Accreditation Public Comment System





This project is now closed for new comments.
DocumentSectionItemFirst NameLast NameGroup NameComment 
Master's Accreditation IRs (Section D) Implementing Regulation (IR) D.3-1. Site Visitor NominationAllisonGillensAPA Committee on Early Career Psychologists1. As representatives of early career psychologists, the CECP would like to suggest the CoA consider including licensed master’s level or doctoral level practitioners as site visitors prior to five years after degree completion. While the criteria for consistent engagement in an accredited training program appears essential, early career professionals may have specific insight into training program accreditation given recent participation in training. We would like to suggested reducing the requirement to one or two years of independent practice following completion of postdoctoral fellowship or completion of all required supervision. 2. In the “Site Visitor Nomination” section of the guidelines, there is a brief statement regarding the consideration of ensuring diversity among site visitors, which is appreciated. The CECP recommends including specific examples of how sites or the CoA can ensure a diverse perspective among site visitors. For example, in the Site Visitor Selection and/... See Full Comment
Master's Accreditation IRs (Section D) Implementing Regulation (IR) D.3-1. Site Visitor NominationNicoleKeedyIowa Psychological AssociationThank you for providing an opportunity to comment on these IR’s for master’s level training accreditation. We have two general comments. First, we are unhappy with the similarity in title being used for master’s level health service providers and doctoral level health service providers. Discussions over several meetings of COR and in a number of other groups have stressed the need to distinguish clearly by title between a doctoral level health service provider in psychology and a person who has an M.A. We are aware that these distinctions are difficult for the public, and are concerned that someone with a title of master’s in health service psychology may well sound to the public like they have additional “mastery” in our field, above and beyond the doctorate. In an effort to assist the consumer in clearly identifying their provider options, a more distinct title should be used. Secondly, while it will be important that site visitors have experience with and value masters-level psych... See Full Comment
Master's Accreditation IRs (Section D) Implementing Regulation (IR) D.3-1. Site Visitor NominationRituVermaAPAGSUnder section “Health service psychology site visitors:” It would be helpful to clarify the eligibility for doctoral and master’s-level site visitors. The additional bullet point is a great example of clarifying the eligibility for master’s-level programs. Could add “For doctoral, internships, and post-doctoral programs …” to the start of the first bullet point.
Master's Accreditation IRs (Section D) Implementing Regulation (IR) D.3-1. Site Visitor NominationKimberlyHowardMaster's Issues STG of Division 17It is important to keep in mind that there are different types of masters programs: Some are standalone masters programs, some are terminal masters programs that also have an associated PhD program, and some are embedded within PhD programs. When developing site visitor lists, we suggest that care should be taken to ensure that site visitors' background and experience mirror the variation in masters programs. Further, while perhaps not necessary for every potential site visitor, it will be important to have options of site visitors who themselves either have or currently teach in masters programs. Finally, we want to note that there has been pushback by some to APA developing an accreditation process for master's level practitioners. Perhaps it goes without saying, but we would suggest that care is taken to identify potential site visitors who have a genuine interest in supporting masters programs in their pursuit of accreditation.
Master's Accreditation IRs (Section D) Implementing Regulation (IR) D.3-2. Site Visitor SelectionNicoleKeedyIowa Psychological AssociationWe speak against the proposed change. Health Psychology site visitors should include only those with a doctoral degree from an APA accredited program. The structure and content of all training in the field of psychology should be overseen and shaped by those with the most training and highest credentials in the field, namely, those with a doctorate from an APA accredited program and at least five years of experience at the post-doctoral level.
Master's Accreditation IRs (Section D) Implementing Regulation (IR) D.3-2. Site Visitor SelectionSallyEdman Thank you for allowing me to comment. While it will be important that site visitors have experience with and value masters-level psychology and counseling psychology programs, and that they be committed to the development and growth of outstanding masters-level training programs in psychology, we see it as also appropriate for site visitors to these programs to be doctorally trained. Psychologists voted to offer accreditation to M.A. level programs. We did not vote to cede the content and structure of those programs to anyone without optimal training in the field. Regarding D.3-1 Site Visitor Nomination: We speak against the proposed change. Health Psychology site visitors should include only those with a doctoral degree from an APA accredited program. The structure and content of all training in the field of psychology should be overseen and shaped by those with the most training and highest credentials in the field, namely, those with a doctorate from an APA accredited program and a... See Full Comment
Master's Accreditation IRs (Section D) Implementing Regulation (IR) D.3-2. Site Visitor SelectionLairdEdman I speak against the proposed changes, particularly changing the requirement that the credentials required of a site visitor/ evaluator be changed to a Masters degree down from the doctorate. This simply makes no sense. If we hope to keep the quality and requirements of these programs at the highest level, and to distinguish these programs from the many other masters-level counseling programs available, we need to hold the highest standards of preparation. Hence those who help craft and evaluate these programs should themselves have the highest credentials available in our profession--which is clearly the doctorate. This essential component of quality control is what will allow the APA accredited programs to quickly establish themselves as the best of the MA level programs available, and it is how we will be able to ensure that we are not contributing to the flood of seriously under-prepared practitioners that seems to be happening now in other kinds of programs.
Master's Accreditation IRs (Section D) Implementing Regulation (IR) D.3-2. Site Visitor SelectionThomasWaltz Regarding the composition of site visiting teams, I recommend that the "designated educator" have a doctoral degree. A doctoral representative will have a stronger vantage point for evaluating the curriculum and its reflecting current knowledge in the field as a foundation for science-based practice.
Master's Accreditation IRs (Section D) Implementing Regulation (IR) D.3-11. Site Visit Team CompositionNicoleKeedyIowa Psychological AssociationWe speak against the proposed change. Health Psychology site visitors should include only those with a doctoral degree from an APA accredited program. The structure and content of all training in the field of psychology should be overseen and shaped by those with the most training and highest credentials in the field, namely, those with a doctorate from an APA accredited program and at least five years of experience at the post-doctoral level.
Master's Accreditation IRs (Section D) Implementing Regulation (IR) D.4-1. CoA Executive CommitteeAllisonGillensAPA Committee on Early Career Psychologists1. The CECP recommends reviewing the nomination process for the CoA executive committee to include anti-racist action that ensures diverse perspectives are part of the executive committee.
Master's Accreditation IRs (Section D) Implementing Regulation (IR) D.4-5. Monitoring of Programs on “Accredited, Inactive” StatusAllisonGillensAPA Committee on Early Career Psychologists1. Regarding the system of “phasing out” a previously accredited program that has been “inactive” for two years, it is mentioned that the end date for program accreditation will be established based on the phase-out plan. It may be important to consider the impact on trainees who accepted entrance into a program with an accredited status, but who may graduate from a “phased-out” or non-accredited program. Though consideration for currently matriculating students is mentioned, it is not clear if the accreditation status will be maintained upon their graduation. It may be important to describe the criteria for accreditation status to be maintained for students who began the program under active accreditation.
Master's Accreditation IRs (Section D) Implementing Regulation (IR) D.4-5. Monitoring of Programs on “Accredited, Inactive” StatusRituVermaAPAGSUnder section ”B.4 Funding and budget” (interns), include point about yearly rising inflation rates Financial support should be set at a level that is representative and fair in relationship to both the geographic location, yearly rising economic inflation, and clinical setting of the training site. Under section B.4 Funding and budget sources (postdoctoral residency) Add a similar point made in the interns section above “Financial support should be set at a level that is representative and fair in relationship to the geographic location, yearly rising economic inflation, and clinical setting of the training site.”
Master's Accreditation IRs (Section D) Implementing Regulation (IR) D.8-3. Policy on Regard of Actions by Institutional Accreditors and State AgenciesDanaSinopoli While these proposed changes are largely procedural, referring to the process of administering programs rather than to their content, they nevertheless raise several concerns that we respectfully request be addressed prior to their acceptance. First, as many of the prior commentators have expressed, there is an insistence that site visits be conducted by psychologists, i.e., those with PhDs (and PsyDs). This indicates a that those who graduate with the proposed master’s level degree will not be regarded as competent to evaluate the very programs in which they have received their training. Clearly there is a more general uncertainty regarding the competence of graduates of these programs who, as these documents emphasize, are not to be regarded as psychologists. Reference to MA graduates as “individuals” rather than as “psychologists,” which is not consistent with designations in other disciplines (i.e., in that individuals with either the DSW or MSW/LCSW are considered social worke... See Full Comment