Download In Pursuit of Clinical Training

e Psycho
Th
l
f Ireland
February 2010
yo
ical Societ
og
Article
In Pursuit of Clinical
Training
Grace O’Shea & Michael Byrne
Grace O’Shea is a Research Assistant with Roscommon P.C.C.C., HSE West. Michael
Byrne is the Principal Psychology Manager and is also at Roscommon P.C.C.C.,
HSE West. Correspondence regarding this article may be addressed by email to
[email protected].
Introduction
As the most popular specialism among psychology
graduates, competition for places on clinical
psychology doctorate programmes is intense (Hall &
Llewelyn, 2006). Adding to applicants’ anxiety is the
lack of information about the selection process. This
article aims to educate applicants about the selection
process and how they may position themselves so as
to have the best possible chance of obtaining a place
on a training programme.
The challenges for programme selection
committees include selecting from a relatively
homogeneous pool of applicants in terms of their
academic achievement, gender and ethnicity. For
example, men and individuals from black and minority
ethnic groups remain significantly under-represented
among psychologists in clinical training (hereafter
called “trainees”; Caswell & Baker, 2007; Scior, Gray,
Halsey, & Roth, 2007). There is also the challenge
of comparing and contrasting varied vocational
experiences.
In line with competency-based assessment
of trainees across various domains, programme
selection committees typically select on the basis of
developmental “readiness” or competencies (British
Psychological Society [BPS], 2007a). However, as to
whether to base selection on assessing current or
potential competencies remains a matter of debate
(Keenan, 1997). One advantage of the latter is that it
can partially control for the (geographic) variability in
work experience opportunities that can favour those
who live in urban areas.
Building on some of the issues
raised in last month’s Letter
to the Editors, this piece may
provide a timely insight for
members preparing for the
selection process.
Competencies
Applicants need a strong profile across the different
but related domains of academics, research, clinical
experience and personal skills (Phillips, Hatton, &
Gray, 2004).
Academics
A strong academic background typically reflects
a strong work ethic and a potential ability to cope
with the challenging academic demands of training.
While most programmes require a minimum of
an upper second-class honours undergraduate
psychology degree, applicants may be able to
compensate for a lower grade by demonstrating
competence in undertaking additional degrees in
clinically related fields (e.g., a Masters in Applied,
Counselling or Health psychology or a PhD; Scior
et al., 2007). Markers such as scholastic awards may
also be of benefit. Alternatively, those with nonpsychology undergraduate degrees can complete
a higher (post-graduate) diploma in psychology that
confers eligibility for graduate membership with
the Psychological Society of Ireland or the British
Psychological Society (Roth, 1998).
Research
At a minimum, completion of a doctoral thesis
requires reasonably advanced competence in
conducting literature reviews, formulating research
methodologies, collecting and analysing data, and
interpreting findings. While most candidates will have
completed research modules and an undergraduate
thesis, many will also have completed one or more
post-graduate research theses. Some will also have
published their work – preferably in peer-reviewed
journals – demonstrating that they are keenly aware
of the need to not only undertake clinically relevant
research but also to disseminate findings. Applicants
also need to demonstrate an awareness of ethical
issues when conducting research (e.g., informed
consent and protection of participants from harm).
Volume 36, No. 4. Page 79
e Psycho
Th
l
f Ireland
yo
ical Societ
og
February 2010
Additional ways to strengthen one’s research profile
include working as a research assistant on a clinical
research project or contributing to the completion of
service-based audits.
Clinical
To facilitate clinical competencies (e.g., assessment,
formulation, and intervention), most candidates
will have a minimum of at least one year’s clinical
experience. However, this is not essential as some may
progress quickly onto training given that they may be
perceived as being able to offer more years of service
to their sponsoring agency (Lee, Vandrevala & John,
2009). Work, either in a paid or an unpaid capacity,
may involve experience as an assistant psychologist,
a primary care practitioner, a research assistant, a
nursing or care assistant, a support worker or working
in social services or residential homes. While the
latter may not be directly linked with a psychology
department, it can provide experience of working
with clinically relevant populations (Papworth, 2004).
Attendance at accredited training programmes may
also be of benefit.
More important than duration of clinical
experience (in informing whether an applicant may have
the aptitude to further develop clinical competencies
during training) is the quality of the work experience
and related learning. Was supervision provided and
by whom? Was there progression towards targeted
learning goals? Was one’s work evidence-based or
theoretically driven? Did the experience facilitate an
understanding of the roles of clinical psychologists,
their work environments (e.g., interdisciplinary teams)
and the range of individuals they work with? Was there
exposure to clinical trainees such that their role and
the demands of doctoral programmes are reasonably
well understood?
Personal Skills
Programme applicants may be assessed on their
communication skills (e.g., written and verbal) and
whether they are amenable to learning on a training
programme. The latter can be somewhat subjective
but may be informed by the following: perceived
level of maturity; emotional stability; openness to
reflection and to new learning and experiences;
organisational knowledge; and ability to “get along”
with others, particularly with supervisors or potential
team colleagues.
Selection Process
Selection of applicants is, at a minimum, typically a
two-step process consisting of short-listing (based on
a review of application forms) and interviews.
Short-Listing
Applicants need to profile a balance across the above
competency areas in their application forms. Some
strong applicants may neglect doing so with the result
that they are not called for interview. Similar to writing
a journal article, to facilitate readability and ease of
navigation of completed forms, word count needs to
be kept to a minimum (e.g., use of bullet points rather
than including lengthy paragraphs) and they need to
be well structured.
Despite the unreliability of using references
relative to factual information (Armstrong, 2001),
programmes typically request two references. A
variety of factors need to be considered when
choosing same. As they are better able to emphasise
the exceptional, it may profit to choose referees with
greater experience. Likewise, grading points may
be lost if a referee has not known the applicant for
a reasonable amount of time, or if the applicant has
not contacted the referee to discuss the reference
(Papworth, 2007). Referees that are known to the
programme in question may also be preferable, as is
the inclusion of one academic and an occupational
reference (Phillips et al., 2004).
Interviews
Despite doubts over the reliability of interviews
(McDaniel, Whetzel, Schmidt & Maurer, 1994), shortlisted candidates are typically afforded the opportunity
of at least one interview to demonstrate their varied
competencies. Thorough and strategic preparation
is essential. Applicants may initially be requested to
Volume 36, No. 4. Page 80
“ground” the interview by giving a short synopsis of
their career or by discussing their career highlight
to date. Either way, this is an opportunity to draw
attention to the manner in which one has developed
the various competencies and one’s developmental
readiness to begin training. Regardless of the wording
of subsequent questions, applicants need to continue
demonstrating their academic, research, clinical and
personal competencies. As such, while there ought
to be no real surprise questions, applicants need to
ensure that they answer questions in as few words as
possible. The above calls for a mixture of preparing
answers to some predictable questions but to be also
so well prepared that one can think on one’s feet for
potentially more difficult questions.
In some programmes, interviews may consist
of two parts, the ratings of which are combined to
determine applicants’ overall rating. First, a panel
interview may involve applicants presenting on some
predetermined clinical scenario (that is given 30
minutes before the interview). This may be followed
by questions relating to applicants’ psychological
knowledge and applications, clinical skills and
competencies, personal development and awareness,
and research competencies. Second, practical
assessments may include a written assessment
(specifically relating to one’s research competency) or
a group task followed by a group discussion (Phillips,
Hatton & Gray, 2001).
Conclusion
The (unjustified) “Holy Grail” aura of obtaining a
place on a clinical psychology doctorate programme
has perpetuated misplaced notions of there being a
magic formula for doing so. Despite current funding
difficulties, that there are now four programmes
in the Republic of Ireland and one in Northern
Ireland has increased access to such training. Before
submitting meticulously well-presented application
forms and thoroughly preparing for interviews,
what is required is a purposeful and longitudinal
development of academic, research, clinical and
personal competencies. As such, applicants need
to show a commitment towards developing these
competencies, including maximising their learning
from available opportunities.
However, such opportunities are scarce in
Ireland. Rather than potentially frittering away in the
wilderness for a number of years post-graduation,
many graduates choose to work abroad in an
effort to develop their competencies. As such, the
Psychological Society of Ireland, our Higher Education
Institutes and our heads of psychology services need
to work together to provide alternative training
models and a more fine-grained career structure. One
such model, as proposed by the New Ways of Working
for Applied Psychologists (BPS, 2007b), would
involve creating (stepped or progressive) psychology
e Psycho
Th
l
f Ireland
February 2010
yo
ical Societ
og
grades with associated pre-doctoral qualifications in
preparation for entry to clinical training programmes.
We have surveyed entrants to the four doctoral
programmes in the Republic of Ireland (during the
10-year period 2000-2009). In the process of being
written up, this followup study profiled entrants’
history of applications, their academic qualifications,
their research, clinical and training experiences and
their perceived competencies (during the year they
entered training) along with their experience of the
selection process. We hope the findings will provide
a further insight into this area.
References
Armstrong, M. (2001). A handbook of human resource
management practice. London: Kogan Page.
British Psychological Society (2007a). Membership and
Professional Training Board Committee on Training
in Clinical Psychology: Criteria for the accreditation
of postgraduate training programmes in clinical
psychology. Leicester: Author.
British Psychological Society (2007b). New ways of
working for applied psychologists in health and
social care: Models of training. Leicester: Author.
Caswell, R., & Baker, M. (2007). Choosing to join a
minority: Male clinical psychology trainees talking.
Clinical Psychology Forum, 180, 17–21.
Hall, J., & Llewelyn, S. (2006). Clinical psychology: Is
it for you? The Psychologist, 19, 679.
Keenan, T. (1997). Selection for potential: The case of
graduate recruitment. In N. Anderson & P. Herriot
(Eds.), International handbook of selection and
assessment. Chichester: Wiley.
Lee, K., Vandrevala, T., & John, M. (2009). The
challenges and experiences of trainees pursuing
clinical psychology training straight from their
undergraduate degree. Clinical Psychology Forum,
197, 45–48.
McDaniel, M., Whetzel, D., Schmidt, F., & Maurer, S.
(1994). The validity of employment interviews: A
comprehensive review and meta-analysis. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 79, 599-616.
Papworth, M. (2004). Getting on clinical psychology
training courses: Responses to frequently asked
questions. Clinical Psychology, 42, 32–36.
Papworth, M. (2007). Getting on clinical psychology
training courses: Responses to frequently asked
questions (part 2). Clinical Psychology Forum,
177, 37–41.
Phillips, A., Hatton, C., & Gray, I. (2001). Which
selection methods do clinical psychology courses
use? Clinical Psychology, 8, 19–23.
Phillips, A., Hatton, C., & Gray, I. (2004). Factors
predicting the short-listing and selection of
trainee clinical psychologists: A prospective
national cohort study, Clinical Psychology and
Psychotherapy, 11, 111–125.
Roth, T. (1998). Getting on clinical training courses.
The Psychologist, 11, 589–592.
Scior, K., Gray, J., Halsey, R., & Roth, A. (2007).
Selection for clinical psychology training: Is there
evidence of any bias against applicants from ethnic
minorities. Clinical Psychology Forum, 175, 7–11.
Volume 36, No. 4. Page 81