact that he thinks that an MA is detrimental to the field, I can understand his reasoning. Jon is looking at the big picture here...how the current changes within the field are having a detrimental effect on practitioners at every level.

Every course within a specific program is built together to sustain and ingrain knowledge, critical thinking, and the implementation of its elements into every student so that they may be effective researchers and clinicians. This includes assessment. How would it be if MA programs were to simply add a few courses and labs in psychopathology? Psychopharmacology? Can going to a couple of conferences or seminars make us competent? It really isn't the same.

And, it also means that we will be going further into dangerous territory. It's exactly what's happening now...you have professional schools popping up, marginalizing the profession. Granted, I am interested in obtaining a PhD (and I have a MA), I think it's important to understand our limitations as clinicans and the limitations of the curriculum. There has to be boundaries and they must be enforced.

 

[Blue86]

But, they aren't. If they have specialized on one thing (e.g., assessment) over another, their breadth of education is limited. Further, they are not taking the same classes and the same practicums. That's not regulated. The supervisors are not the same, the classmates are not the same, the classes are not the same. The internship, postdoc, and continuing education requirements are not the same. The admission requirements are not the same. What you're talking about doing is redefining "psychologist" to be a masters level field. A lot of that damage has been done, already. . . and, it is damaging. But, we don't need to compound the issue by adding assessment priv. across the board too. Might as well start a prescription drug movement for LPCs and social workers too. If that sounds strange to you, allowing assessment should as well.

You don't see two year programs in medicine to learn how to be a radiologist, for example. Because, they (AMA) see the breadth of knowledge as important. I agree with this philosophy. Psychology is a doctoral level field and, in my opinion, it should be. It's better for the development of the field. Turning this into a technician area (which is how I see masters level training) is a death knell for the field, in my opinion. We've already done this with therapy. The lines are horribly blurred. I met a "psychologist" on a flight the other day. At least, the guy told me he was a psychologist. Turns out, he has a masters degree in psychology. You would be unlikely to meet a nurse or a physician's assistant telling people, casually, that they're physicians and then going on to talk about their physician's assistant or nurse training. Those with masters degrees are not seeing the distinction between their training and doctoral level training. Scope of practice needs to be protected, but it's not because of guild-ism or anything like that. It's important for future quality of the field.



That's correct, they cannot.

I know this is perhaps off-topic, but I have followed your posts and I believe you have some very good points. I was wondering what you think about the fact that in most Europe "psychologist" is a masters level term/field. How do you think this affects psychology as a field at the global level, and whether building up programs similar to the Clinical Psychology Phds from the US might benefit Europe as well.
(this is of course addressed as well to any other SDNer interested in the topic)

 

[psybee]

I must agree with Jon Snow. The entire playing field of the doctorate degree is different than that of the Master's. And despite the fact that he thinks that an MA is detrimental to the field, I can understand his reasoning. Jon is looking at the big picture here...how the current changes within the field are having a detrimental effect on practitioners at every level.

Every course within a specific program is built together to sustain and ingrain knowledge, critical thinking, and the implementation of its elements into every student so that they may be effective researchers and clinicians. This includes assessment. How would it be if MA programs were to simply add a few courses and labs in psychopathology? Psychopharmacology? Can going to a couple of conferences or seminars make us competent? It really isn't the same.

And, it also means that we will be going further into dangerous territory. It's exactly what's happening now...you have professional schools popping up, marginalizing the profession. Granted, I am interested in obtaining a PhD (and I have a MA), I think it's important to understand our limitations as clinicans and the limitations of the curriculum. There has to be boundaries and they must be enforced.

i do think the quality and competitiveness of the student matters too. not that MA/MS students are of poor quality (and of course there are many that eventually go on to get PhD's or could have but chose the MA for a variety of reasons), but Masters tend to lack the broader academic rigor that a doctorate provides, and the students that pursue a doctorate are more committed to psychology as a way of approaching problems and viewing the world, not just as a job. in that way it goes back to the beginning of this thread, when one of the quoted comments mentioned that distance learners tend to lack the professional identity traditional doctorates have. part of this professional identity is created through the process of even applying to PhD/PsyD programs--many folks who do not see themselves as beginning their professional career (as opposed to applying to school where the bulk of learning responsibility is on their teachers, like many other degrees) are not going to get in. those that do will then be in school with thier research mentor and an ambitious and talented cohort for 4 years, and may have to apply and interview again for externships, fellowships, etc, and then the internship process. it's not fun but i see with each hurdle my career goals are more defined, and each process is an opportunity for me to think of what the profession is, where it's going, and how, when i make choices that shape my career, can i be apart of making it a stronger more vital part of our intellectual culture and healthcare system.

 

[phillydave]

I have to chuckle at all these folks who seem to basically live on these fora, yet are finding reasons to rage against distance education.

I took Abnormal Psychology as a distance learning class. Most of the class failed miserably. Those of us who worked hard, and it was more difficult than any off-line class I had ever taken (that includes Calculus 1 through 3 and a slew of undergraduate computer science courses and graduate courses - some of which I took at Columbia University where I was working on an MS), received an "A." The rest complained a lot and a few even cried after taking some of the tests. Heck, Columbia University has an entire distance education department for some of their advanced degrees now.

Assuming a program is only easier just because distance is involved is ignorance, pure and simple. With the right standards, it can be easily as rigorous or more rigorous than an off-line course. I think the APA is making the right move here, and with the right oversight it can be a great thing.

Shouldn't some of you folks be writing letters to one another using quills and inkwells instead of using something as controversial as a computer?

Nobody's attacking technology here... and I doubt anyone here would argue about the availability of math and computer science courses online... that makes sense.

People are befuddled about how a person is to go online and acquire a non-farce of an education in a field that is based on human interaction. We're saying that it's so bewildering that it's almost an oxymoron.

Edit:
It IS an oxymoron.

 

[phillydave]

Why don't doctoral psychology programs require MCATs?

That's not the same thing.

Ditto! You just answered your own question...

No. In fact you've contradicted yourself. You're calling Psychology and Medicine apples and oranges, but calling computer science and psychology apples and apples?

 

[psich]

psybee: i do think the quality and competitiveness of the student matters too. not that MA/MS students are of poor quality (and of course there are many that eventually go on to get PhD's or could have but chose the MA for a variety of reasons), but Masters tend to lack the broader academic rigor that a doctorate provides, and the students that pursue a doctorate are more committed to psychology as a way of approaching problems and viewing the world, not just as a job.

I agree.

psybee: in that way it goes back to the beginning of this thread, when one of the quoted comments mentioned that distance learners tend to lack the professional identity traditional doctorates have. part of this professional identity is created through the process of even applying to PhD/PsyD programs--many folks who do not see themselves as beginning their professional career (as opposed to applying to school where the bulk of learning responsibility is on their teachers, like many other degrees) are not going to get in. those that do will then be in school with thier research mentor and an ambitious and talented cohort for 4 years, and may have to apply and interview again for externships, fellowships, etc, and then the internship process. it's not fun but i see with each hurdle my career goals are more defined, and each process is an opportunity for me to think of what the profession is, where it's going, and how, when i make choices that shape my career, can i be apart of making it a stronger more vital part of our intellectual culture and healthcare system.

I wholeheartedly agree. The process itself is grueling and emotionally taxing, but it is like the "hazing" process necessary to achieve what you want (or at least have a chance at what you want to do for your career). The intensive process of applying to doctoral programs, externships, or internships sites alone weed out some of the less dedicated individuals in the field. Reducing standards and creating shortcuts (e.g. professional schools with low standards and large cohorts, or attaching special subprograms for MA-level students to receive training in assessment) isn't the way to go, in my opinion. I think it's important to look at the macrocosm and see the effects of these actions on the profession as a whole, because we will experience them at the individual level though some people may not see it now.

Although I may not become a doctoral-level clinician, I realize that there are divisions and responsibilities specific to psychologists. Again, I think understanding the differences at the academic level and the professional level are important. Respecting these differences and allowing each clinician grow within their level of understanding and knowledge is something which I believe is important.

 

[appelsoranjes]

Driving to work this morning and hear… "NPR is supported by Capella University OFFERING online PhDs in clinical psychology, human services… etc."

It was scandalous. It really cheapens our degrees. You'd never hear an ad about "earning an MD online"......

 

[phillydave]

Anyone else find it funny/ironic that there are several banner ads for online doctoral degrees on this forum?

 

[psich]

Anyone else find it funny/ironic that there are several banner ads for online doctoral degrees on this forum?

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Anyone else find it funny/ironic that there are several banner ads for online doctoral degrees on this forum?

GoogleAds feeds the content, SDN doesn't choose it. The irony is not lost on me though.

 

[Wolfman89]

My first reaction upon seeing this is really? No really? Have people gone off the deep end?

I'm only an undergrad, but I see how this is just a plain out bad idea.

Why aren't there online med schools?

Well I like totally went to an online med school. For four years we watched Gray's, ER, Scrubs, and House. I am so like qualified to be an online doctor.

But seriously if people think we can do a Ph.D in psychology online what is to stop them from doing Med School online?



And for a bit of humor Saturday Night Live's take on online colleges: http://www.hulu.com/watch/101506/saturday-night-live-university-of-westfield-online

 

[KillerDiller]

My first reaction upon seeing this is really? No really? Have people gone off the deep end?

I'm only an undergrad, but I see how this is just a plain out bad idea.




Well I like totally went to an online med school. For four years we watched Gray's, ER, Scrubs, and House. I am so like qualified to be an online doctor.

But seriously if people think we can do a Ph.D in psychology online what is to stop them from doing Med School online?



And for a bit of humor Saturday Night Live's take on online colleges: http://www.hulu.com/watch/101506/saturday-night-live-university-of-westfield-online

Thanks for sharing . The fake commercials have always been one of the best parts of SNL.

 

[Division50]

An excellent debate on the merits of online education vs. traditional brick and mortar classrooms; however, it is a forgone conclusion that Walden and Capella will be APA accredited That being said I think several posters should examine their motives.

“So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.” http://kingjbible.com/matthew/20.htm

 

[KillerDiller]

That being said I think several posters should examine their motives.

http://kingjbible.com/matthew/20.htm

In what way? I know I am motivated to maintain certain standards and, yes, prestige of doctoral level training in the profession I have chosen.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I think *MORE* people need to examine their motives and beliefs, because online learning has no place in this profession. I think some people are too afraid to speak up and rock the boat, but it marginalizes how our profession is viewed by others.

 

[futureapppsy2]

however, it is a forgone conclusion that Walden and Capella will be APA accredited.
http://kingjbible.com/matthew/20.htm

How so??

 

[student til 30]

.

 

[phillydave]

You can master the grammar and vocabulary, and even the idiomatic expressions on your own, but without immersion and live conversation there can't be fluency.

Good comparison, I like it.



Btw, glad to see this thread back from the dead, it was an interesting discussion.