Terrible place to start. Sounds great, however, it is very complicated research, logistically. What are your outcome measures? How do you get them?
Here's what we know:
- PsyD students, in general, are far more likely to take non APA approved internships (to the tune of around 50%).
- PsyD graduates are far more likely to fail the EPPP at least one time
- PsyD graduates have lower undergrad and GRE scores, as a group
- PsyD graduates appear willing to take on 6 figure debt for a job that averages ~60K per year
- PsyD graduates are more likely to take unpaid internships and postdocs.
-PsyD programs are more likely to be funded almost entirely by loans
- PsyD faculty tend to have fewer publications, grant support, and/or credentials to be faculty at a university. Kind of like a medical school hiring the local private practice doc to teach.
- PsyD programs (a few in particular) are contributing disproportionately to the internship match imbalance.
- The flooding of the field for the sake of profit/existence currently being engaged in by PsyD programs is resulting in unpaid internships, postdocs, moves to eliminate the internship experience, moves to eliminate postdoc, and lobbying to lower requirements in general. As PsyDs now make up more than 50% of new graduates in clinical psychology, all funded by loan money, we are changing the average psychologist to someone with a substandard (as compared to what psychology was) educational background with 6 figure debt, limited exposure to experts in training, and, I believe, a different mindset compared to what we were. By different mindset, I think these people are more readily accepting of being labeled as "midlevel" practitioners, and more likely to be anti-science, or, rather, not good at scientific thinking. Basically, they are glorified, marginally, social workers. This is all happening so that people at professional schools can play at being university faculty and stock holders, deans, administration at these schools can profit. They are able to do this because they can always find someone ignorant enough to pursue a doctorate at whatever cost. We cannot expect that supply of students to run out. Psychology is a popular major. Lots of marginal students available to enroll in a "doctorate" program. Thus, as a field, we must shut them down. At this point, it's going to require graduates of those programs to support and help us to shut them down, as they now, politically, comprise a large percentage of our field. Malignancy is the proper term here.
Regarding focusing on clinical outcomes research, if all of the above doesn't result in an inferior practitioner, why bother having standards at all? Also consider the future development of the field. The parameters as they are, you are necessarily going to drive the brighter students from psychology. That can't be good long term.
