The COVID-19 pandemic has posed unprecedented challenges to health service psychology (HSP) education and training but also presents tremendous opportunities for growth that will persist well past the resolution of this public health crisis. The present article addresses three aims in understanding the challenges and opportunities faced by the HSP education and training community. First, it describes challenges to HSP education and training created by the COVID-19 pandemic, including the need to maintain the integrity of training; facilitate trainee progress; continue clinical service delivery; manage the safety and wellbeing of trainees, faculty, staff, and clients/patients; and adhere to national and local emergency orders. Second, the article summarizes guidance from training organization leadership regarding training program and clinical site responses to these challenges. Several principle-based recommendations called upon training programs to prioritize trainees and their training needs, while urging balance and flexibility in meeting the multiple demands of training programs, institutions, and the public.Third, the article discusses key opportunities for improvement in HSP education and training, including more effective use of competency evaluations; distance technologies in therapy, supervision, and admissions; and reconsideration of internship and degree timing and HSP's identity as a health care profession; and the potential for comprehensive review and redesign of HSP education and training. Embracing these opportunities may help ensure that HSP education and training is preparing its graduates to meet the psychological health care needs of the future. Public Significance StatementThe COVID-19 pandemic challenged health service psychology educators to continue clinical training and service delivery in the context of unprecedented health risks and community shutdowns. Creative responses to these challenges have highlighted opportunities for improvements in how health service psychologists are trained (e.g., in the use of distance technologies for admissions, therapy, and supervision; more effective use of competency evaluations), and in the role of health service psychology trainees as health care providers.

This study investigated Black racial identity attitudes as a moderator of intellectual performance in potentially stereotype threatening situations. Ninety-eight African American students were randomly assigned to one of three stereotype threatening conditions: low threat, medium threat, or high threat. Analyses confirmed a stereotype threat effect with participants performing significantly better on the task in the low threat condition. Additional analyses of the test takers’ racial identity profiles under high and low threat conditions revealed a significant interaction between Internalization status attitudes and the type of threat condition. In the low stereotype threat condition, Internalization status attitudes moderated performance on the intellectual task (i.e., items from the verbal section of the GRE). In this condition, after controlling for SAT verbal score, students who strongly endorsed Internalization racial identity attitudes correctly solved more items than students who did not identify as strongly with Internalization status attitudes. Implications of these findings are discussed.

No abstract

When the American Psychological Association (APA) and Association of Psychology Postdoctoral and Internship Centers (APPIC) founded Training and Education in Professional Psychology (TEPP), their shared goal was to provide a venue where trainers at all levels (academic, internship, and postdoctoral) could find the most recent advances in education and training in professional psychology. Thus, the TEPP editorial leadership team welcomed the opportunity to publish the Competency Benchmarks document (Fouad et al., 2009) and the Assessment Toolkit (Kaslow et al., 2009), found in this special issue. After reading these major contributions, we found that we agreed with McCutcheon (p. S50): "It is difficult to think of a recent initiative that has cast a wider net over psychology education or which has broader applicability." We believe that both of these major contributions represent the best our field has to offer-careful thinking, extraordinary input from a broad array of constituencies, and the potential to substantively impact the education and training of professional psychologists.Given the scope of this special issue, and because both the Competency Benchmarks and the Assessment Toolkit are intended to serve as models for implementing a competency-based approach to education and training (rather than as mandates), the TEPP editorial board wanted to provide, alongside the documents, a forum for initial commentary about their contributions and implications for education. We invited a wide range of stakeholders to provide their reactions to these articles, including early career professionals, APA leaders, regulatory experts, experts on competencies, and internship and academic training professionals. We asked our respondents to carefully consider whether and how these competencies advance the field and what influence they believe each will have on training and practice.Our respondents did not disappoint. Their reactions are compelling in that they exhibit considerable convergence as well as a rare glimpse into the complexities the field faces as it attempts to foster a "culture of competence" (Roberts, Borden, Christiansen, & Lopez, 2005). This editorial briefly summarizes the strengths and challenges articulated by respondents. Drawing on these thoughtful critiques, we conclude with a call to action by articulating the critical next steps for the competencies movement.

The field of psychology has struggled to define what it is that makes an expert therapist expert. Just as elusive has been the ability to know and articulate how one achieves expertise as a therapist. In their major contribution, Hill, Spiegel, Hoffman, Kivlighan, and Gelso identify a number of constructs that researchers interested in assessing expertise can consider and evaluate. In this reaction to their article, we share where we are in agreement with the authors and where our thoughts diverge. We conclude with what we deem to be missing from this discussion regarding therapist expertise-power and privilege as it relates to who decides what makes an expert.

She also sees clients in her part-time private practice and specializes in working with people on issues related to meaning creation, cultural negotiation, marginalization, identity, and empowerment.

We are frustrated with the internship imbalance. Twenty years ago, those of us involved in academic training programs prepared students in our doctoral programs for the internship application process by meeting with them for an hour and giving them a few pointers. Now, the focus on securing an internship seems to pervade all aspects of doctoral education. We listen to students worry that they don't have sufficient hours, assessment experience, or diverse practicum placements. As the Association of Psychology Postdoctoral and Internship Centers (APPIC) Match approaches, we meet with students more frequently, helping them to prepare their applications and carefully construct their list of internship sites. We devote time helping students to complete the APPIC Application for Psychology Internship (AAPI), prepare for interviews, and rank sites. Those of us who are involved in internship training programs spend extensive hours reviewing hundreds of applications in Phase I and Phase II of the APPIC Match. We respond to applicant concerns, questions, and anxiety. And all of us try to provide support and consolation, as well as some understanding about "what went wrong" to those students who aren't matched. When we have a moment, we look beyond the students in front of us and worry about the future of our profession. How is it possible that we've gotten ourselves into this mess?As everyone knows, the internship imbalance has long been of concern. Certainly the TEPP editorial team was concerned enough that we devoted an entire issue (The Internship Match: Understanding the Problem-Seeking Solutions in November 2007) to this topic. Unfortunately, when one looks only at the match rate and as we predicted (

To provide effective and ethical psychological practice, psychologists must proactively integrate cultural context, as well as equity and justice, in the first and all subsequent steps of ethical decision-making. Extant ethical decision-making models provide substantial support to analyze and respond to ethical dilemmas, but often address culture as only one aspect of making good decisions. This article summarizes the strengths of three representative and current models, as well as limitations in terms of equity, diversity, and inclusion. We proposed a new model, the socially responsive ethical decision-making model that integrates culture and self-awareness throughout. This seven-step model focuses on considering culture immediately at the first step of problem definition, seeking out consultation and information from a wide variety of sources to improve self-reflection and self-awareness, and evaluation alternative solutions from a culturally curious and culturally humble perspective. We offer vignettes to demonstrate how to apply such a model, in both clinical and research situations. The article concludes with a brief commentary on the value of engaging in socially responsive decision-making when facing an ethical dilemma.