University of Kentucky Clinical Psychology PhD

[psych.meout]

I'm planning on applying to University of Kentucky's clinical psychology PhD program, but I have a question about the model/focus of the program.

On their website, they seem to stress "integration of integration of science and practice" and talk about their students going on to be researchers, but also being empirical, science-based practitioners (working in medical centers where they have the opportunity for both research and practice), which makes them seem like a balanced, Boulder-model program, i.e. scientist practitioner.

https://psychology.as.uky.edu/clinical-psychology

But they are also accredited by the Psychological Clinical Science Accreditation System and are a member of the Academy of Psychological Clinical Science, which would make them seem more like a clinical science, i.e. research-focused, program, instead of a balanced one.

So, is Kentucky's program (A) a balanced one, (B) a clinical science one, or (C) a Boulder model one that just leans a bit more on the research side than more balanced Boulder ones?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Ollie123]

Any decent psych program should be stressing "integration of science and practice" as that is more about the definition of psychologist than the specific model. The ones that do not are concerning.

Kentucky's program is definitely legitimately labeled clinical science. They are research-heavy. That said, like any clinical science program they have plenty of people who go down a more practice-focused path for their eventual career. I'm not sure its a good choice for someone who isn't at all interested in making research a part of their career in some capacity, but for folks looking for practice-focused careers in AMCs or VAs I think it is still worth keeping on the radar. I've been extremely impressed by the half dozen or so students I've met from the program and have a former RA in their program right now who loves it. Both the clinical and research training seems outstanding. Their stats training seems among the best in the country (for clinical programs).

 

[Dr.Penguin9000]

Yeah, Kentucky is definitely clinical science, which is why I'm applying there as well.

Ollie123, do you know if not having a pubs or presentations makes it unlikely to get into clinical science programs like Kentucky's? I have 1.5 years post-bacc experience as co-investigator on two clinical psych research studies, but no pubs or presentations. The studies weren't specifically in my POI's subject, but my clinical experience is.

I asked this in the WAMC thread, but didn't get a response.

 

[Ollie123]

I don't know that I would say "unlikely." I know its not a comforting answer, but like many things I'd say "it depends." Substantive research experience trumps all. It probably matters more what types of studies these were, what exactly you did, how intelligently you can talk about it, etc. Helping a grad student enter data is not the same as lead coordinator on a multi-site clinical trial, etc. If it seems like it will lead to publication eventually, I think its generally understood that it can take time. That said, obviously posters/pubs do help. I think moreso in recent years than when I was applying (I also did not have any and still got accepted to a clinical science program). Still not a requirement and even last year I know my former grad program accepted several folks without pubs.

I'd be careful about using the term "Co-investigator." It usually implies a specific role on grant that it is very unlikely you had as a a post-bac.

 

[Dr.Penguin9000]

I only use the term co-investigator because that's what my title is and what I was told to use by the PIs on each of my studies.

On each of the studies, which were clinical treatment effectiveness studies, I helped develop the designs and treatment protocols, submit and obtain IRB approval, recruit participants, co-lead treatment groups, collect data, and analyze results.

Do these duties sound robust enough as research experience for a clinical science program?

Do you think it's appropriate to use the title "co-investigator" or should I use something else?

BTW, thanks for the help.

 

[WisNeuro]

Unless you were officially a Co-PI on the actual grant, I wouldn't list it like that, as Ollie said, it means something fairly specific in the academic world. I would, however, list everything you did for the study under research experience.

 

[Dr.Penguin9000]

Well, I'm listed as co-investigator on the IRB documents.

Does it still sound appropriate to use "co-investigator" if it's listed like that on the IRB and if one of my LORs is the PI, who also refers to me in that manner?

If I don't list myself as "co-investigator," any ideas on what would be an acceptable title?

Also, do those kinds of research duties sound good enough for such research-focused clinical science programs?

 

[Ollie123]

...you COULD, but it seems risky. Everything you are doing sounds well within the spectrum of what an on-their-game research coordinator would do with the possible exception of designing protocols and implementing treatments, depending on what exactly that entailed. A Co-Investigator is usually someone who helped design the study in the first place and has significant expertise needed to convince funding agencies it is feasible. Its possible this is a difference in military vs non-military folks use that word, but in academia it doesn't sound like you would be considered anywhere approaching the status of Co-I. Truthfully, the title isn't going to be very important anyways.

As for what the duties were...it sounds like great experience, but we really can't answer whether it is "enough." Depends on the lab. Depends on how well you can talk about the theory underlying the study and not just an "I did what I was told to do" kind of thing.

 

[Dr.Penguin9000]

Yeah, I see what you're saying, but I'm still torn about it because there wasn't really a typical grant-writing or approval process.

Like I said, there was not a specific grant awarded for either of the studies, so I'm not sure how to describe it.

 

[Ollie123]

Well, its not about the grant per se - more about the level of functioning that is implied by use of the word co-investigator.

If you have 10 years of military experience, led a group of individuals dedicated to a particular purpose and were invited to be a part of the project because you are THE expert on combat trauma from the perspective of a soldier as part of a research project developing new Virtual Reality software for purposes of trauma exposure treatments - I think that person could rightfully call themselves a co-investigator regardless of how the funding came about.

It sounds like you were basically a research assistant, they just decided to call you something else for some reason.

 

[Dr.Penguin9000]

Good points, Thanks for the advice.

Also, sorry psych.meout for thread-jacking a bit.