1 / 13

Professional Psychology Education and Training (PPET) Working Group

Professional Psychology Education and Training (PPET) Working Group. Efforts related to imbalance have suggested a number of issues facing professional psychology education and training (PPET) Imbalance might be a symptom of larger question that needs to be addressed

bhare
Télécharger la présentation

Professional Psychology Education and Training (PPET) Working Group

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Professional Psychology Education and Training (PPET) Working Group • Efforts related to imbalance have suggested a number of issues facing professional psychology education and training (PPET) • Imbalance might be a symptom of larger question that needs to be addressed • Many organizations have a “piece” but no one organization, or one community (COGDOP, APA or CCTC) “owns it” with respect to PPET • Complex issue, with no simple solution or clear direction or it would have been taken already

  2. PPET Working Group - Background • CCTC approached BEA to request action be taken • BEA authorized convening of a group in March 2010 • Charge was to develop a plan – build a vision and articulate how to get there

  3. Who is involved? • Individuals (11) were appointed by a group (BEA, CCTC, COGDOP) based on their expertise • wide range of expertise: undergraduate, master’s, doctoral, internship, postdoctoral, CE/professional development, specialization, accreditation and credentialing – as well as program administration/management • Aim was to keep group size small/efficient • Other voices need to be heard • Committed to transparency, want input

  4. What did the group do? • Face-to-face meeting December 2010 • Reviewed and critically evaluated data from CCTC created 2010 survey on issues in PPET • Reviewed key written materials • Reviewed relevant data points available from the APA Center for Workforce Studies • Met with Dr. Steve Breckler, who oversees the APA Center for Workforce Studies about availability and limitations of relevant data

  5. What did the group do? • Identified a broad range of issues (themes) of concern, that were later narrowed down to major themes • Discussed mechanisms (conferences, white papers, blue ribbon panels, independent studies) to address

  6. What did they agree on? • Discussed the wide ranging use of the term “professional” agreed scope of focus would be E&T to prepare psychologists competent to provide health care services (health service providers/psychologists – HSPs) • Does not mean there are not issues to be addressed in other areas of professional psychology – could be addressed later but issues in area of health are high profile • Core assumption is that scientific training is core to E&T for practice

  7. What did they agree on? • The following are major themes in PPET: • Curriculum content and sequence • Quality assurance • Economics • Context: societal needs, other professions, intrapsychology issues • Advocacy • Postgraduate and lifelong learning • Internship match

  8. What did they agree on? • To set aside discourse about training models as not likely to be helpful, and could distract from important work on competency based approaches for practice as an HSP • Internship issue is an important one, CCTC/ BEA efforts laid out in the “grid” are important to support, group will request updates • Not to seek external review of professional education and training (e.g., a “Flexner-type report”), but external consultants may be useful in future activities

  9. Next Steps • Second (last funded) meeting May 2011 • Need to • develop PLAN for how to address • Identify mechanisms that may include others • how much done by working group itself • where do we want to be in 10 years • what kind of continuous quality improvement mechanism does the profession need • Consider issues of succession planning for work group members

  10. Next Steps • Disseminate information to training councils at mid-winter meetings • Establish mechanism for ongoing feedback to working group through electronic means (email or web comment page)

  11. The PPET Working Group is Seeking Your Feedback …..

  12. What do you Think About? • Re-examining the prerequisites for entry into a doctoral program* • Advocating for change so that EPPP is offered during doctoral training • What data are needed to inform work • Endorsement of nominating group (BEA, CCTC, COGDOP) to continue to be a partner in the process • Name for the group to emphasize health service providing HSP training

  13. *If the prerequisite competencies were agreed on and obtained by students prior to admission the doctoral curriculum could be modified and perhaps reduced in terms of its requirements The intent is not to mandate an undergraduate curriculum or require students to be a psychology major, but an articulation of the necessary knowledge, skills and values for entry to HSP doctoral programs

More Related