Accreditation Public Comment System





This project is now closed for new comments.
DocumentSectionItemFirst NameLast NameGroup NameComment 
Draft IRs for Public CommentConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsStephenDeMersASPPBDraft Consortium Implementing Regulation for Doctoral, Internship and Postdoctoral Programs ASPPB supports your IRs for clarifying “the stability of a consortium’s shared resources” and outlining the details of consortial agreements, as we believe this will assist with public protection. We also support your clear guideline that “an individual consortial partner (member entity) of an accredited consortium may not publicize itself as independently accredited unless it also has independently applied for and received accreditation.” This clarity in publicizing the program will also assist in public understanding and protection.
Draft IRs for Public CommentConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsBethanyTeachman I strongly support CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsMitchPrinstein I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsJeffreyGoodie I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsKevinAntshelSyracuse University Clinical Psychology doctoral programI strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsJenniferCallahanUniversity of North Texas: Clinical PsychologyThe faculty of the Clinical Program at the University of North Texas (N=9) strongly support the CUDCP comment.
Draft IRs for Public CommentConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsRebeccaReady I strongly support CUDCP’s comments
Draft IRs for Public CommentConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsJasonSchiffman I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsAmyPeterman I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsJulieHubbard I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsDavidPantaloneUniversity of Massachusetts, BostonI strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsKlein-TasmanBonnie I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsMeganSherod I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsLanceSwenson I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsJasonWashburnNorthwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine PhD Program in Clinical PsychologyThe faculty of the Clinical Psychology PhD Program at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine (N=98) strongly support the CUDCP comment.
Draft IRs for Public CommentConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsFischerSarah I fully endorse CUDCP's response.
Draft IRs for Public CommentConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsMillerJoshua I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsRobinLewis  I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments
Draft IRs for Public CommentConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsKarenBierman  I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsAmieSchry I endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsStephanieMullins-Sweatt I strongly support CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsPhilipSayegh I strongly endorse CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsKarenFondacaroI am the President of APTC (Association of Psychology Training Clinics)APTC (Association of Psychology Training Clinics) believes that the DSK criteria are clear and provide clarification of the requirements. We also believe that it would be helpful if these sections were expanded a bit to include some examples of what this may actually look like in the sequence of academic training. Best, Karen Fondacaro, Ph.D.
Draft IRs for Public CommentConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsMichaelHallquist I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsPilatoRon I strongly support NCSPP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsJennyCornishAPPICAPPIC supports the CoA Draft Consortium Implementing Regulation for Doctoral Programs, Internship Programs and Postdoctoral Programs. We appreciate the specificity of what is required in the consortial agreement as well as the specific statement that an individual consortial partner (member entity) of an accredited consortium may not publicize itself as independently accredited unless it also has independently applied for and received accreditation.
Draft IRs for Public CommentConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsMeganO'Banion I support NCSPP's response.
Draft IRs for Public CommentConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsTimCavellCUDCPCUDCP also has serious concerns with the way CoA has outlined both the definition and the requirements for “consortial” doctoral programs under “Draft Consortium Implementing Regulation for Doctoral Programs SoA Standard I.C.3: Structure Of Training Program.” In the old G&P, there were frequently requirements and definitions for internships and post-docs that made no sense; that was because CoA merely “cut and pasted” guidelines and implementing regulations from one level of training to the other, without adequately considering if the issue was similar across the sequence of training. Here is an example where this was done in reverse: merely cutting and pasting definitions and statements about “consortium programs” from the internship definitions fails to adequately consider a number of important factors. First, an internship is by definition a one-year (or in rare instances two one-half years ) experience; it does not extend over a number of years; it does not necessarily require the ... See Full Comment
Draft IRs for Public CommentConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsDeborahBeidel I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsLouiseBaca I strongly endorse the NCSPP response.
Draft IRs for Public CommentConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsPanagiotaFerssizidis I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsRonald DRogge I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsAbbieGoldberg : I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsAlytiaLevendosky I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsSaraJordanUniversity of Southern MississippiThe clinical program faculty at the University of Southern Mississippi (N=8) strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsJamesCordova I strongly endorse CUDCPs comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsConsortium IR for Doctoral ProgramsIanGutierrezAPAGSAPAGS supports CUDCP’s comment regarding the Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs.
Draft IRs for Public CommentConsortium IR for Internship ProgramsConsortium IR for Internship ProgramsStephenDeMersASPPBDraft Consortium Implementing Regulation for Doctoral, Internship and Postdoctoral Programs ASPPB supports your IRs for clarifying “the stability of a consortium’s shared resources” and outlining the details of consortial agreements, as we believe this will assist with public protection. We also support your clear guideline that “an individual consortial partner (member entity) of an accredited consortium may not publicize itself as independently accredited unless it also has independently applied for and received accreditation.” This clarity in publicizing the program will also assist in public understanding and protection.
Draft IRs for Public CommentConsortium IR for Internship ProgramsConsortium IR for Internship ProgramsPhilipSayegh I strongly endorse CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentConsortium IR for Internship ProgramsConsortium IR for Internship ProgramsJennyCornishAPPICAPPIC supports the CoA Draft Consortium Implementing Regulation for Doctoral Programs, Internship Programs and Postdoctoral Programs. We appreciate the specificity of what is required in the consortial agreement as well as the specific statement that an individual consortial partner (member entity) of an accredited consortium may not publicize itself as independently accredited unless it also has independently applied for and received accreditation.
Draft IRs for Public CommentConsortium IR for Internship ProgramsConsortium IR for Internship ProgramsMeganO'Banion I support NCSPP's response.
Draft IRs for Public CommentConsortium IR for Postdoctoral Residency ProgramsConsortium IR for Postdoctoral Residency ProgramsStephenDeMersASPPBDraft Consortium Implementing Regulation for Doctoral, Internship and Postdoctoral Programs ASPPB supports your IRs for clarifying “the stability of a consortium’s shared resources” and outlining the details of consortial agreements, as we believe this will assist with public protection. We also support your clear guideline that “an individual consortial partner (member entity) of an accredited consortium may not publicize itself as independently accredited unless it also has independently applied for and received accreditation.” This clarity in publicizing the program will also assist in public understanding and protection.
Draft IRs for Public CommentConsortium IR for Postdoctoral Residency ProgramsConsortium IR for Postdoctoral Residency ProgramsPhilipSayegh I strongly endorse CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentConsortium IR for Postdoctoral Residency ProgramsConsortium IR for Postdoctoral Residency ProgramsJennyCornishAPPICAPPIC supports the CoA Draft Consortium Implementing Regulation for Doctoral Programs, Internship Programs and Postdoctoral Programs. We appreciate the specificity of what is required in the consortial agreement as well as the specific statement that an individual consortial partner (member entity) of an accredited consortium may not publicize itself as independently accredited unless it also has independently applied for and received accreditation.
Draft IRs for Public CommentConsortium IR for Postdoctoral Residency ProgramsConsortium IR for Postdoctoral Residency ProgramsMeganO'Banion I support NCSPP's response.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRSamuelDoug A primary concern is the reduction of individual courses needed to satisfy each of these in a checkbox fashion. It wastes student (and faculty) time to teach a course on one of these simply to satisfy the APA. It needs to be integrative and less proscriptive. I think the GRE subject test is a step along that. At the very least it should count for the history and systems piece of this. I find the history should be and is integrated into other courses to the extent its relevant. If we simply teach it as a standalone course its just a history course and not something that adds usefully to the practical knowledge. I worry that with the further subdivision of these categories it will prompt even more classes to tick each check box. My 2 cents
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRTimCavellCUDCPThe Council of University Directors of Clinical Psychology (CUDCP) would like to thank CoA for their continued hard work on the Standards of Accreditation and accompanying Implementing Regulations. We welcome the opportunity to comment on this draft revision of IR C-7: Discipline Specific Knowledge. This response represents the views of the CUDCP Board of Directors; we have encouraged individual CUDCP member programs to review the IR and make their own comments, as well as to endorse or otherwise comment on this response. GENERAL REACTION: We are most concerned with what appears to be a rather dramatic shift in the framing of discipline specific knowledge, its role in preparing health service psychologists, and the manner in which it is to be addressed by doctoral training programs. This shift is evident throughout the Draft IR but is perhaps best captured by the statement that “Student must demonstrate advanced graduate level discipline-specific knowledge in each element of ea... See Full Comment
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRLenSimms I strongly support the CUDCP statement regarding the revised C7D IRs.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRBethanyTeachman I strongly support CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRMitchPrinstein I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRJasonSchiffman I strongly support CUDCP’s comments
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRJeffreyGoodie I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRKevinAntshelSyracuse University Clinical Psychology doctoral programI strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRThomasRodebaugh I strongly support CUDCP's comment on this draft.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRAnnetteLaGreca I endorse CUDCPs feedback on the IR
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRMichelleSalyers I endorse CUDCP's comments
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDeannaBarch I endorse CUDCUP's response.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRJenniferCallahanUniversity of North Texas: Clinical PsychologyThe faculty of the Clinical Program at the University of North Texas (N=9) STRONGLY endorse the CUDCP comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRWyndolFurman I strongly support CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRLouisCastonguay I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRGibbBrandon I strongly support CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRRebeccaReady I strongly support CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRAmyPeterman I strongly endorse CUDCP's thoughtful comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRJulieHubbard I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRMichaelMcCloskey I strongly support CUDCP's comment on this draft.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDavidPantaloneUniversity of Massachusetts, BostonI strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRBrianCarpenter I strongly endorse the comments offered by CUDCP regarding this Implementing Regulation.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRErinLawton I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRJosephAllen I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments. Unless they are modified, the most likely 'safe' response to the proposed IR's would be to need to add still further course requirements to assure meeting the standards. This would ultimately make doctoral programs so cumbersome as to limit their capacity to train the kind of psychologists we need in the field in an efficient way.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRMarkLenzenweger I support the proposal.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDianneChambless I am very concerned that the direction of these latest changes violates the goal of the SoA revisions. I urge the commission to read closely the comments from CUDCP, which as a DCT I heartily support.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRKlein-TasmanBonnie I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRMeganSherod I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRmeredithcoles I support CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRHamLindsay I support CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRJenniferGillis I strongly support CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDeborahJones I full endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRLanceSwenson I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRStephenDeMersASPPBASPPB Comment on CoA Revised Implementing Regulations ASPPB is very appreciative of the time, effort and collaboration that CoA has exhibited throughout the current revision process. Thank you. Section C-7 D. Discipline-Specific Knowledge REVISED DRAFT We applaud the revision that states a student must demonstrate graduate level competency in foundational coursework in core areas through a program’s curriculum and/or building upon foundational knowledge that was met and assessed prior to program participation. You also clarify that “programs may not rely solely on such an assessment to establish foundational knowledge in Category 1 or Category 2.” This is consistent with regulation, in that a standardized assessment of competency developed prior to graduate school would not be sufficient to demonstrate graduate level competency. ASPPB appreciates the statement, “Programs must demonstrate how their curriculum is attentive to the licensure laws in their jurisdiction.... See Full Comment
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRTimCavellCUDCP member programs to review the IR and make their own comments, as well as to endorse or otherwise comment on this response. GENERAL REACTION: We are most concerned with what appears to be a rather dramatic shift in the framing of discipline specific knowledge, its role in preparing health service psychologists, and the manner in which it is to be addressed by doctoral training programs. This shift is evident throughout the Draft IR but is perhaps best captured by the statement that “Student must demonstrate advanced graduate level discipline-specific knowledge in each element of each of the four categories….”, which requires advanced graduate level coverage of affective, biological, cognitive, developmental, and social content areas, plus history and systems (in addition to the areas previously required at the graduate level – advanced integration of 2 basic content areas, research and quantitative methods, psychometrics). In previous iterations of this IR, including the versio... See Full Comment
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRJasonWashburnNorthwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine PhD Program in Clinical PsychologyThe faculty of the Clinical Psychology PhD Program at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine (N=98) strongly support the CUDCP comment. In addition, we believe it is critical for CoA to provide IRs that allow for flexible and nimble education and training approaches so that PhD programs can respond to a changing research, educational, and clinical practice landscape.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRRicSteele I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRKevinLarkin I have read CUDCP's response and agree that they are spot-on with respect to the DSK IR. I appreciate the attempt at clarification, but the resulting IR does not achieve its intended goal.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRFischerSarah I have read CUDCP's response and fully endorse their response.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRMillerJoshua I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRRussellWhitman  I agree with the many arguments in the comment section regarding the term "Health Service Psychology" rather than the term "Professional Psychology". We are not a medical subspecialty. I am very concerned about the foundation knowledge of our doctoral students. Undergraduate courses in learning, cognition, biopsychology, social, and so on, are not the equivalent of graduate courses. This may be a misconception related to the "medical-ization" of the field - a medical student who has taken inorganic, organic, and biochemistry is very different from a student who has one undergrad course in a psychology content area, the content of which varies tremendously from college/university to college/university. If these are "CORE" then they need doctoral level knowledge. Doctoral students at many outstanding doctoral programs lack fundamental understanding of learning (which should be a CORE, and is not covered adequately in most cognitive courses, nor should it be given the richness of t... See Full Comment
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRRobinLewis  I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRKarenBierman  I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRAmieSchry I endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDavidHansenUniversity of Nebraska-Lincoln, Clinical Psychology Training ProgramI strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRStephanieMullins-Sweatt I strongly support CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRSherryMolockCUDCPI strongly endorse CUDCP's comments
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRScottBraithwaite  I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRAlexDopp I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRSherrylGoodman I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRChristineLarson I endorse CUDCUP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRHeatherLyons I support NCSPP's response.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRShulamiteGreen I strongly endorse CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDeniseChavira I strongly support CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRRobertBilder i strongly endorse CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRStaplesLindsay I strongly endorse CUDCP’s comments
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRStaplesLindsay I strongly endorse CUDCP’s comments
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRStaplesLindsay I strongly endorse CUDCP’s comments
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRRenaRepetti I am in complete agreement with the comments submitted by CUDCP.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRMeghanVinograd I strongly endorse CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRMichaelReding I fully endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRPhilipSayegh I strongly endorse CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRRichardLeBeau I strongly endorse CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRPatriciaLlewellynI strongly endorse CUDCP's commentsI strongly endorse CUDCP's comments
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDeniseHead I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRElaineWalker I endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRCindyYee-Bradbury I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRChrisEckhardt I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRMichaelHallquist I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRBitaMesri I strongly endorse CUDCP’s comments
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRJocelynCarter I strongly support CUDCPs comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRReshamGellatly I strongly endorse CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRNaomiRodas I strongly endorse CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRCarolynDavies I strongly endorse CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRAmySewart I strongly endorse CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRPilatoRon I strongly support NCSPP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRJennyCornishAPPICAPPIC supports CoA draft Implementing Regulation on Discipline Specific Knowledge (DSK).We believe the need for this broad based knowledge is crucial to the development of a psychologist. We also appreciate the flexibility that allows the program to describe how the curriculum builds upon this foundational knowledge evidence upon admission to enable students to demonstrate graduate level discipline specific knowledge.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRMichaelSun I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRLaurenHarris I strongly endorse CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRRichardMattson I strongly support CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRPeterClayson I strongly endorse CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRSusanKeane I strongly endorse CUDCP comments
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRHalinaDour I strongly endorse CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRCrystalCollier I strongly support NCSPP's comments
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRBarbaraCaplan I strongly endorse CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRGenevieveArnaut I strongly support NCSPP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRConstanceHammen I strongly endorse CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRMeganO'Banion I support NCSPP's response.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRMeganO'Banion I support NCSPP's response.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRElizabethMoroney As a second-year graduate student who will be widely affected by these changes, I strongly endorse CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRKristenJezior I strongly endorse CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRLynnBufkaAPA Advisory Steering Committee for Clinical Practice Guideline DevelopmentThe Advisory Steering Committee (ASC) recommends an addition to the Research Methods section of Discipline Specific Knowledge. Specifically, given how essential it is that students learn to be good consumers of research on treatment outcomes (no matter whether their future careers involve research or practice or other paths), we propose adding "systematic reviews (e.g., reviews that inform research-based clinical practice guidelines)" to the list of topics under Research Methods. Meta-analysis is already included but this does not cover the different ways that aggregate reviews of literature can be conducted. We think it is important to be explicit in the IR about the various reviews that synthesize the professional literature (and can be used in CPGs) so students and trainees (and future professionals) are best equipped to utilize the research in practice, potentially reducing the often bemoaned "science practice gap." While we recognize and value that DSK is not specific to treatm... See Full Comment
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDeborahBeidel I strongly agree with the CUDCP comments. I was the chair of CUDCP at the time that the new SOA was developed and I am very concerned that the manner in which this IR was written is contradictory to everything that was presented, discussed and decided upon by CoA over the last two years. If this IR stands as written, it will negate the intent of the SoA and not allow programs to utilize the strengths of its faculty to develop the strongest PhD psychologists.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRCookEdwin I strongly support CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRStaplesLindsay I strongly endorse CUDCP’s comments
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRStaplesLindsay I strongly endorse CUDCP’s comments
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRStaplesLindsay I strongly endorse CUDCP’s comments
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRToddBrown I strongly endorse CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRHannahWilliamson I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments on this proposal.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRToddBrown These guidelines are suffocating for clinical science programs that already far exceed the curriculums provided by the glut of accredited for-profit universities.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRLeslieRith-Najarian I strongly endorse CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRAnnaLau I strongly endorse the CUDCP comments on this revision. This draft represents a significant step backward on DSK requirements for contemporary clinical psychology trainees. We must look forward and not backward in educating the next generation of scientist-practitioners.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRAlexandraReed I strongly endorse CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDanielleKeenan-Miller I strongly endorse CUDCPs comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRPincusAaron  I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRSamanthaGregus As a graduate student, I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRMaynardAshleyCOGDOPThe Executive Board of COGDOP appreciates the opportunity to provide public comment on this implementing regulation. We appreciate COA’s efforts to revise the DSK IR. However, we continue to have significant concerns about the clarity of some of the IR language, and we remain convinced that compliance with the current IR language is not possible for either programs or COA. Our primary concerns are that the current language is overly restrictive (beyond what the SoA requires) and that programs are given insufficient guidance about how to comply such that every program would have to come up with unbiased means of assessing undergraduate syllabi and consequently that CoA would have to evaluate each such idiosyncratic procedure. Programs likely would use the alternative of requiring graduate courses, rather than being able to rely on prior education and performance, which would undermine CoA’s goal in this area. We strongly recommend the following changes, which are broadly consisten... See Full Comment
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRRyanBogdan I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRGeorgeTremblay I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRPeterVik As a site visitor and as a PhD program director, I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRPanagiotaFerssizidis I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRJuliaHammett I strongly endorse CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRSaraDolan I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDelanaParker I strongly endorse the CUDCP's comments in response to this draft.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRRonald DRogge I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRAaronLim I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRKimberlySmithCommittee for Early Career Psychologists (CECP)The Committee on Early Career Psychologists (CECP) appreciates the thoughtful and thorough work the Commission on Accreditation has done on the SoA and associated Implementing Regulations. Thank you for the opportunity to provide specific comments regarding this draft revision of IR C-7 D, “Discipline-Specific Knowledge.” Overall, the CECP understands that this is a work in progress and specific feedback is needed to ensure that psychology programs are consistent and thorough in how programs implement psychology-specific curriculum. CECP has four items to address: (A) Category 1: History and Systems of Psychology: It is quite understandable to have this knowledge at the foundational level, as it adds richness and depth to a base of information required as one moves along in the field. Nonetheless, the rationale is unclear regarding the need for this expectation at the graduate level. If the information regarding the general history and systems of psychology is adequately addressed... See Full Comment
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRAbbieGoldberg  I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IREmilyOwens I strongly endorse the CUCDP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRTimothyWilliamson I strongly endorse CUDCP’s comments
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRAlytiaLevendosky I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRThompsonSarah I strongly endorse the CUDCP's comments on this issue. The updates to the requirements seem like a return to unnecessary restrictions that place a severe burden on academic psychology departments outside of large, for-profit Psy.D. programs, with a particular burden on students to participate in a growing number of courses, many of which largely repeat material that we learned as undergraduates. I would strongly encourage you to revise these regulations in order to balance the need to produce well-rounded, informed psychologists while accounting for the practical barriers faced by graduate students and faculty. Thanks very much for your consideration.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRRobertPerl I strongly support NCSPP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRThomasBradbury I strongly endorse CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRLoisaBennetto I strongly support CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRLeeCooper I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRGregoryMiller I fully support CUDCP’s comments. The draft IR is much too vague. I want to underscore that the very notion of "integrating" across domains such as social and biological is quite obsolete, because it casts social and biological (for example) as separate categories. Also, in the language it's not always clear whether the knowledge being referred to was ACQUIRED while a student is an undergraduate and was ASSESSED during graduate school, or both acquired and assessed during graduate school, because "graduate-level knowledge" and "advanced level" are ambiguous. Many undergraduates perform, as undergrads, at the level expected in graduate school.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRSaraJordanUniversity of Southern MississippiThe clinical program faculty at the University of Southern Mississippi (N=8) strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRChenPeterCOGDOPI strongly endorse COGDOP comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRWilliamSanderson I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRCorreaNathasha I strongly endorse CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRLilyBrown I strongly endorse CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRHidekoSeraNCSPPFirst, NCSPP would like to express its appreciation to CoA for the revisions made to this version of the IR, which offers greater clarity, particularly in relation to the potential use of the GRE subject tests. There are several modest, albeit key, revisions to the draft DSK IRs recommended by NCSPP. Specifically: • Under Discipline-Specific Knowledge Category: History and Systems of Psychology: The current description offers clear guidance on content that is insufficient to support understanding and competency for this DSK. Less clear is the content that would be considered sufficient. NCSPP recommends that the first sentence provide greater clarity through a revision such as the following: “History and Systems of Psychology, including the origins and development of major ideas in the discipline of psychology, philosophical foundations of major psychological systems (e.g., behavioralism, psychoanalysis, etc.), as well as the history of a sub-discipline.” NCSPP also sugge... See Full Comment
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRMichelleFenesy I strongly endorse CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRStephanieWood I strongly support NCSPP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRLavitaNadkarni I strongly support NCSPP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRLindaCraighead I support the CUDCP comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRRadhikaKrishnamurthy I strongly support NCSPP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRCatherineGlenn I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRJamesCordova I strongly endorse CUDCPs comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRBryanCochran I fully support the CUDCP response.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRIanGutierrezAPAGSAPAGS is pleased to comment on the Implementing Regulations (IRs) for the Commission on Accreditation. We wish to make the following recommendations, listed below, that we feel would improve the IRs and their implications for the training experiences of our constituents. 1. APAGS wishes to re-emphasize its previously submitted recommendation that all reference to the subject GRE as an example of a standardized assessment for establishing students’ foundational knowledge be removed from the SoA. Listing the GRE subject test as the only example of competency evaluation increases the chances of its use without a rationalization for why it should be used, whereas the absence of an example assessment does not adversely affect the implementing regulation in question. Toward this end, we recommend the removal of the parenthetical reference to the GRE in Doctoral Standard II.B.1.a, as well as the removal of the proposed paragraph that begins, “Note that although the SoA lists the GRE subjec... See Full Comment
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRTeresaNguyen I strongly endorse CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public CommentDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRDraft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IRMonicaRivera Mindt I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.