Forensic psychology opportunities in Canadian graduate programs: An update of Simourd and Wormith's (1995) survey.

Abstract

Forensic psychology has gained momentum in North America in recent decades, and Canadian psychologists have made considerable contributions to the field. Strong student interest and a high demand for professionals, however, have not been sufficiently matched with the availability of formal forensic psychology graduate training, nor with sufficient scholarly discussion of this issue. The purpose of the current study was to update Simourd and Wormith's (1995) survey of forensic psychology training available in Canadian psychology graduate programs. Of the 39 universities with psychology graduate programs, 36 (92%) responded to the survey. Twenty-four universities (67%) offered some forensic opportunities for students, although there was considerable variability in the number of courses, students, and faculty members in the forensic psychology programs. Since Simourd and Wormith's (1995) survey, forensic training is available at 10 new universities. Of the 14 programs with forensic psychology content in 1995 and in the current study, however, more than half of them reported a decrease in the number of faculty and students working with forensic issues. Considering the continued demand for trained forensic psychologists in applied settings, further attention to the availability of both education and training in forensic psychology is therefore still needed.Although it is a recent field, forensic psychology has undergone enormous growth in recent decades (

Training opportunities for corrections practice: A national survey of doctoral psychology programs.

“…Second, to facilitate such an understanding, a more comprehensive understanding that parses corrections work from forensic interest and study is needed. Among the leading scholars in the field (Ax & Morgan, 2002; Barton, 2011; Brodsky, 2000; Gendreau, Goggin, French, & Smith, 2006; Helmus, Babchishin, Camilleri, & Olver, 2011; Magaletta, Patry, Dietz, & Ax, 2007; Morgan et al,2007; Olver et al, 2011; Simourd & Wormith, 1995; Smith & Gendreau, in press), the distinction between corrections practice and psychology-law or forensic training has been consistently observed, increasingly noted, and unfortunately, ignored. There is not a single study that provides a complete description of the training opportunities being conveyed for corrections practice in graduate psychology programs.…”

A historical review and resource guide to the scholarship of teaching and training in psychology and law and forensic psychology.

“…Some notable exceptions are models for others hoping to introduce innovative courses (Cohen et al, 1977) or teaching techniques (Morris, 2003) into the psychology and law curriculum. Insightful reviews of psychology and law graduate programs certainly exist (e.g., Hall et al, 2010;Helmus et al, 2011), but future research is needed to compare the actual efficacy of different training models in producing students who are prepared and knowledgeable, and This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.…”

“…Two decades later, Hall et al (2010) identified 34 graduate programs in legal and forensic psychology across America and Canada. (See also c ; Tomkins & Ogloff, 1990; Simourd & Wormith, 1995; Helmus et al, 2011; and Burl et al, 2012). Next, we review program-relevant articles following the clinical-forensic, experimental/nonclinical, and joint-degree training models.…”

Making Prisoners Accountable

“…The latter is partly attributed to low pay scales and working conditions that are not up to the standards in other areas of psychology. In addition, and this is not a criticism, the demands placed on psychologists in prisons nowadays are often directed toward crisis intervention or assessment and treatment of mental health problems (Helmus, Babchishin, Camilleri, & Olver, 2011; Magaletta, 2011; Magaletta, Patry, Dietz, & Ax, 2007; Olver, Preston, Camilleri, Helmus, & Starzomski, 2011; Senter, Morgan, Serna-McDonald, & Bewley, 2010). As for the frontline dispensers of the CM contingencies, correctional officer staff must receive extensive training and supervision in CM techniques and be ideologically committed to providing humane care (Smith, Hart, Pennington, Sanford, & Milan, 1985; Smith et al, 1976).…”