Update on trends in clinical psychology training

[DynamicDidactic]

I thought this may be interesting to some on this board:

Doctoral training in clinical psychology across 23 years: Continuity and change

Abstract
Objective

Doctoral training in clinical psychology has undergone substantial changes in recent decades, especially with the increasing heterogeneity of training models and graduate students. To document these changes, we analyzed program, student, and faculty characteristics of American Psychological Association (APA)-accredited clinical psychology programs over a 23-year span.

Method
We surveyed directors of clinical training about their doctoral programs every 2 years from 1991 to 2013, securing 90%–98% response rates. With minimal exceptions, the survey questions remained constant.

Results
Percentages of female and racial/ethnic minority students continued to grow, such that women now comprise about three quarters of trainees and ethnic minorities about one quarter. There has been a decisive shift in faculty theoretical orientation toward cognitive/cognitive-behavioral and away from psychodynamic/psychoanalytic. Internship match rates were relatively high and stable until the early 2010s but have recently rebounded.

Conclusion
We discuss the limitations of these survey results and their implications for the future of doctoral training in clinical psychology

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[WisNeuro]

Actual article is paywalled, but the abstract results seem promising in some ways.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

I've attached it.

 

[G Costanza]

Norcross has really been doing some excellent research over the years. Really appreciative of his work around training.

 

[PsyZei]

Definitely of interest, thanks for sharing about it!

 

[Justanothergrad]

Thanks for bringing this article to my attention.

 

[Peacemaker36]

This is a great article, thanks for passing it along. The authors do a great job describing some of the rifts in the field (and on this message board). The following paragraph could probably be used as a mission statement by some on SDN:

"The emergence of an alternative accreditation system, the Psychological Clinical Science Accreditation System
(PCSAS), promises to disrupt decades of accreditation by only APA. PCSAS solely accredits scientifically oriented doctoral
and internship psychology programs and has been recognized by both the Council for Higher Education and the
VA Administration. Among other changes within clinical psychology, PCSAS programs will likely drop their APA accreditation
eventually (all hold both APA and PCSAS accreditation now, but have indicated their intent to drop APA). This
move will probably create significant divisions within the training world."

 

[WisNeuro]

Woohoo, PCSAS ftw!

 

[perhaps11]

Another good read on this topic:

 

[Justanothergrad]

Woohoo, PCSAS ftw!

It'll never replace APA with it's strict focus on only clinical science PhD programs. The pool is too small to make a difference and it excludes too many major R1's (not to mention R2s) with the level of research expected- there is such a small portion of clinical/counseling PhD programs (something like 30/400?) that are eligible. Many of the well reputed schools don't have it and aren't applying for it for this reason. State aren't going to drop/replace APA accreditation because most of their state schools would cease to be able to produce licensed psychologists.

There are just some dumb criteria. Why is their a requirement that programs have to be housed in departments of psychology? You can permanently write off most counseling programs based just this inclusion criteria and that would be a lobbying nightmare to try and dismantle a major established part of the field just to promote PCSAS as a replacement. If PCSAS expands their target and change their market some, it's more likely for them to be viable. I dont see that happening. I don't even agree with excluding PsyD, although thats due to more of the politics in some states that won't let new state-school PhDs form but will let similar training models form under the PsyD name at state sponsored schools (North Carolina). For everything it does right (focus on outcomes, etc.), PCSAS is shooting itself in the foot if it wants to ever be more than a vanity accreditation.

 

[deleted343839]

For everything it does right (focus on outcomes, etc.), PCSAS is shooting itself in the foot if it wants to ever be more than a vanity accreditation.

Not quite a "vanity" accreditation, but definitely a title that will only ever be relevant to a minority of training programs.

While I'm all for promoting higher standards in the service of public health, I get impatient with the argument that psychology hasn't moved the needle on mental health mainly because its practitioners are so ambivalent about or anti- science. There is truth in that, but there's also the part where even a great many clinical scientists (1) lack the knowledge, skill, and/or will to address some of the most serious or pressing behavioral issues relevant to public health (eg, SMI, suicide, opioid misuse and chronic pain, etc.), and (2) have little to no understanding of healthcare delivery systems, policy, financing, etc.

I think the accreditation issue is all part of the process of professional psychology deciding what it wants to be when it grows up, and I don't think it's a bad thing for PCSAS to be advocating for different accreditation standards. But they come off as being so focused on their signature issue (albeit a very important one) and preaching to their own choir that I'm not sure what impact they can make in the end.

 

[Justanothergrad]

Not quite a "vanity" accreditation, but definitely a title that will only ever be relevant to a minority of training programs.

While I'm all for promoting higher standards in the service of public health, I get impatient with the argument that psychology hasn't moved the needle on mental health mainly because its practitioners are so ambivalent about or anti- science. There is truth in that, but there's also the part where even a great many clinical scientists (1) lack the knowledge, skill, and/or will to address some of the most serious or pressing behavioral issues relevant to public health (eg, SMI, suicide, opioid misuse and chronic pain, etc.), and (2) have little to no understanding of healthcare delivery systems, policy, financing, etc.

I think the accreditation issue is all part of the process of professional psychology deciding what it wants to be when it grows up, and I don't think it's a bad thing for PCSAS to be advocating for different accreditation standards. But they come off as being so focused on their signature issue (albeit a very important one) and preaching to their own choir that I'm not sure what impact they can make in the end.

Yeh, 'vanity accreditation' may be a bit over-critical, but if it doesn't have impacts on license and national trends because of how esoteric/'elite' it is in the field then it's little more than a back patting exercise that has gotten some attention and people get to watch. I'm really curious how advocates of PCSAS see it moving forward in the field in a feasible way. I always hear 'this could replace APA accred.' and 'this solves so many problems', but then the issues it doesn't solve or complicates don't get discussed.

 

[WisNeuro]

I'm just hoping that it spurs APA to make its accreditation more stringent. That low bar for accreditation is very low.