2013 survey of appic doctoral program associates

1 of 53

2013 Survey of APPIC Doctoral Program

Associates

1. How many TOTAL students from your graduate program will be applying in the fall for

internship placements for the 2014-2015 training year?

Response

Percent

Response

Count

0 0.0% 0

1 1.1% 1

2 0.0% 0

3 2.1% 2

4 16.0% 15

5 8.5% 8

6 17.0% 16

7 6.4% 6

8 6.4% 6

9 3.2% 3

10 4.3% 4

11 2.1% 2

12 6.4% 6

13 2.1% 2

14 1.1% 1

15 1.1% 1

16 3.2% 3

17 4.3% 4

19 1.1% 1

2 of 53

20 0.0% 0

21-25 3.2% 3

26-30 4.3% 4

31-35 2.1% 2

36-40 1.1% 1

41-50 0.0% 0

51-60 1.1% 1

61-70 0.0% 0

71-80 0.0% 0

81-90 1.1% 1

91-100 0.0% 0

101-120 0.0% 0

121-140 0.0% 0

141-160 0.0% 0

161-180 0.0% 0

181-200 0.0% 0

>200 1.1% 1

answered question 94

skipped question 2

3 of 53

2. What are your doctoral program requirements for the type of internship your students

are approved to attend (check all that apply):

Response

Percent

Response

Count

An accredited internship (APA or

CPA)80.4% 74

APPIC Member program 57.6% 53

CAPIC Member program 8.7% 8

An internship that meets CDSPP

guidelines (Council of Directors of

School Psychology Programs)

10.9% 10

We do not specify requirements 6.5% 6


skipped question 4

4 of 53

3. How many TOTAL first-year students will start your graduate program in the fall of 2013?

(This information will provide APPIC an estimate of the numbers of students expected to

apply for internship 4 - 5 years from now.)

Response

Percent

Response

Count

0 1.1% 1

1 0.0% 0

2 0.0% 0

3 2.1% 2

4 8.5% 8

5 13.8% 13

6 13.8% 13

7 11.7% 11

8 12.8% 12

9 4.3% 4

10 1.1% 1

11 3.2% 3

12 3.2% 3

13 2.1% 2

14 1.1% 1

15 4.3% 4

16 1.1% 1

17 1.1% 1

19 1.1% 1

20 1.1% 1

21-25 3.2% 3

5 of 53

26-30 5.3% 5

31-35 0.0% 0

36-40 1.1% 1

41-50 0.0% 0

51-60 1.1% 1

61-70 0.0% 0

71-80 0.0% 0

81-90 0.0% 0

91-100 0.0% 0

101-120 1.1% 1

121-140 0.0% 0

141-160 0.0% 0

161-180 0.0% 0

181-200 0.0% 0

>200 1.1% 1


skipped question 2

4. How satisfied are you with the communication provided to you by the internship Training

Directors working with your students?

Very

Dissatisfied

Somewhat

DissatisfiedNeutral

Somewhat

Satisfied

Very

Satisfied

Rating

Average

Rating

Count

0.0% (0) 8.6% (8)16.1%

(15)46.2% (43)

29.0%

(27)3.96 93


skipped question 3

6 of 53

5. Given goals of Courageous Conversations I and II, how has your program modified the

number of students entering into your program?

Response

Count

76


skipped question 20

6. Please provide any comments on communication between graduate programs and

internship programs. NOTE: The APPIC Board recognizes that communication

between doctoral programs and internship programs is a TEAM process, and that there is

an expectation that Internship Training Directors provide feedback to Directors of Clinical

Training. Please see the CCTC guidelines about communication:CCTC Guidelines for

Communication between Graduate Programs and Internship Programs

Response

Count

41


skipped question 55

7. Please share your ideas with the APPIC Board about how to increase APPIC's

effectiveness as an organization dedicated to psychology internship and postdoctoral

training, priorities for APPIC, or future directions.

Response

Count

54


skipped question 42

7 of 53

8. What types of articles / topics would you like to see published in the TEPP Journal?

Response

Count

32


skipped question 64

9. Did you and your students participate in the Phase 2 Match process?

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Yes 60.6% 57

No 39.4% 37


skipped question 2

8 of 53

10. Please specify if you or any of your students experienced any difficulties with the

following activities during PHASE 2 of the Match:

No

Difficulty

Little

Difficulty

Moderate

Difficulty

Quite A

Bit of

Difficulty

Great

Deal of

Difficulty

Rating

Average

Rating

Count

Understanding the instructions on

the APPIC and NMS web sites for

participating in Phase 2

66.7%

(36)

27.8%

(15)5.6% (3) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 1.39 54

Using the AAPI Online service to

update and submit applications

during Phase 2 via the AAPI Online

service

72.2%

(39)

25.9%

(14)0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 1.9% (1) 1.33 54

Accessing the List of Unfilled

Positions on the NMS web site70.4%

(38)

25.9%

(14)3.7% (2) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 1.33 54

Accessing the APPIC Directory

Online to obtain information about

programs

77.8%

(42)

20.4%

(11)0.0% (0) 1.9% (1) 0.0% (0) 1.26 54

Entering and submitting my Rank

Order List for Phase 2 of the Match80.4%

(41)17.6% (9) 2.0% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 1.22 51


skipped question 42

9 of 53

11. You may recall that the timeline for Phase 2 of the Match was: Friday, Feb 22: List of

programs with unfilled positions is posted, applicants begin submitting applications

Thursday, Febrary 28: Deadline for submission of applications Monday, March 18:

Phase 2 Rank Order List deadline Monday, March 25: Phase II Match Day Please

respond to the following items about the timing of the process:

Too Short About Right Too LongRating

Average

Rating

Count

Amount of time to review list of

unfilled positions and submit

applications (6 days)

20.4% (11) 72.2% (39) 7.4% (4) 1.87 54

Amount of time to interview and

submit Rank Order List (18 days)9.4% (5) 75.5% (40) 15.1% (8) 2.06 53

Amount of time to wait for results

(7 days)1.9% (1) 81.1% (43) 17.0% (9) 2.15 53

Overall length from beginning to

end (just over one month)9.4% (5) 71.7% (38) 18.9% (10) 2.09 53


skipped question 42

10 of 53

12. This item asks you to compare Phase 2 of the Match with the old APPIC "Clearinghouse,"

which was discontinued in 2010. In the Clearinghouse process, applicants would apply for

vacancies as quickly as possible while programs would make relatively quick decisions

regarding whom to interview and to whom they would make offers. Based on what you

experienced or heard about the old APPIC Clearinghouse, and using your experience in Phase 2

of the APPIC Match, please compare the Clearinghouse and Phase 2 on the following

dimensions: (Please skip this item if you do not know enough about the Clearinghouse to make

comparisons)

Clearinghouse

was a lot

better

Clearinghouse

was somewhat

better

About

the

same /

Unsure

Phase 2

was

somewhat

better

Phase

2 was

a lot

better

Rating

Average

Rating

Count

Fairness to applicants 0.0% (0) 6.0% (3)4.0%

(2)22.0% (11)

68.0%

(34)4.52

Orderliness of the process 2.0% (1) 0.0% (0)4.0%

(2)16.0% (8)

78.0%

(39)4.68

Amount of pressure on applicants 2.0% (1) 3.9% (2)23.5%

(12)23.5% (12)

47.1%

(24)4.10

Your overall opinion of the

Clearinghouse vs. the Match Phase

2

4.0% (2) 4.0% (2)6.0%

(3)14.0% (7)

72.0%

(36)4.46

answered question

skipped question

13. Should APPIC continue to offer a "Phase 2" of the Match in future years?

Strongly

DisagreeDisagree

Unsure /

NeutralAgree

Strongly

Agree

Rating

Average

Rating

Count

1.9% (1) 1.9% (1) 3.8% (2)18.9%

(10)73.6%

(39)4.60 53


skipped question 43

11 of 53

14. What did you like about PHASE 2 of the APPIC Match? (You may enter as much

information as you wish - the text area will expand as you type)

Response

Count

35


skipped question 61

15. What did you dislike or find problematic about PHASE 2 of the APPIC Match? What

suggestions do you have for improvement? (You may enter as much information as you

wish - the text area will expand as you type)

Response

Count

30


skipped question 66

16. If students from your program withdrew from the Match, please explain why they

withdrew. (You may enter as much information as you wish - the text area will expand as

you type)

Response

Count

32


skipped question 64

12 of 53

17. For students from your program that did not obtain an internship through the APPIC

Match, how else were they able to find an internship?

Response

Count

40


skipped question 56

13 of 53

18. APPIC is interested in your view of the value of postdoctoral training in the sequence of

training for professional psychology. Please rank order the following statements regarding the

value or purpose of postdoctoral training (Indicate your rankings by dragging items or by

changing their numerical value. It may falsely appear as though item ranks do not change due to

similarity in the sentence stems)..

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Rating

Average

Rating

Count

to obtain advanced or specialized

training in a particular area64.1%

(50)

21.8%

(17)

10.3%

(8)

3.8%

(3)

0.0%

(0)

0.0%

(0)

0.0%

(0)

0.0%

(0)1.54

to further training in areas were

competence has not yet been

developed

6.4%

(5)

17.9%

(14)26.9%

(21)

20.5%

(16)

14.1%

(11)

5.1%

(4)

1.3%

(1)

7.7%

(6)3.77

in lieu of or as a stepping stone to

a staff position

0.0%

(0)

3.8%

(3)

14.1%

(11)19.2%

(15)

16.7%

(13)

17.9%

(14)

9.0%

(7)19.2%

(15)5.35

to further develop in areas of

professionalism

0.0%

(0)

9.0%

(7)

15.4%

(12)

20.5%

(16)21.8%

(17)

21.8%

(17)

6.4%

(5)

5.1%

(4)4.72

to obtain supervision hours for

licensure

21.8%

(17)23.1%

(18)

12.8%

(10)

11.5%

(9)

16.7%

(13)

5.1%

(4)

3.8%

(3)

5.1%

(4)3.35

to obtain research and academic

skills

7.7%

(6)20.5%

(16)

15.4%

(12)

7.7%

(6)

11.5%

(9)

17.9%

(14)

12.8%

(10)

6.4%

(5)4.32

to obtain consultation skills in a

medical setting

0.0%

(0)

0.0%

(0)

1.3%

(1)

6.4%

(5)

7.7%

(6)

20.5%

(16)44.9%

(35)

19.2%

(15)6.59

to obtain leadership/administrative

skills

0.0%

(0)

3.8%

(3)

3.8%

(3)

10.3%

(8)

11.5%

(9)

11.5%

(9)

21.8%

(17)37.2%

(29)6.37

answered question

skipped question

14 of 53

19. Do you have any additional feedback you would like to provide the APPIC Board?

Response

Count

23


skipped question 73

20. Please enter your four digit APPIC program number to verify you are the DCT

representing this site.

Response

Count

68


skipped question 28

15 of 53

16 of 53

Page 2, Q5. Given goals of Courageous Conversations I and II, how has your program modified the number ofstudents entering into your program?

1 We want to admit between 4-7 and feel this gives us the chance to have a true"class" without inflating numbers.

Jul 8, 2013 1:53 PM

2 Willing to take a lower number of students than our cap of 22. Have taken lessthan 20 over the last 3 rounds of admissions.

Jun 4, 2013 4:06 PM

3 Have received no information on Courageous Conversations (searched APPICsite and did not find document).

May 30, 2013 10:36 AM

4 We started our program with 10 students per year and now we are at 8, but thiswas reduced due to the amount of university funding available and occurred priorto the Courageous Conversations.

May 27, 2013 7:04 PM

5 No May 26, 2013 11:34 AM

6 We haven't as this is an unnecesarry and unreasonable expectation of anyprogram. However, we have admitted fewer students over the years anyway.

May 25, 2013 10:44 AM

7 not modified. Depended on our funding availabilities May 23, 2013 5:09 AM

8 We have encouraged our students to get as many clinical hours as possiblebefore applying. We are also being much more picky about where we areallowing students to apply.

May 21, 2013 12:37 PM

9 we already admit minimum number of students to make enough class size. wekeep our admission number around 4-6.

May 20, 2013 4:17 PM

10 We decreased our numbers about 10 years ago and have remained unchangedsince then.

May 20, 2013 10:26 AM

11 This year we took 2 fewer first year students than usual. May 20, 2013 7:54 AM

12 We have halved the number of students we normally take. May 19, 2013 1:57 PM

13 held constant or reduced incoming class size May 19, 2013 10:06 AM

14 Not at all. May 19, 2013 9:51 AM

15 No, we admit a small number of students (6 or 7) who are closely mentored. May 19, 2013 6:40 AM

16 we have not modified--already very selective May 19, 2013 5:56 AM

17 We continue to seek a class size of no less than 4 and typically no more than 6 May 18, 2013 10:31 PM

18 no idea what Courageous Conversations 1 and II are, but we have not modifiedthe number of students entering our program. We are under pressure from ourown admin. and faculty to remain at 11 or to expand, but that is not practical.This past year, 2012-13, we placed 11 students in accredited internships, 1 in anAPPIC/not accredited internship, 1 in an "unaccredited" internship, and 1 failedto place and will try again next year. The high number of applicants, 14, wasthe result of 7 unplaced students the previous year.....It's a major ongoingproblem. And they all want to increase their pre-internship practicum hours tobecome more "competitive", taking an extra year to do that in many cases.

May 18, 2013 10:11 PM

17 of 53


19 We do not have an entering class for the fall of 2013. May 18, 2013 6:17 PM

20 The program will decrease the entering students by 5 in 2014. May 18, 2013 4:58 PM

21 w= reduced by 5 from two years ago May 18, 2013 4:36 PM

22 Reduced it by 1. May 18, 2013 4:19 PM

23 we have lowered the number in the past few years; 5 years ago we wereadmitting 8 or 9 students;

May 18, 2013 3:53 PM

24 We are already a small program May 18, 2013 3:38 PM

25 We have not altered our numbers-we can not go below 6 and will not go above7.

May 13, 2013 9:00 AM

26 The number of students we admit to the doctoral program is dependent onfunding. We typically admit between 6-8. No changes.

May 10, 2013 4:52 PM

27 have not done much but will reduce the number of students admitted May 7, 2013 4:12 PM

28 We have lowered the number of students entering the program each year. May 7, 2013 10:37 AM

29 None we have always been small. May 7, 2013 9:37 AM

30 We have not modified our approach to admissions based on the goals ofCourageous Conversations I or II.

May 7, 2013 6:28 AM

31 We have small numbers and are limited in our ability to adjust our enrollment upor down.

May 5, 2013 4:24 PM

32 We are trying to stay at 6; we only have 5 core faculty. We took 7 this year for aparticular reason (long story). But have only done 6 for the last 3 years. We can'tgo below that or our university won't count it as a "class" to teach (must have atleast 6 students for a graduate class to "make." ).

May 5, 2013 10:07 AM

33 We are thinking about admitting a smaller cohort in the future for student fundingissues, but as of now we have not changed the number of students admittedbecause we are not admitting a large number of students.

May 3, 2013 2:21 PM

34 We take 1 fewer student now than we have in the past, and typically lose 1student per cohort by the time of internship application. Given the very smallsize of our incoming cohorts, and Graduate School requirements for number ofstudents enrolled in graduate courses, it is difficult for us to reduce much morethan this.

May 3, 2013 1:51 PM

35 No changes to date May 3, 2013 9:01 AM

36 No modifications - we admit very small numbers May 3, 2013 9:00 AM

37 We have a small program that is not targeted for high growth. May 2, 2013 6:51 PM

38 We have decreased. May 1, 2013 6:03 PM

18 of 53


39 Not at all May 1, 2013 10:07 AM

40 We haven't. We stay at 5-8 students per year. May 1, 2013 9:59 AM

41 We have not modified our program's number of admissions in any way. We arean unaccredited program that is scheduled for a CoA site visit in 3 weeks. Weare bound by the state's commission on higher education to admit the samenumber of students they were told we would do in our application for approval ofthe program.

May 1, 2013 9:42 AM

42 We have had a steady class size ranging from 6 - 8. We need a minimum of 6 toensure our courses have sufficient enrollment to satisfy University requirements.

May 1, 2013 8:46 AM

43 We typically have had 7 in past years. The move to 4 for 2013 and 2014 is dueto having lost some faculty recently.

May 1, 2013 8:40 AM

44 We most likely will be admitting fewer students. May 1, 2013 6:47 AM

45 We have made no modifications - we typically admit 8 students per year. May 1, 2013 6:17 AM

46 We have not, but our enrollment has been going down anyway. May 1, 2013 5:32 AM

47 In the past, we accepted 6 students per year. We are now accepting 5 studentsper year.

May 1, 2013 5:05 AM

48 No change, although I am very aware of these conversations. We admit basedon funding availability, not internship availability.

May 1, 2013 4:45 AM

49 We accepted very few among the top students Apr 30, 2013 6:23 PM

50 not modified based on these issues Apr 30, 2013 5:49 PM

51 our admissions process has not be altered as a response to the CourageousConversations. Rather, we have been careful to prepare students well forinternship and advise against applying when students may not be competitive.These measures have significantly reduced our non-match rate.

Apr 30, 2013 4:55 PM

52 We have reduced the number from 60 to 55. However, we have also started aPhD program, so the effect will be neutral. We also are a bit clearer about ourstandards so that we are able to identify students who are struggling earlier inthe program.

Apr 30, 2013 2:23 PM

53 We have not. Our admission rate is already very low. Apr 30, 2013 2:10 PM

54 we have been and remain very small but have certainly not made any effort toincrease

Apr 30, 2013 2:08 PM

55 We are always 6-8 and sometimes less depending on the year. We do notbelieve we are part of the problem, nor will we put our training program at riskbecause of other programs that are flooding the area with students.

Apr 30, 2013 1:29 PM

56 Ratio 2 students to 1 faculty...anything larger than that is problematic to thesupply/demand issue within the field/internship imbalance issue. Students must

Apr 30, 2013 1:17 PM

19 of 53


have dissertation proposed prior to the match process, this limits the supply ofstudents in the immediate match process and prevents ABDs from takingprecious spots from those that finish the PhD. We provide assistance to thosewho don't match. For those who don't match [1 (who only applied for oneplacement in one state) in last 8 years] we have set them up with internshipplacements, locally, that meet the requirements for licensure in the state, so theimbalance has not impacted our students negatively. Stating the specific goalsyou are referring would be helpful to have added to this item as I had troublelocating the implications of Courageous Conversations I and II on the number ofstudents entering programs. I could not locate this information on APPIC, APA,APAGS, or CCTC Programs with persistently poor match rates or those thatexceed a certain faculty to student ratio should not be allowed to be a part of theAPPIC match process. That would take care of the supply issue in rapid fashion.Why is APA and/or APPIC not attending to this issue of quality vs. quantity?

57 We haven't made a functional change but it has allowed us to stand our groundand not grow the program when pressed to do so.

Apr 30, 2013 12:58 PM

58 We haven't. But both faculty and students have devalued the importance of anAPA-Accredited internship. Given that there aren't enough positions and manygood students go unmatched, the accreditation status of the program isbecoming increasingly meaningless.

Apr 30, 2013 12:14 PM

59 We haven't, rather we've developed a captured internship consortium andsupport the creation of independent internships.

Apr 30, 2013 11:52 AM

60 We used to admit 8 per year; we are now at 6. We are exploring options todevelop an affiliated internship, but options are limited in our area.

Apr 30, 2013 11:49 AM

61 we have not reduced the number of students entering because our internplacement rates range between 85% and 100% over the past five years

Apr 30, 2013 11:43 AM

62 It hasn't. We send fewer than 6-8 students out in any one year - often fewer. Apr 30, 2013 11:42 AM

63 We have a tiny program to begin with, usually only admitting 4-7 students, so nochange.

Apr 30, 2013 11:33 AM

64 No Apr 30, 2013 11:16 AM

65 We are a small, university-based PsyD program and do not plan to increase ourenrollment.

Apr 30, 2013 11:12 AM

66 It has not modified the number of students Apr 30, 2013 10:52 AM

67 We have not. Apr 30, 2013 10:41 AM

68 we have always taken small classes in order to not overburden the system.Moreover, as a newly accredited doctoral program, we are now looking intostarting an internship at our medical school in order to help the match imbalanceproblem.

Apr 30, 2013 10:40 AM

69 not at all Apr 30, 2013 10:39 AM

20 of 53


70 Stayed the same...approximately 28 a year. Apr 30, 2013 10:33 AM

71 no modifications at this time Apr 30, 2013 10:27 AM

72 The number of entering students has not been modified. Apr 30, 2013 10:23 AM

73 Not at all. We have increased the number of students we will admit in 2013 Apr 30, 2013 10:18 AM

74 We have admitted only the number of students that we have successfully placedin accredited internships.

Apr 30, 2013 10:11 AM

75 We have not. Apr 30, 2013 10:11 AM

76 Given that we already have a small number we have not modified our number. Apr 30, 2013 10:04 AM

21 of 53

22 of 53

Page 2, Q6. Please provide any comments on communication between graduate programs and internshipprograms. NOTE: The APPIC Board recognizes that communication between doctoral programs and internshipprograms is a TEAM process, and that there is an expectation that Internship Training Directors provide feed...

1 I have been satisfied with the level of contact with Training Directors. Jun 4, 2013 4:06 PM

2 see above May 30, 2013 10:36 AM

3 I rarely have communication from internship training directors and only receiveevaluations on a small percentage of our students on internship.

May 27, 2013 7:04 PM

4 We encouraged students who did not match to contact their preferred sites tosee how they could better their application for the following year. Many internshipsites did not respond. Having worked closely in the past with an APA accreditedinternship (and fellowship) site, I know that the number of applicants isoverwhelming. However, if there was a way for specific students to receivefeedback on their application IF they did not match, that would be helpful.

May 21, 2013 12:37 PM

5 As a school DCT, I would like feedback about what sorts of studentpresentations are helping or hindering their prospects for selection.

May 19, 2013 1:57 PM

6 Sufficient May 19, 2013 9:51 AM

7 We rarely have problems. May 18, 2013 10:11 PM

8 Excellent communication. May 18, 2013 6:17 PM

9 Early reporting of student problems, developing remediation plans is critical. May 18, 2013 4:58 PM

10 I would like quarterly reports and I would prefer more information on studentscompetencies on the same 15 domains rated by our program, as outlined byHatcher & Lassiter (2008). I also recommend that DCTs supply DT with resultsfrom the student's annual eval with descriptions of strengths, weaknesses, andrecommendations for further training.

May 18, 2013 4:19 PM

11 We have begun using the APA Competencies Benchmarks for our studentevaluations and are surprised how few APA-accredited internships are usingthem--consequently, the feedback they give us does not map well onto the ratingform we must complete at the end of the year. More specifically, we had anexperience this year with a student struggling on internship and the site did notcommunicate about this with us at all and did not send us a mid-year review.

May 18, 2013 3:38 PM

12 I do not always receive an end of the year internship completion letter (maybe80% of the time). I rarely receive mid year or end of the year evaluation formsfrom internship sites. The most consistent are VAMCs (but even these arespotty). I would appreciate receiving a copy of the actual evaluation forms (notjust a summary letter)...this helps with our programs distal outcome data.

May 13, 2013 9:00 AM

13 Our students have been placed at sites that communicate with us mid-term andat the end of the year, which we like.

May 7, 2013 4:12 PM

14 Sites vary widely in their communication with me from quarterly reports/rating tomid-year report/rating to no report/rating.

May 7, 2013 6:28 AM

15 Internship TDs are very responsive. May 5, 2013 4:24 PM

23 of 53


16 I have never had a problem with this. Even on the rare occasions where we needto coordinate about student difficulties, this has been an open, reciprocal andmutually beneficial process.

May 5, 2013 10:07 AM

17 There is not much communication. It will be nice if APPIC could help with this,especially to communicate to internship training directors to send semi-annualintern evaluations to the program training directors.

May 3, 2013 2:21 PM

18 I have received the mid year evaluations for all 4 of our current interns. Iappreciate that.

May 3, 2013 9:01 AM

19 Works fine. Variable but fine. May 3, 2013 9:00 AM

20 DIfficulty getting evaluation and internship completion documentation frommultiple sites. Also, continued decline in willingness to complete simple finalprogram evaluations continues to negatively impact collection of outcome data.

May 2, 2013 6:51 PM

21 It would help to have more constructive feedback, even if it were brief, on howwell our students are doing and what weaknesses may be evident in theirtraining. This would, in some ways, be a formative evaluation that might help usimprove our curriculum and training model into the future.

May 1, 2013 9:42 AM

22 don't really have any May 1, 2013 8:46 AM

23 I generally receive at most a mid year and final eval from internships. May 1, 2013 8:40 AM

24 I have received remarkably little feedback from the three sites that our studentsare currently completing their internships. I have received no information fromone site.

May 1, 2013 5:05 AM

25 Seems like about half of internships fail to send us a mid-year evaluation, and afew do not send an end of year evaluation

May 1, 2013 4:45 AM

26 it would be helpful for there to be a standard set of criteria used to evaluatestudents on internship and a standard set of expectations about the frequencyand process of this evaluation. We cannot use most of the feedback receivedfrom internship training directors in our program evaluation and assessment b/cthere seems to be no standard way that students are evaluated. it is difficult toknow what to expect.

Apr 30, 2013 4:55 PM

27 Internships vary in their communication. Sometimes I don't hear anything fromthem for months and they don't like if I request information about studentprogress. In fact, some of them don't feel that they need to provide me withcopies of student evaluations but that they only need to notify me if a student ishaving trouble. Other times, they just provide a vague letter with no specificsabout progress.

Apr 30, 2013 2:23 PM

28 Communication has been adequate in recent years. Apr 30, 2013 2:10 PM

29 I normally get written feedback at 6 mos and at the end of the year. This isadequate if there are no problems with the student. If problems occur,communication increases dramatically (as it should). I've only had this happen

Apr 30, 2013 11:49 AM

24 of 53


on one occasion.

30 each year we end up having to ask for mid year evaluations and finalevaluations. our program needs more than a one paragraph statement that[student] has completed the internship

Apr 30, 2013 11:43 AM

31 Communication has been satisfactory over several years. Apr 30, 2013 11:42 AM

32 The communication I get is extremely variable, from more than adequate tobarely acceptable.

Apr 30, 2013 11:33 AM

33 n/a Apr 30, 2013 11:16 AM

34 Such a small thing, but it would be nice to remind TD's to put their email addresson all documents. Sometimes, I want to drop them a line when they send theofficial offer letter or an eval, but it requires me to hunt for their email address onthe internet. If it takes more time, I will likely skip it and miss out on a quickopportunity to connect.

Apr 30, 2013 11:12 AM

35 This is a very helpful document that we use all the time Apr 30, 2013 10:52 AM

36 none Apr 30, 2013 10:39 AM

37 I need to take more responsibility in contacting them. This has already startedwith my contacting those who have accepted our interns for fall 2013.

Apr 30, 2013 10:33 AM

38 generally adequate Apr 30, 2013 10:27 AM

39 Most DoTs send evaluations, but we have had to nag a few to send evaluationsand letters of completion

Apr 30, 2013 10:18 AM

40 no comments Apr 30, 2013 10:11 AM

41 I do not think most internship TDs are fully aware of the appic guidelines. Ireceive a copy of the match letters from about 25% of the sites at which mystudents match. I also do not get regular mid- year feedback. Often, I receivethis information b/c my students tell the site to send it to me. We require ourstudents to go on apa-accredited or appic-member internships and so all shouldbe following the guidelines.

Apr 30, 2013 10:11 AM

25 of 53

26 of 53

Page 2, Q7. Please share your ideas with the APPIC Board about how to increase APPIC's effectiveness as anorganization dedicated to psychology internship and postdoctoral training, priorities for APPIC, or futuredirections.

1 More direct communication with applicants and potential applicants on the part ofAPPIC would be helpful and reduce anxiety. Anxiety is now a very significantfactor affecting our students because they know that there not enough openingsfor even the most talented students.

Jul 8, 2013 1:53 PM

2 I have been very satisfied with APPIC's innovations and responsiveness in termsof assisting to make more internships available and answering any of myquestions fully.

Jun 4, 2013 4:06 PM

3 Share more information with doctoral programs about expectations andinitiatives

May 30, 2013 10:36 AM

4 APPIC should make meaningful efforts and meaningfully advocate to increasethe number and quality of training sites, especially pre-doctoral internship.

May 25, 2013 10:44 AM

5 The Phase II was a waste of student's time and increased anxiety even more.Even though we were at 85% placement!!.

May 23, 2013 5:09 AM

6 The pressure we as a program feel to match students to APA accredited siteshas unfortunately negatively impacted our students. They feel the anxiety fromus which then creates anxiety in them. Even first year students are over-worryingabout internship match.

May 21, 2013 12:37 PM

7 keep working to increase the number of available internships May 21, 2013 7:22 AM

8 I would like to see some clarity regarding being presented with a memo ofunderstanding after the student has matched with a program. This feels verycoercive to receive a legal document that we did not know was forthcoming.How can a doctoral program NOT sign such a document, even if it containslanguage that puts the program at potential risk?

May 20, 2013 10:26 AM

9 Allow sites that cannot afford stipend to become sites (i.e.: those non-profitsserving underserved clients).

May 19, 2013 7:26 PM

10 More supply-side solutions to the match imbalance. Sometimes it seems likemost of the pressure falls on schools to reduce our student population (ie,question #5 about "how has your program modified the number of students.."We need to find ways to incentivize training of students. Push for CEU credit forsupervision? Reduced license fees for supervision? I know APPIC doesn't havepower to enact such ideas, but we need global solutions.

May 19, 2013 1:57 PM

11 focus on supporting accredited programs in match program May 19, 2013 5:56 AM

12 I think there is a lot of traffic on the APPIC listserv and too much replying to all.This leads to important messages being lost in the shuffle. A system foridentifying high priority emails would be valuable.

May 18, 2013 10:31 PM

13 We need more accredited internship places. May 18, 2013 10:11 PM

14 APPIC needs to take seriously the various dean's around the country who aresaying that in these tight economic times, they expect faculty to attend to tuitiongeneration and revenue, and not curtail programmatic offerings or number of

May 18, 2013 6:17 PM

27 of 53


students being admitted because of the internship imbalance. There has to be abetter way to address this -- for example, changing accreditation requirementsfor internships so that more can be APA accredited, promoting and supportingcaptive internships, allowing students with specific career goals to participate indifferent types of internships that are less clinically or practice focused,reconsidering post-doc internships. I am not wedded to any of these ideas, and Iam sure there are many more, but I believe we are going to have to be creative ifwe are going to continue to be supported as a profession by Research 1 (veryhigh research activity) universities.

15 More training on supervision and remediation of student competences for APPICmember program (non APA) supervisors.

May 18, 2013 4:58 PM

16 assist programs to develop internships- reduce the costs inherent in theinternship

May 18, 2013 4:36 PM

17 None at this time. May 18, 2013 4:19 PM

18 deal with the imbalance! approve more internship sites; stop accrediting largePsyD programs that admit huge numbers of grad students each year, withoutfunding

May 18, 2013 3:53 PM

19 it has done a great job. May 7, 2013 4:12 PM

20 As requested at the past 3 CUDCP meetings I have attended, it would be veryuseful if students were given some information about their ranking at sites -particularly if they didn't match anywhere. The idea that sites find out where all oftheir ranked applicants go but students get no information on whether they wereranked at all by any site makes no sense to me. If the information is notappropriate to distribute to students in some form, then APPIC should notdistribute any information to sites other than who they matched with. With theinternship imbalance not showing significant signs of letting up (despite the verymodest shift in this year's numbers), DCTs will increasingly face students whodon't match and we need more tools to help students figure out what might havegone wrong for them in the match. At the 2013 CUDCP meeting DCTs werebasically told that they could call up sites to find out what happened. I can'tbelieve internship training directors endorse that as a solution for all theunmatches students each year.

May 7, 2013 6:28 AM

21 unsure May 5, 2013 4:24 PM

22 IDK - people have been over and over the options for the match imbalance now.Unless there are some "teeth" in some kind of regulation for the big programsthat dump tons of students into the match, or there are huge increases in newinternships, it looks like a long haul on the "limited pool resource."

May 5, 2013 10:07 AM

23 I think it is doing great and much appreciated. May 3, 2013 2:21 PM

24 Keep up the efforts to gain consensus on possible solutions to the imbalance(e.g., Kevin Larkin's analysis and recommendations reported at CUDCP, 2013)

May 3, 2013 9:01 AM

28 of 53


25 Listen to all parties, make more measured decisions rather than reactive,devisive decisions.

May 2, 2013 6:51 PM

26 Be a strong voice for creating new internships to decrease the discrepancybetween internship slots and candidates. Help us maintain the quality ofinternship training.

May 1, 2013 10:07 AM

27 Limit the number of students who can apply for the match from each program tomore than 15.

May 1, 2013 9:59 AM

28 Somehow, it would be nice if students did not have to travel to so many sites insuch a short time, as they do not often have the money to afford this. However,they feel as though they have to or the site won't take them seriously.Nevertheless, as Meehl and colleagues have shown, interviews can besubjective and deceptive. To make students spend so much time and money fora 1 year training spot when the benefits of on-site interviews is dubious seemsunwise.

May 1, 2013 9:42 AM

29 I really think there should be a limit on programs endorsing more than 10-12student to register for the Match.

May 1, 2013 8:46 AM

30 Requiring mid year evals May 1, 2013 8:40 AM

31 As a program director, I often have many questions about what types of hourscount, do students have to be enrolled, can they be paid, what are the specificrequirements around supervision, etc. and I cannot easily find this information onthe website. It would be helpful to have a section for program directors withFAQs.

May 1, 2013 5:32 AM

32 Require internships to have twice yearly communication with doctoral programs. May 1, 2013 5:05 AM

33 Push for mechanisms that make reimbursement of interns possible. Lack offunding / reimbursability is going to kill too many internships.

May 1, 2013 4:45 AM

34 limit APPIC application to students from accredited programs. Apr 30, 2013 4:55 PM

35 Help to make the internship a post-degree requirement. It is crazy that schoolshave a requirement over which we have no control.

Apr 30, 2013 2:23 PM

36 Given the new APA requirements for documenting competency and preparationof our students, it would be helpful if there were a UNIFORM rating system forinterns that could be given back to graduate programs so that we coulddocument (for APA accreditation) how well "prepared" our students are forinternship.

Apr 30, 2013 2:10 PM

37 need to develop a flexible approach to allow accredited programs to create oneor two local ad hoc internships without pay for special circumstances esp peoplerequiring geographic limitations - now whatever is done is informal, not fairlyavailable to all legit programs and is unfair to the students as they have to takean unaccredited one or go out of town

Apr 30, 2013 2:08 PM

38 Continue with your current communication platform and your responsiveness to Apr 30, 2013 1:29 PM

29 of 53


issues as they arise as well as those created over the long term in training.

39 APPIC must address the imbalance more aggressively. Simply growing slots isinsufficient; there must also be a restriction of who enters the match.

Apr 30, 2013 12:58 PM

40 More outreach to state boards to make APPIC accreditation the gold standard.APA isn't doing it, so APPIC might as well.

Apr 30, 2013 12:14 PM

41 Create regional experts that can consult and dialogue about how to createinternships that meet regional licensing requirements and respond to regionalneeds.

Apr 30, 2013 11:52 AM

42 Continue advocating for all APPIC-member programs to become accredited. Apr 30, 2013 11:49 AM

43 Create more opportunities to list research experience and achievement on yourforms. Many internships are interested in this and our students have to searchout ways to communicate this up front in the application. Also I think evidencebased training and experience should be more emphasized. Let's keep thescience in the APPIC process. Students from clinical science programs shouldget formal acknowledgement of their research experience and publications,rather than having to worry about having enough hours.

Apr 30, 2013 11:33 AM

44 n/a Apr 30, 2013 11:16 AM

45 Lobby for 3rd party billing for interns. Apr 30, 2013 11:12 AM

46 Need to create more accredited internships Apr 30, 2013 10:52 AM

47 I would like to see a universal end of year evaluation so there is a commonmetric for use in accreditation and program assessment.

Apr 30, 2013 10:41 AM

48 I believe that some great steps forward are being made on the match imbalancewhich is significant. I would encourage more funding to be able to help start up anew internship vs. getting existing ones accredited.

Apr 30, 2013 10:40 AM

49 Internship should be postdoctoral. There is ZERO data that people are betterpsychologists having gone through an internship than not. The APPICapplication is also far too detailed.

Apr 30, 2013 10:39 AM

50 You do a great job. Short of magically creating more sites I am not sure what youcan do.

Apr 30, 2013 10:33 AM

51 Nothing to suggest other than continuing to attempt to minimize the imbalance Apr 30, 2013 10:27 AM

52 APPIC membership committee should accept and review membershipapplications more often, and provide more assistance to programs that want tobe members but may be missing pieces of information or misunderstandrequirements.

Apr 30, 2013 10:18 AM

53 Internships should be asked to provide DCTs with information about reasons fornon-match of students. For example, a list of students who applied, interviewed,and were not ranked. This would help DCTs understand some reasons for

Apr 30, 2013 10:11 AM

30 of 53


students' failure to match (e.g., interviewed poorly).

54 Help sites understand why they need to go on to apa-accreditation and not juststay at appic membership.

Apr 30, 2013 10:11 AM

31 of 53

32 of 53

Page 2, Q8. What types of articles / topics would you like to see published in the TEPP Journal?

1 A survey of required and elective courses offered across doctoral programs. Jun 4, 2013 4:06 PM

2 Training, tips on helping students prepare/apply for internship May 30, 2013 10:36 AM

3 Sponsoring or collaborative efforts at creating internships between multipleagencies, agencies and universities, agencies across regions, etc.

May 25, 2013 10:44 AM

4 Perhaps highlighting excellent internship experiences that may not be APA orAPPIC accredited (for a variety of reasons)

May 21, 2013 12:37 PM

5 More coverage of minority theoretical points of view in training (includingpsychodynamic perspectives).

May 19, 2013 1:57 PM

6 More about supervision, from the point of view of graduate students. May 18, 2013 10:31 PM

7 Teaching research design May 18, 2013 6:17 PM

8 Articles on Multicultural Competencies and Clinical Supervision especially cross-cultural supervision

May 10, 2013 4:52 PM

9 Training focusing on professional development -- e.g. student professional andmulticultural diversity development.

May 7, 2013 4:12 PM

10 supervision May 7, 2013 9:37 AM

11 unsure May 5, 2013 4:24 PM

12 More on "difficult dialogues" of various kinds. As training directors, this is wherethe s*** hits the fan. Problem students, legal-ethical interface in training, problemcore faculty, various issues around diversity/bias/microaggression etc.

May 5, 2013 10:07 AM

13 Studies that identify predictors of successful internship placement. May 3, 2013 2:21 PM

14 no recommendations May 3, 2013 9:01 AM

15 Journal is great-- continue on with current mix of articles. May 2, 2013 6:51 PM

16 Professionalism topics May 1, 2013 10:07 AM

17 I like the current variety. May 1, 2013 8:46 AM

18 Creative ideas about how to manage the internship crisis besides reducing thenumber of professional school students (which APA seems very reluctant to do).

May 1, 2013 5:05 AM

19 training and supervision of interns assessing and counseling ELL or bilingualclients

Apr 30, 2013 6:23 PM

20 Health Service Competencies DIscussion and Research Apr 30, 2013 1:29 PM

21 Best practices for evaluating program outcomes or tracking student competencydevelopment. More articles written by authors who collaborate across levels oftraining (doctoral, internship, postdoctoral).

Apr 30, 2013 11:49 AM

22 Article on the lack of training on aging and older adulthood, with some Apr 30, 2013 11:33 AM

33 of 53

Page 2, Q8. What types of articles / topics would you like to see published in the TEPP Journal?

suggestions for how to accomplish this,

23 n/a Apr 30, 2013 11:16 AM

24 I enjoy the current articles. Effectively addressing the professionalism challengesof millennials is always a subject of discussion.

Apr 30, 2013 11:12 AM

25 Competency assessment Apr 30, 2013 10:53 AM

26 Ethics of education and training Apr 30, 2013 10:52 AM

27 I find this journal VERY HELPFUL and frequently refer other faculty to articlesrelevant to their interaction with students. I would like to see more on thepractical end such as how to prepare students for the best chance of matching.We spend a lot of time doing this but more help would be good. Generally amvery happy with your work.

Apr 30, 2013 10:33 AM

28 current mix appears appropriate Apr 30, 2013 10:27 AM

29 Innovative ideas to create internship programs. Apr 30, 2013 10:18 AM

30 no comment Apr 30, 2013 10:11 AM

31 Hands on, applied articles related to training at all levels. Apr 30, 2013 10:11 AM

32 Mindfulness training Apr 30, 2013 10:04 AM

34 of 53

35 of 53

Page 3, Q14. What did you like about PHASE 2 of the APPIC Match? (You may enter as much information as youwish - the text area will expand as you type)

1 It simply made the second round orderly and more fair. Jul 8, 2013 1:56 PM

2 Provides a structured and even playing field for those who did not match inphase I.

Jun 4, 2013 4:14 PM

3 The time to review openings and conduct phone interviews is much better thanthe frenzy of the clearinghouse process.

May 27, 2013 7:07 PM

4 that we could see a list May 23, 2013 5:14 AM

5 The orderliness of it. May 21, 2013 12:38 PM

6 much more orderly process May 21, 2013 7:24 AM

7 process of ranking sites May 20, 2013 4:20 PM

8 ... May 19, 2013 2:00 PM

9 Speed and personal networking/relationship are not stronger factors to theprocess thus giving equal chances to applicants.

May 18, 2013 5:00 PM

10 Structure, timing, fairness May 13, 2013 9:01 AM

11 That it was an organized process which seemed fair to the applicants and gaveinternships time to consider all their applicants.

May 10, 2013 4:59 PM

12 I like that Phase 2 allows students to take their time in applying to sites. It givesthem time to review and put thought into their applications.

May 7, 2013 10:40 AM

13 It is good to have a similar match process in Phase II. Students are familiar withthe process already and it is easy for everyone to navigate.

May 7, 2013 6:32 AM

14 It works well. Keep it as is. May 5, 2013 10:12 AM

15 Another formal opportunity to get matched if unsuccessful the first time around. May 3, 2013 2:27 PM

16 Time for applicants to react and re-focus, more organized process, more time forboth applicants and sites.

May 2, 2013 6:55 PM

17 Unmatched applicants had a systematic, equitable process for applying forunfilled positions.

May 2, 2013 11:09 AM

18 Structure More equitable May 1, 2013 10:11 AM

19 We only had one student participate in Phase 2. We liked the dissemination ofinformation, the parallel process with Phase I, and the predictability of learningresults.

May 1, 2013 8:49 AM

20 More time to consider where to apply. May 1, 2013 8:42 AM

21 The match rate for School Psychology students is very low and through Match II,we were able to place another student and I believe that places that might haveoverlooked a school psychology applicant are willing to consider their

May 1, 2013 5:38 AM

36 of 53

Page 3, Q14. What did you like about PHASE 2 of the APPIC Match? (You may enter as much information as youwish - the text area will expand as you type)

applications.

22 Much better organized and similar to Phase 1 Apr 30, 2013 7:08 PM

23 The process is well done and smoothly administered. Students are demoralizedafter Match I and have time to recover and regroup for Match II and be strong inthe process.

Apr 30, 2013 1:32 PM

24 Removes the chaos associated with the clearinghouse where slots filled withinminutes to hours. In that systems inadequate review of applicants occurred andwho you knew was more important than applicant competency.

Apr 30, 2013 1:02 PM

25 Structure, structure, structure. In particular, that there was a time limit to theprocess and that there is a fairness of applications being reviews across someamount of time, rather than a "who can get it there the fastest" thatClearinghouse can be.

Apr 30, 2013 12:44 PM

26 organization and fairness to all applicants Apr 30, 2013 11:53 AM

27 Students have a chance to recover from the emotional devastation of notmatching and consult with faculty to develop a plan. Submitting ranks students achance to check out sites and sites to truly think about the fit of the studentrather than both groups trying to make decisions in a chaotic, hurried fashion.

Apr 30, 2013 11:16 AM

28 Structure Apr 30, 2013 10:58 AM

29 Everything - especially much more fair to applicants Apr 30, 2013 10:54 AM

30 The time frame is much improved. There is less sense of students as "warmbodies" and more match to training goals. After the careful Phase 1 process,Clearinghouse was a huge contradiction.

Apr 30, 2013 10:46 AM

31 Gave students time to process feelings regarding not matching in Phase I. Evenplaying field regarding applying to open positions.

Apr 30, 2013 10:42 AM

32 It was much more orderly. Gave my students a better chance at some sites theymight have missed.

Apr 30, 2013 10:38 AM

33 yes Apr 30, 2013 10:29 AM

34 Phase 2 significantly reduces the stress relative to the Clearinghouse. It allowsstudents to adjust after not being matched, and then carefully consider sites forbest fit

Apr 30, 2013 10:28 AM

35 It is highly organized, specifies time limits, and allows applicants to makeinformed decisions

Apr 30, 2013 10:22 AM

37 of 53

38 of 53

Page 3, Q15. What did you dislike or find problematic about PHASE 2 of the APPIC Match? What suggestions doyou have for improvement? (You may enter as much information as you wish - the text area will expand as youtype)

1 There were not a sufficient number of placements for all fully qualified applicants.This led to placements receiving, in some cases over 100 applications.

Jul 8, 2013 1:56 PM

2 At that stage of the game, I think available sites should consider updating theirAPPIC posting to describe in as much detail the specific background they desirein candidates in order to keep the number of applications more manageable.

Jun 4, 2013 4:14 PM

3 process takes too long & creates high anxiety for applicants. A shorter, morefocal process, even if intense & gives appearance of less controlled, would bepreferable

May 26, 2013 11:39 AM

4 Obviously every student who didn't match clicked for every available slot, andthe sites had some outrageous numbers of applicants for 1 remaining slot. Sothe chance of Phase 2 ever working is completely miniscule. There has to be amore fair mechanism to be able to approach remaining sites.

May 23, 2013 5:14 AM

5 the process is too long. May 20, 2013 4:20 PM

6 There is no way around this, but going unmatched in phase 2 means that astudent has extended his/her agony with the process only to be disappointed a2nd time.

May 20, 2013 10:31 AM

7 ... May 19, 2013 2:00 PM

8 It organizes the information systematically for the applicants, but there are stilltoo few spots per applicant.

May 18, 2013 10:33 PM

9 None May 10, 2013 4:59 PM

10 Phase 2 is long. It puts a lot of pressure on the students;however, it issignificantly better than clearinghouse.

May 7, 2013 10:40 AM

11 The 1-month time lag seems excessive. Perhaps that could get shortened insome places.

May 7, 2013 6:32 AM

12 Nothing. May 5, 2013 10:12 AM

13 More time to select sites and apply. May 3, 2013 2:27 PM

14 Not much-- some confusion about process from students. May 2, 2013 6:55 PM

15 It does seem to present a level playing field. May 1, 2013 10:02 AM

16 nothing really May 1, 2013 8:49 AM

17 My student (I only had one) only received interviews from the sites where I calledthe TD and either spoke with him/her or left a message. they seemed floodedwith applications. It was successful for her, so overall a good experience.

May 1, 2013 8:42 AM

18 I'm not sure I found anything problematic, the wait time seemed a bit long. May 1, 2013 5:38 AM

19 none Apr 30, 2013 1:32 PM

39 of 53

Page 3, Q15. What did you dislike or find problematic about PHASE 2 of the APPIC Match? What suggestions doyou have for improvement? (You may enter as much information as you wish - the text area will expand as youtype)

20 Fill phase II slots with applicants from accredited programs before allowing non-accredited program students to be placed into one of those slots.

Apr 30, 2013 1:02 PM

21 One week longer - enough time to allow applicants and sites to seriouslyconsider sites, meaningfully adjust essays/cv to match the site, and allowstudents and Training Department to simultaneously engage in other activities.

Apr 30, 2013 12:44 PM

22 I could no longer game the system to my student's advantage; in the old days, afew phone calls could be made and students who did not match would bematched. There was a certain appeal to that for DCTs that knew how to do it.Unfair...yes, but appealing.

Apr 30, 2013 11:53 AM

23 Nothing. Apr 30, 2013 11:16 AM

24 Few sites.... Apr 30, 2013 10:58 AM

25 N/A Apr 30, 2013 10:54 AM

26 The odds of matching were worse than in Phase 1. Apr 30, 2013 10:46 AM

27 If the time could be shortened from beginning to end it would be helpful althoughthat may be impossible given computer and site issues. Most of my students willseek an additional practicum if not Matched either round and the local practicumsites (So Cal) quickly disappear.

Apr 30, 2013 10:38 AM

28 no suggestions Apr 30, 2013 10:29 AM

29 I do not see any problems other than the limited number of internship positions. Apr 30, 2013 10:28 AM

30 Some sites invited local applicants to in-person interviews, putting non-localapplicants at a distinct disadvantage in the application process.

Apr 30, 2013 10:22 AM

40 of 53

41 of 53

Page 3, Q16. If students from your program withdrew from the Match, please explain why they withdrew. (Youmay enter as much information as you wish - the text area will expand as you type)

1 One student entered the match prior to DCT clearance and was asked towithdraw.

Jun 4, 2013 4:14 PM

2 original expectations for thesis progress not attained May 26, 2013 11:39 AM

3 withdrew, because no interviews were granted. Student had demands forchildcare.

May 23, 2013 5:14 AM

4 No interviews May 21, 2013 12:38 PM

5 ... May 19, 2013 2:00 PM

6 One student withdrew because of a chronic health problem (rheumatoid arthritis)decided to wait a year.

May 19, 2013 9:54 AM

7 None withdrew after they had registered. May 10, 2013 4:59 PM

8 Any student who withdrew did so because they did not receive interview offers.All others continued to participate.

May 7, 2013 10:40 AM

9 N/A May 7, 2013 6:32 AM

10 Were not able to meet program requirement to defend dissertation proposal priorto match (students must defend by Nov. 1, so they never get to the rankingprocess in our program, but they must stop putting out applications and can'tinterview).

May 5, 2013 10:12 AM

11 By demand of the faculty because the student submitted confidential clientinformation in application materials.

May 3, 2013 2:27 PM

12 None withdrew. May 2, 2013 6:55 PM

13 Obtained an alternative internship that met CDSPP criteria. May 2, 2013 11:09 AM

14 NA May 1, 2013 6:04 PM

15 One student withdrew from Phase II because I connected her with a site ready tosubmit their APPIC application.

May 1, 2013 10:11 AM

16 N/A May 1, 2013 10:02 AM

17 Personal reasons (marriage and husband's work transfer) May 1, 2013 9:45 AM

18 N/A May 1, 2013 8:49 AM

19 They withdrew becuase they did not get any interviews. Apr 30, 2013 7:08 PM

20 Student Death Apr 30, 2013 1:32 PM

21 Sites available had higher hour requirements than students met Apr 30, 2013 1:01 PM

22 Mainly because of no interviews. Apr 30, 2013 12:44 PM

42 of 53

Page 3, Q16. If students from your program withdrew from the Match, please explain why they withdrew. (Youmay enter as much information as you wish - the text area will expand as you type)

23 None withdrew Apr 30, 2013 11:53 AM

24 N/A Apr 30, 2013 11:16 AM

25 Accepted a school internship outside of match process Apr 30, 2013 10:58 AM

26 N/A. In the past students have withdrawn for medical reasons, or we havewithdrawn them because they needed to do more work in our program beforegoing on internship

Apr 30, 2013 10:54 AM

27 No or few interviews Apr 30, 2013 10:46 AM

28 1. They had medical problems or became pregnant.(1) 2. They had nointerviews.(2) 3. They did not like the sites they interviewed at. (1)

Apr 30, 2013 10:38 AM

29 none withdrew Apr 30, 2013 10:29 AM

30 N/A Apr 30, 2013 10:28 AM

31 none withdrew Apr 30, 2013 10:22 AM

32 1: decided to gain more practicum experience prior to internship search and tofinish dissertation. 2. did limited local search and did not get interviews, soelected to do another practicum and finish dissertation

Apr 30, 2013 10:14 AM

43 of 53

44 of 53

Page 3, Q17. For students from your program that did not obtain an internship through the APPIC Match, howelse were they able to find an internship?

1 One student decided to leave the field of clinical psychology. The other studentwill be reapplying in Fall 2013.

Jul 8, 2013 1:56 PM

2 None have so far from the 2013 match. In the past, most have been successfulin their second year of match. A very small minority were forced to do a"constructed or designed" internship.

Jun 4, 2013 4:14 PM

3 NA - the student will apply again next year. May 27, 2013 7:07 PM

4 local settings that meet our program's criteria May 26, 2013 11:39 AM

5 Word of mouth and connections that our program has with sites in the area. May 23, 2013 5:14 AM

6 deferred a year or went for a CAPIC site May 21, 2013 12:38 PM

7 trying to contact their practicum sites and announcements about the newpositions through list serves....

May 20, 2013 4:20 PM

8 All unmatched applicants this year will try again next year. May 20, 2013 10:31 AM

9 CAPIC, or psychological assistant positions through the California Board ofPsychology. We have noticed that CAPIC sites seem more friendly to ourpsychodynamic perspective than APPIC ones.

May 19, 2013 2:00 PM

10 Local AEA and Hospital settings May 19, 2013 9:54 AM

11 I had one student who did not find a match and he will reapply in Fall 2013 May 18, 2013 10:33 PM

12 Post match vacancy. May 18, 2013 5:00 PM

13 The student did not find an internship and plans to reapply Fall 2013. Studenthad some geographical restrictions which she expanded during Phase 2. Sheplans to apply more broadly next year.

May 10, 2013 4:59 PM

14 Students particpate in Phase II and follow the PMVS. May 7, 2013 10:40 AM

15 The unmatched students in our program did not obtain an internship and willhave to go through the match again.

May 7, 2013 6:32 AM

16 So far they haven't. We don't let our students do non-APA or non-APPIC sites. Iam working with two different potential sites to see if we can create newinternships to start in the fall and then go up for APPIC membership while theyare on board. I have done this successfully twice before. Hoping for a 3rd (or4th)....

May 5, 2013 10:12 AM

17 We did not allow students to go outside of the APPIC match process this year. May 3, 2013 2:27 PM

18 All were placed. May 2, 2013 6:55 PM

19 State internship fair collaboratively organized by multiple university programs. May 2, 2013 11:09 AM

20 They are staying in our program an additional year. May 1, 2013 6:04 PM

45 of 53


21 Three students either did not match or withdrew from Phase II. All acceptedspots at sites which were either ready or will be ready to submit their APPICmembership materials.

May 1, 2013 10:11 AM

22 The student will apply again next year. All of our students are required to gothrough the Match

May 1, 2013 10:02 AM

23 N/A May 1, 2013 9:45 AM

24 She did not. She will register again this fall as a fifth year student and will haveaccrued more hours and a greater diversity of experiences.

May 1, 2013 8:49 AM

25 One student did not match, but only had applied to one place. She is continuingto look for an internship in a school setting that meets CDSPP guidelines.

May 1, 2013 5:38 AM

26 CAPIC Apr 30, 2013 7:08 PM

27 the one not matched is waiting a year Apr 30, 2013 2:10 PM

28 One student will try again next year and be in a better position to match. Apr 30, 2013 1:32 PM

29 We had only one; she did not find another internship. Apr 30, 2013 1:02 PM

30 Through CAPIC, and through our departments efforts atsupporting/advising/consulting with existing clinics who are interested (but oftenunsure) in developing internships.

Apr 30, 2013 12:44 PM

31 We created a non-accredited internship for one student that was evaluated forbreadth and quality and determined to be equivalent to those that are accredited.I have one yet who did not match; she is pursuing an accredited slot that waslate to emerge.

Apr 30, 2013 11:53 AM

32 N/A Apr 30, 2013 11:16 AM

33 Networking Apr 30, 2013 10:58 AM

34 N/A Apr 30, 2013 10:54 AM

35 We highly recommend APA accredited internships but under somecircumstances, with ramifications explained to the applicant, we have arrangedor allowed matches to other non-APPIC sites.

Apr 30, 2013 10:46 AM

36 One took a CAPIC option. The rest will wait until next year to apply again. Mostof our students highly value an APA placement and occasionally APPIC and arewilling to do a second year in the match.

Apr 30, 2013 10:38 AM

37 arrangement with school district able to meet CDSPP guidelines Apr 30, 2013 10:29 AM

38 N/A Apr 30, 2013 10:28 AM

39 We were in the process of creating an internship in our University clinic. Apr 30, 2013 10:22 AM

40 1. found a local site that will be applying for appic-membership in fall. 2. will try Apr 30, 2013 10:14 AM

46 of 53


again next year.

47 of 53

48 of 53

Page 4, Q19. Do you have any additional feedback you would like to provide the APPIC Board?

1 No Jun 4, 2013 4:18 PM

2 Thanks for survey May 26, 2013 11:46 AM

3 I don't complete rank order items (above). May 21, 2013 7:29 AM

4 We have noticed that CAPIC in California lists many more training sites that arefriendly to psychodynamic points of view than APPIC. We would love to seemore APPIC sites who are willing to accommodate minority theoretical models.

May 20, 2013 11:08 AM

5 I think that many DCT's would like to see some movement toward receivingfeedback from TD's when an applicant goes unmatched. For any applicant whoobtains interviews but no match, we would greatly appreciate some way ofgetting feedback so that we can provide proper advisement to a student aboutwhat they need to improve.

May 20, 2013 10:36 AM

6 The internship shortage is a very serious problem for our program: weencourage students to take an APPIC internship or other accredited, but cannotrequire it due to the shortage. However, the application process is taking 2years for many of our students which is unacceptable. It encourages them totake an extra year of pre-internship practicum, which strains our practicumplacements, admin staff, and is a financial drain on students and program alike.

May 19, 2013 1:28 AM

7 Not at this time. May 18, 2013 4:26 PM

8 no May 7, 2013 4:15 PM

9 I know you are a largely volunteer organization and work super-hard. I thinkthere are more programs trying to get APPIC membership now, so maybemeeting 3x year instead of 2? I appreciate everything APPIC does - great group!!

May 5, 2013 10:16 AM

10 Great job and thank you! May 3, 2013 2:32 PM

11 Keep up the good work! May 3, 2013 9:05 AM

12 No. Apr 30, 2013 6:26 PM

13 In the current licensure system, obtaining supervised hours is the primary reasonfor a post-doc, but it should not need to be.

Apr 30, 2013 2:15 PM

14 no thank you for your work! Apr 30, 2013 1:34 PM

15 I would encourage the APPIC Board to limit the match to students fromaccredited doctoral training programs.

Apr 30, 2013 11:58 AM

16 n/a Apr 30, 2013 11:17 AM

17 The rankings above didn't work correctly Apr 30, 2013 11:03 AM

18 Would be helpful to have an AAPI for postdoc programs and also go back toUNDr

Apr 30, 2013 10:55 AM

19 I have to say that some of our students have received superior training at non-accredited sites compared to several accredited sites, especially ones where

Apr 30, 2013 10:55 AM

49 of 53

Page 4, Q19. Do you have any additional feedback you would like to provide the APPIC Board?

there has been a change in staffing or finances. Students do not always get thepromised experiences (yes, according to written materials) or the supervision orthe supervisor indicated. As DCT I have had more direct input into non-accredited sites so these issues are prevented or repaired sooner. In general Ihave better communication from non-accredited sites I have helped to arrangeand much less from accredited sites, some of whom have not sent end -of yearevaluations and confirmation of successful completion without major efforts.

20 Keep on doing what you are doing. The ideas you propose, the journal, etc. arevery helpful.

Apr 30, 2013 10:49 AM

21 Internship should be postdoctoral. Apr 30, 2013 10:41 AM

22 not at this time Apr 30, 2013 10:32 AM

23 no Apr 30, 2013 10:16 AM

50 of 53

51 of 53

Page 4, Q20. Please enter your four digit APPIC program number to verify you are the DCT representing this site.

1 0254 Jul 8, 2013 1:58 PM

2 Associate #: 262 Jun 4, 2013 4:18 PM

3 0859 May 30, 2013 10:40 AM

4 Don't have the number on me now, but from Eastern Michigan University May 27, 2013 7:10 PM

5 043 Univ of Ottawa Cl Psy prog has always had same 3 digit APPIC number May 26, 2013 11:46 AM

6 344 May 25, 2013 10:47 AM

7 Sorry, I do not have access to that information right now. May 21, 2013 7:29 AM

8 0346 May 20, 2013 11:08 AM

9 037 May 20, 2013 10:36 AM

10 055 May 20, 2013 7:56 AM

11 0120 May 20, 2013 3:23 AM

12 0070 May 19, 2013 9:56 AM

13 397 May 19, 2013 6:00 AM

14 APPIC Associate number: 867 This is the number I have for our program: 3digits only. Please advise.

May 19, 2013 1:28 AM

15 254 May 18, 2013 10:37 PM

16 APPIC Associate number: 258 May 18, 2013 6:22 PM

17 075 May 18, 2013 5:01 PM

18 415 May 18, 2013 4:26 PM

19 0220 May 18, 2013 3:54 PM

20 278 May 18, 2013 3:40 PM

21 School Code: 727 Subscriber #: 197 May 13, 2013 9:05 AM

22 245 May 10, 2013 5:10 PM

23 I do not have a 4 digit number -- only a 3 digit one: 103 May 7, 2013 4:15 PM

24 106 May 7, 2013 11:56 AM

25 051 May 7, 2013 6:36 AM

26 unfortunately, the term is over and I am away from my office and unable toaccess this information.

May 5, 2013 4:26 PM

52 of 53


27 I thought my program # was a 3-digit number (208). I don't care if you know whoI am, so I can verify that I am Sally D. Stabb, Ph.D., training director at TexasWoman's University, doctoral program in counseling psychology.

May 5, 2013 10:16 AM

28 0094 May 3, 2013 2:32 PM

29 135 May 3, 2013 1:56 PM

30 0123 May 3, 2013 9:36 AM

31 DPA Number: 65 May 3, 2013 9:05 AM

32 252 May 2, 2013 6:59 PM

33 350 May 2, 2013 11:11 AM

34 163 May 1, 2013 6:06 PM

35 225 (all I can find is our 3 digit associate #) May 1, 2013 10:08 AM

36 090 is our APPIC Associate Number - don't have a four digit number. May 1, 2013 8:52 AM

37 113 May 1, 2013 7:16 AM

38 Our Associate Program Number is 3 digits - 173 May 1, 2013 6:49 AM

39 293 May 1, 2013 6:18 AM

40 166 May 1, 2013 5:08 AM

41 0314 Wayne State University May 1, 2013 4:47 AM

42 410 Apr 30, 2013 6:26 PM

43 0133 Apr 30, 2013 4:57 PM

44 287 Apr 30, 2013 2:15 PM

45 062 Apr 30, 2013 2:13 PM

46 1638 Apr 30, 2013 1:34 PM

47 not sure about this; we have a 3 digit associate number and it is 210 Apr 30, 2013 1:23 PM

48 0329 Apr 30, 2013 1:21 PM

49 0271 Apr 30, 2013 1:03 PM

50 344 Apr 30, 2013 12:44 PM

51 0031 Apr 30, 2013 12:16 PM

52 232 Apr 30, 2013 11:58 AM

53 of 53


53 0073 Apr 30, 2013 11:53 AM

54 212 Apr 30, 2013 11:36 AM

55 Don't see a 4 digit program number. My APPIC Associate Number is 270. Apr 30, 2013 11:18 AM

56 126 Apr 30, 2013 11:17 AM

57 460 Apr 30, 2013 11:03 AM

58 041 Apr 30, 2013 10:55 AM

59 272 Apr 30, 2013 10:55 AM

60 266 or P7GCZ9....I could not fine a four digit number. Azusa Pacific University. Idon't want to mess up your survey but this is Sheryn T Scott.

Apr 30, 2013 10:49 AM

61 178 Apr 30, 2013 10:45 AM

62 the only number I have is 386 - a three no four digit number. Apr 30, 2013 10:41 AM

63 091 Apr 30, 2013 10:41 AM

64 050 Apr 30, 2013 10:38 AM

65 4 digit??? ours is 357 Apr 30, 2013 10:32 AM

66 #384 Apr 30, 2013 10:27 AM

67 0127 Apr 30, 2013 10:18 AM

68 APPIC Associate Number 307 Apr 30, 2013 10:16 AM

2013 survey of appic doctoral program associates

Documents