Practicum Question - Is Good Testing Hours Necessary/How to Choose Prac Sites?

[FruitLover2.1]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Hi everyone! I wonder if I down the road want to do a therapy internship at a hospital/academic hospital/CMHC, is a good amount of testing hours (100+)
still necessary? I am asking because I am not sure if I need to do one year of practicum at a testing (likely neuropsych) site or if I can just do therapy sites. Currently interviewing for practicum sites so hoping to plan accordingly.

Also, what are your some general advice for choosing practica for someone who does not currently have an interested specialty?
Thanks!!

 

[AcronymAllergy]

I've seen plenty of applications from folks who've never done an assessment-focused practicum. At this point, in all actuality, students who have a decent amount of assessment experience but aren't neuropsych focused are a bit of an oddity, which to me makes them stand out (positively). Regardless, my take is that all psychologists should be competent in psychological assessment. So if you focus solely on therapy-oriented practica, just try to get some degree of assessment training along the way.

And if you don't currently have a specialty of interest, I say try to get a variety of practicum sites to see which ones are most enjoyable.

 

[WisNeuro]

Even generalist applicants need assessment (psych and neuropsych) experience to be competitive. At my prior sites, even the generalist internship spots required some assessment experience. Generally, if you didn't have at least 100 hours combined, your application was not competitive.

 

[psych.meout]

Well, now you guys have made me feel better about my CV, so thanks...I guess?

 

[R. Matey]

I think prac experience in a speciality offered (health, peds, neuro, rehab, BMed) by the internship site might matter more than assessment hours for a therapy internship. If the internship isn't offering that training experience, than having experience before hand might be of little relevance.

 

[FruitLover2.1]

I've seen plenty of applications from folks who've never done an assessment-focused practicum. At this point, in all actuality, students who have a decent amount of assessment experience but aren't neuropsych focused are a bit of an oddity, which to me makes them stand out (positively). Regardless, my take is that all psychologists should be competent in psychological assessment. So if you focus solely on therapy-oriented practica, just try to get some degree of assessment training along the way.

And if you don't currently have a specialty of interest, I say try to get a variety of practicum sites to see which ones are most enjoyable.

This is super helpful to hear. Thank you!!

 

[FruitLover2.1]

Even generalist applicants need assessment (psych and neuropsych) experience to be competitive. At my prior sites, even the generalist internship spots required some assessment experience. Generally, if you didn't have at least 100 hours combined, your application was not competitive.

Makes sense. This is really not said enough in my program. Thank you!!

 

[FruitLover2.1]

I think prac experience in a speciality offered (health, peds, neuro, rehab, BMed) by the internship site might matter more than assessment hours for a therapy internship. If the internship isn't offering that training experience, than having experience before hand might be of little relevance.

Right, that’s a good point and something to consider. Thanks!

 

[PsychPhDone]

Hi everyone! I wonder if I down the road want to do a therapy internship at a hospital/academic hospital/CMHC, is a good amount of testing hours (100+)
still necessary? I am asking because I am not sure if I need to do one year of practicum at a testing (likely neuropsych) site or if I can just do therapy sites. Currently interviewing for practicum sites so hoping to plan accordingly.

Also, what are your some general advice for choosing practica for someone who does not currently have an interested specialty?
Thanks!!

I can only speak for one (non neuro) track but we look for some assessment experience, doesn't have to be neuro necessarily. 100+ hours would be good. If you had a choice between getting additional assessment vs. additional intervention (particularly in a setting similar to ours), the latter would make you more competitive with us.

 

[thebalmofhurtminds]

Yes, at all of the sites I've trained/worked at, we still value assessment experience highly whether the job is assessment focused or not. Agreed with the hours most people referenced here.

 

[cara susanna]

I personally think that one reason I was able to get interviews at VA internships (and ultimately matched at one) despite my lower therapy hours and lack of prior VA experience was because of my good assessment hours.

 

[WisNeuro]

I personally think that one reason I was able to get interviews at VA internships (and ultimately matched at one) despite my lower therapy hours and lack of prior VA experience was because of my good assessment hours.

IME the VA especially looks for more well-rounded applicants for internship with regards to balancing therapy and assessment.

 

[PsyDr]

Would you trust a plumber who missed out on half of his/her training?

 

[Justanothergrad]

Assessment hours are ranked 14th (or 29) in the list of importance for internship interview offer competitiveness by internship TDs. If students meet the minimum set by programs to match (typically around 115 hours for non-neuro/general applicants), then that will steer them right to be successful (Program TDs rank assessment hours 13th in the same list of criteria that includes various APPI components)

disclaimer: prepublished data

Would you trust a plumber who missed out on half of his/her training?

Its a frustrating reality. On one hand, I agree with you completely about the importance of assessment as an advanced, evidentiary diagnosis approach and its ultimate utility for psychologists. On the other hand, by virtue of so many people not practicing that element in their careers, it doesn't end up divvying up trainee outcomes in a meaningful way once minimum thresholds are met to show that cursory attention was paid to it. Its why training directors list separate expectations for those looking to specialize in assessment and those with generalist/'I'll never do it again' training. Some of this reflects the over-specialization of the field with assessment being one of the worst offenders. If the argument is that extensive post-docs are required for competent practice, it shuts out all but those are who extensively interested in that element of practice (note: I'm not saying that post-docs aren't necessary, only that this is a side effect of their emphasis within a practice with hardly enough graduate exposure already). So to answer your question, I'd trust the plumber if he knew not to practice was he didn't learn about. I'd rather a better training for them, but I'm not sure how to make that happen in our circumstance.