Clinical and Counseling Psychology Doctoral Trainees: How
Students Perceive Internships
Victoria A. Shivy, Suzanne E. Mazzeo, and Terri N. Sullivan Virginia Commonwealth University
The authors examined applicants’ perceptions of internship site types by specialty affiliation (clinical and counseling psychology). Multidimensional scaling analyses suggest that clinical psychology students focus their attention on internship site pres-tige, future job opportunities, opportunities for research, degree of client psychopa-thology and physical illness, and their overall comfort in working with the client population associated with the site type. Counseling students focus on fewer attributes, including site prestige, quality of supervision, degree of client physical illness, and comfort in working with the client population. Specialty affiliation also accounted for systematic differences in internship site preferences. Results are discussed with regard to internship supply-and-demand issues, and implications are offered for student applicants, academic training directors, and internship training directors.
Keywords:clinical psychology, graduate training, internship programs, counseling psychology
Students in clinical and counseling psychol-ogy doctoral programs typically are required to complete a year-long full-time (or 2-year part-time) psychology internship, in which they en-gage in the practice of professional psychology. The process of researching, interviewing for, and ultimately accepting placement at an intern-ship site mirrors the processes of accepting a
first job, because a wide variety of training opportunities are available at more than 600 sites across the country. However, in recent years, there has been significant concern about the internship supply-and-demand imbalance (Boggs & Douce, 2000; Kaslow & Keilin, 2006), with many more internship applicants than available internship positions. In 2007, 24.5% of applicants were unmatched (As-sociation of Psychology Postdoctoral and In-ternship Centers [APPIC], 2007). This propor-tion of unmatched students is thought to be an underestimate of the true number because it does not include students who did not submit rank-order lists as a result of their not being considered by any of the sites to which they had applied (Kaslow & Keilin, 2006). The average applicant in 2006 applied to 12.9 sites (APPIC, 2006). Data collected by the APPIC, however, suggest that submitting many additional appli-cations does not appear to enhance students’ chances of securing an internship (DeAngeleis, 2004).
In this highly competitive climate, it is more important than ever for faculty to work closely with students to find a good internship match. Although this seems obvious, anecdotal reports suggest that students sometimes may minimize these issues of fit and instead become focused on factors such as perceived site prestige or geography. Few empirical data exist regarding
VICTORIAA. SHIVYis an associate professor in Virginia Commonwealth University’s Department of Psychology. She earned her PhD in counseling psychology from the University of Albany, State University of New York. Shivy studies how people perceive work— occupations and work-place concerns, the worker role—and the role of work in people’s lives.
SUZANNE E. MAZZEO received her PhD in counseling psychology from the University of Illinois at Urbana– Champaign. She is currently an associate professor in the Departments of Psychology and Pediatrics at Virginia Com-monwealth University. Dr. Mazzeo studies eating disorders and obesity in adults and children.
TERRIN. SULLIVANis an assistant professor in Virginia Commonwealth University’s Department of Psychology. She received her PhD in clinical psychology from Virginia Commonwealth University. Her research interests include examining interrelations between exposure to violence and adolescent health risk behaviors and developing and evalu-ating school-based violence programs.
CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING THIS ARTICLE should be addressed to Victoria A. Shivy, Department of Psychology, Virginia Commonwealth University, 808 West Franklin Street, Richmond, Virginia 23284-2018. E-mail: vshivy@vcu.edu
how applicants actually perceive internship types, including the attributes that they use to discriminate among alternatives and ultimately make decisions about where to apply.
Psychology specialty affiliation (e.g., clinical or counseling) might be one factor that signifi-cantly influences students’ perceptions of in-ternships. Research investigating the distinc-tiveness of clinical and counseling psychology has focused on the perceptions of four groups: psychology faculty (Brems & Johnson, 1996; Gloria, Castillo, Choi-Pearson, & Rangel, 1997), internship training directors (ITDs; Gayer, Brown, Gridley, & Treloar, 2003; Gloria et al., 1997), prospective employers (Swanson et al., 1994), and recent psychology graduates (Brems & Johnson, 1997; Fitzgerald & Ospiow, 1986). However, little research on the percep-tions of students currently enrolled in American Psychological Association (APA)–approved clinical and counseling doctoral training pro-grams regarding prospective internships has been conducted. It is important to understand the perspectives of some of the youngest mem-bers of our field in order to facilitate advising and mentorship regarding the fit between appli-cants’ training and goals and potential intern-ships as well as how various internship training opportunities fit with future professional aspira-tions. This may be particularly relevant in the current climate in which the number of appli-cants far outstrips available internships. In such a competitive environment, it is important that students be aware of their current skills and aspirations as well as the features of a range of potential internship programs to enhance their chances of finding an appropriate fit for their training needs. Thus, this study examines grad-uate students’ perceptions of available intern-ship options.
Studies of graduate training have docu-mented considerable overlap in the course work required in clinical and counseling programs (Brems & Johnson, 1996). However, some dif-ferences across the specialties remain. For ex-ample, Brems and Johnson found that clinical students more often were required to complete formal course work in child psychopathology and child therapy, whereas counseling students more often were required to complete classes in group psychotherapy, human development, multicultural psychology, supervision, and ca-reer counseling. Related research has also
yielded similar results regarding a greater em-phasis on didactic training in supervision and career development within counseling programs (Scott, Ingram, Vitanza, & Smith, 2000).
Research also has identified differences be-tween specialties in the distribution of students to practicum sites (Brems & Johnson, 1996). Community mental health centers (CMHCs) were, for example, the most common practicum site type for clinical students and the second most common placement for counseling stu-dents. University counseling centers (UCCs) were the most common practicum site type for counseling students and the second most com-mon placement for clinical students. Because students’ academic course work and practicum training shape their skills and professional ex-pectations, we expected students’ perceptions of internship site types to be associated with their specialty affiliation.
This hypothesis also is supported by Brems and Johnson’s (1996) finding that patterns of internship placement vary somewhat between the clinical and counseling specialties. They found that 30% of clinical students in their sample spent their internship year at health sci-ence centers or medical schools compared with only 5% of counseling students. Not surpris-ingly, health science centers and medical schools, considered together, were the most common internship site type for clinical stu-dents. In contrast, 40% of counseling students completed their internships at UCCs (vs. only 6% of clinical students). Brems and Johnson (1996) speculated that this emergent pattern in internship training may reflect the encourage-ment that students receive from faculty to apply to sites traditionally associated with their spe-cialty area. They also hypothesized that ITDs may select students according to their own spe-cialty stereotypes or traditional expectations about training. Despite the strong pairing of clinical students to medically oriented intern-ships and counseling students to UCCs, it is important to note that CMHCs and Department
of Veterans Affairs Medical Centers
(DVAMCs) internships were the second and third most common sites, respectively, for both clinical and counseling psychology doctoral students.
In light of this previous work, the current study was designed to examine whether there were differences between clinical and
counsel-ing graduate students’ perceptions of internship opportunities. Further, if such differences exist, what characteristics of internships are most in-fluential in shaping students’ perceptions across specialty areas? Given the extremely competi-tive internship selection process, it is important that faculty, clinical supervisors, academic training directors (ATDs), and ITDs understand how students view internships, because all of these professionals are invested in optimally matching students to training sites. Given that the internship year is such a pivotal professional development experience, it is important that stu-dents accurately perceive the range of available options, which will likely influence the course of their psychology careers.
Method
Participants
Participants were 221 psychology doctoral student volunteers (157 women [71%], 64 men [29%]) recruited for participation in a national survey. All participants were in the process of applying for internships in professional psy-chology. In terms of ethnicity, 174 (78.8%) were White, 6 (2.7%) were African Ameri-can, 10 (4.5%) were Asian AmeriAmeri-can, and 10 (4.5%) were Latino/a; 16 (7.2%) identified their ethnicity as “other” and 5 (2.3%) did not indi-cate ethnicity. Participants ranged in age from 24 to 52 years, and 140 (63.3%) partici-pants were between the ages of 26 and 31 years. These demographics generally are comparable to those of applicants who registered in the 2007 APPIC match (APPIC, 2007). In our sample, 156 (71%) were clinical students and 65 (29%) were counseling students; 162 (73%) were seek-ing their PhD degree, and 59 (26.7%) were seeking their PsyD degree.
Internship Stimuli
The 10 internship site types used in the judg-ment tasks were selected with the use of APPIC materials: CMHCs, armed forces medical cen-ters (AFMCs), consortia, medical schools, DVAMCs, public hospitals, corrections-related facilities, private hospitals, child–adolescent psychiatric facilities, and UCCs. The vast ma-jority of APA-accredited internship sites self-identify or can be categorized into one of
these 10 types. For the sake of brevity, private psychiatric hospitals and private general hospi-tals were collapsed into one category labeled “private hospitals.” We did not include school district because we did not survey applicants from school psychology programs. We elected not to include psychology departments or pri-vate outpatient clinics because these site types are relatively new to APPIC. We did not include a category of “other” because we were inter-ested in the most commonly encountered intern-ship site types. To ensure at least superficial familiarity with the internship site types, partic-ipants were given brief descriptions for each.
Instrumentation
Participants judged the degree of similarity be-tween pairs of simultaneously presented intern-ship site types (e.g., CMHC vs. correctional facil-ities) in an ordering designed to minimize re-sponse bias (Wells, 1991). Ratings were made on a 7-point scale (1⫽ very similar, 7 ⫽ very
dis-similar). Participants also indicated their
prefer-ences within each pair. In addition, participants rated the site types on nine individual rating scales, including the degree to which each (a) is seen as prestigious, (b) offers opportunities for future jobs, (c) offers opportunities for research, and (d) entails working more or fewer hours; involves working with (e) a variety of clients (three scales: demographics such as age, gender, and ethnicity), (f) psychopathology, and (g) phys-ical illness; and ensures (h) quality of supervision and (i) comfort level in working with associated client populations. These professional variables (Stewart & Stewart, 1996, p. 523) have been iden-tified as important student considerations in the internship selection process (e.g., Stedman, Neff, Donahoe, Kopel, & Hays, 1995).
Procedure
Surveys were sent to a sample of APA-accredited clinical and counseling psychology doctoral programs that were fully accredited and did not have a special status designation (i.e., inactive, on probation, or phasing out). All ATDs in the sample were sent a cover letter explaining the study and asking them to distrib-ute the questionnaires to current internship ap-plicants. Reminders were sent approximately 3 weeks later. We received responses from
stu-dents in 45.8% of the clinical PhD pro-grams, 58.1% of the counseling psychology programs, and 58.5% of the clinical PsyD programs.
Results
Why Multidimensional Scaling?
Multidimensional scaling (MDS) methods can be thought of as offering a means to trans-late numerical ratings of similarity into a spatial model, a graphic representation of the data or, more loosely, a picture. This study calls for participants to rate the similarity of all pairs of internship site types. The picture created by MDS methods positions similar internship site types as closer together on the picture. This visual representation of how participants per-ceive internship site types can be constructed from similarity ratings even when the partici-pants themselves are unclear of how they are
comparing and contrasting internship site types. On account of this, MDS methods sometimes are said to reveal the hidden structure in the data (Kruskal & Wish, 1978); that is, MDS methods allow researchers to understand how individuals are thinking about a set of stimuli, at times before individuals can report their judgments or cognitions.
MDS Analyses of Student Perceptions
Scaling solutions and corresponding stress values (a goodness-of-fit index) were computed, and an “elbow” appeared at the three-dimen-sional solution, which also was an interpretable solution with a good statistical fit. Figures 1 and 2 depict, respectively, the 1⫻ 2 and the 1 ⫻ 3 planes of the MDS solution, or the pictures. Multiple regression methods then were used to objectively interpret the MDS solutions (see Jones & Koehly, 1993, for an explanation of this procedure). These methods regress each of
Figure 1. Dimension I seems to capture applicants’ comfort in working with different client populations. Dimension II seems to capture internship site type prestige, client physical illness, and postinternship job opportunities.
the nine professional variables (e.g., prestige, opportunities for future jobs, quality of super-vision) over the three-dimensional MDS solu-tion. The resulting nine regression coefficients indicate, in turn, whether each of the nine
hy-pothesized professional variables account for variance in the MDS solution.
Results of the regression analyses are presented in Table 1 and suggest that comfort in working with client populations accounts for considerable
Table 1
Regression Procedures Associated with Scaling Solution for all Students
Dependent variable Dim I Dim II Dim III R2
Prestige ⫺.084 .908 ⫺.138 .850*
Quality of supervision .449 .382 ⫺.313 .445 Future job opportunities ⫺.239 .815 ⫺.295 .808*
Opportunities for research ⫺.150 .779 ⫺.216 .676
Hours worked .095 .705 .342 .624
Client demographics .096 .130 .029 .027
Client psychopathology ⫺.491 .381 .619 .770*
Client physical illness ⫺.456 .804 ⫺.129 .870*
Comfort with client population .798 .193 ⫺.400 .833*
Note. N⫽ 10. Dim ⫽ dimension.
*p⬍ .05.
Figure 2. Dimension III seems to capture the severity of client psychopathology. Dimension I, as noted in Figure 1, seems to capture applicants’ comfort in working with different client populations.
variance on Dimension I, with multiple correlation squared of .83. Inspection of Figure 1 shows that Dimension I contrasts UCCs on one end of the dimension with correctional facilities on the other. Dimension II contrasts medical schools and pri-vate hospitals on one end of the dimension with UCCs, CMHCs, and correctional facilities on the other. Prestige, client physical illness, and postin-ternship job opportunities, all characteristic of medical settings, accounted for considerable vari-ance on Dimension II, with multiple correlations squared of .85, .87, and .81, respectively. Finally, severity of client psychopathology seems to define Dimension III, with an associated multiple corre-lation squared of .77. Opportunities for research, hours worked, client demographics (e.g., age, gen-der, and ethnicity), and quality of supervision were not represented in the scaling solution. Thus, the modal student in our sample did not seem to discriminate among internship site types on the basis of these variables.
Analysis of Professional Variables
Multivariate analyses were conducted using the professional variables data, and results indi-cated that clinical and counseling students had different perceptions of internship sites on six of the nine characteristics measured. One of the most important ways in which clinical and counseling students’ perceptions differed in-volved the perceived prestige of various intern-ship sites, F(10, 204)⫽ 4.29, p ⬍ .05. Specif-ically, although both clinical and counseling students rated medical schools as the most pres-tigious placement, clinical students’ mean rat-ing for medical schools was significantly higher than counseling students’ rating. In contrast, counseling students’ ratings of the prestige of CMHCs, AFMCs, and UCCs were significantly higher than the prestige ratings for these sites given by clinical students.
A similar pattern of differences between clin-ical and counseling programs emerged on three other professional variables: supervision qual-ity, comfort with client population, and oppor-tunities for research (Fs⫽ 3.60, 2.32, and 3.97, respectively, all ps ⬍ .05). For each of these variables, there were significant differences be-tween clinical and counseling students’ ratings of medical schools and UCCs. Specifically, clinical students rated medical schools as having better supervision quality and more opportunities for
research and they had greater comfort with the client population than did counseling students. Counseling students, in contrast, rated UCCs as having better supervision quality and more oppor-tunities for research, and they had greater comfort with the client population compared with clinical students.
Clinical and counseling students also per-ceived differences in client demographic diver-sity across sites, F(10, 207)⫽ 3.32, p ⬍ .05. Specifically, counseling students viewed the cli-ent populations of DVAMCs and medical schools as less demographically diverse than did their clinical peers. Clinical students viewed the client populations of corrections-related fa-cilities as less diverse than did counseling stu-dents. Finally, students differed in their ratings of the likelihood of working with patients with physical illnesses at various sites, F(10, 208)⫽ 2.40, p ⬍ .05. Compared with counsel-ing students, clinical students perceived child– adolescent psychiatric facilities, UCCs, and cor-rections-related facilities as less likely to have physically ill clientele.
MDS Analyses of Student Perceptions by Specialty Affiliation
Because student perceptions of internship site types appeared to vary by specialty affiliation, we conducted two separate MDS analyses for clinical students (n⫽ 156) and counseling stu-dents (n⫽ 65) and again regressed each of the nine professional variables (e.g., prestige, op-portunities for future jobs, quality of supervi-sion) over the MDS solutions. These regression analyses, presented in Table 2, show more clearly how clinical and counseling students think differently about internship site types.
In particular, clinical students focus their at-tention on differences in site prestige, future job opportunities, opportunities for research, degree of client psychopathology and physical illness, and their overall comfort in working with the client population associated with the site type, whereas counseling students focus their atten-tion on fewer attributes: site prestige, quality of supervision, degree of client physical illness, and comfort in working with the client popula-tion. Although it was hypothesized that clinical and counseling students would differ in their perceptions of sites, an unexpected finding was
that counseling students focus on fewer site attributes than clinical students.
Analysis of Preferences Data
Analysis of preference data, which yield a high-quality ranking of stimuli, are presented in Table 3. The Pearson correlation between
clical and counseling students’ rankings for in-ternship site type was .752 ( p⬍ .05), suggest-ing that about 57% of the variance in ranksuggest-ings is shared by the specialties. Inspection of Table 3 reveals systematic differences across the spe-cialties but also some similarities. A clear dif-ference was the site most preferred by students, with counseling students listing UCCs and
clin-Table 2
Regression Procedures Associated With Scaling Solutions Analyzed by Specialty Affiliation
Dependent variable Dim I Dim II Dim III R2
Clinical students
Prestige ⫺.067 .925 ⫺.146 .882*
Quality of supervision .332 .652 .086 .543 Future job opportunities ⫺.233 .883 .049 .836*
Opportunities for research ⫺.129 .849 ⫺.011 .737*
Hours worked .187 .524 ⫺.539 .600
Client demographics .117 .142 ⫺.043 .036
Client psychopathology ⫺.425 .215 ⫺.694 .709*
Client physical illness ⫺.387 .818 ⫺.082 .825*
Comfort with client population .764 .320 .341 .803*
Counseling students
Prestige .052 .901 .037 .819*
Quality of supervision .591 ⫺.010 .487 .733*
Future job opportunities .113 .561 .152 .356 Opportunities for research ⫺.031 .760 .205 .591
Hours worked .049 .563 ⫺.513 .615
Client demographics .010 ⫺.178 ⫺.141 .047 Client psychopathology ⫺.326 .100 ⫺.681 .699 Client physical illness ⫺.480 .738 ⫺.180 .821*
Comfort with client population .732 ⫺.007 .344 .783*
Note. N⫽ 10. Dim ⫽ dimension.
*p⬍ .05.
Table 3
Internship Site Type Rankings for Clinical and Counseling Students
Internship site type
Clinical students
Counseling students Ranking Rank Ranking Rank
Medical school 2.465 1 4.085 4
Consortia 2.505 2 2.566 2
Private hospital 3.475 3 4.290 5
Public hospital 3.931 4 4.309 6
Community mental health center 4.234 5 3.280 3 Veterans Administration Medical Center 4.763 6 4.939 7
Counseling center 4.856 7 2.319 1
Child-adolescent psychiatric facility 4.958 8 5.310 8 Armed forces medical center 6.743 9 7.097 10 Corrections-related facility 7.070 10 6.805 9
ical students listing medical school settings. However, both clinical and counseling students ranked consortia as their second most preferred site, and there was some overlap within the top five preferred sites (i.e., medical school settings, private hospitals, and CHMCs).
Discussion
Despite similarities in the academic and practicum training requirements of clinical and counseling programs, distinctions between pro-gram types exist, and these differences ultimately can be tracked on the basis of differences in stu-dents’ perceptions of, and preferences for, intern-ships in professional psychology. The most sig-nificant differences exist, not surprisingly, among the sites most preferred by students of each re-spective specialty. Clinical students typically se-lect medical settings, whereas counseling students traditionally have preferred counseling center practicum and internships, and these preferences are reflected in the results of the current study. In absolute terms, both clinical and counseling students rate medical schools as the most pres-tigious type of internship site. However, clinical students prefer to be placed at medical school internships, ranking medical schools first, whereas counseling students rank medical schools fourth. Counseling students prefer to be placed at UCCs, ranking them first, whereas clinical students rank UCCs seventh. However, the fact that a number of internship site types were ranked in the top five for both clinical and counseling students (i.e., medical school set-tings, private hospitals, and CMHCs) highlights the importance of ensuring training opportuni-ties that will facilitate entry into these sites across specialties.
With regard to ratings for site attributes, clin-ical students viewed medclin-ical centers as offering more opportunities for research and better qual-ity of supervision and expressed more comfort working with patients in this setting than did counseling students. Not surprisingly, counsel-ing students viewed UCCs as becounsel-ing more pres-tigious and as offering more opportunities across these attributes than did clinical students. The most puzzling finding concerns dispari-ties in the nature and number of attributes sa-lient to clinical versus counseling students when they consider internship site types. Results sug-gest that the clinical students in our sample
focused on six attributes: prestige, future job opportunities, opportunities for research, degree of client psychopathology, degree of client physical illness, and comfort in working with the associated client population. In contrast, counseling students focused only on four at-tributes: site prestige, quality of supervision, degree of client physical illness, and comfort in working with the associated client population. In addition to focusing on fewer attributes, it is surprising that counseling students did not con-sider future job opportunities and opportunities for research. Given the supply-and-demand is-sues associated with obtaining an internship, perhaps faculty and supervisors in counseling programs should encourage students to consider more features of various programs to enhance their chances of finding an appropriate fit for their training needs.
The finding that counseling students focus less on internship research opportunities may reflect the fact that there are fewer academic positions available to counseling psychologists. This may result in more counseling psychology graduates intending to pursue practitioner-oriented jobs. However, counseling students’ lesser concern with job opportunities is more puzzling. It could reflect their awareness that their internship options are more restricted (Gloria et al., 1997). Additionally, some re-search has suggested that counseling students’ traditionally limited preinternship preparation in psychological assessment results in their be-ing seen as less-than-ideal candidates for med-ical settings (Stedman, Hatch, & Schoenfeld, 2002). If internship alternatives are, in absolute terms, more restricted for counseling students, then they may be more focused on the immedi-ate issue of simply obtaining an internship rather than planning for their future. For coun-seling students, thinking about job opportunities may come after they have been matched with an internship site.
Implications for ATDs
Student perceptions are shaped, no doubt, by the types of practicum opportunities afforded to graduate students and by the perceptions of fac-ulty (both on and off campus). ATDs may want to consider specific ways to help students understand the need to prepare for entry into particular intern-ship sites, which, in turn, will serve as stepping
stones to future jobs. For students of either spe-cialty who have had difficulty specifying a career path or for those who wish to take an atypical path, more guidance may be required. If, for ex-ample, a clinical student identifies a university counseling center internship as an aspiration, then the ATD will want to help the student select practicum placements during graduate school that include experience with a college student population. Similarly, if a counseling student identifies a medical school internship as a goal, then the ATD may want to encourage the student to seek extra training in assessment, along with other experiences (e.g., a practicum placement within a hospital) that are likely to be encountered within the medical setting. Specific training experiences during graduate school im-pact both the readiness and competitiveness of students for particular sites. Whether and how students are educated about different types of placements vis-a`-vis their preparation for the internship year can be a crucial factor in their ultimate success.
Implications for ITDs
ITDs share the important responsibility of managing students’ entry to and exit from a critical stage in training (Stedman, Hatch, & Schoenfeld, 2000). ITDs also exert influence on the profession by differentially exposing students to some clinical activities (e.g., short-term psychotherapy modalities, test-based assessment, health psychology experi-ences) at the expense of others (e.g., long-term psychotherapy). However, ITDs may want to consider the manner in which students perceive internship site types. For example, these results show that both clinical and coun-seling students rank AFMCs and corrections-related facilities as lower preference sites. There appears to be a gap in the rankings between these sites and most others.
Given a lack of contact with prison-based psychologists (Hawk, 1997) and offenders, stu-dents may have a limited, if not erroneous, understanding of the role of interns at correc-tional facilities. Yet opportunities for psychol-ogists in correctional settings have increased in recent years, and psychologists working in these settings report job satisfaction at levels compa-rable to that of their professional peers in other settings (Boothby & Clements, 2002). Thus, it
seems important to inform students about train-ing opportunities in corrections.
Similarly, few students may understand the nature of the work to be done at AFMCs. Ste-reotypes associated in working with offenders and, potentially, armed forces personnel may affect students’ willingness to consider apply-ing to these sites. Thus, ITDs at such sites may need to work harder than others to recruit intern applicants. Establishing prison- or AFMC-based practicum could go a long way in educat-ing students and faculty about such facilities, including the varied and rewarding duties that psychologists can perform there (e.g., Hawk, 1997).
Implications for Students
Several implications can be offered to stu-dents. For students interested in training at internships that are less traditional to their affiliation, early, focused preparation appears to be key. Students should, of course, ensure that they have obtained a strong base of gen-eral skills. However, a semester’s worth of training that demonstrates motivation or a match to the desired internship type may be wise. Students should realize that the param-eters of the decision-making task faced by ITDs, as well as the larger supply-and-demand problem, likely lead to a strategy of elimination, not inclusion, of applicants. The fit between applicants’ experiences and pro-fessional goals, and specific internship site training opportunities (Rodolfa et al., 1999), is paramount; thus, those who do not seem to fit almost certainly will be rejected.
Limitations
Perhaps the main limitation of this effort is the relatively small number of students sam-pled. Although response rates were respect-able, the sample was not large enough to permit finer-grained analyses that include stu-dent specialty affiliation in combination with other important participant characteristics (e.g., specialty affiliation by gender, by eth-nicity). A study of counseling psychology training programs (Neimeyer, Saferstein, & Rice, 2005) found that, although overall rates of successfully matched students did not dif-fer between programs that were more practice
or research oriented, the types of sites to which students matched did differ as a func-tion of the academic programs’ training phi-losophy. Specifically, students from more practice-oriented programs were more likely to match with CMHCs or child and family sites than were students from programs that were more science oriented. In contrast, stu-dents from more science-oriented programs were more likely to match with UCCs and DVAMCs. Thus, future research on students’ perceptions of internships should also con-sider the training model followed in their academic program.
Another limitation regards the temporal sta-bility of these results. The “shelf life” of indi-viduals’ occupational perceptions has not thor-oughly been examined but likely is somewhat limited. As new technologies, new national- or health-related concerns (such as the war in Iraq and consequent attention to veterans’ and mili-tary personnel issues), and even new fads emerge, student preferences for and interest in specific professional activities and in working with different populations will wax and wane. In turn, interest in internship site types (i.e., professional training experiences) may be impacted.
Overall, understanding individuals’ percep-tions of specific occupapercep-tions, specialties, and specific training experiences is an important, and emerging, area of study. To the extent that many psychologists provide important health care services, students’ images of internship site types, the training experiences they select, and the positions they ultimately accept become not only a matter of individual career choice but also public policy.
References
Association of Psychology Postdoctoral and Intern-ship Centers. (2006). Match statistics. Retrieved October 6, 2006, from http://www.appic.org/ match/5_2_2_match_about_statistics.html Boggs, K. R., & Douce, L. A. (2000). Current status
and anticipated changes in psychology internships: Effects on counseling psychology training. The Counseling Psychologist, 28, 672– 686.
Boothby, J. L., & Clements, C. B. (2002). Job satis-faction of correctional psychologists: Implications for recruitment and retention. Professional Psy-chology, 33, 310 –315.
Brems, C., & Johnson, M. E. (1996). Comparison of PhD programs in clinical and counseling psychol-ogy. The Journal of Psychology, 130, 485– 498. Brems, C., & Johnson, M. E. (1997). Comparison of
recent graduates of clinical versus counseling psy-chology programs. The Journal of Psypsy-chology, 131, 91–99.
DeAngelis, T. (2004). How many sites should you apply to? gradPSYCH, 2(4). Retrieved October 6, 2006, from http://gradpsych.apags.org/sep04/ match-sites.cfm
Fitzgerald, L. F., & Ospiow, S. H. (1986). An occu-pational analysis of counseling psychology: How special is the specialty? American Psycholo-gist, 41, 535–544.
Gayer, H. L., Brown, M. B., Gridley, B. E., & Tre-loar, J. H. (2003). Predoctoral psychology intern selection: Does program type make a difference? Social Behavior and Personality, 31, 313–322. Gloria, A. M., Castillo, L. G., Choi-Pearson, C. P., &
Rangel, D. K. (1997). Competitive internship candi-dates: A national survey of internship training direc-tors. The Counseling Psychologist, 25, 453– 472. Hawk, K. M. (1997). Personal reflections on a career
in correctional psychology. Professional Psychol-ogy: Research and Practice, 28, 335–337. Jones, L. E., & Koehly, L. M. (1993).
Multidimen-sional scaling. In G. Keren & C. Lewis (Eds.), A handbook for data analysis in the behavioral sci-ences: Methodological issues (pp. 95–163). Hills-dale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kaslow, N. J., & Keilin, W. G. (2006). Internship training in clinical psychology: Looking into our crystal ball. Clinical Psychology Science and Practice, 13, 242–248.
Kruskal, J. B., & Wish, M. (1978). Multidimensional scaling (Sage University Paper Series on Quanti-tative Applications in the Social Sciences, 07– 011). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Neimeyer, G. J., Saferstein, J., & Rice, K. G. (2005). Does the model matter? The relationship between science-practice emphasis and outcomes in aca-demic training programs in counseling psychol-ogy. The Counseling Psychologist, 33, 635– 654. Rodolfa, E. R., Vielle, R., Russell, P., Nijjer, S.,
Nguyen, D. Q., Mendoza, M., et al. (1999). Intern-ship selection: Inclusion and exclusion criteria. Professional Psychology: Research and Prac-tice, 30, 415– 419.
Scott, K. J., Ingram, K. M., Vitanza, S. A., & Smith, N. G. (2000). Training in supervision: A survey of current practices. The Counseling Psycholo-gist, 28, 403– 422.
Stedman, J. M., Hatch, J. P., & Schoenfeld, L. S. (2000). Preinternship preparation in psychological testing and psychotherapy: What internship direc-tors say they expect. Professional Psychology: Re-search and Practice, 31, 321–326.
Stedman, J. M., Hatch, J. P., & Schoenfeld, L. S. (2002). Preinternship preparation of clinical and counseling students in psychological testing, psycho-therapy, and supervision: Their readiness for medical school and nonmedical school internships. Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, 9, 267–271. Stedman, J. M., Neff, J. A., Donahoe, C. P., Kopel, K., & Hays, J. R. (1995). Applicant characteriza-tion of the most desirable internship training pro-gram. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 26, 396 – 400.
Stewart, A. E., & Stewart, E. A. (1996). A decision-making technique for choosing a psychology in-ternship. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 27, 521–526.
Swanson, G., Hyer, L., Boudewyns, P., O’Leary, W., Nightingale, E., Dowd, E. T., & Gazda, G. (1994). Counseling psychology in Veterans Affairs Medi-cal Centers: Perceptions of chiefs of psychology. Professional Psychology: Research and Prac-tice, 25, 85– 88.
Wells, A. J. (1991). Optimal presentation orders for the method of paired comparisons. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 44, 181–193.
Received April 21, 2006 Revision received April 23, 2007
