IW

Notes on Preparing for Graduate-Level Training in Professional Psychology (Karazsia & Smith, 2016) (copy)

Background and Context

  • Topic: Undergraduate preparation for admission to graduate programs in professional psychology (clinical PhD, counseling PhD, and clinical PsyD).
  • Historical context:
    • Boulder Conference (1949): Boulder model emphasizing integration of research and clinical training.
    • Vail Conference (1973): Scholar-practitioner model emphasizing clinical skills with less emphasis on research.
    • Counseling psychology evolved from vocational/educational guidance to diagnosing and treating mental disorders.
  • Program landscape today:
    • Clinical programs are more numerous and produce more graduates per year than counseling programs.
    • Differences in theoretical orientations: clinical programs lean more cognitive–behavioral; counseling programs more humanistic.
    • Counseling programs historically emphasize diversity training more than clinical programs.
  • Similarities across fields:
    • Trainees can be placed in the same internships; eligible for the same licensure; similar employment settings.
    • General admissions criteria (e.g., GPA, GRE) show similarities in mean values across clinical and counseling PhD programs.
  • Question for applicants: Goodness-of-fit model governs admissions beyond basic criteria, focusing on alignment between applicant experiences and program/lab needs.
  • Key sources and context cited: Prinstein (2012), Mayne et al. (2000), Norcross et al. (1998), Lawson et al. (2012), Karazsia & McMurtry (2012), Karazsia et al. (2013).

Study Aims and Design

  • Guiding questions:
    • What levels of training do faculty in clinical and counseling psychology programs desire in applicants?
    • Do these expectations differ by program type (clinical PhD, clinical PsyD, counseling PhD)?
  • Design: Cross-sectional survey of APA-accredited clinical PhD, clinical PsyD, and counseling PhD faculty.
  • Participants: Faculty involved in accepting students into APA-accredited clinical or counseling psychology programs (n = 76 eligible participants participated).
  • Measures:
    • 7-point scale for 15 competency domains (minimum and ideal levels). Scale defined as 1 = no training to 7 = substantial experience.
    • Definitions and examples for each domain provided to participants (Table 1 in the article).
    • 7-point Likert-type scale for general admissions criteria importance (Table 3 in the article).
    • Open-ended response for any other ideal/minimum competencies.
  • Design notes:
    • Exploratory study with no a priori hypotheses.
    • Data collection Aug–Sep 2014; IRB approved.
    • Recruitment via random sample (≈20%) from APA program listings; additional snowball sampling.

Participants and Measures

  • Sample characteristics:
    • 76 eligible faculty members participated.
    • Gender: 59.9% women, 40.8% men, 1.3% transgender.
    • Ethnicity: 81.6% non-Hispanic White, 5.3% Hispanic, 3.9% Asian, 2.6% African American, 6.6% multiracial/other.
    • Mean age: 47.19 years (SD = 10.05).
    • Academic ranks: 38.2% assistant, 25.0% associate, 32.9% full professor; 14 served as program directors; 2 as department chairs.
  • Measures details:
    • Competency domains (15 total) cover broad areas from scientific methods to domain-specific knowledge (life sciences, chemical sciences).
    • Each domain rated for both minimum and ideal training on a 7-point scale (1–7).
    • General admissions criteria rated for importance on a 6-point scale (Table 5).
    • Open-ended item for additional criteria or competencies.

Domains Assessed (Competencies)

  • 15 competency domains (as defined in the study and Table 1):
    • Scientific methods
    • Diversity
    • Psychopathology (abnormal)
    • Interventions
    • Assessment
    • Individual differences (personality)
    • Development
    • Cognition (cognitive psychology)
    • Professional, ethical, and legal issues
    • Learning (and behavior)
    • BioPsychology
    • Social psychology
    • Health applications
    • Content from life sciences (biology)
    • Content from chemical sciences
  • Scale interpretation for each domain:
    • Ideal level: between substantial experience and expertise for many domains (mean around 5.0–5.4 across domains).
    • Minimum level: generally lower than ideal (mean around 2.2–3.5 across domains).
  • Example values (means with SDs, all programs combined for ideal and minimum):
    • Ideal: Scientific methods ar{x}=5.39, ext{SD}=1.01; Diversity ar{x}=4.76, ext{SD}=1.36; Psychopathology ar{x}=4.38, ext{SD}=1.28; Interventions ar{x}=3.99, ext{SD}=1.33; Assessment ar{x}=3.79, ext{SD}=1.34; Individual differences ar{x}=3.76, ext{SD}=1.15; Development ar{x}=3.64, ext{SD}=1.07; Cognition ar{x}=3.64, ext{SD}=1.26; Professional, ethical, and legal issues ar{x}=3.59, ext{SD}=1.21; Learning ar{x}=3.57, ext{SD}=1.08; BioPsychology ar{x}=3.53, ext{SD}=1.34; Social psychology ar{x}=3.43, ext{SD}=1.12; Health applications ar{x}=3.26, ext{SD}=1.35; Life sciences ar{x}=2.61, ext{SD}=1.34; Chemical sciences ar{x}=2.18, ext{SD}=1.27
    • Minimum: Scientific methods ar{x}=3.53, ext{SD}=1.06; Diversity ar{x}=3.05, ext{SD}=1.29; Psychopathology ar{x}=2.91, ext{SD}=1.05; Interventions ar{x}=2.28, ext{SD}=1.12; Assessment ar{x}=2.25, ext{SD}=0.97; Individual differences ar{x}=2.55, ext{SD}=0.92; Development ar{x}=2.42, ext{SD}=0.84; Cognition ar{x}=2.39, ext{SD}=0.93; Professional, ethical, and legal issues ar{x}=2.21, ext{SD}=1.00; Learning ar{x}=2.49, ext{SD}=0.89; BioPsychology ar{x}=2.20, ext{SD}=0.92; Social psychology ar{x}=2.25, ext{SD}=0.84; Health applications ar{x}=1.83, ext{SD}=0.81; Life sciences ar{x}=1.57, ext{SD}=0.72; Chemical sciences ar{x}=1.29, ext{SD}=0.54

Results: Overall Patterns

  • Within-subject analyses (ideal ratings across 15 domains): significant differences across domains (large effect).
    • Ideal training differences: F(14, 62) = 27.46, p < .001, partial η² = 0.44.
    • Highest ideal rating: Scientific methods (mean ≈ 5.39), significantly higher than all other domains.
    • Domains with lower ideal ratings: Content from life sciences and content from chemical sciences (between about 2.18–2.61).
  • Within-subject analyses (minimum ratings across 15 domains): also significant differences.
    • Minimum ratings: F(14,62) = 26.79, p < .001, partial η² = 0.40.
    • Highest minimum in: Scientific methods (mean ≈ 3.53); diversity also relatively high (≈ 3.05).
    • Life sciences content domains again toward the lower end (≈ 1.57–2.61).
  • Overall interpretation: Faculty value advanced experience in scientific methods, diversity, and psychopathology; experiences beyond coursework are valued across domains; life-sciences content is less emphasized compared with psychology-specific domains.

Results: Program-Type Differences (Ideal Training)

  • Between-group comparisons for ideal training (Clinical PhD, Clinical PsyD, Counseling PhD): significant differences in several domains.
    • Scientific methods: Clinical PhD higher than Clinical PsyD (partial η² ≈ 0.13); overall F indicates significant difference (p < .01).
    • Psychopathology (abnormal): Clinical PhD higher than Counseling PhD (partial η² ≈ 0.13).
    • Content from life sciences (biology): Clinical PhD higher than Counseling PhD (partial η² ≈ 0.10).
    • Other domains showed non-significant or smaller differences (e.g., assessment domain differences not always significant with post hoc tests).
  • Specific domain means by program (ideals):
    • Scientific methods: Clinical PhD ≈ 5.74; Clinical PsyD ≈ 4.78; Counseling PhD ≈ 5.45.
    • Diversity: Clinical PhD ≈ 4.59; Clinical PsyD ≈ 4.61; Counseling PhD ≈ 5.00.
    • Psychopathology: Clinical PhD ≈ 4.96; Clinical PsyD ≈ 4.33; Counseling PhD ≈ 3.90.
    • Interventions: Clinical PhD ≈ 4.19; Clinical PsyD ≈ 3.61; Counseling PhD ≈ 4.03.
    • Assessment: Clinical PhD ≈ 4.30; Clinical PsyD ≈ 3.56; Counseling PhD ≈ 3.48.
    • Life sciences content: Clinical PhD ≈ 3.15; Clinical PsyD ≈ 2.44; Counseling PhD ≈ 2.23.
    • Chemical sciences content: Clinical PhD ≈ 2.56; Clinical PsyD ≈ 2.06; Counseling PhD ≈ 1.94.
  • Overall takeaway: PhD programs place more emphasis on research-oriented competencies (e.g., scientific methods, life-science content to some extent) compared with PsyD programs; counseling PhD vs clinical PhD differences exist in life sciences and psychopathology as well as other domains.

Results: Program-Type Differences (Minimum Training)

  • Minimum training differences across three programs:
    • Diversity: Clinical PhD ≈ 2.48; Clinical PsyD ≈ 3.22; Counseling PhD ≈ 3.45; between-group difference significant (partial η² ≈ 0.12).
    • Other domains: fewer significant differences; scientific methods shows a notable trend (p ≈ .055, a statistical trend toward difference).
  • Interpretation: Counseling PhD faculty tend to require higher minimum diversity training than clinical PhD faculty; PsyD programs show intermediate positions on some domains.

Results: General Admissions Criteria (Importance Across Programs)

  • Overall top criteria (mean importance across all programs):
    • General interpersonal skills: ≈ 5.84
    • Research fit with faculty interests: ≈ 5.46
    • Perception of applicant intellect: ≈ 5.34
    • GPA: ≈ 5.13
    • Letters of recommendation: ≈ 5.12
  • Other criteria vary and include: GRE verbal, GRE quantitative, independent research project, coauthor on presentations, psychology major, coauthor on publications, GRE analytic, prestige of letter writers, prestige of undergrad institution, personal networks.
  • Key takeaway: Beyond GPA and GRE, faculty value interpersonal skills, perceived intellect, and especially research fit with faculty interests and general program; good fit remains central to admissions decisions.

Results: General Admissions Criteria by Program Type

  • Between-subject analyses show significant differences in several criteria across program types:
    • Research fit with faculty interests: Clinical PhD ≈ 6.37; Clinical PsyD ≈ 3.00; Counseling PhD ≈ 6.10 (p < .001; large effect).
    • Completion of independent research project, coauthor on professional presentation, coauthor on publication, GRE-related domains, and other research/academic credentials also show notable disparities favoring PhD programs over PsyD for some criteria.
    • Important note: For some domains, e.g., GRE verbal, Tukey post hoc tests show differences but some domains show no significant between-group differences after correction.
  • General pattern: PhD programs (clinical and counseling) tend to rate research-related criteria and demonstrated research experience as more important than PsyD programs, though there is overlap and some shared emphasis on broad criteria like GPA and letters of recommendation.

Implications and Interpretations

  • Fit and experiential preparation:
    • The goodness-of-fit model is supported: faculty consider alignment between applicant experiences and program/lab interests beyond GPA/GRE.
    • Applicants should tailor undergraduate experiences to the specific type of program and potential mentors (e.g., clinical PhD vs counseling PhD vs PsyD).
  • Coursework vs experiential learning:
    • Coursework alone is not sufficient; applied research and clinical experiences are highly desirable (e.g., independent research projects, coauthored presentations/publications).
    • Even for PsyD programs, research experiences can help bolster letters of recommendation and overall candidacy.
  • Skills prioritized by all programs:
    • Interpersonal skills, general intellect, and letters of recommendation are universally important across all programs.
    • Goodness-of-fit criteria (e.g., research fit with faculty interests, general program fit) are among the top seven admissions criteria, but not always the top single predictor.
  • Recommendations for undergraduates:
    • Seek experiences beyond coursework that demonstrate substantial research or applied practice.
    • Develop a clear sense of the specific programs and faculty interests to maximize fit.
    • Build relationships with faculty who can provide deep, multi-institution letters of recommendation reflecting diverse interactions (class, research projects, applied settings).
  • Recommendations for faculty and mentors:
    • Advise students to select courses and experiences in domains highly valued by their target programs (scientific methods, diversity, psychopathology, assessment, etc.).
    • Help students design research experiences that reach levels of “substantial experience” or “expertise” within a field.
    • Encourage robust letters of recommendation that highlight meaningful, program-relevant experiences.

Practical Implications for Preparation

  • For prospective Clinical PhD or Counseling PhD applicants:
    • Attain high-level experience in scientific methods and research-related activities (e.g., independent projects, coauthored conference presentations).
    • Develop knowledge in psychopathology, assessment, and content areas from life sciences as relevant to the target program.
    • Demonstrate diversity awareness and multicultural competencies; counseling PhD programs place relatively higher minimum diversity expectations.
  • For prospective Clinical PsyD applicants:
    • While research experience is valuable, emphasize applied clinical activities and diverse clinical exposure to align with the clinical-practitioner emphasis of PsyD models.
  • For all applicants:
    • Build a strong, interdisciplinary portfolio that shows ability to learn efficiently in a specific graduate context and to contribute uniquely to a program or lab.
    • Cultivate strong letters of recommendation from multiple contexts (course, lab, clinical settings).

Limitations and Future Research

  • Limitations:
    • Final sample may not be fully representative due to nonresponse and snowball sampling.
    • Many post hoc analyses increase risk of Type I error; multiple comparisons were not all corrected across analyses.
    • Competencies and qualifications were developed from prior studies rather than a Delphi poll; possible omissions in criteria.
    • All findings are based on self-reports from faculty; validity of the reporting and alignment with actual admissions decisions remains untested.
  • Future directions:
    • Replicate with larger, more representative samples; use Delphi methods to refine competency criteria.
    • Investigate how reported competencies relate to actual admissions outcomes and student success in graduate programs.
    • Explore experiences valued by faculty across additional specialties beyond clinical/counseling psychology.

Key Formulas and Statistical Highlights (selected)

  • Scale for competency domains:
    • $s \in \{1, \,…, \,7\}$ with 1 = no training / not important; 7 = substantial experience / critically important.
  • Within-subject ANOVA (ideal domains):
    • $F(14,62) = 27.46,\ p<0.001,\ \eta_p^2 = 0.44$.
  • Within-subject ANOVA (minimum domains):
    • $F(14,62) = 26.79,\ p<0.001,\ \eta_p^2 = 0.40$.
  • Between-group differences (ideal ratings) by domain (example):
    • Scientific methods: $F = 5.63$, $p
    • Psychopathology: $F = 5.62$, $p
    • Content from life sciences: $F = 3.88$, $p
  • Between-group differences (minimum ratings):
    • Diversity: $F$ significant, with Counseling PhD > Clinical PhD (partial \eta^2 \approx 0.12).
  • General admissions criteria (importance):
    • Research fit with faculty interests: mean ≈ $5.46$, with between-group $F(2,71) = 48.18$, p < .001; PhD programs rated higher than PsyD.
    • Other top criteria: General interpersonal skills ≈ $5.84$, Perception of applicant intellect ≈ $5.34$, GPA ≈ $5.13$.
  • General criteria across programs: top mean for General interpersonal skills: Clinical PhD ≈ $5.52$, Clinical PsyD ≈ $5.94$, Counseling PhD ≈ $6.06$.

Conclusion

  • The study provides empirical evidence that undergraduate preparation for graduate study in clinical and counseling psychology involves a mix of coursework and substantial experiential learning beyond coursework.
  • It highlights differences across Clinical PhD, Counseling PhD, and Clinical PsyD programs in ideal and minimum expectations, particularly in scientific methods, psychopathology, life sciences content, and diversity.
  • Both students and faculty can use these findings to tailor undergraduate experiences to specific program expectations, while maintaining core criteria (GPA, GRE, letters) as part of a holistic admissions view.
  • The results support a goodness-of-fit perspective in admissions: fit with program and faculty interests matters, but broad competencies and interpersonal skills remain universally important.

References (selected themes cited in notes)

  • Boulder Conference (1949) and Vail Conference (1973) on training models; Norcross et al. (1998); Lawson, Reisinger, & Jordan-Fleming (2012); Prinstein (2012); Karazsia & McMurtry (2012); Karazsia, Stavnezer, & Reeves (2013); Mayne, Norcross, & Sayette (2000); Quintana & Bernal (1995); Pope-Davis et al. (1995).