Chapter 2 Understanding Training Models and the Factors that Transcend Them
Rachel M. Chickerella (she/her) PhD, Antioch University New England
Karen Meteyer (she/her), PhD, Antioch University New England
Research methods are the tools used by psychologists and others to collect and analyze data to understand new information or further understand a topic (University of Newcastle Libguides, 2023). Psychologists may employ a range of research designs including quantitative approaches that use numbers to capture information about variables and qualitative designs in which phenomena are represented with words. Though competency in research methods is considered essential to becoming a professional psychologist, or a psychologist engages in clinical work (Rutgers University Catalogs, 2023), there are different approaches to imparting the skills and knowledge to students which reflect distinct training models. Although each degree program in psychology will offer its own unique identity in how it trains students, there are commonalities among models of training. The emphasis placed on certain types of research (qualitative vs. quantitative), the specific techniques that are taught (e.g., statistics) and the level of proficiency expected of students will all vary as a function of the training model. Understanding the different training models and how they approach teaching research methods will help students select the type of degree and program that will best prepare them to achieve their career goals.
2.1 Learning Objectives
Learning objectives for this chapter include the following:
- Define training models in professional psychology for programs and professors.
- Identify the value of research and quantitative/ qualitative literacy as a competency for programs and professors.
- Explore ways for professors and programs to integrate social justice regardless of training model.
- Describe the importance of qualitative literacy along with quantitative literacy for professional psychology programs and professors.
- List ways to motivate students to engage in course content despite an often perceived boredom related to research methods content.
2.2 Recommended Readings and Resources
The following are three works to consider.
- American Psychological Association. (2012). A practical guidebook for the competency benchmarks. Washington DC: APA.
- DeAngelis, T. (2003). Three Programs: Three Different Training Models. American Psychological Association. https://www.apa.org/gradpsych/2003/09/three-programs
- Okun, T. (2021). White supremacy culture–Still here. Dismantling Racism. Dismantalingracism.org
2.3 Training in Professional Psychology: An Overview
In pursuing a degree in psychology, there are a multitude of paths students may take. A prospective student may first decide if they are going to pursue a professional psychology degree or a non-professional degree. Pursuing a professional degree means that following the degree and licensure, the individual would be eligible to practice as a psychologist. Health service psychology is another term used to describe programs that use a competency based model to promote the development of practicing psychologists (“What Is a Health Service Psychologist and Why Join,” n.d.). Some pursuits of psychology do not fall under the professional psychology realm, including social, cognitive and experimental psychology. These degrees focus more on research and teaching pursuits. Professional psychology includes multiple disciplines including counseling, clinical and school psychology (“Types of Programs,” n.d.).
Clinical psychology programs tend to be housed within the psychology department of educational institutions. Students in these programs typically receive training in understanding and diagnosing pathology (“Counseling Versus Clinical Psychology,” n.d.). Clinical psychology is the most common degree conferred (“Types of Programs,” n.d.). Counseling psychology is another form of professional psychology. Counseling Psychology programs may be housed in the psychology department, but may also be placed in the education department (“Types of Programs,” n.d.). Counseling psychologists tend to put less emphasis on psychopathology and more focus on treating the whole person (“Counseling Versus Clinical Psychology,” n.d.). Finally, School psychologists may be housed in the school of education or psychology, and tend to focus heavily on working with children in school systems (“Types of Programs,” n.d.).
Most individuals who complete a degree in professional psychology will either receive a PhD (doctor of philosophy) or PsyD (doctor of psychology). A PhD is the most common degree conferred in psychology and tends to be attained through research focused universities (Michalski et al., n.d.). PhD degrees generally emphasize scientific research and teaching (Michalski et al., n.d.), however, the training also usually includes clinical work. Individuals who pursue a PsyD are more likely to seek a career focused on providing psychological services (Michalski et al., n.d.). PsyD programs tend to be affiliated with a research or teaching university or in a free standing graduate school. In reality there is significant variability and overlap between PhD and PsyD programs, and a consideration of the training model of the program may help determine the right fit for students who wish to pursue careers in professional psychology.
2.4 Identifying Training Models in Professional Psychology
There are multiple training models in psychology, and the model that a program ascribes to impacts the type of training experiences and curriculum that is provided as well as the eventual career paths of graduates of both clinical (Cherry et al., 2000) and counseling psychology programs (Neimeyer et al., 2005). There are approximately five models that exist in professional psychology programs. The first is the Clinical Science or Bench Scientist Model (Arizona Clinical Psychology Program, 2023; DeAngelis, 2003). These models have a heavy emphasis on scientific concepts, theories and their implications. Students in such programs would be more apt to have research as a central part of their training and future career goals. They will likely have multiple courses in research methods and have a focus on pursuing research and academic careers following graduate school. Further, they will likely conduct research in labs, perhaps with animals (DeAngelis, 2003). To engage with social justice, such models might benefit by explicitly exploring the ways in which research programs might promote social justice, including obtaining input from members of communities who will be impacted by research. It is likely that programs that are more geared to research than practice, will tend to favor this approach.
In contrast to the Clinical Scientist or Bench Scientist model, the Scientist-Practitioner model emphasizes an equal balance between research and therapy experiences in the training of psychologists. The Scientist-Practitioner model was originally developed at an educational conference in Boulder, Colorado (see Petersen (2007) for a succinct history of the model). This model was a response to the realization that research training should be incorporated into clinical training and application (Jones & Mehr, 2007). Philosophically, this model asserts that in order to engage in research on psychological constructs, one must also have clinical experience (DeAngelis, 2003). The model also notes research and practice should continually inform each other (Jones & Mehr, 2007). Students in such programs would be more likely to pursue research that focuses on clinical work or how to improve the mental health of their population(s) of interest. Such programs may promote social justice through encouraging students to utilize their clinical experiences to inform how their research promotes change for therapy clients and systems. Scientist-Practitioner programs will likely have a mentorship model similar to that of a Bench Scientist wherein students will have shared research interest that aligns with the faculty member and/or program.
The Local Clinical Scientist model is another model that is present in professional/ health service psychology programs (Trierweiler et al., 2010). This model utilizes many of the same principles as the scientist practitioner model with an emphasis on a more localized praxis. The meaning of the term “local” in this model is multifaceted in this context. The first definition of “local” is to a particular application of general science (Stricker & Trierweiler, 2006). The local clinical scientist would ask, even if an intervention is evidenced based, is it effective in a specific case? The term local also applies to local knowledge which is often specific to a particular culture or group (Stricker & Trierweiler, 2006). The idiosyncratic is also seen as a part of the “local,” as there are many nuances within a specific client or clinical population in a certain context that cannot be explained by theory alone (Stricker & Trierweiler, 2006). Finally, there is the space-time conception of local (Stricker & Trierweiler, 2006). Events happen, both in the world and in individual lived experiences that impact the ways they make meaning of their experiences. The thread that hangs between all of these definitions is that context matters and should be an essential part of how interventions are utilized. Regarding social justice, local scientist programs might focus on how to adapt interventions that are “evidence based” to their specific context. This endeavor may inform both their research and practice.
A fourth model, endorsed by the University of Tennessee Knoxville (UTK),is the Scientist-Practitioner-Advocate Model. In 2007, UTK decided to respond to calls for psychologists to more actively engage in social justice by explicitly adding the advocate role to their training model (“Scientist-Practitioner Advocate Training Model - Psychology Department,” n.d.). This model works to address the core competencies inherent in the Scientist-Practitioner model, while also addressing the important role of the advocate to training programs (Mallinckrodt et al., 2014). The model encourages synergies between research and advocacy along with clinical work and advocacy (Mallinckrodt et al., 2014). The Scientist-Practitioner-Advocate model also supports a unique practicum experience in social justice (Mallinckrodt et al., 2014). This model has theoretical underpinnings in feminist, multicultural and social justice principles (“Scientist-Practitioner Advocate Training Model - Psychology Department,” n.d.). Such models more explicitly address social justice as an integral part of a career in professional psychology.
A fifth model is the Scholar-Practitioner model of which Dr. Roger Peterson, professor emeritus at Antioch University New England, is a major proponent (Peterson et al., 1997). This model has the greatest emphasis on clinical work, and uses research to inform clinical practice. The model also prioritizes a humanistic approach, focusing on how students can bring their authentic selves into their clinical work (DeAngelis, 2003). As two professors at Antioch New England, we can speak personally to the orientation towards research methods. PsyD students at Antioch take two research methods courses, one that focuses on quantitative methods and statistics and a second that focuses on qualitative research. The students also complete a dissertation, but are not required to publish scholarly research. In this model, social justice may be emphasized by cultivating individual insights into the strengths that scholar practitioners bring to the field. Students may then be encouraged to consider how their specific strengths may be cultivated to promote social justice and change.
Keeping in mind the program philosophy can help to inform how to best justify research methods courses and structure them to meet the needs and training goals of students. Students in programs that follow the Bench Scientist model will be more likely to see the inherent value and importance of research methods courses as a part of their degree. Students operating under the scientist practitioner model may be a bit more ambivalent about the pursuit of research methods. Such programs are more likely to be split in terms of students who are hoping to pursue research and practice following graduate school (DeAngelis, 2003). Within the science practitioner frame, those who emphasize a “local” model will explore discernment and understand context when pursuing interventions that are considered evidence-based practice. Scientist-practitioner-advocate programs will likely have a strong emphasis on how their research informs social justice and the needs of communities. Scholar practitioner programs tend to train individuals who are unlikely to pursue research as a career in favor of more applied, health service oriented careers.
Scientific knowledge and methods and research evaluation are two of the competencies under “science” in the APA Competency Benchmarks in Professional Psychology. Regardless of the training model presented, there are scientific competencies that trainees have to meet in order to become professional psychologists . It is incredibly important that professional psychologists are able to comprehend, critically examine and summarize scholarly research. What may differ, as discussed above, is the degree of emphasis placed on the production of scholarly research.
2.5 The Value of Research and Quantitative/Qualitative Literacy as a Competency
Qualitative and quantitative research methods and statistics are multifaceted and highlight different ways of “knowing” in psychology. Quantitative and qualitative literacy skills are essential to the training of future psychologists regardless of program orientation. Psychologists, at a minimum, need to be able to comprehend and communicate the findings of relevant scholarly literature. As mentioned above, the specific skills and level of expertise required of students in their research methods training may depend on the training model and values of the program. That said, the ability to understand different ways of thinking and knowing, to critically evaluate the quality and rigor of published research and to integrate and apply findings to help individuals and society solve real world problems transcend any variability in program emphasis. Further, human behavior is inherently complex. Psychologists need to rely on more than intuition or lived experience when making assessments about human behavior (Dumper et al., 2019). Enhancing inductive and deductive reasoning through knowledge of research methodologies can be a helpful step in this process (Dumper et al., 2019).
Psychology, like many of the other health professions, has shifted to a competency-based model in recent years (Kaslow et al., 2009). APA’s Graduate Benchmarks Evaluation System has delineated a series of benchmarks that are suggested across all levels of training. Building on the work of the American Psychological Association, National Council of Schools and Programs in Professional Psychology, and others, the Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards (ASPPB) identified clusters of competencies that were meant to capture the most important elements of professional training and practice. These competencies may provide helpful guidelines that should be highlighted regardless of the training model.
Under the APA’s benchmark of “science” there are numerous competencies and sub-competencies. The first competency is scientific knowledge and methods (Benchmarks Evaluation System, 2012). Sub-competencies within this competency include scientific mindedness, scientific foundations of psychology and scientific foundation of professional practice (Benchmarks Evaluation System, 2012). The second competency is research/evaluation. Sub-competencies within this competency are scientific approach to knowledge generation and the application of the scientific method to practice (Benchmarks Evaluation System, 2012). Scientific mindedness broadly involves independently displaying evidence of scientific thinking and valuing and applying scientific method to practice (Benchmarks Evaluation System, 2012).
In the area of Research Methods both “doing” and “knowing” skills are essential to achieving professional proficiency. At minimum, students are expected to be able to demonstrate competencies in the areas of formulating, conducting, evaluating and disseminating research/scholarship. Importantly, at the most advanced level of training (the post-doctoral level), the ability to integrate science and practice is emphasized above research competency per se, according to APA’s Commission on Accreditation (section C-8 D; Accreditation (2018)). Within the study of different methods for conducting psychological research , students should be familiar with qualitative methods (different paradigms, types and methods of research that rely on words to capture phenomena), a variety of quantitative research designs (i.e., correlational and experimental designs that utilize numbers rather than words as the way data are represented), and other related topics such as sample and meta-analysis, description and inference, hypothesis testing and power.
Ultimately, being able to solve complex problems and organize and synthesize information are essential skills for psychologists. In clinical, assessment and academic settings, professional psychology involves solid problem solving skills and an ability to integrate and organize information. The field is ever changing remaining up to date with best practice is essential. A psychologist who is hesitant to consume up-to-date literature or new ideas risks competency as a clinician, researcher and advocate. Thus, quantitative and qualitative literacy are essential foundational skills in professional psychology.
2.7 What Do We Do?
Recommendations for reducing the entrenchment of White supremacy culture in research and training include greater representation of marginalized groups at all levels of the publication process, White psychologists being open to other views and grant agencies prioritizing diversity in research (Cokley & Awad, 2013; Dupree & Kraus, 2022; Henrich et al., 2010). Regardless of the training model used, providing education about the historical and continued erasure of identity differences in psychology is important. Further, professors should provide education about research comparing identity-based groups that has caused harm to communities (Cokley & Awad, 2013). One example is the comparison of racial differences in academic achievement without considering the environmental factors that impact differences in performance (Cokley & Awad, 2013). As professors, it is important that we highlight that comparing groups based on identity factors needs to be done intentionally and with collaborative input from stakeholders in those communities. The Building Equity into Research Design: Community-Based Participatory Research in this OER is one of the approaches for engaging in such collaboration.
The tension between modernism and postmodernism (Cokley & Awad, 2013) is present in how White supremacy culture and WEIRDness permeate research. One value of Modernism supports the idea of an objective, knowable truth from which the scientific method can be used to understand psychological processes (Cokley & Awad, 2013). In contrast, postmodernism rejects the idea of objective truth and instead highlights the idea of perspectivism and the social construction of reality (Cokley & Awad, 2013). In their book of qualitative methodologies (Creswell & Poth, 2016) go a step farther, noting that beyond postmodern theories are philosophical paradigms including constructivism (co-creating truth), transformativism (what is true is what will promote systems change), and pragmatism (what is true is what is useful to answer research questions). One constructivist, transformative theory is liberation psychology, or the view that reality is socially and politically constructed (Comas-Díaz, & Rivera, 2020). Liberation psychology highlights the need to center the voices of those most marginalized by systems. The theory posits that psychology should aim to focus on systems and see the oppression and suffering of individuals as a symptom of the problem (Comas-Díaz, & Rivera, 2020). The theory also centers on the idea of mutual accompaniment, and treating the communities we work with as co-investigators in the research process (Comas-Díaz & Torres Rivera, 2020).
In reviewing the training models mentioned in the previous section, we might hypothesize that the Bench Model more closely represents a modernist perspective with an emphasis on empiricism and laboratory studies. The Scientist- Practitioner-Advocate model most closely resembles a postmodern, liberation psychology view given its emphasis on advocacy as a part of the role of a psychologist. Qualitative research may help students access different ways of thinking about truth and the ways in which knowledge is constructed beyond the idea of one objective truth.
While students are likely learning about diversity and social justice in intervention-based courses, social justice tends to be less of a focus in research methods sequences. Sometimes in Research Methods courses, diversity and multiculturalism will get one week of focus at the end of the academic term. They may be further reduced by doubling as a “catch up” day on other material that felt unclear to students throughout the semester. While likely unintentional, not prioritizing multiculturalism and social justice provides clear messages to our students that such concepts are fringe in their importance to our understanding of research methods. Instead, social justice and multiculturalism should be embedded throughout the semester(s) of methodology courses. Hopefully in doing so, students will be primed to highlight diversity and social justice intentionally in their own research and thinking.
2.7.1 Not just quant- bring in the qual!
Another important consideration regardless of training model is the integration of qualitative methods. While this is explained in much more detail in other parts of this textbook, we thought it necessary to bring up qualitative research in a chapter focused on research methods and training models. Research programs in psychology have traditionally emphasized quantitative methods as a way to position themselves as a “hard science” and thereby be taken seriously. Tied in with the previous section on the characteristics of White supremacy culture, it is easy to see how the urge for perfectionism, prioritizing the written word, either/or thinking and urgency might value quantitative methods. Anecdotally, both myself (Rachel) and Karen (who trained in a scientist-practitioner Clinical PhD program) did not have mandatory courses in qualitative methods. Rachel was lucky enough to have a qualitative elective that greatly informed my engagement with qualitative research, along with my thinking as a clinician and researcher. That said, many psychologists from scientist practitioner programs may receive little to no training in qualitative methods.
Recent decades have led to advancement in the understanding of the methodological rigor of qualitative research (Levitt et al., 2013). Further, qualitative research allows students to contend with biases they may hold as a researcher and different epistemological ways of knowing that can inform their research process moving forward (Levitt et al., 2013; Ponterotto, 2005). As mentioned above, instead of presupposing some sort of “objective” reality, qualitative research amplifies the idea that reality is socially constructed, and that instead of denying that we have biases, we as researchers should acknowledge our biases and our positionality (Creswell & Poth, 2016). For example, if a researcher’s goal is transformative, or to make positive changes for marginalized groups in society, the researcher can and should champion that research objective, while also acknowledging the identities and experiences that impact their work with a given community. Further, qualitative methods like participatory action research (PAR) champion working with communities and treating community mentors as co-investigators. In the spirit of feminist, indigenous, AIDS and disability rights activists who refused to participate in top down research processes, PAR aims to engage in the philosophy of “no research on us without us” (Fine & Torre, 2019). This leads to research driven by community needs as opposed to what researchers perceive as the needs of a given community.
2.7.2 Bringing the class the life: addressing the barriers of teaching research methods courses
There are barriers to successfully teaching research methods regardless of the training model. While being an instructor for quantitative and qualitative research methods may feel like an uphill battle, we know that such courses are crucial in developing analytical reasoning, problem solving abilities, and understanding positionality (in the case of qualitative methods) for psychologists. In this section, we aim to address some of the barriers that come up for research methods professors and propose some ways to help the course(s) run successfully. These suggestions will come both from what we have found to be effective in our own classrooms and from suggestions and materials that other studies and professors have shared.
One helpful strategy is for professors to utilize self-disclosure around their own relationships to quantitative reasoning. For example, I (Rachel), in my quantitative course, discuss my own journey with statistics, noting that I was nowhere close to being a “math prodigy” in high school and never expected that teaching a statistics heavy course would be in my future. In fact, I (Rachel) viewed math as an utter waste of my time and a subject that lacked any sort of practical importance (how self-serving, I know). I noted that it was during graduate school that I began to enjoy numbers and statistics. It was when I had professors who were willing to slow the content down and explain concepts in ways that made sense for my brain that(J. F. Anderson & Withrow, 1981; Williams, 2010) I began to enjoy statistics.
As I (Rachel) was acquainting myself with this course, I tested the hypothesis of self-disclosure of my own difficulties with math. Self-disclosing my history with math has seemed to relax my students and set an expectation of growth instead of instant mastery. This is not to say that people who are naturally strong mathematicians should not teach statistics – they most definitely should! Even for those folks, highlighting some of the aspects of math courses that they found/find difficult may help alleviate student anxiety related to the course sequence. It is certainly worth seeing how students respond to such disclosures, and if it helps to create a more open learning environment. Further, professors highlighting the ways in which they hope to make the course accessible to those with different learning styles may help to ease some of the inherent concerns that quantitative courses cause many psychology students.
It also may be helpful to test using an individualized approach to quantitative courses. According to Samuel and Warner (2021) a growth mindset and utilization of mindfulness can lead to a decrease in math anxiety and increase self efficacy for students who struggle with quantitative content. Going along with the idea of a growth mindset is utilizing a process-oriented approach (Teaching by the Case Method - Christensen Center for Teaching & Learning - Harvard Business School, n.d.). Even when students do not get the correct answer numerically, understanding their processing and reasoning skills and explaining how to arrive at the proper answer will improve quantitative reasoning.
Another way to help students to be successful in quantitative methods is to address math anxiety directly at the very beginning of the course. According to Williams (2010) using immediacy as a response to student anxiety pertaining to statistics can reduce math anxiety between 6 and 20 percent (Williams, 2010). Immediacy in this context is defined as using nonverbal behaviors that communicate approachability (e.g., eye contact, open body language, nodding) and verbal behaviors that influence perceptions of closeness (J. F. Anderson & Withrow, 1981; Williams, 2010). Verbal behaviors that were found to increase immediacy include self-disclosure, humor, addressing students by name, conversing with students outside of class and seeking student’s feedback on assignments (Gorham, 1988; Williams, 2010).
Student buy-in to a research methods sequence may also be enhanced by discussing why quantitative and qualitative reasoning are important components of becoming a psychologist. As previously mentioned, even if students do not plan to pursue an academic career, in developing clinical judgment, the ability to problem solve and think through complex situations are critical. Further, students may, as a part of their career trajectory, enter leadership roles at psychology clinics. As a part of such roles, they may have to pursue grant funding and justify using data why their clinics may benefit from such funding using qualitative and quantitative research methods. Furthermore, psychologists need to be able to assess evidence-based practices and make decisions about what interventions will be most effective for their clients. Doing so involves an ability to understand and critically evaluate quantitative research.
2.7.3 Take risks!
My brilliant co-author, Karen, a seasoned professor who has taught quantitative methods at Antioch for several years, came up with a fabulous idea to “bring the classroom to life”. She first informed me of the idea around Halloween, when she sent me a video of Jimmy Fallon and Shailene Woodly exploding a pumpkin. She then showed me a database of people in myriad classrooms who had exploded a pumpkin as a part of their class experience. They took measurements of the circumference, number of rubber bands needed, height, thickness of the rubber bands, and other factors that played a role in the explosion of the pumpkin.
To say I was nervous was an understatement. As a new faculty member who had been at Antioch approximately two months, I didn’t want to do anything that might “rock the boat.” What if the activity backfired in some way? What if people didn’t like it or felt upset by the pumpkin becoming increasingly combustible? Karen, who was also open to exploring the question of whether or not we should do it, brought up the idea of taking risks, and actually “doing the thing.”
The assignment was a roaring success. We were able to teach the concept of correlations through a method of having students use the previous data to make predictions about how many rubber bands it would take for the pumpkin to explode based on measurements we took about our own pumpkins. Students who were less thrilled about the idea of exploding pumpkins were invited to leave the room. The activity was such that different groups occupied different spaces outside the classroom anyway, making their absence less noticeable. The student whose prediction was closest to when the pumpkin actually exploded was invited to pick from a number of prizes. Many students came up to us after we were finished and spoke to how much fun they had engaging in this fall themed activity.
There is a lot that can be taken away from this activity. One important point for new faculty is that having access to mentors who are more experienced than you to bounce ideas off of can be incredibly helpful. All new professors, and even professors who are seasoned in their work, should seek consultation and feedback about what sort of ideas and activities will successfully convey difficult concepts. When teaching research methods and statistics in particular, it can be easy to focus primarily on the content at the expense of process. We posit that content and process can coexist, even in a course where often there might be one right answer.
Another activity that might benefit students is using data from real world populations in order to inform social justice. For example, our university is connected to a training clinic that serves the surrounding community. We have deidentified data from this clinic that we base our homework assignments and final projects on for our quantitative research methods course. Such data helps illuminate for students how mental health outcomes may differ based on identity factors including race, age, gender, social class and other variables collected at intake. Engaging meaningfully with clinical data can both provide the clinic with important information about how to improve services for the communities we serve. Such data also allows students to see how numbers can be used to better understand and improve clinical outcomes for diverse populations.
2.8 Summary, Conclusions, and/or Recommendations
Instruction in research methods, both quantitative and qualitative, is a complicated course sequence for psychology professors. Ensuring competency in these areas, particularly for students who reject the idea of needing such courses as a part of their training, can be a difficult task. Depending on the training model utilized and the emphasis on research methods, the course sequence will inevitably look different. Further, motivations may differ to be competent in research methods based on whether or not a student wants to pursue a career in academia. At a minimum, students should be proficient in formulating, conducting, evaluating and disseminating research and scholarship. Regardless of training model, multiculturalism and social justice should be thoughtfully integrated throughout the course(s). In particular, an emphasis on working alongside communities, understanding the importance of quality over quantity and understanding the value of both numbers and words will be pivotal in liberating research methods from White supremacy culture. As instructors, we can learn to take risks and utilize creativity and vulnerability as parts of our teaching process. In shifting the ways in which we teach we may begin to subvert the ways research methods are perceived to future generations of psychologists.
2.9 Suggestions for Practice, Further Learning, and/or Conversation
To better understand the impact of training models on the doctoral students research training, we encourage you to examine websites of 10 APA-accredited programs in clinical, counseling, and school psychology. Seek a diversity of programs (PhD and PsyD with differing training models). Complete this table and then reflect on the similarities and differences you noted. Did there seem to be patterns according to training model?
| Institution | Program | Training Model | Statistics Courses | Research Courses | Doctoral Research Project Requirements | Notes on Research Training |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | ||||||
| 2. | ||||||
| 3. | ||||||
| 4. | ||||||
| 5. | ||||||
| 6. | ||||||
| 7. | ||||||
| 8. | ||||||
| 9. | ||||||
| 10. |