McMinn(2)Reading in Graduate School: A Survey of Doctoral Students in Clinical Psychology (McMinn et al., 2009)
Reading in Graduate School: A Survey of Doctoral Students in Clinical Psychology (Notes)
Note: The following notes condense and organize the content from McMinn, Tabor, Trihub, Taylor, and Dominguez (2009) on reading in graduate school for clinical psychology. All numerical references, statistics, and formulas are presented in LaTeX format as requested.
Overview
Topic: How much assigned reading graduate students in APA-accredited clinical psychology programs complete, and what factors motivate or hinder reading.
Sample: 744 doctoral students who completed an online survey; response rate ~67% of those who visited the survey site.
Key finding: Average assigned reading is large, about 330 pages per week, with substantial variability (SD ≈ 227 pages). About half of the reading is completed thoroughly; thorough reading is more common than skimming or not reading.
Goals: Examine relationships between reading and training models, practicum load, year in program, and other demographics; identify motivating/hindering factors; discuss implications for faculty and training.
Context: Reading and Competence in Professional Psychology
Reading in graduate training is essential for foundational knowledge and developing information-gathering skills for lifelong competence.
Completion of reading relates to classroom participation and discussion, an important part of professional training (Burchfield & Sappington, 2000).
Ethical frame: APA Ethics Standard 2.01a – psychologists provide services only in areas where they have sufficient education and training; education and reading underpin competence (APA, 2002).
Training models in psychology:
Boulder model (scientist–practitioner): emphasis on research excellence plus clinically informed practice (1949).
Vail conference (practitioner–scholar): emphasizes professional training based on scientific findings (1973).
NCSPP model: practitioner–scholar ideas with competencies for practice (1997).
Clinical science model (1994): trains students to produce and apply scientific research in professional contexts.
Empirical patterns among faculty by model (Cherry, Messenger, & Jacoby, 2000): clinical-science faculty publish most and obtain grants; practitioner–scholar faculty engage most in professional practice; scientist–practitioner/clinical-science models influence each other.
Practical implication: In modern training, substantial research training and professional preparation co-exist; reading demands must be balanced with increasing practicum hours and other duties. The 2006 APA Council resolution allowed up to 2 years of predoctoral supervised training to count toward licensure, affecting how time is allocated (Farberman, 2006).
Time pressures: Reading is often squeezed when practicum, coursework, and personal responsibilities compete for time.
Prior literature on reading in psychology education largely focused on undergraduates or master’s programs; doctoral reading in clinical psychology had been unexplored prior to this study.
Participants and Sampling
Population: Current students in APA-accredited clinical psychology graduate programs in the U.S.
Recruitment: 228 APA-accredited programs identified; email contacts obtained for 204 programs; 190 program directors forwarded the survey to students after contact efforts (14 emails bounced).
Participants: 744 respondents completing the online questionnaire; 1,117 visited the survey site (67% completion rate among those who viewed).
Population estimate context: APA Center for Workforce Studies (2005–2006) reported 2{,}464 doctorates awarded in clinical psychology; assuming even distribution over ~5 years yields roughly 12{,}000 graduate students in APA-accredited programs. The sample of 744 is about 6 ext{–}7
ight ext{%} of this estimated population.Demographics (sample):
Degree type: 67 ext{%} PhD, 31 ext{%} PsyD, 1 ext{%} EdD.
Gender: 80 ext{%} female.
Ethnicity: 82 ext{%} European American; others: African American 4 ext{%}, Asian American 4 ext{%}, Hispanic/Latino 6 ext{%}, Native American 2 ext{%}, international non-Americans 2 ext{%}.
Age range: 20 ext{ to }60; mean age ≈ 27.
Year in program: about 52 ext{%} in first or second year; remainder in later years.
Training model (self-reported): 60 ext{%} scientist–practitioner, 31 ext{%} practitioner–scholar or practitioner, 9 ext{%} clinical scientist.
Instruments: Online questionnaire capturing demographics, leisure reading enjoyment, reading in classes (amount, pages/week, percentage read, thoroughness), comparison with peers, time spent reading, and motivational/hindering factors. Qualitative feedback option provided.
Data collection: October 2007; program directors forwarded links to students; response patterns and data cleaning noted (listwise deletion for regression analyses; N≈608 for regression due to missing data).
Instrument and Procedure
Instrument details: Demographics; reading enjoyment; questions on assigned readings (amount, weekly pages, percentage completed, thoroughness); perceived comparison with peers; time spent on reading and other educational activities; motivational and hindering factors (Likert scales); open-ended feedback.
Motivation and hindrance items: Collected from conversations with doctoral students at two APA-accredited clinical psychology programs; qualitative feedback solicited.
Accessibility: A copy of the questionnaire available by email from Mark R. McMinn.
Procedure summary: Identify APA programs; obtain program director emails; distribute survey invitation with link to online questionnaire; collect responses; compute descriptive statistics and run inferential tests (t-tests, ANOVAs, regression; post hoc Scheffé tests).
Results: Assigned Readings (Quantity)
Average weekly reading: ar{x} = 330 pages; standard deviation SD = 227 pages; distribution wide with 11% in 0–100 pages and 0.4% in 1401–1500 pages.
Modal category: 201 ext{--}300 pages/week (≈ 23 ext{%}).
Reading load by degree/program:
PsyD: 395 pages/week vs PhD: 301 pages/week; t(716) = 5.2, ext{ } p < .001.
Training model differences (F-statistics): F(2,724) = 6.2, ext{ } p = .005. After post hoc Scheffé tests:
Scientist–practitioner: 306 pages/week
Practitioner–scholar: 370 pages/week
Clinical scientist: 353 pages/week (not significantly different from the other two)
Year in training and reading load (F-statistic): F(3,722) = 8.1, ext{ } p < .001. Post hoc Scheffé:
First-year: 384 pages/week
Third-year: 299 pages/week
4+ years: 283 pages/week
Perceived educational value: mean learning help from assigned readings: 3.6 (SD 0.8) on a 1–5 scale; perceived reading quality: 3.7 (SD 0.7); perceived volume too high: 3.4 (SD 1.0); too little reading: 1.2 (SD 0.5).
Relationship to other variables: PsyD vs PhD differences persist but not all pairwise comparisons reach significance across all outcomes; year effects robust as noted above.
Results: Reading Behavior (Word-for-Word, Skim, Not Read)
Read word-for-word: 3.7 (SD 1.6) on 1–7 scale; skim: 3.3 (SD 1.4); not read: 2.2 (SD 1.2).
Overall difference among the three categories significant: Pillai–Bartlett V$(2,715) = 0.354, ext{ } p < .001$.
Post hoc paired-sample t tests:
Thorough reading > Skimming: t(725) = 4.2, ext{ } p < .001.
Thorough reading > Not reading: t(717) = 16.2, ext{ } p < .001.
Skimming > Not reading: t(718) = 15.3, ext{ } p < .001.
Self-perceived relative reading: average person rates own reading higher than peers: ar{x}{self} = 4.9 vs ar{x}{peer} = 4.5 on a 1–7 scale; t(718) = 7.8, ext{ } p < .001.
Relationship between amount assigned and thoroughness: small negative relation with thoroughness: r = -0.11, ext{ } p = .01. also association with not reading: r = -0.12, ext{ } p = .01.
Skimming amount and assigned reading: not related (r = 0.025, ext{ not significant}).
Program differences in thoroughness/skim/not reading: PsyD vs PhD no significant differences for thoroughness or skimming; practitioner–scholar more likely to leave unread than scientist–practitioner: t(708) = 2.9, ext{ } p = .01.
Time spent on classes and practicum by program type (PsyD vs PhD):
Class time: 11.1 hr vs 9.0 hr;
Practicum time: 13.4 hr vs 10.9 hr (PsyD > PhD, both p < .01 ext{ or }< .005 ext{ respectively}).
Year in training effects on reading behavior:
Thorough reading decreases with year: F(3,724) = 9.5, ext{ } p < .001.
Skimming increases with year: F(3,722) = 7.0, ext{ } p < .001.
Not reading increases with year: F(3,714) = 4.6, ext{ } p < .01.
First-year vs later-year differences: first-year read more thoroughly and skim less than third/fourth years (post hoc).
Relationship with Leisure Reading and Self-Perceived Competence
Leisure reading: those who enjoy reading for leisure show a small positive relation to thorough reading, and a small negative relation to leaving readings unread: r{thorough} = 0.09, ext{ } p = .05; r{unread} = -0.10, ext{ } p = .01. (both effects small)
Regression predicting percent reading done thoroughly:
Model includes: year in program, total pages assigned, gender, age, adults in household, children, time in class per week, time in practicum per week, outside employment per week, degree type (PhD vs PsyD).
Significant predictors (Table 1):
Year in program: eta = -0.20, ext{ } t = 3.8, ext{ } p < .001.
Total pages assigned: eta = -0.15, ext{ } t = 3.4, ext{ } p < .01.
Time in practicum per week: eta = -0.15, ext{ } t = 3.1, ext{ } p < .01.
Age: eta = 0.10, ext{ } t = 2.4, ext{ } p < .05.
Other predictors (gender, adults, children, time in class, outside employment, degree type) not significant.
R-squared: R^2 = 0.08. (i.e., the model explains a modest 8 ext{%} of variance in the percentage read thoroughly.)
Motivating and Hindering Factors for Reading
Motivating factors (Table 2, ranked by endorsement; means on a 1–5 scale):
When you are interested in the subject: M = 4.6,
SD = 0.7.When you must write a paper based on the reading: M = 4.4,
SD = 0.8.Quizzes or tests based on the reading: M = 4.4,
SD = 0.9.When the assignment is a reasonable length: M = 4.1,
SD = 0.9.When it seems relevant to the work of professional psychologists: M = 4.0,
SD = 1.0.When the ideas are new to you: M = 3.9,
SD = 0.9.When class discussions will be based on the reading: M = 3.8,
SD = 1.0.When you will be asked if you read the material: M = 3.4,
SD = 1.2.When you have a good relationship with the professor: M = 3.0,
SD = 1.2.When you know your peers are reading the material: M = 2.8,
SD = 1.2.Note: All items on a 1–5 scale; significant difference annotations indicate certain items are rated significantly higher than preceding items (p < .01).
Hindering factors (Table 3, means on a 1–5 scale):
When you have too many other academic assignments: M = 4.4,
SD = 0.9.The assigned reading is too long: M = 3.9,
SD = 1.0.When you have too many responsibilities outside of academics: M = 3.8,
SD = 1.2.When the same material will be presented in lecture: M = 3.6,
SD = 1.3.When the reading material does not interest you: M = 3.5,
SD = 1.1.When the reading material is not relevant to professional psychology: M = 3.3,
SD = 1.2.When you have a poor relationship with the professor: M = 2.1,
SD = 1.1.
Additional qualitative note: 317 participants provided qualitative feedback; themes included perceived importance, currentness and accuracy of readings, writing style clarity, time constraints, and multiple simultaneous due dates; fatigue and other responsibilities cited as major obstacles.
Qualitative Feedback Highlights
Motivators mentioned: relevance to professional work, interest in the subject, opportunities to be quizzed or to write papers based on reading, and perceived currentness/accuracy of material.
Barriers mentioned: heavy workload, multiple assignments due in the same week, time constraints, fatigue, and competing responsibilities outside academics.
Some students described wearing out after long days, which reduces ability to focus on dense readings; others framed skimming as a professional survival skill.
Discussion
The results align with related findings in undergraduate and forensic psychology contexts: reading tends to be partial rather than complete; first-year students read more thoroughly than later-year students; reading decreases as practicum commitments grow.
The study notes a shift in professional psychology training toward greater predoctoral practicum and research training, consistent with the increased time demands on students and the need to balance competence with workload and self-care.
The authors reflect on the ethical and professional implications of reading, arguing that exposure to current evidence-based standards remains central to competence (as per APA standards and associated competency frameworks).
The discussion emphasizes that reading compliance is influenced by program model, year in training, and the total amount of reading assigned, with some models (practitioner–scholar) reporting heavier reading loads and more unread material than others (scientist–practitioner).
Practicum load tends to rise with training years, compounding time pressures and potentially shaping reading behavior.
The researchers compare their findings with prior work (Clump & Doll, 2007; Connor-Greene, 2000; Sappington et al., 2002; Burchfield & Sappington, 2000) and note similar trends in partial reading and the impact of workload on reading behavior.
Recommendations (Practical Implications)
Promote explicit dialogue about reading expectations at course start; acknowledge trade-offs in reading vs. other responsibilities. Encourage professors to indicate essential vs. recommended readings.
Teach skimming strategies; recognize skimming as a professional survival skill and offer guidance on effective skimming.
Align reading loads with course assessments (papers, quizzes, exams) to improve compliance.
Keep reading lists reasonably concise; a focused list may promote deeper learning than an exhaustive one.
Leverage technology to support reading mastery (e.g., audio books for commuting, podcasts, or digital summaries).
For practitioner–scholar programs (which reported heavier reading and practicum hours), coordinate training to maximize efficiency; consider an additional predoctoral semester or year if feasible to reduce overload, recognizing licensure policy shifts that compress pre- and postdoctoral training requirements.
Acknowledge that increasing preregistration years to licensure could have downstream time costs, and plan curricula accordingly to protect essential reading and learning activities.
Emphasize the central goal of competence: exposure to up-to-date scientific standards through reading, while balancing personal health and self-care.
Limitations
Response rate and potential response bias: While the response rate among those who viewed the survey was high (67%), it is unknown how many program directors forwarded invitations, introducing possible selection bias.
Measurement limitations: Likert-type scales offer limited precision compared to ratio data; results rely on self-reported reading rather than objective measures.
Potential over-reporting: Past research suggests people may overreport positive reading behaviors; actual reading may be lower than reported (Sappington et al., 2002).
Conclusion
Reading behavior in graduate school matters for developing competence and professional habits, but it must be balanced with workload and self-care. The study highlights a tension between maintaining rigorous scientific training and ensuring students’ well-being and realistic workload management. The authors advocate for transparent expectations, targeted readings, and practical strategies to sustain reading compliance while supporting students’ overall health and success.
The broader message echoes the professional ethics of psychology: competence requires ongoing engagement with the literature, but sustainable training requires careful management of time and resources, guided by open dialogue among students and faculty.
References (selected core sources)
Academy of Psychological Clinical Science. Origins & background. (n.d.).
American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 57, 1060–1073.
American Psychological Association Center for Workforce Studies. (2007). Doctorates awarded in 2005–06: Subfield by degree type.
American Psychological Association Task Force on the Assessment of Competence in Professional Psychology. (2006). Final report.
Association of Psychology Postdoctoral and Internship Centers. (2003). Competencies conference 2002.
Belar, C. D., & Perry, N. W. (1992). National conference on scientist-practitioner education and training for the professional practice of psychology. American Psychologist, 47, 71–75.
Burchfield, C. M., & Sappington, J. (2000). Compliance with required reading assignments. Teaching of Psychology, 27, 58–60.
Carkenord, D. M. (1994). Motivating students to read journal articles. Teaching of Psychology, 21, 162–164.
Cherry, D. K., Messenger, L. C., & Jacoby, A. M. (2000). An examination of training model outcomes in clinical psychology programs. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 31, 562–568.
Clump, M. A., Bauer, H., & Bradley, C. (2004). The extent to which psychology students read textbooks: A multiple class analysis of reading across the psychology curriculum. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 31, 227–232.
Clump, M. A., & Doll, J. (2007). Do the low levels of reading course material continue? An examination in a forensic psychology graduate program. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 34, 242–246.
Connor-Greene, P. A. (2000). Assessing and promoting student learning: Blurring the line between teaching and testing. Teaching of Psychology, 27, 84–88.
Farberman, R. (2006). APA governance news. Monitor on Psychology, 37, 18.
Frincke, J., Wicherski, M., Finno, A., & Kohout, J. (2006). 2005 NCSPP Self Study: Final results. APA Research Office.
GIllespie, R. E., Aten, J. D., Reyes, R. M., & Barber, D. L. (2009). So you want to be a doctoral student: Themes to consider. APA—doctoral advice.
Hatcher, R. L., & Lassiter, K. D. (2007). Initial training in professional psychology: The Practicum Competencies Outline. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 1, 49–63.
Korman, M. (1974). National conference on levels and patterns of professional training in psychology. American Psychologist, 29, 441–449.
Marchant, G. T. (2002). Student reading of assigned articles: Will this be on the test? Teaching of Psychology, 29, 49–51.
Murray, B. (2000). The PsyD comes of age. Monitor on Psychology, 31, 25–26.
NCSPP. Competency development achievement levels (DALs). (2007).
Pate, W. E., III. (2001). Graduate Study in Psychology: 1999–2000. (APA Research).
Peterson, R. L., et al. (1997). The NCSPP education model. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 28, 373–386.
Raimy, V. C. (Ed.). (1950). Training in clinical psychology. Prentice Hall.
Sappington, J., Kinsey, K., & Munsayac, K. (2002). Two studies of reading compliance among college students. Teaching of Psychology, 29, 272–274.
Sikorski, J. F., et al. (2002). Student use of introductory texts: Comparative survey findings from two universities. Teaching of Psychology, 29, 312–313.
Steuer, F. B. (1996). Reading in the undergraduate psychology curriculum. Teaching of Psychology, 23, 226–230.
Williams-Nickelson, C. (2004). Outcome of the Commission on Education and Training Leading to Licensure in Psychology. Retrieved from APA.