About APPIC / News / What's New

What's New

APPIC is dedicated to providing resources for training directors, psychology interns, and psychology intern applicants. Items of training interest can be sent to the administrator of the APPIC web site, Jessica Shapley appic@appic.org

News and Announcements 2020

APPIC Community Call - Assessing Baseline Competency of Trainees - September 17, 2020 - CLICK HERE to View the Discussion - CLICK HERE to View the Chat Discussion.

APPIC Virtual Business Meeting August 6, 2020 - Click Here to View the Meeting.

APPIC Policy on Accredited Psychology Internships and APPIC Membership - Click Here - August 3, 2020.

APPIC Policy On Communication - Updated August 3, 2020 - Click Here

News and Announcements 2018

What To Do When Your Internship Program Has Less Than Two Interns - APPIC's Guidance and Suggestions - Click Here

August 8, 2018 - 8am-10am
APPIC Business Meeting - APA San Francisco - Hilton Union Square - Plaza A

August 5-7, 2018
APPIC Board Meeting - San Francisco, CA

May 2018
The APPIC Membership Meeting - San Antonio, Texas

March 2018
The APPIC Board will meet for their annual board meeting March 5-7, 2018.

News and Announcements - 2017

October 2017
APPIC Response and Resources for 2017 Hurricanes

August 2017
The APPIC Board will hold the APPIC Business Meeting at the American Psychological Association meeting on August 3, 2017 from 8am - 10am in Washington DC, Marriott Marquis Salon 1.

May 2017
A​PPIC Membership Dues and Fees are now PAST due for 2017. Payment can still be made by logging into the APPIC Directory on Line (DoL) https://membership.appic.org/login. Once you are logged in click on the eMembership tab, to make payment by credit card. If you don’t see an option to enter credit card information make sure all fields under the eMembership tab show complete as well as verifying you will adhere to APPIC membership criteria by pressing the submit button (payment option should appear once this has been done). Programs who wish to pay by check can click on PAYMENT tab to download an invoice and send it with your check. Be sure to put your program member code number (4 digits for internships and postdocs and 3 digits for DPA programs) on the check memo line. Dues were late AFTER April 15.

April 2017
The APPIC Board met in Northern California for their annual board meeting April 3-5, 2017.

News and Announcements - 2016

July 2016
A​PPIC Membership Dues and Fees are now PAST due for 2016. Payment can still be made by logging into the APPIC Directory on Line (DoL) https://membership.appic.org/login. Once you are logged in click on the eMembership tab, to make payment by credit card. If you don’t see an option to enter credit card information make sure all fields under the eMembership tab show complete as well as verifying you will adhere to APPIC membership criteria by pressing the submit button (payment option should appear once this has been done). Programs who wish to pay by check can click on PAYMENT tab to download an invoice and send it with your check. Be sure to put your program member code number (4 digits for internships and postdocs and 3 digits for DPA programs) on the check memo line. Dues were late AFTER April 15.

APPIC Match Fees Increasing for 2017 - July 2016
APPIC Board has approved a match fee increase for member internships that will be effective January 1, 2017. Please be advised that there will be an adjustment to the Match fees in 2017. After eight years with no change to the fees for doctoral programs and 12 years for internships, the APPIC Board responded to National Matching Services’ request for an increase by approving a change to $150 for internship programs and $305 for Doctoral Program Associates. Students will not see an increase to their Match fees. The full amount of the increase will go directly to National Matching Services. As you are aware, only programs accredited by organizations recognized by the U.S. Department of Education will be able to send students into the Match beginning in 2018. This is in part due to formal requests by the Council of University Directors of Clinical Psychology (CUDCP), the Council of Counseling Psychology Training Programs (CCPTP), and the American Psychological Association of Graduate Students (APAGS). The APPIC Board agreed and believes it is important for maintaining the highest standards of quality. However, as a result of this change there will be fewer doctoral programs and applicants contributing to the cost of the administration of the Match in the future. While it is recognized that any increase in fees may be burdensome to programs, the APPIC Board chose to avoid increasing the costs for students who absorbed an increase in AAPI-related costs in 2013.

APPIC Diversity Statement - May 2016
Download as PDF

APPIC Business MeetingAmerican Psychological Association - Denver - Thursday, August 4, 2016 - 8:00am - 9:50am - Centennial Ballroom A - Hyatt Regency Denver - Click here for Flyer

2016 Membership Conference - New Orleans
Date: May 26-29, 2016 -

APPIC Postdoc Summit - New Orleans
Date: May 29-30, 2016

News and Announcements - 2015

2015 - 2016 - APPIC Competencies Assessment Project (CAP)
Information on the Progress of the CAP project will be presented at the 2016 Membership Conference

Competencies Assessment Project - Grant Award Winners:

Emory University School of Medicine - Nadine Kaslow, Ph.D.
Jesse Brown VA Medical Center - Kenneth Lehman, Ph.D.
Minneapolis VA Healthcare System - Thad Strom, Ph.D.
Northwestern University - Mark Reinecke, Ph.D.
Rutgers School Psychology Program - Susan Forman, Ph.D. & Ryan Kettler, Ph.D.
University of Colorado School of Medicine at Children's Hospital Colorado - Christine McDunn, Ph.D.
University of North Texas - Jennifer Callahan, Ph.D.
University of Rochester Medical Center - Jennifer West, Ph.D. & Wendi Cross, Ph.D.
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Counseling Psychology - Nadya Fouad, Ph.D.

News and Announcements 2013

Pictures From the 2013 APPIC Board Meeting/APA Conference Awards Ceremony:

April 29, 2013: The APPIC Response to the CoA request for Comments to the G&P

G&P Roadmap: Phase II

CoA review of the Phase I comments has involved a two-step process. First, the CoA tried to identify comments for which there was substantial agreement among those who commented. For those areas with considerable agreement, we have developed follow-up (Phase II) questions designed to help us identify unintended consequences of thinking about the issue in the agreed upon way. Second, the CoA tried to identify comments about which there was disagreement. For those areas with considerable disagreement, we have developed follow-up (Phase II) questions designed to help us think more clearly about exactly what the underlying issues of disagreement might be, and how they could best be addressed.

Phase II questions are provided for your comments at this time. The questions at the doctoral and internship level are provided as combined follow-up questions to the original 10 questions at each level because many of the comments, questions, and concerns raised in response to the Phase 1 doctoral and internship level questions were similar across both levels of training. Postdoctoral residency level questions are provided separately, given that consistent themes emerged from each Phase 1 question that will need further clarification and follow-up.

To reiterate what the CoA has tried to convey in previous correspondence, the G&P Roadmap is an outline of a tentative timeline; it is important for everyone to understand that this is a timeline, not a deadline. Going forward, CoA decisions about what to do, and when to do it, will be driven primarily by the interactions—both in person and electronic—that the CoA has with the many groups it represents; the CoA will not be driven to complete the process in order to meet an arbitrary deadline. The CoA has already made some modifications to the Roadmap. Initially we had proposed the completion of Phase II by the March 2013 CoA policy meeting. We now have moved the timeline for completion of Phase II until the July 2013 CoA meeting.

The plan for Phase II is to provide these follow-up questions for public comment from now until June 1, 2013. The CoA also will be sending representatives to speak at as many upcoming training council mid-winter meetings as possible. Since we recognize that not all relevant groups have midwinter meetings and because we want to insure broad input, we are also working on mechanisms to allow for individuals to interact electronically with CoA and for those opportunities to be archived so others might be able to view and comment on them.

Our focus is on an interactive process of created accreditation standards for the future of our profession. Once the CoA has general agreement on key areas, it will attempt to draft a new G&P. We want everyone to be assured that any draft will go through public comment.

The public comment period is scheduled to begin on November 30, 2012, and continue through June 1, 2013 and may be accessed at the following URL:


In an effort to promote thoughtful discussion, the CoA is providing an electronic-based comment form for public comment submission. Comments and other information, including the users' identity, will be public. Email addresses used for registration will be kept confidential. The CoA will consider all comments received in moving forward with the Roadmap. On behalf of the CoA, thank you for your review and comments. Please contact the APA Office of Program Consultation and Accreditation with any questions or concerns. Address: 750 First Street, N.E., Washington, DC 20002-4242; Phone: (202) 336-5979; Email: apaaccred@apa.org; Web: http://www.apa.org/ed/accreditation

Phase II Questions

There are two kinds of questions to which we are seeking input. The first set of questions pertains to both doctoral-and internship-level training. The second group of questions focuses on training at the postdoctoral level. The public comment system is organized by each of the numbered questions within the two question groups. You are welcome to provide comments on as many or as few sections as you choose; but please ensure that your responses are specific to the relevant question.

Questions for Doctoral and Internship Training

Accreditation Framework -Competencies and Program Characteristics

  1. There have been many comments in favor of moving CoA accreditation at the doctoral and internship levels toward a uniform, profession-based competency-based assessment. What are the pros and cons of this? If CoA moves to a uniform-professional based competency-based assessment, how might this be implemented? Should CoA identify relevant competencies? Should CoA use previously-identified competencies in the profession (e.g., Benchmark Competencies, NCSPP, etc.)? Are there other competencies that are not fully addressed in existing documents (e.g., research and science) and if so, how should CoA identify and incorporate these into the G&P?

    The movement to a competency-based system would be highly desirable. The advantages of a competency-based system include clear criteria for readiness for practicum, and internship and licensure could be defined and common across programs and licensure boards. The Revised Competency Benchmarks (APA, June 2011) appears to be the best system that exists presently. These competencies (Professionalism [Professional Values and Attitudes; Individual and Cultural Diversity; Ethical Legal Standards and Policy; Reflective Practice/Self-Assessment/Self-Care]; Relational [Relationships]; Science [Scientific Knowledge and Methods; Research/Evaluation]; Application [Evidence-Based Practice; Assessment; Intervention; Consultation]; Education {Teaching; Supervision]; and Systems [Interdisciplinary Systems; Management-Administration; Advocacy]) are sufficiently broad and comprehensive. These competencies should be uniformly required of all programs and at all levels of accreditation. The profession should establish a level of competence within these areas that would certify readiness for internship. In addition to these competencies, programs should be free to develop competencies unique to their program. The challenge to moving to a competency-based system would be in finding reliable and valid ways measure those competencies, a process that could take several years at a minimum given the time required to develop and validate ways to measure competency. Until the profession establishes and designate method(s) for measuring competencies, programs would need to define how they measure those competencies. The reason for not designating one method of assessment is that there is likely to be legitimate disagreement regarding which method is more psychometrically sound. Methods could consist of written or oral exams, evaluation of practice samples, or the use of mock patients. In the end, the profession will need to establish which method(s) are more psychometrically sound for each competency. For competencies unique to a program, the burden would be on the program to demonstrate that the method of assessment is reliable and valid.

  2. What kind of proximal and distal outcome data should CoA require to evaluate whether a training program is successfully training students/interns to be competent?

    Presently, since we do not have reliable and valid ways to measure competencies, the current system should remain in place where programs are required to present proximal and distal data on their defined GOC (goals objectives and competencies). Once uniform competencies are in place, outcome data based on those competencies should be required. We are not in favor of cookie cutter type training; programs need some freedom to define their own competencies and how they are assessed. In the end, the burden should be on the program to demonstrate how they meet the profession’s defined competencies as well as any program specific competencies.

  3. Should clinical, counseling, or school programs be evaluated using the same or different accreditation standards? For purposes of accreditation, does type of training model matter (e.g., scientist-practitioner, practitioner-scholar, or clinical scientist)? Should programs be evaluated for accreditation on their own program goals, objectives, and competencies; on a set of uniform –profession based competencies; or both?

    Accreditation should be for the professional practice of psychology regardless of a program’s model or practice area. The standards should be general or flexible enough so that all programs should be able to meet them regardless of the particular focus or model. As noted in question #1, there should be some uniform competencies consistent across all programs (Revised Competency Benchmarks, APA, June 2011) but programs should be free to develop their own competencies. In the future, the field may opt to develop competencies unique to specific models and/or clinical, counseling, or school programs.


  4. Should specialization (e.g., neuropsychology, health) be permitted prior to the post­doctoral level (i.e., at doctoral and/or internship)? What are the pros/cons of such a model? How might this be operationalized given the importance of broad and general training?

    Broad and general training is critical in the education and training of professional psychology even if one chooses to enter a specialized area of practice. In fact, practice in a specialty area is enhanced by solid broad and general training. Broad and general training can be attained by adherence to the competencies specified in the Revised Competency Benchmarks (APA, June, 2011). As long as these competencies are covered, programs should be free to add curriculum and competencies in areas of specialty, focus or emphasis. If programs are permitted to specialize in the absence of broad and general training, the overall competency of the trainee would be significantly compromised. For example, a psychologist that specializes in an area such as clinical neuropsychology or clinical health needs to be able to recognize general mental health conditions and psychopathology since comorbidity of such conditions within specialty areas is not uncommon. APPIC believes that a general foundation in areas such as social and cognitive basis of behavior is needed to fully grasp more advanced concepts. Training is developmental. Advanced or specialized training is built upon broad and general training. Internship should build on the competencies attained in the doctoral program, and postdoc should build on the competencies obtained in internship.

  5. Several comments have called for increased interdisciplinary training in professional psychology. How and when should interdisciplinary training and collaboration occur? Should it be a required part of doctoral training? internship? What implications does this have for the acceptable qualifications of faculty and internship program contributors (i.e., instructors, practicum supervisors, internship primary/supplemental supervisors, research mentors)?

    Interdisciplinary/interprofessional training is becoming more important in all health professions. However, given the importance of ensuring broad and general training, it should not yet be required at the doctoral/practicum level beyond exposure. Many doctoral programs would be hard pressed to find quality practicum opportunities that integrate interdisciplinary training though this can be met through exposure to other disciplines such as social work, psychiatry, public health, health care administration or any health care profession. Interdisciplinary/interprofessional training should occur at the internship and postdoctoral levels through interdisciplinary/interprofessional exposure and didactics. Interdisciplinary/ Interprofessional l education could be defined as educators and learners from two or more health professions and their foundational disciplines who jointly create and foster a collaborative learning environment. The goal of these efforts is to develop knowledge, skills and attitudes that result in effective interprofessional team behaviors. Ideally, interprofessional education is incorporated throughout the entire curriculum in a vertically and horizontally integrated fashion. How Interprofessional education and training would occur at the internship and postdoctoral levels would differ depending upon the type of setting and other professionals that train and practice in that setting. The breadth and level of competence would be greater at the postdoctoral level. Competence in interprofessional training would fit within the Benchmark Competency Document’s Systems Competency of “Interdisciplinary Systems.”

    Sequence of Training

  6. Should there be a minimum expectation for entry criteria to an accredited doctoral program? What should that expectation be (e.g., undergraduate coursework, minimum GPA, minimum GRE scores)? How would minimum admissions criteria impact underrepresented/non-traditional applicants? What plans should programs implement to handle exceptions to the criteria?

    It would be difficult to implement valid entrance criteria for all programs that do not disadvantage underrepresented groups. Programs should be free to define their own criteria but they would need to demonstrate how they admit students that are capable of succeeding in their program. The burden would be on the program to validate the legitimacy of its entrance criteria, to demonstrate how their admission criteria support the successful completion of the program, and to define the outcome measures used to identify this success. At the internship level, there is concern that doctoral programs admit students who may not be qualified and are reluctant to appropriately serve as gatekeeper thereby passing such students on to internships. Internships should be confident that doctoral programs have admitted students appropriately qualified for their programs and do not certify readiness for internship for those who have demonstrated problems with competence.

  7. What outcomes should be expected to demonstrate the effectiveness of a program’s admissions criteria (e.g., retention, time to completion, internship match rate, job placement, licensure rates)? At what point should CoA identify admissions criteria as problematic?

    Retention, time to completion, internship match rate, job placement, and licensure rates are all acceptable outcomes to demonstrate the legitimacy of programs’ admission criteria. Once the field is able to define reliable and valid ways to measure competencies, those should also be used. In the end, if students are meeting the programs’ milestones and thresholds (outcome measures), one could assume their admission criteria are acceptable. Admissions criteria should be considered problematic if programs are not able to meet defined outcome criteria such as retention, time to completion, internship match rate, job placement, and licensure rates

  8. What are the pros and cons of requiring either the dissertation proposal, data collection, or defense prior to application for internship?

    For multiple reasons in addition to the match imbalance, students should be required to propose the dissertation prior to entering the Match. Some may see this as restrictive. However, the internship should be a year of immersion in clinical practice. Even if a student has academic aspirations, this year of training is critical to his or her development. If significant progress is not made on the dissertation prior to internship, that year of training will likely be less effective due to distractions related to dissertation activities. In addition, students who have not been able to demonstrate the skills etc. needed to propose prior to internship may struggle with the requirements of internship. Having proposed the dissertation could also serve as a gatekeeping criterion for internship.

  9. Should programs be required to send students to accredited internships? If not, how should programs assure quality of internship experience?

    Accredited doctoral programs should be required to send their student to accredited internships. There is no other way to ensure the quality of internship training. Meeting the criteria for APPIC membership is a good step but although APPIC conducts a thorough paper review, it is not a thorough assessment of program quality. If a program is accredited and the internship is part of the doctoral program, the internship should also be accredited. This requirement may possibly decrease the number of internships available in the short term but incentives have been put in place to assist programs to pursue accreditation. It is a concern that internship programs have been putting this off due to large quantities of quality applications, but if accreditation is required these programs will likely seek accreditation or risk not receiving high-quality applications. Quality, rather than supply and demand, should remain the focus of accreditation. There are likely 200+ internships that could seek accreditation but do not have sufficient incentive to do so. APPIC is establishing a funded mentoring program for programs serious about seeking accreditation. It is also establishing a SharePoint site for member programs with self-study examples and other resources that would be very helpful to programs seeking accreditation.

  10. When should the internship experience occur (pre/post conferral of the degree)? What are the potential consequences of pre versus post?

    The internship should remain where it is, at the predoctoral level and part the doctoral program. It is a concern that the move to remove the internship from the doctoral program has been visited before and the profession has continued to support maintaining the internship within the doctoral program. The match imbalance will not be resolved by removing the internship from the doctoral program.Removing the internship from the doctoral program, even with unanimous support, would be a monumental undertaking and would distract the profession from addressing considerably more pressing issues. A significant negative consequence of moving the internship to postdoctoral would be a dramatic decrease in the quality of training and a subsequent decrease in the provision of psychological services to the public. Students who struggle on internship would not have the support and oversight of the doctoral program since they would have already obtained the degree. Communication between the internship and doctoral programs would become nonexistent. If the doctoral program is removed from the equation, both students and the public will likely suffer. Internship and the doctoral programs have a long history of working together to ameliorate difficulties experienced on the internship. Without this connection, doctoral programs and internships will go the way of postdoctoral training with absolutely no communication between them.

    Data from the APPIC Informal Problem Consultation (125 IPC issues addressed in 2012) indicate that 50% of the issues addressed pertain to student performance. 100% of the doctoral programs were involved in managing the issue and many times were involved with the final outcome by both providing support and identifying options for the psychology intern. It would be likely harm students (and eventually the public) if the doctoral-internship connection no longer existed.

    A recent survey of the APPIC membership (2013) was nearly unanimous (98.8%) that students are not ready for independent practice until after the internship or postdoctoral training. In addition, psychology graduate students who were applicants for the most recent APPIC match were also surveyed. They were in agreement with the internship training directors and out of 2056 responses, 95 percent stated they believe that individuals were not ready for independent practice until after the internship or postdoctoral training.

    The data from the IPC cases and the two recent APPIC surveys are compelling, and combined with the reasons stated above, lead overwhelmingly to the conclusion that the internship should stay within the doctoral training program with oversight from both the doctoral program and the internship.To do otherwise would not meet the needs of significant stakeholder populations, and would significantly decrease both the quality of training and the subsequent quality of service provision to the public.


  11. How should CoA assess attention to diversity issues at each level of training?

    Given the broad definition of diversity used by CoA, it would be extremely difficult to define clear and comprehensive criteria for diversity training at each level. APA’s broad definition is highly advantageous since what constitutes diversity in today’s society is constantly changing. The burden should remain with the program to demonstrate how it ensure competency at this level. As with any other competency area, diversity should include a focus on knowledge, skills, and values/attitudes. The field needs to develop reliable and valid methods to assess diversity competence.

  12. Should CoA continue to include a domain specific to diversity issues? Should diversity issues be infused throughout the standards?

    It should continue to be required in a specific domain as well as infused throughout the accreditation self-study document.

  13. What should CoA’s expectations be for recruitment and retention strategies for diverse students, faculty and staff?

    Consistent with the current version of the G&P, programs need to demonstrate their efforts to recruit and retain diverse student and staff. This should be in addition to non-discriminatory institutional policies. Programs need to define positive actions they employ. It might be helpful once again to spell out what the CoA is looking for in regards to such efforts and how the program has made attempts to insure all categories in Domain A are addressed by both broad and general statements and individual activities. The plan should include how the program identifies barriers and a plan of action to address those barriers.

    Structural Issues and Resources

  14. How does the G&P need to take into account new organizational structures of doctoral and internship programs (e.g., multiple sites, centrally controlled consortia, in-house internships)? What should be the common elements for a program that is located across multiple sites to insure that it is one cohesive program?

    Great care should be taken to ensure that quality and standards are maintained regardless of the structure of the program. Residency is a critical component to doctoral training and should be maintained at all costs. Within a program, regardless of whether it is a multi-site doctoral program or an internship consortium, there must be a core administrative structure, the same set of goals objectives and competencies, and shared training and socialization opportunities, along with the same stipend across sites in a consortium. Such program structures often arise in an attempt to pool resources. While this is a highly desirable concept, quality training at every level should not be compromised just because resources may be limited. Some of the issues APPIC sees within many consortia are the lack of a strong centralized authority and unclear criteria by which consortia member sites join and leave the consortium.

  15. In doctoral programs, what faculty qualifications should be required to contribute to required program training (e.g., in coursework, practicum supervision, research supervision)? How should faculty qualifications be evaluated?

    Developing specific qualification criteria would be extremely challenging. The burden should remain with the doctoral program to demonstrate that their faculty has “applied” experience in the area they are teaching or supervising. Experience should be evaluated as follows. For coursework, faculty should have published in peer reviewed journals or practiced for a number of years in an area directly related to the content of the course. The same should be true for research supervision; the burden should be higher regarding a publication record for research supervision. For practicum supervision, the majority of supervision should be by licensed psychologists. Although it would be helpful to have more clearly defined criteria for supervisor qualifications, ABPP is the only objective criterion for quality yet this can be perceived by some as overly restrictive. Possibly 5 years of experience where the faculty member continues to engage in life-long learning through CE would also be important especially if the faculty member is not licensed and is not required by any regulatory board to meet CE requirements.

  16. What elements of doctoral and internship training must be in-person vs. other formats? What proportion of online (or other not-in-person) learning is acceptable?

    For doctoral programs, the integrity of a one-year full-time continuous residency should be maintained. For practicum supervision, the majority of the required supervision should be in person. Some supervision could be through live-video but the program would be responsible for ensuring that the supervisor maintains full responsibility for cases and process are in place (e.g., communication with onsite staff) to evaluate the trainee’s competence. Also, consistent with IR C-27 (Distance and Electronically Mediated Education in Doctoral Programs), the majority of training at the doctoral level cannot be through distance-based modalities. The same principles should apply to training at the internship level. Consistent with IR C-28 on Telesupervision, the two hours of required supervision should be in-person. The two other hours of required supervision as well as supervision beyond that could be through telesupervision. Didactic instruction could occur through distance modalities but this should not be the primary format. These standards for doctoral and internship training should be written in a way so that they can be modified (more or less restrictive) as the evolving research and literature base on distance education and telesupervision evolves. It is important for both doctoral and internship training to include sufficient opportunities for in-person cohort socialization.

  17. Can in-person training be delivered via telehealth, telesupervision, or course videoconferencing? In other words, must individuals always be in the same physical room or are other options acceptable as in-person? Is there a maximum acceptable percentage of training that can be delivered via these technologies? Are there certain elements or placements within the sequence of training where these technologies would be appropriate and other elements or placements in the sequence of training where these technologies would not be appropriate?

    See the response to item 16 above.

  18. Should the revised standards establish a maximum number of cumulative hours a doctoral intern can be expected to work per week? Should the revised standards establish enforceable criteria for a livable salary/stipend for interns and benefits? What might those criteria be for each of these?

    A maximum number of hours worked by doctoral interns should not be required. There is no data to suggest this is a widespread problem. Some programs expect more than 40 hours per week because they include administrative and/or research elements into their curriculum. Applicants should be made aware of the program’s requirement up front. Domain E in terms of a collegial environment would address programs that have unreasonable demands. Many doctoral students put in more than 50 hours per week to meet the demands of course work, studying, research requirements etc. Doctoral training in psychology (including internship) should not be abusive but it typically entails more than 40 hours per workweek.

  19. Should the revised standards establish clear criteria defining what constitutes an on-site supervisor? Given that some programs have multiple sites, what are the implications of this for the notion of “on-site” supervisors? What percentage of time does a supervisor need to be in a particular setting to be considered integral to the setting?

    Defining what integral means could be quite challenging. The program should have to demonstrate that all supervisors provide services within the program’s institution. This should not be defined by a particular percentage.


    20. Are there additional concerns you have about the G and P revision that have not been addressed by the questions above?

Questions for Postdoctoral Training

  1. Beyond accreditation of recognized specialties as defined by CoA – should there be other postdoctoral accreditation in other areas?

    a. If so, what areas?

    b. What is the role of accreditation at the postdoctoral level for the broad areas covered in doctoral and internship training (i.e.. clinical, counseling, and school psychology)?

    c. How should CoA address areas of emphasis within broad (as opposed to specialty) postdoctoral programs that are not at the level of a specialty such as a proficiency? (e.g…PTSD, Substance Abuse, etc.)

    Although accreditation is in the practice of professional psychology, allowances should be made for postdoc programs that engage in substantial research training in addition to clinical training. Specialty training should remain in recognized specialty areas given they have established training guidelines. Allowing specialty training in areas where there are not recognized established training guidelines would create significant confusion and result in poor training.

    It is difficult to comment on postdoc training in the broad areas of counseling or school - there are no postdoctoral programs in these areas that we are aware of. We are not sure that training in these areas would be substantially different. They should all have to include common competencies across all programs and they should be free to develop competencies specific to the broad area.

    Postdoctoral training emphasis or focus areas should be permissible as long as it’s not represented as specialty training. Postdoctoral training, by definition is advanced training. If all basic competencies are met at the internship level, postdoc programs should be free to provide advanced training in a narrow, focused or specialty area(s). If focused or emphasis training occurs in a recognized specialty area, the program must be clear with its students and in its public materials about the goals and nature of training and that it is not consistent with the specialty training guidelines of that specialty. The program should also have a sound rational as to why it is not providing training consistent with the recognized specialty.

  2. Given the differences between the nature of doctoral training (doctoral and internship), to what extent should CoA conduct the review of postdoctoral residency programs for accreditation?

    a. How would this impact the nature of the self-study?

    b. How would this impact the role of site visitors?

    c. How would this have implications for accreditation decisions?

    Postdoctoral training programs should be accredited. However, the guidelines and principles of accreditation at this level should be broader so that they can be flexibly applied to a full range of quality programs. Internship should be more tightly defined since it’s a required element in the sequence of training in the doctoral degree. All psychologists must complete an internship and there are certain elements that all internships should require. Although there are also certain elements or competencies that should be required at the postdoc level, how these elements are delivered or attained should be flexible. Since postdoctoral training is not a required element in professional psychology, accreditation should not be as concerned with exacting specification but rather general principle to ensure quality of supervision, respect and adequate resources. Quality programs may differ substantially on the amount or research, administrative and clinical training. If this flexibility existed, more programs across the range of postdoc programs would seek accreditation. The goal would be to define the range of programs what would be the minimal criteria for quality – what would need to be clearly defined and where flexibility could be permitted.

  3. What is the most appropriate way for CoA to collaborate with state licensing boards and ASPPB regarding postdoctoral requirements?

    Collaboration should occur on achieving some standardization of what type of hours count for supervision at the postdoctoral level. This is particularly problematic for programs that include research activities as a significant part of the curriculum. Although hours of supervised experience are important to an extent, the focus should be on attainment of competencies within an organized structured program.

  4. How should clinical service delivery/experience be defined at the postdoctoral level of accreditation?

    a. How much of this can be conducted using standardized patients?

    b. How much telesupervision and/or telehealth interventions can be included?

    c. What level of experiential training vs. research-focus is appropriate for the accreditation of a postdoctoral residency program?

    Standardized patients should be used to assess competencies and not as credible experience of service delivery. Psychology needs to look more closely at what psychologists are actually doing in the field. This includes research, program evaluation, administration/organization activities, telehealth and in-person direct service delivery. These activities should all be allowable. However, it would not be ideal for a postdoc to be exclusively or the vast preponderance of activities to be through non-direct services. Programs that are exclusively research focused should not be accreditable. The question then it, how much service delivery activities are needed? Any defined percentage would be arbitrary but the cutoff needs to be somewhere below a majority or preponderance.

  5. What areas beyond clinical service delivery should be included as postdoctoral level competencies? How prescriptive should the standards be for these areas that add value to postdoc training?

    a. Teaching (with a broad definition)?

    b. Advocacy?

    c. Interprofessional competence?

    d. Leadership?

    e. Consultation?

    Consultation and Leadership should be considered for inclusion as required competencies at the postdoctoral level. Interpersonal competence should not be a required component. Training or competence in this area would be desirable but it may not be applicable within the varied range of quality postdoctoral programs. Similarly, teaching and advocacy should be optional components. Broad and general training is important but care should be taken to not overly prescribe competencies across the range of quality postdoc programs. Any prescribed or mandated competencies should be thought of as absolutely essential to broad and general training. More flexibility in training would be allowed at the postdoc level.

  6. What training areas or competencies can be assumed to be in place at the completion of doctoral and internship training, such that those areas/competencies no longer need to be addressed at the postdoctoral level?

    Per the Competency benchmark document, there are levels that need to be met for each competency for each level of training. It is possible that one entering a postdoc program may be at the post postdoc level. If this is the case, some accommodation should occur to either excuse the individual from that competency or alter the requirements and gear training towards an advanced practice level. The key here is to provide flexibility if the appropriate criteria for the competency is met. Our response to number 7 below will add to this response.

  7. Should entrance to a level of training of knowledge and clinical competency be linked to performance on a national examination? Should there be a standard way of measuring benchmark competencies prior to entry to a postdoctoral residency?

    a. Is this limited to the postdoctoral level or is this something that should be reviewed for entrance to the profession at other levels?

    We are not sure if there should be a national exam to determine if required competencies are met. For each level of training, required competencies should be met at a level that is agreed upon by the profession for that level of training. For this to occur, the professional would need to develop reliable and valid ways to measure an agreed upon set of competencies. Doctoral program and internship programs would be required to certify that the trainee has met a level of competence via the agreed upon reliable and valid methods. A national exam would not be needed if the field developed such measurable competency and they were properly assessed by accredited programs. There should be a level of competency for entrance into internship and for completion of internship and postdoctoral programs.

  8. What is the role of diversity training at the postdoctoral level? Are there conceptual differences in how this should be approached in terms of the level of training or in terms of the specialty area(s)?

    There should not be a separate competency for diversity at the postdoc level. Awareness and sensitivity to diversity should be integrated into other defined competencies such as intervention, assessment, consultation, administration, and research.

  9. How should the qualifications/credentials of training directors and supervisors be assessed by CoA in a residency program? How should sufficiency of faculty be defined?

    For specialty programs, the director should be credentialed at the level appropriate for that specialty such as ABPP. Otherwise, there should not be pre-defined qualifications for the training director other than licensure. Such qualification can be determined by the overall success of the program at meeting its defined competencies and accreditation requirements. This is in the spirit of not adding additional requirements where they are not necessarily needed. One can assume that a quality program that is meeting its goals, objectives and competencies and other accreditation requirements has an appropriately qualified training director.

  10. What is the appropriate amount, level, focus, and type of supervision provided to the postdoctoral resident? Should there be common requirements across specialties regarding supervision provided to residents?

    The current standards of two hours of individual supervision and two additional hours of structured learning are sufficient. This is not overly burdensome and meets licensure requirements by all licensure boards.

  11. What role should formal didactics play at the postdoctoral level? How is this different or similar to other levels of training

    Didactic training can be an important part of training at the internship and postdoctoral training. Within the current G&P, didactic training is not required at either level. Most programs choose to use didactic instruction to meet certain elements of the G&P. This flexibility should remain allowing the program the freedom and flexibility to use didactic instruction as it sees fit to meet its goals, objectives and competencies.

  12. What outcome measures are appropriate at the postdoctoral level as evidence of quality education and training?

    Licensure and research/academic productivity are broad outcomes depending on the mixture of clinical and research training. Otherwise, the profession needs to develop reliable and valid methods to assess competencies. If a program defines competencies unique to the program, it needs to identify valid methods to assess those competencies.

  13. How can the CoA better structure the review and accreditation of multiple specialty programs at a single institution?

    The program should be able to opt for not having a site visitor with specific expertise in each specialty. There are several ways this could be addressed. One option would be to have a second preliminary review by an expert in that specialty focusing exclusively on the program meeting the specialty training guidelines. If serious issues are identified that could not be addressed by a request for additional information, CoA could request that the site visit team include someone with expertise in each specialty. This flexible approach would make it easier for programs and CoA to find appropriate site visitors while still maintaining quality review.

  14. What other standards or areas should CoA address in the revised G&P for postdoctoral residencies?

    None. A flexible approach to accreditation at the postdoctoral level with the least restrictive criteria is advisable.

    February 6, 2013: The APA Directory of Primary Care Psychology Education and Training Programs
    This recently completed directory was one of APA’s strategic plan initiatives and provides information about training opportunities in primary care psychology available in doctoral, internship and postdoctoral programs. Information is available about the location of the program, program contact information and the types and intensity of the experiences offered. The directory also provides information about the populations served, the types of services offered, and the primary care model that is used. The directory will be continuously updated.

    To view the directory, click on the link below:

    http://www.apa.org/ed/graduate/primary-care-psychology.aspx APPIC 2013 Membership Business Meeting
    The 2013 APPIC Business Meeting is expected to be held on Wednesday, July 31, 2013 in Oahu, Hawaii. The meeting is expected to take place at the Hilton Hawaiian Village from 8am to 10am. Room to be announced. A light breakfast will be served.

News and Announcements 2012

Hogg Foundation Awards Grant to Establish El Paso Psychology Internship Consortium

August 24, 2012
AUSTIN, Texas - The Hogg Foundation for Mental Health at The University of Texas at Austin has selected The University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP) to receive $550,000 over five years to create the El Paso Psychology Internship Consortium. The consortium, which will also receive over $200,000 from the Paso del Norte Health Foundation, is an El Paso-based partnership with UTEP, William Beaumont Army Medical Center and Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center at El Paso. Mental-health internship program called boon to El Paso

El Paso Times
The five-year program will be funded by more than $750000 from the for Mental Health and the El Paso del Norte Health Foundation.Hogg Foundation

APPIC 2012 Membership Conference
The APPIC Membership Conference was held in Tempe, Arizona April 26-28, 2012. More than 275 individuals attended the 2 day conference which also provided a 1 day pre conference workshop from the APA Commission on Accreditation.

APPIC 2012 Membership Business Meeting
The 2012 APPIC Business Meeting was held August 2 from 8am-10am in Orlando, Florida, Room TBD Dr. Eugene D'Angelo, Chair APPIC will preside over the meeting. A light breakfast was served to the small but enthusiastic turnout.

News and Announcements 2011 and older.

APPIC 2011 Membership Business Meeting
APPIC held the annual business meeting at the American Psychological Association in Washington, DC on August 4 from 3:00pm-5:00pm with a reception (appetizers/cash bar) from 5:00-6:00pm in the Congressional Room B at the Renaissance Washington, DC Hotel. Connie Hercey was presented the first (large file, great pictures). APPIC was pleased that so many were able to join us for the meeting and reception. Dr. Sharon Berry is now the Past Chair for APPIC. presented at the 2011 Business Meeting. This is a large file but great pictures! Connie Hercey Distinguished Service Award

See the slide show


The APPIC Board of Directors would like to congratulate the recipients of the 2011 APPIC Awards! Please join us in our congratulations to these individuals who demonstrate excellence and innovation in education and training. Thanks as well to all of the many nominators who identified deserving candidates for consideration. The award winners were present at the APPIC business meeting during the APA Convention in Washington, DC.

Excellence in Training : Roger P. Greenberg, Ph.D.
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science
SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY

APPIC Award for Excellence in Diversity Training : Kermit A. Crawford, Ph.D.

Center for Multicultural Mental Health
Division of Psychiatry
Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA APPIC MOVED! APPIC has moved to Houston, Texas. Email, phone and fax communication has now been established and Central Office looks forward to settling in and responding in a timely manner. Emails to Central Office can be sent to: appic@appic.org. APPIC Central Office

17225 El Camino Real, Suite #170
Houston Tx 77058-2748
P: 832.284.4080
F: 832.284.4079

APPIC expects to launch a new web in late August 2011. Users will see a new look which will continue to be updated and managed as the web will be launched with additional improvements and updated as needed. The 2011-12 AAPI Online is now available. We hope to make the web transition as smooth as possible though there will be changes. The Directory pages will look a little different but should function the same way. There may be a few bugs so please bear with us as we work to resolve any issues that may arise.

  ASPPB Practicum Guidelines

of the 2011 APPIC Awards for Excellence in Training, Diversity and the Student Research Award APPIC ANNOUNCES THE RECIPIENTS

APPIC 2012 Conference

2009 APPIC Membership Conference - April 17-18, 2009
Conference downloads Match Imbalance Meeting - Sept 5-6, 2008 - Read Consensus Report Training & Education in Professional Psychology (TEPP) Journal

Back to Top