Accreditation Public Comment System

This project is now closed for new comments.

Document	Section	Item	First Name	Last Name	Group Name	Comment
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	Karen	Fondacaro	I 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 Comment	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	Stephen	DeMers	ASPPB	Draft 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 Comment	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	Tim	Cavell	CUDCP	CUDCP 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 Comment	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	Deborah	Beidel		I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	Rebecca	Ready		I strongly support CUDCP’s comments
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	Bethany	Teachman		I strongly support CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	Mitch	Prinstein		I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	Jeffrey	Goodie		I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	Kevin	Antshel	Syracuse University Clinical Psychology doctoral program	I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	Jason	Schiffman		I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	Amy	Peterman		I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	Miller	Joshua		I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	Julie	Hubbard		I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	David	Pantalone	University of Massachusetts, Boston	I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	Robin	Lewis		I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	Karen	Bierman		I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	Jennifer	Callahan	University of North Texas: Clinical Psychology	The faculty of the Clinical Program at the University of North Texas (N=9) strongly support the CUDCP comment.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	Klein-Tasman	Bonnie		I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	Megan	Sherod		I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	Lance	Swenson		I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	Jason	Washburn	Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine PhD Program in Clinical Psychology	The 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 Comment	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	Fischer	Sarah		I fully endorse CUDCP's response.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	Amie	Schry		I endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	Abbie	Goldberg		: I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	Stephanie	Mullins-Sweatt		I strongly support CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	Panagiota	Ferssizidis		I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	Alytia	Levendosky		I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	Philip	Sayegh		I strongly endorse CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	Michael	Hallquist		I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	Pilato	Ron		I strongly support NCSPP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	Jenny	Cornish	APPIC	APPIC 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 Comment	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	Ronald D	Rogge		I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	James	Cordova		I strongly endorse CUDCPs comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	Megan	O'Banion		I support NCSPP's response.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	Ian	Gutierrez	APAGS	APAGS supports CUDCP’s comment regarding the Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	Sara	Jordan	University of Southern Mississippi	The clinical program faculty at the University of Southern Mississippi (N=8) strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	Consortium IR for Doctoral Programs	Louise	Baca		I strongly endorse the NCSPP response.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Consortium IR for Internship Programs	Consortium IR for Internship Programs	Stephen	DeMers	ASPPB	Draft 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 Comment	Consortium IR for Internship Programs	Consortium IR for Internship Programs	Philip	Sayegh		I strongly endorse CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Consortium IR for Internship Programs	Consortium IR for Internship Programs	Jenny	Cornish	APPIC	APPIC 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 Comment	Consortium IR for Internship Programs	Consortium IR for Internship Programs	Megan	O'Banion		I support NCSPP's response.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Consortium IR for Postdoctoral Residency Programs	Consortium IR for Postdoctoral Residency Programs	Stephen	DeMers	ASPPB	Draft 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 Comment	Consortium IR for Postdoctoral Residency Programs	Consortium IR for Postdoctoral Residency Programs	Philip	Sayegh		I strongly endorse CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Consortium IR for Postdoctoral Residency Programs	Consortium IR for Postdoctoral Residency Programs	Jenny	Cornish	APPIC	APPIC 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 Comment	Consortium IR for Postdoctoral Residency Programs	Consortium IR for Postdoctoral Residency Programs	Megan	O'Banion		I support NCSPP's response.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Samuel	Doug		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 Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Stephen	DeMers	ASPPB	ASPPB 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 Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Tim	Cavell	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 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 Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Tim	Cavell	CUDCP	The 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 Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Deborah	Beidel		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 Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Gibb	Brandon		I strongly support CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Len	Simms		I strongly support the CUDCP statement regarding the revised C7D IRs.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Rebecca	Ready		I strongly support CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Bethany	Teachman		I strongly support CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Mitch	Prinstein		I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Jason	Schiffman		I strongly support CUDCP’s comments
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Jeffrey	Goodie		I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Kevin	Antshel	Syracuse University Clinical Psychology doctoral program	I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Thomas	Rodebaugh		I strongly support CUDCP's comment on this draft.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Amy	Peterman		I strongly endorse CUDCP's thoughtful comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Miller	Joshua		I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Julie	Hubbard		I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Michael	McCloskey		I strongly support CUDCP's comment on this draft.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Russell	Whitman		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 Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	David	Pantalone	University of Massachusetts, Boston	I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Joseph	Allen		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 Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Robin	Lewis		I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Brian	Carpenter		I strongly endorse the comments offered by CUDCP regarding this Implementing Regulation.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Annette	LaGreca		I endorse CUDCPs feedback on the IR
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Pincus	Aaron		I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Michelle	Salyers		I endorse CUDCP's comments
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Ryan	Bogdan		I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Karen	Bierman		I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Deanna	Barch		I endorse CUDCUP's response.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Jennifer	Callahan	University of North Texas: Clinical Psychology	The faculty of the Clinical Program at the University of North Texas (N=9) STRONGLY endorse the CUDCP comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Wyndol	Furman		I strongly support CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Louis	Castonguay		I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Erin	Lawton		I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	George	Tremblay		I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Peter	Vik		As a site visitor and as a PhD program director, I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Mark	Lenzenweger		I support the proposal.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Cook	Edwin		I strongly support CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Dianne	Chambless		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 Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Klein-Tasman	Bonnie		I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Megan	Sherod		I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	meredith	coles		I support CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Patricia	Llewellyn	I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments	I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Ham	Lindsay		I support CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Jennifer	Gillis		I strongly support CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Deborah	Jones		I full endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Lance	Swenson		I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Jason	Washburn	Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine PhD Program in Clinical Psychology	The 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 Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Ric	Steele		I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Denise	Head		I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Samantha	Gregus		As a graduate student, I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Kevin	Larkin		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 Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Fischer	Sarah		I have read CUDCP's response and fully endorse their response.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Amie	Schry		I endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Abbie	Goldberg		I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	David	Hansen	University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Clinical Psychology Training Program	I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Elaine	Walker		I endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Stephanie	Mullins-Sweatt		I strongly support CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Sherry	Molock	CUDCP	I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	William	Sanderson		I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Scott	Braithwaite		I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Alex	Dopp		I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Panagiota	Ferssizidis		I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Sherryl	Goodman		I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Cindy	Yee-Bradbury		I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Christine	Larson		I endorse CUDCUP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Chris	Eckhardt		I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Hideko	Sera	NCSPP	First, 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 Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Heather	Lyons		I support NCSPP's response.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Shulamite	Green		I strongly endorse CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Denise	Chavira		I strongly support CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Robert	Bilder		i strongly endorse CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Staples	Lindsay		I strongly endorse CUDCP’s comments
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Staples	Lindsay		I strongly endorse CUDCP’s comments
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Staples	Lindsay		I strongly endorse CUDCP’s comments
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Staples	Lindsay		I strongly endorse CUDCP’s comments
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Staples	Lindsay		I strongly endorse CUDCP’s comments
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Staples	Lindsay		I strongly endorse CUDCP’s comments
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Correa	Nathasha		I strongly endorse CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Emily	Owens		I strongly endorse the CUCDP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Todd	Brown		I strongly endorse CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Hannah	Williamson		I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments on this proposal.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Todd	Brown		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 Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Timothy	Williamson		I strongly endorse CUDCP’s comments
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Leslie	Rith-Najarian		I strongly endorse CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Alytia	Levendosky		I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Thompson	Sarah		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 Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Anna	Lau		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 Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Michelle	Fenesy		I strongly endorse CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Robert	Perl		I strongly support NCSPP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Rena	Repetti		I am in complete agreement with the comments submitted by CUDCP.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Meghan	Vinograd		I strongly endorse CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Stephanie	Wood		I strongly support NCSPP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Michael	Reding		I fully endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Philip	Sayegh		I strongly endorse CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Julia	Hammett		I strongly endorse CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Richard	LeBeau		I strongly endorse CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Michael	Hallquist		I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Bita	Mesri		I strongly endorse CUDCP’s comments
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Jocelyn	Carter		I strongly support CUDCPs comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Resham	Gellatly		I strongly endorse CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Thomas	Bradbury		I strongly endorse CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Naomi	Rodas		I strongly endorse CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Carolyn	Davies		I strongly endorse CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Amy	Sewart		I strongly endorse CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Loisa	Bennetto		I strongly support CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Radhika	Krishnamurthy		I strongly support NCSPP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Pilato	Ron		I strongly support NCSPP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Jenny	Cornish	APPIC	APPIC 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 Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Sara	Dolan		I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Delana	Parker		I strongly endorse the CUDCP's comments in response to this draft.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Michael	Sun		I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Lauren	Harris		I strongly endorse CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Richard	Mattson		I strongly support CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Lavita	Nadkarni		I strongly support NCSPP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Ronald D	Rogge		I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Peter	Clayson		I strongly endorse CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Susan	Keane		I strongly endorse CUDCP comments
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Lily	Brown		I strongly endorse CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Halina	Dour		I strongly endorse CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Catherine	Glenn		I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	James	Cordova		I strongly endorse CUDCPs comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Crystal	Collier		I strongly support NCSPP's comments
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Alexandra	Reed		I strongly endorse CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Barbara	Caplan		I strongly endorse CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Genevieve	Arnaut		I strongly support NCSPP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Lee	Cooper		I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Constance	Hammen		I strongly endorse CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Megan	O'Banion		I support NCSPP's response.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Megan	O'Banion		I support NCSPP's response.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Aaron	Lim		I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Bryan	Cochran		I fully support the CUDCP response.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Elizabeth	Moroney		As a second-year graduate student who will be widely affected by these changes, I strongly endorse CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Kristen	Jezior		I strongly endorse CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Ian	Gutierrez	APAGS	APAGS 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 Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Maynard	Ashley	COGDOP	The 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 Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Lynn	Bufka	APA Advisory Steering Committee for Clinical Practice Guideline Development	The 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 Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Gregory	Miller		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 Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Sara	Jordan	University of Southern Mississippi	The clinical program faculty at the University of Southern Mississippi (N=8) strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Kimberly	Smith	Committee 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 Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Teresa	Nguyen		I strongly endorse CUDCP’s comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Danielle	Keenan-Miller		I strongly endorse CUDCPs comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Monica	Rivera Mindt		I strongly endorse CUDCP's comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Chen	Peter	COGDOP	I strongly endorse COGDOP comments.
Draft IRs for Public Comment	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Draft Revised Discipline-Specific Knowledge IR	Linda	Craighead		I support the CUDCP comments.