Students in school, counseling, clinical, and combined psychology doctoral programs are required to obtain and complete an internship that is approved by their doctoral program in order to graduate. However, psychology's longstanding problem is that there are more students than there are internship positions (Internship Imbalance Problem). Moreover, the internship imbalance appears to be a direct result of the fact that, under the current internship placement system, doctoral programs are not responsible for providing internship positions to their students in good standing and subsequently cannot provide these students with the requirements to graduate. The inability of doctoral programs to provide their students in good standing with the requirements to graduate may be actionable in a court of law (Legal Problem). This article provides (a) a legal analysis of the current internship placement system under contract theory, estoppel, fraud, and misrepresentation; (b) explanations for why previously proposed solutions to diminish the imbalance have worked with only limited success, do not appear likely to eliminate the imbalance, and may not address the Legal Problem; and (c) a solution to address both the Internship Imbalance Problem and Legal Problem. A major tenet of this solution is that, regardless of absolute size, each doctoral program would contribute to the pool of internships to the extent that they contribute to the pool of students.
the following sentence on pp. 178 -179 is incorrect: "In fact, in 2008 to 2011, CoA's Implementing Regulation (IR) D.4-7(b) of the Guidelines and Principles for Accreditation (G&P) set a threshold match rate such that 75% of students seeking internships must be placed in either accredited or APPIC member internships in order for programs to maintain accredited status." The phrase "in order for programs to maintain accredited status" implies that dropping below the threshold match rate results in suspension of accreditation. This statement and implication are incorrect because failing to meet minimal criterion for placement in an APA/CPA accredited internship as outlined in Implementing Regulation D.4(c) does not result in the loss of accreditation. Rather, as outlined in Implementing Regulation D.4(a), a program that does not meet the threshold will be asked to "explain their data and, where appropriate . . . Develop a plan to ameliorate the difficulty." The correct statement should be: "In fact, in 2008 to 2011, CoA's Implementing Regulation (IR) D.4-7(b) of the Guidelines and Principles for Accreditation (G&P) set a threshold match rate such that 75% of students seeking internships must be placed in either accredited or APPIC member internships or programs will be asked to report to CoA about their efforts to improve their placement rates."
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.