Seeking the "Perfect" Match: An Empirical Examination of Applicant Differences According to Internship Setting

Callahan, Jennifer L.; Swift, Joshua K.; Hogan, Lindsey R.; Tompkins, Kelley A.; Connor, Dana R.; Klonoff, Elizabeth A.

doi:10.1037/e514392014-003

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As shown in Figure 4, interns who match systematically differ in their characteristics according to the type of site that they matched to (Callahan, Swift, et al, 2014). A few of these differences precede admission to doctoral training (quantitative Graduate Record Examination [GRE] scores) and/or reflect personality factors (openness, agreeableness, extraversion), but most pertain to research achievements (number of peer-reviewed publications and number of presen-tations) and practicum training experiences (client contact hours, supervision hours, ratio of client contact hours to supervision, number of integrated reports).…”

Section: Site Differencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The science of training III: Supervision, competency, and internship training.

Callahan¹,

Watkins²

2018

Training and Education in Professional Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this third installment of our review on the science of training, we examine empirical articles associated with two pan-training areas, supervision and competency, before considering the capstone predoctoral training experience of internship. Critical issues considered include supervision effectiveness, differences and diversity in supervision, competency assessment, competency problems, internship match, and internship training. We offer conclusions and discuss intersecting implications across these areas (e.g., changes to the internship application to reflect norm-referenced assessments of competency by supervisors). We reiterate our call for a decrease in tribalistic rhetoric and a sharpened focus on curating an evidence-based approach to training. To that end, we advocate for greater stewardship concerning the science of training. We encourage directors of health services psychology training programs to disseminate program evaluation efforts into the peer-reviewed literature. We also encourage accrediting bodies to more clearly ground regulations in an empirically derived evidence-base. We conclude by proposing a recurrent conference designed to provide (a) pragmatic assistance to directors in transforming program evaluations into submission ready articles for dissemination into the peer-reviewed literature, (b) a venue for establishing collaborative research that builds on data accumulated across programs, and (c) opportunities for learning necessary methodological or analytic skills.

show abstract

Section: Site Differencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The science of training III: Supervision, competency, and internship training.

Callahan¹,

Watkins²

2018

Training and Education in Professional Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Another source of inspiration for potentially salient interview questions may be found in public domain items assessing openness to experience (e.g., the International Personality Item Pool). Openness is a known correlate to EI and has also been found to be associated with positive supervisory working alliances among doctoral trainees (Rieck, Callahan, & Watkins, 2015) as well as type of site matched to for internship (Callahan et al, 2014). We caution readers, however, to remember that diverse personality features are associated with the full spectrum of internship settings (i.e., there is no singularity of personality for a health services psychologist).…”

Section: Admissionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The science of training I: Admissions, curriculum, and research training.

Callahan¹,

Watkins²

2018

Training and Education in Professional Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Though still young in its development, a foundation of research is emerging regarding admissions, curriculum, and research training in psychology. It is unclear, however, the degree to which this foundation informs the actions of psychology educators and training programs. We review the emerging evidence, giving specific focus to the following 3 areas: (a) admission processes (e.g., interviews and quantitative scores); (b) curriculum (e.g., content and processes); and (c) research training (e.g., trainee variables, mentorship, and the larger research training environment). Perhaps the most concerning set of findings from this nascent empirical literature indicates insufficient diversity in the training to workforce pipeline. Based on our review, several other conclusions are drawn with recommendations for programs to foster an evidence-based approach to training.

show abstract

“…A primary objective of her research is to contribute to the development of an evidence‐based approach to training for the purpose of ultimately improving the quality of psychological care (during the training years, but also to positively influence effectiveness trajectories). She has published numerous empirical studies pertaining to internship (Callahan et al, , b).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%