MSU LIBRARIES .—3—. RETURNING MATERIALS: P1ace in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. TRAINING DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PROGRAMITYPES IN COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGY By Jo E.'Weth A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State university in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Psychology 1987 COpyright by Jo E. Weth 1987 ABSTRACT TRAINING DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PROGRAM.TYPES IN COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGY By Jo E.‘Weth Concern over training issues has played a critical role in the development of community psychology. As a subdiscipline, a great deal of variety exists in training available to students. The present study describes community psychology concepts and methodologies being taught and practiced in university and practica/internship settings from the perspective of recent graduates and current students. Also examined were differences between various types of programs. Current students (N=177) and graduates (N=15‘I) from 36 universities with community or community related programs (e.g. applied social, community-clinical, clinical- community) responded to the survey. Results show clear differences, primarily between freestanding community psychology programs and community programs housed within a clinical psychology program. The fermer fecus on skills in organizational, institutional, and systems-level intervention; the latter emphasize development of direct service or clinically oriented skills. No differences were found between current students and recent graduates. To my parents, Rudy and Mike TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Graduate Education in Psychology Origins of Community Psychology Research Questions CHAPTER 11 METHOD Sample Participants The Instrument Background information Graduate training Procedures Scale Development Scale Reliabilities General Community - Field Training General Community - Graduate Program Research - Field Training Research - Graduate Program General Clinical - Field Training General Clinical - Graduate Program CHAPTER III RESULTS Program Characteristics 20 22 22 22 26 26 26 29 29 3O 31 31 32 32 32 32 38 38 Differences Between Program Types Policy Areas and Target Populations Research Issues and Techniques Random.eesignment Treatment outcome study Field setting College student subject pool Instrument development Dissemination Program evaluation Treatment process Organizational change Topics Included in Field Training Community field training and graduate program scales Research field training and graduate program scales 3 Clinical field training and graduate program scales Scale Correlations Single items Environmental design Epidemiology Social forecasting Teaching vi 58 58 8 67 67 71 76 81 81 83 83 86 86 Personal Opinions and Beliefs about the Role of Community Psychology Traditional remedial scale Community development scale Preventive intervention scale Scale correlations Prediction of Personal Opinions and Beliefs Summary CHAPTER IV DISCUSSION Limitations of the Study Findings of the Present Study Political Implications APPENDICES Appendix A: Current Student Survey Appendix 3: Recent Graduate Survey REFERENCES vii 86 90 90 90 96 96 97 100 100 101 106 108 108 117 127 LIST OF TABLES use 2:39. 1 Characteristics of Respondents 25 2 Items and Reliabilities for Topic Scales 34 3 Opinion Scales 36 6 Application Process of Graduate Programs for Current Students and Recent Graduates by Program Type 39 5 Description of Graduate Training Programs for Current and Recent Graduates by Program Type 60 6 Data Analysis on the Child/Adolescence/ Family Item 45 7 Research Issues and Techniques Used by Graduate Students in their Masters Program and Doctoral Program 67 8 Use of a Treatment Outcome Study in Doctoral Research 51 9 Use of Field Setting in Masters Research 52 10 Use of Field Setting in Doctoral Research 53 11 Use of s College Student Subject Pool in Masters Research 55 12 Use of a College Student Subject Pool in Doctoral Research 56 13 Use of Instrument Development in Doctoral Research 57 16 Use of Dissemination in Masters Research 59 15 Use of Program Evaluation in Heaters Research 61 16 Use of Program Evaluation in Doctoral Research 62 viii Table Page 17 Use of Treatment Process in Masters Research ' 63 18 Use of Organizational Change in Masters Research 66 19 Use of Organizational Change in Doctoral Research ' 65 20 General Community Field Scale 68 21 General Community Graduate Program Scale 69 22 Analysis of Variance for General Community Graduate Program.Scale 7O 23 Research Field Scale 72 26 Analysis of variance for Research Field Scale 73 25 Research Graduate Program.Scale, 76 26 Analysis of Variance for Research Graduate Program Scale 75 27 General Clinical Field Scale 77 28 Analysis of Variance for General Clinical Field Scale 78 29 General Clinical Graduate Program Scale 79 30 Analysis of Variance for General Clinical Graduate Program Scale 80 31 Correlation Matrix for Topic Scales 82 32 Environmental Design Field Training Data Analysis 86 33 Environmental Design Graduate Program Data Analysis 85 36 Epidemiology Field Training Data Analysis 87 35 Epidemiology Graduate Program Data Analysis 88 36 Social Forecasting Gréduate Program Data Analysis 89 37 Traditional Remedial Scale Data Analysis 91 38 Community Development Scale Data Analysis 92 1: Tnble 39 60 61 62 Preventive Intervention Scale Data Analysis Correlation.Matrix for Personal Opinion Scales Correlation Matrix for Demographics and Personal Opinion Items Summary of Major Differences by Program Type 96 99 1 :0 us: or nouns Model of the educational process xi Page CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Graduate Education in Psychology Given the nature of higher education, of graduate education, and of the content of psychology, the issues facing those individuals and groups concerned with education in psychology, today, are the same issues (in a general way) as the issues addressed at almost every conference on education in psychology since the Boulder Conference in 1969: These issues are primarily the ones that reflect the value conflicts in psychology (American Psychological Association, 1986). Since the Boulder Conference, the field has had a strong tradition of meeting to assess graduate education in the context of a changing environment and diverse values. As the educational enterprise has become increasingly more complex, the context for consideration of relevant issues has changed greatly. In order for the issues to be considered in new and innovative ways, an understanding of the certain pervasive philosophical issues that underpin any consideration of education and training concerns is needed. These philosophical issues are best stated in dialectic form, as tensions within the field that are inevitable, useful, and desirable, if they are regarded as opposing tensions within the field rather than as dichotomous positions (American Psychological Association, 1986). These philosophical issues are: l. continuity and change in education; 2. independence and responsiveness to society; and, 3. diversity and homogeneity of values and of professional activities or functions. These tensions within the field help to elucidate the issues that make psychology different from other disciplines in which the science and the practice are clearly separate. These tensions should be nurtured and respected for their contributions to the distinctiveness of psychology as a discipline. In addition to an understanding of the philosophical assumptions which guide any discussion of education and training issues, it is often useful to have a conceptual model which may serve as an additional method of organizing and dealing with education and training issues. (See Figure 1.) According to the American Psychological Association (1986), within this model there are societal issues that emerge from changes in our population and culture, as well as, in economic and societal pressures such as aging, technology, health, environment, gender, and education. Additionally, there are enduring needs that may or may not emerge directly from society's pressing concerns, but from psychology's understanding that academic freedom and basic science have much to contribute to a changing world. These issues are reflected to varying degrees in the roles that psychologists have. The professional roles of psychologists can be roughly delineated into three major categories: educator, investigator, and practitioner (or health service provider). These roles can occur singly or in combination. They are also influenced by the n80" eIICuLLSOU Isl—SUCK” 2: be soon asters Ea 2: 8.... BESS .nnooona undefined—mo on» no “one: A 0.33% ecwtaem mwamma mmououm tco #Loaoam +cm+cou 3m_P_z zmhm>m mmzomhmuzom 9 _ _ uuuuu uuuuuu_ _ mmpom “ mtmwz _ _ ” "Poco_mmmm0Lmfis ................. Fovw_uom _ — profession itself, by societal needs, by societal constraints, and by special opportunities. Given these societal issues and professional roles, it is important to consider the educational system needed to produce psychologists to serve society and the science of psychology itself. The mileau in which education takes place, the process of education and the selection of the participants (both student and faculty) influence all else. In this model, pervasive dialectic philosophical issues apply at every level. For example, at the societal level, continuing change and identification of new needs can be anticipated, while the struggle to understand and to resolve current problems continues. At the level of professional roles, new roles must be encouraged to develop while at the same time there is some ensurance that society is protected from incompetence and unethical practices. At the level of the educational system, educators, investigators, and service providers must be prepared for diverse roles, while at the same time provided with the necessary common background that all need in order to best carry out those roles. An academic climate should be created in which diversity is encouraged while professional standards are acknowledged (American Psychological Association, 1986). The field of Community psychology developed as an outgrowth of dissatisfaction with the existing paradigms for the application of psychology to new problem areas and as a consequence of the social forces operative in American society and the human service professions at the beginning of the second half of this century (Rappaport, 1977). Following the historic Swampscott Conference of 1965, the APA Division of Community Psychology was formed in 1966 (Barton, Andrulis, Grove, and Aponte, 1976). In the twenty years that community psychology has been recognized as a Division, a myriad of changes have occurred in the social and financial fabric of the United States and around the world. These changes have brought about different conceptions about training and what the role of psychologists should be (Iscoe, 1986). Concern over training issues has played an important role in the development of the field of community psychology. As indicated above, the birth of the field is generally dated to the Swampscott conference, a conference on training of psychologists for roles in community mental health (Sandler & Keller, 1986). As a subdiscipline, there exists a great deal of variety in the training available to students in community psychology. Training programs exist both on their own as freestanding programs within a department, as well as, in conjunction with other programs such as clinical or social psychology. As such, there are no clear definitions of what constitutes a graduate program in community psychology in terms of course requirements and practicum experience. Given the declining job opportunities for many traditionally trained psychologists, questions of the relevance of the various components of graduate training for those seeking their first job become important. Are graduate programs offering training which is responsive to the current needs and demands of society? Origins of Community Psychology Several developments in the mental health movement of the late 1960's, foreshadowed the community orientation which would eventually be stressed in contemporary mental health treatment. American psychology, advanced by world wars, came into its own as an applied science during this period. During World War I, psychologists helped meet the military's needs for personnel assessment. Psychological warfare strategies in World War II furthered psychology's professional status. Mental illness gained recognition as a major public health problem in the United States with the enactment of the National Mental Health Act of 1966. This act was designed to further research and training, as well as to assist the states in setting up community mental health services. In 1968, the National Institute of Mental Health was established to administer the act. The Mental Health Study Act of 1955 provided for a national survey by an interdisciplinary group of related professions--psychology, social work, medicine, etc. This study group, known as the Joint Commission on Mental Illness and Health, completed its tasks in 1959 and submitted its report, Action for Mental Health, to Congress. As directly influenced by this report and supported by President Kennedy, the Community Mental Health Centers Act (PL 88-166) was passed in 1963 to establish comprehensive mental health services in the general residential community environment. During the next few years many clinical psychologists found themselves, for the first time, on the urban mental health battlefront as they operated out of the "command posts" known as the community mental health centers (Myers, 1973). This new and confronting experience prompted a group of experienced clinicians to hold a four-day conference on the Education and Training of Psychologists for Community Mental Health Services (known in subsequent years as the Boston or Swampscott Conference) assisted by funds from NIMH. Myers (1973) noted that: "a major conclusion resulting from this event was that if psychology were ever to make an impact on institutional and societal processes, it would have to step out of its immersion in clinical-medical settings and into the community of urban problem-solving" (pe234)e As a field, community psychology emerged from and was symbiotically related to clinical psychology. Community psychology was an expression by some clinical psychologists of their dissatisfaction with clinical psychology. Quoting Sarason (1986), the dissatisfaction had four major aspects: 1. It was a revolt, long-simmering against psychiatric domination of the mental health professions. In terms of professional worth, scope of 1O theoretical and research orientation, and sites of practice, clinical psychologists felt hemmed in and wasted. 2. There was a growing awareness that there were large segments of the population for whom mental health services did not exist or, if they did exist, were either beyond their financial means or inappropriate in a cultural sense. It was not only that the mental health services were inequitably distributed in the society but that the mental health professions were dependent on a very narrow band of treatment possibilities that were not sensitive to cultural and racial variations. 3. These clinical psychologists, aware as they were in the early 1960's of the forces that were leading to destructive community conflicts and polarizations, recognized that the nature of these forces had to be understood and means to influence them found. Traditional clinical psychology had little or nothing to contribute to such understanding and intervention. 6. Clinical psychology (like all other clinical endeavors) focused on behavior and events after they became problematic. The virtues of such a focus aside, 11 clinical psychologists began to see a limitation of the clinical approach: the failure or inability to think in terms of prevention (Cowen, 1973). The concept of community psychology which emerged from the Swampscott Conference stressed new programs and new roles for psychologists in social action programs. As a result of these roles, the psychologist was often placed in the position of a social interventionist. The primary task of the psychologist, or "social interventionist" was to intervene at the social system level in order to modify human behavior. This social system could be a family, an organization, an institution, a neighborhood, a community, etc. Further, the conference suggested that new training programs were needed (Reiff, 1970). Reiff further stated that it was no longer adequate to merely train clinical psychologists with a community orientation because it was believed that the knowledge base for clinical psychology was too restricted. The community psychology concept consisted of basically three new ideas. The first was an emphasis on social system intervention to change individual behavior. The second stressed the importance of social system interventions moving beyond the individual 12 clinical case, to changing the behavior of many people in a system. Finally, the third new idea involved the concept of participant-conceptualizer (Reiff, 1970), which emphasized the activist component in the psychologist's professional role. In summary, the conference participants intended that the new community psychologist should be a generalist, skilled in all these components. In the twenty years since the Swampscott Conference, a variety of changes in the education and training have evolved with regard to the roles and functions of community psychologists.' Several conferences have characterized the development and refinement of community psychology concepts and methodology. These conferences are: The Boston Conference in 1965 (Bennett, Anderson, Cooper, Hassol, Klein, and Rosenblum, 1966), the Austin Conference in 1967 (Iscoe and Spielberger, 1970), the Vail Conference in 1973 (Korman, 1976), the National Training Conference in Community Psychology in 1975 (Iscoe, 1975), and the Tampa Conference in 1980 (Stenmark, 1980). As a result of these conferences, position statements have been made defining what community psychology is and what community psychologists do, but 13 it is quite apparent from these statements that community psychology has not achieved a consistent identity. Barton, Andrulis, Grove, and Aponte (1976), state that the discipline is characterized by a range of orientations and activities, including: 1. Extension of clinical psychology into the community, 2. Organization of community services and personnel around primary prevention, 3. Delineation of conceptual issues pertinent to planning and implementing interventions, and 6. viewing the community from an ecological perspective. As with the concept of community psychology, as a whole, graduate training in community psychology is often less than optimal. Graduate training rarely contains the information and experience that students need to work effectively in the community. Graduate education in psychology must provide students with opportunities to learn about communities as social systems, and to understand the socio-political realities that confront those who work in community settings (Spielberger & Iscoe, 1970). 14 If one takes into account the diversity of conceptions of community psychology, itself, it should come as no surprise then, that there is a great deal of variety in the training available to students in community psychology. As previously stated, training programs exist both on their own as freestanding programs within a department, as well as, in conjunction with other programs such as clinical or applied social psychology. As a consequence of this, in terms of course requirements and practicum experience, there are no clear definitions of what constitutes a graduate training program in community psychology. Community psychology programs are examples of interventions in social settings--primarily the university (Trickett, Irving, and Perl, 1986). More than likely, each program developed a little differently, had its own institutional constraints, and each had their own goals. They go on to further state: "Training programs, like community settings, have their own traditions, core values, current 'insoluble' problems, and institutional irrationalities. From the explicit messages conveyed to prospective students to the learning that occurs as faculty are observed negotiating relationships with outside agencies, students 15 learn about the persons, policies, and values of the context within which their professional identity will evolve. Regardless of the explicit emphases which programs place on these processes, the culture of the training program is itself an influential force in the socialization of students" (p. 162). To assess training needs and opportunities available to students with an interest in community psychology activities, several previous studies have been conducted. In a study of university and internship training programs, Barton, Andrulis, Grove, and Aponte (1977) examined the extent to which community psychology concepts and methodologies were being taught in these settings. These researchers found the number of such training opportunities to be on the rise. However, they also noted that these opportunities were essentially restricted to community mental health aspects of community psychology. Similarly, Zolik, Sirbu, and Hopkinson (1977) polled advanced doctoral students in clinical, clinical-community, and community psychology training programs to evaluate their exposure to topic areas in community psychology and community mental health. Additionally, the adequacy of this coverage in relation to students' needs was examined. Although the majority of respondents reported that training in the areas 16 surveyed was very helpful in aiding them in meeting their career goals, the majority also considered the available training opportunities inadequate to meet their future needs. Sandler and Keller (1986) surveyed 29 institutional members of the Council of Community Psychology Program Directors and requested information on the following areas: Program title, general program overview and specific goals, curriculum, field experiences, number and type of faculty members, as well as, information on student selection, admissions, and recruitment. These researchers found there to be considerable diversity across training programs. A scientist-practitioner theme was identified in 88% of the program descriptions. A large majority of the programs reported courses in applied research, practice, and field experiences as part of their training programs. The diversity was captured, in part, by the distinction between clinical-community programs which described having more of a committment to mental health issues and innovations in the mental health system than the free-standing programs. The free-standing programs indicated an emphasis on applied research methodology. An important caveat to note is 17 that this study was concerned with self-descriptions of community programs and not with the reality of what these programs actually do. Trickett et a1. (1986) surveyed 17 community and clinical community programs, again, with institutional membership in the Council of Community Psychology Program Directors. Data was collected via a telephone interview. The interview was divided into four sections, as follows: 1. Program characteristics (including questions about the innovative aspects of the program, accompanying opportunities and risks, and the degree to which the program attempts to model the kinds of relationships and activities for which it is training community psychologists). 2. Program-university interface (including questions about the relationship of the program with its organizational context as well as historical events that have shaped its current structure and relationships). 3. Program-community interface (particularly the nature of relationships with the community, how these relationships are translated into learning 18 opportunities, and how they are integrated into the curriculum). 6. Extent to which the community is viewed as a resource (both as a source of real life-event examples of concepts being taught in courses and as an arena in which community psychology perspective can be used to promote useful preventive/problem-solving activities). Trickett, et al. found there to be a diversity of responses and perspectives, confirming the general impression that community psychology programs represent a heterogeneous group of training options, philosophies, and institutional arrangements, and that they have emerged under a quite varied set of historical circumstances. Programs differed on every dimension, including the degree to which they saw their mission as primarily involving research, service, or an integration of the two, the role of students in the governance process, criteria for student admission, and the nature and kinds of relationships they espoused with community agencies. Unfortunately, although it was stated that there were differences between programs, it was not made clear to what degree these programs differed. 19 In general, there is a lack of information available on the differences between programs which purport to be community psychology or community related programs from the perspective of the actual program participants. Nearly all of the previous work has been based on the reports of program administrators. One of the exceptions, the Zolik et al. (1977) study which did focus on students included a rather small sample and is now over a decade old. An immediate task of the present study, therefore, was to examine the extent to which community psychology concepts and methodology are being taught and practiced in university and practice/internship settings from the point of view of recent graduates and current students, and the degree to which programs differ in regard to these issues. This study was also an attempt to examine differences between the various types of community psychology programs. By describing the commonality of community-related academic and field experiences among university programs, research, theory, and practice may be better integrated. 20 Research Questions The current research addressed the following questions: 1. What are the differences between program type (applied social, community, community-clinical, clinical-community, ecological/social ecology and human development) and student status (current student or recent graduate of a program) vis-a-vis: --social policy areas or the target populations worked with in field training, master's research, doctoral research? --research issues and techniques used in master's research or doctoral research? --topics included in field training, graduate program (i.e. coursework, assistantships, comprehensive exams, research, or other aspects of the graduate training programs)? 2. What are the differences between program type (applied social, community, community-clinical, clinical-community, ecological/social ecology and human development) and student status (current student or recent graduate of a program) vis-a-vis their personal opinions and beliefs about the role of community psychology and scientific inquiry? 21 3. If one accounts for gender, age, and ethnic group, can one predict personal opinions and beliefs about the current state of psychology by the type of program the respondent is in, and the respondent's status (current or graduate of a program)? CHAPTER II METHOD Sample Participants A list was compiled of community psychology and community-related programs as listed in both the 1979 and 1986 editions of the APA Graduate Study in Psychology. An initial survey was mailed to directors of training programs in applied social, clinical-community, community, community-clinical, ecological/social ecology, and human development, as well as members of the Council of Program Directors of Community Psychology for a total N-83. Program directors were asked to provide lists of current students and a list of those students who graduated from their program within the last five years. Of the 83 programs initially surveyed, four indicated that 22 23 they were not currently offering a program in community or community-related psychology, one was a program which was less than five years old, (and was, therefore, excluded from the sample), and 37 programs did not respond to the request for information, leaving only 36 out of 78 programs (67%) which provided such lists. When possible, a random sample of ten current students (336) and ten graduates (363) from each of the 36 programs were mailed surveys and asked to participate in the study. Some programs had fewer than 10 current and/or 10 recent graduates, and in these instances, all individuals listed were included in the sample. In some cases, a mailing list of current students and/or graduates of the programs could not be provided due to university policy or other constraints, but two program directors were willing to participate by distributing the surveys themselves. These program chairs were sent a packet of 20 surveys (10 for current students and 10 for graduates of the program), each sealed in a prestamped envelope. A prestamped and addressed return envelope was provided for each. In order to assure confidentiality, program directors were requested to address and forward the surveys to 10 randomly selected students currently in the program, and to 10 randomly selected individuals who had 26 graduated from the program within the last five years. Further, each program director was requested to maintain a record of who received surveys, so that a follow-up mailing would be possible. A second mailing was sent to those participants who had not responded to the first request approximately three weeks after the initial mailing. The response rate, corrected for surveys returned undeliverable, from current students was 58% (N-177), and from recent graduates was 68% (N-lSl), for a total (N-328). The characteristics of the respondents are presented in Table 1. Program type was determined by the classification listed by the respondents. Due to small sample sizes, Ecological and Social Ecology were combined with Community. Respondents indicating their program type to be Human Development were combined with the "Other" category due to the small sample size and to a lack of information available regarding the definition of this program type. These respondents, therefore, could not be combined logically with any of the four major program types: applied social, community, community-clinical, and clinical-community. Due to the heterogeniety of the "Other" category, these respondents were excluded from further analyses. The Instrument Two versions of the training survey were developed: one for current students, and another form 25 Table 1 Characteristics of Respondents Status of Respondent Current Recent Students Graduates Program Type Applied Social 23 10 Community, Ecological/Social 61 32 Ecology Community-Clinical 18 22 Clinical-Community 66 37 Other 61 63 Ethnic Group White 156 139 Black 8 7 Hispanic 8 3 Asian 5 2 Native American 2 0 Gender Male 73 65 Female 106 86 Age (Mean) 30.6 35.2 26 which included questions about employment for recent graduate students. The survey was composed of several sections which asked questions regarding: basic background information, information related to prior education, substantive areas covered by course curricula, opinions about the current state of community psychology (Bloom & Parad, 1977), expectations related to training and employment after graduation, the importance of and adequacy of practice experience, social policy areas of interest, and other general issues related to graduate training. See survey attached in Appendix A. Background information Items 1-6 were related to personal information: age, gender, ethnic group, and educational history. Item 5 was to classify respondents according to major area of study for both master's and doctoral degree (applied social, community, community-clinical, clinical-community, ecological/social ecology, and human development). Graduate training Items 6-9 inquired about information related to the respondent's graduate program. These included: 1) Existence of a community/applied track or subspeciality; 2) Whether or not the respondent applied 27 directly to the track; 3) Did the respondent complete an APA approved internship; 6) Is the respondent (does the respondent plan to become) a licensed psychologist?; and 5) In what year was the first practicum completed? In addition, the relevance of the practicum experience in relation to the rest of the respondent's graduate education was examined. Item 10 referred to the social policy areas and target populations which best describe the populations the respondent worked with in: a) field training, b) masters research, and c) doctoral research. There were 22 social policy areas and target populations listed (e.g. childhood, minorities, health, homeless, mental illness, domestic assault, etc.) in a grid format. For each area, the respondent was asked to indicate whether they had worked in each area mentioned above. The resulting 22 items were dichotomously scored for presence vs. absence in each of the three areas of training (field, master's, doctorate). Item 11 listed research issues and techniques; respondents were to indicate whether or not they used these for their masters and doctoral research. The list was based on research techniques commonly used in community research (Fairweather & Davidson, 1986). Examples of these items include the use of random assignment, field settings, instrument development, 28 program evaluation, and use of a college student subject pool. Item 12 was composed of a list of topics; the respondent was to indicate whether or not they were included in either field training or the respondent's graduate program (i.e. coursework, assistantships, comprehensive exams, research, or other aspects of their graduate training program). There were 36 items which addressed various topics of interest to community psychologists. These included research methods, change and intervention procedures, assessment procedures, and key concepts in the field. Item 13 was composed of items adopted from Bloom and Parad (1977). Bloom and Parad's 36-item scale of community mental health center staff values was composed of six subscales, which were as follows: 1) Traditional Remedial; 2) Community Development; 3) Long-Term Therapy; 6) Conservative Professional; 5) Preventive Intervention; and 6) Role Specificity. For the purposes of the present study the two marker items with the highest item-total correlation from each of these six subscales were chosen for inclusion. These items were statements that presented opinions about the current state of psychology. The respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with each statement. 29 Procedures Scale Development An attempt was made to develop scales from Questions 10 (social policy areas and target populations), 11 (research issues and techniques), 12 (topics), and 13 (opinions about the current state of psychology). Items on each of these scales were combined using a rational/empirical method (Jackson, 1971, and Davidson, Redner, & Saul, 1983). After removing items on the basis of low endorsement frequencies, initial scales were created by rational groupings of items. Reliability procedures were performed on these scales to determine the degree of interal consistency. When rational groupings could not be determined, a factor analysis using varimax rotation was utilized. Final scaling decisions were made according to the following criteria: 1. In order for an item to remain in its scale, it had to have shown a significant correlation with the sum of other items on the scale, and 2. The item must have demonstrated a significantly higher correlation with its own scale than with any other scale. If an item showed a greater degree of convergence with another scale, it was moved if the move was to a rationally sound alternative. 30 Otherwise, the item was discarded from further analyses or left as an independent one item scale. This rather lengthy process of scale construction was used in order to produce scales which were maximally reliable and maximally orthogonal. Following the rational/empirical scaling procedure, an ANOVA was performed on each scale to determine if there were any significant differences between types of training programs and between current students and graduates of a program. Scale Reliabilities Due to low reliability estimates, scales derived from Question 10 (social policy areas and target populations worked with) were left as separate items, with a few exceptions. Those items that made conceptual sense were combined: child, adolescence, and family (traditional clinical populations); minorities, poverty, and homelessness (social issues); and domestic assault, rape, and child abuse and neglect (violence against people). Question 11 (Research issues and techniques) was actually composed of independent items. Therefore, these items were left as single items for analysis purposes. Six scales and eight single items were derived from Question 12 (Topic areas included in field 31 training and graduate program). The six scales were derived by a factor analysis using varimax rotation. The factors identified included: General Community (Field Training), Research (Field Training), General Clinical (Field Training), General Community (Graduate Program), Research (Graduate Program), and General Clinical (Graduate Program). These factors had alphas ranging from .68 to .89, suggesting high internal consistency. The six scales were developed to reflect some of the major perspectives which have been suggested as important in the field. General Community - Field Training This scale included eighteen items reflective of field work. This scale included conceptual items (eg. advocacy, empowerment, resource development, etc.). The alpha coefficient for these eighteen items was .89 and the range of corrected item total correlations was from .61 to .67. General Community - Graduate Program This scale included the same eighteen items as the one above, except that the responses were about the graduate program rather than the field training component. The alpha coeffecient for these eighteen items was .89 and the range of corrected item total correlations was from .39 to .66. 32 Research - Field Training This scale included seven items focused on research design, statistics, and measurement. The alpha coefficient for these seven items was .83 and the range of corrected item total correlations was from .63 to .66. Research - Graduate Program This scale included the same seven items as above except that the responses were focused on the graduate program rather than the field training component. The alpha coefficient for these seven items was .68 and the range of corrected item total correlations was from .36 to .51. General Clinical - Field Training This scale included five items focused on clinically-oriented skills (e.g. individual assessment and diagnosis, individual or group therapy, case consultation, etc.). The alpha coefficient for these five items was .79 and the range of corrected item total correlations was from .35 to .66. General Clinical - Graduate Program This scale included the same five items as above except that the responses were focused on the graduate program rather than the field training component. The alpha for these five items was .69 and the range of corrected item total correlations was from .23 to .66. 33 Table 2 presents the scale names, items, and reliability estimates for all scales. The individual remaining items from the factor analysis were left as single items. The eight items were: Environmental Design (Field Training), Epidemiology (Field Training), Social Forecasting (Field Training), Teaching (Field Training), Environmental Design (Graduate Program), Epidemiology (Graduate Program), Social Forecasting (Graduate Program), and Teaching (Graduate Program). Question 13, consisting of the personal opinion items was composed of the two marker items on each of the six subscales. These items along with their reliability estimates are listed in Table 3. 3).; Table 2 Items and Reliabilities for pric Scales Scale: General Community Field Training alpha 2 .89 Corrected r Administration .66 Community organization .52 Enpowerment/ Advocacy . 56 Grant writing .65 Information dissemination .55 Interorganization relations .67 Mental health education .56 Needs assessment .56 Organization deve10pment and change .61 Organizational consultation .53 Paraprofessionel training .67 Prevention .62 Program planning/implementation .61 Resource development .58 Social change .58 Social network development .56 Social policy analysis .59 Systems/organizational diagnosis or analysis .57 Scale: General Community Graduate Program alpha .88 Corrected r Administration .61 Community organization .65 Empowerment/Advocacy .59 Grant writing .66 Information dissemination .62 Interorganization relations .53 Mental health education .60 Needs assessment .61 Organization development and change .66 Organizational consultation .56 Paraprofessional training .60 Prevention .51 Program.planning/implementation .39 Resource develorxnent .51 Social change .66 Social network develonnent .63 Social policy analysis .56 Systems/organizational diagnosis or analysis .55 (table continues) 35 SCcale: Research Field Training alpha ; .83 Corrected r Basic research/design .61 Field research methods .61 Instrument development .60 Program evaluation .57 Qualitative research methods .56 Research supervision .66 Statistical analysis .66 Scale: Research Graduate Program alpha ~ Corrected r Basic research/design .36 Field research methods .51 Instrument development .66 Program evaluation .35 Qualitative research methods .61 Research supervision .36 Statistical analysis .50 Scale: General Clinical Field Training alpha : Corrected r Case consultation .6} Crisis intervention .57 Group process .35 Individual assessment and diagnosis .65 Individual or group therapy .66 Scale: General Clinical Graduate Program. alpha Corrected r Case consultation .69 Group intervention .28 Group process .22 Individual assessment and diagnosis .63 Individual or group therapy .66 Table 3 Opinion Scales Scale: Traditional Remedial alpha = .28 Mental health professionals should only provide their services to individuals whom society defines as mentally ill or to those who voluntarily seek these services. With our limited professional resources, it makes more sense to use established knowledge to treat the mentally ill rather than trying to deal with the social conditions that may cause the mental illness. Scale: Commni’gv Developnent alpha = .32 The community mental health center should be involved in such tasks as organizing block associations, tenant councils, and welfare client organizations. All important administrative decisions should be voted on by both staff and patients. Scale: Longfierm Therapy alpha .22 All staff of a community mental health center should be psychoanalyticelly oriented. The most effective way to treat the emotionally disturbed child is by long-term psychotherapy of the child and his/her parents. Scale: Conservative Professional alpha = .31 In conmunity mental health, by shifting the emphasis from the institution to the conmunity, we are really only shifting the care of the mentally ill from trained staff to poorly trained staff, untrained staff, or no staff at all. Enthusiasm for the new comprehensive community mental health centers rests more on a base of hopefulness than on any real evidence. (table continues) 37 Scale: Preventive Intervention alpha = .22 Preventive psychiatry should concentrate on strengthening the family unit. Even a small intervention during a personal crisis by a mental health professional will have a significant effect. Scale: Role Specificity alpha 2 .65 An important role for the social worker is to teach people how to deal with social agencies. An important role for the psychologist in the community mental health center is to develop new treatnent approaches. CHAPTER III RESULTS Program Characteristics Questions 1-7 were used to describe the four different program types: applied social, community, community-clinical, and clinical-community. The basic characteristics of the graduate training programs are summarized in Table 6 and Table 5. The percentages listed in Table 6 indicate: a) the existence of an applied community track or subspecialty; b) if they reported an applied community track or subspecialty, whether they applied directly versus those who became interested later; and the percentages listed in Table 5 indicate :a) those who planned to or had completed an APA approved internship; b) those who planned to become or are currently licensed psychologists; and c) those who did a practicum in either their first or second year. These results indicate that the majority of 38 seem: menopause on: u+con_u_+uon we emo+couuon oLo u+—:uo¢ 3.69am mEEoLs 3.269% to c033Luqu e .n \\\\\ \\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\ 0......1....x.o........ "as.“assess.”axes.“ .OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOs «m.—o um.¢m and ........................ .oeeeoeeeeeoeoeooeoeoeo. ”m . mm .0eeeeoeoeoeeeeeoesoeeeeeeoo$oeeeoeeeeeeee§oo .oeeeeoeoeooooeeoeoeoofifi .‘... .............. I???RF¥32Q&&&Q&&&&6& 90.000000000900003? .fiv .%O" Aveeeeeeoe . 00.00.600.000......... u.oén.uououou.u.«.uousuon.u.«.«.u.u.uouonouououou p n n - — n b p — — Waseesaaes. “Ufinfié +8UU§ a_+uet_a mo_—nn¢|.eeou1—ou_c__u n.+ueu.o to.—nn¢|_ou_c_—u .aeou a_+uot.a uu__aamua._c:aeou uproot-o po.—nn¢n_o_uom to_—nn¢ xuouh .eeOU\.nn¢I.eeou .ou_c_—u xuoth .eeou\.na¢|_ou_c_—u .eeou xuoLh .eEOU\.nn¢Ime.c:aenu JUOLF .SEOU\.nn¢I—o_uom ts.—nn¢ \\\\\ s \\\\\\\\\\\ .. \\\\\\\\\\\m .. \\\\\\\\\\\ us na.~s , u...m um.mm us.mm e 0». Q a. a a» a. or a. %%. uuhmasprm.axzrsuju ugh. anamonm an moamfioenw unooom one 26930 no.“ mannmonm easemenu no 36095 dofisofimnz a. canon. seem: tetconuet oz: urcon.u.+ton no emovceuten etc u+—:uom EOLmOkm muttokh o+o~totm to cozskuuoa 8.8 7 6.5 n t: .uotauéouloss G L 2.3 3.8 T at... a +2 duties... 6 .23 U 83 3.3 1 .95 N .3 68.73.5580 _ 3.: a3 7 .95 a «an 68.7338 B. .8: U «mm .Luaum poucou.nl.esou1_ou_c_—u .Lumum teucou_4I—ou_c_—u .seou .Lumum meucou.nlav_caseou .Lumum wanton—JI—o_uom te_—nn¢ «v.95 «an E. EfiEot: mien—8.56 .23 aim m discreet. 533.528”. m: a. 235...: mean—atom 2.. ram %aaeaeaaea. .ae aseeaa% uw+njixrau.?cuuu.mV .M+cnt:§m.abmrseflu 3K9 anamoum kn moaeflpmno anooom one 35.350 now masumonm magma. 6.33695 mo nowamwnomoa m 3nt 41 programs have applied/community tracks. A chi-square test was used to examine the differences between the items by program type. The clinical-community program type was found to be significantly different from the other program types, x2(3,§é140) = 11.44, p < .009 for current students, and x2(3,flélll) = 7.81, p,< .05 for recent graduates. Respondents from clinical-community programs reported 325 having a community or community-related track more often than did respondents from other program types. Further, most students applied directly to those programs, with the exception of the clinical-community programs where just half of the current students and 54% of the recent graduates applied directly. Again, a chi-square test was used to examine the differences between the items by program type. This analysis found the clinical-community program type to be significantly different from the other program types, x2(3,§3123) = 35.55, p < .001 for current students, and x2(3,fl=99) = 18.08, 2_< .006 for recent graduates. Chi-square tests were used to determine the difference in the proportion of students in applied social, community, community-clinical, and clinical-community who will complete or did complete an APA approved internship. Clinical-community program types were found to be significantly different from both applied social and community programs for both #2 current students and recent graduates, x2(3,§f134) = 49.04, 2 < .001 and x2(3,§=110) - 49.25, 2 < .001, respectively. Respondents from clinical-community programs indicated that they will or did complete an APA approved internship more often than did respondents from other program types. Chi-square tests were used to examine the difference in the number of students in each program type who indicated that they planned to become or were licensed psychologists. The analysis revealed that students from clinical-community program types were significantly different from students in applied social, community, and community-clinical x2(3,fl-136) 8 42.06, p < .001 for current students, and x2(3,fl=113) = 17.43, p (.001 for recent graduates. This indicated that more clinical-community respondents planned to be or were licensed psychologists. Question 93, which asked respondents to indicate which year practicum was completed revealed little differences between program types. It appears that virtually all respondents, both current and recent graduates, from all four program types tend to do their practicum within the first or second years of their graduate training. Finally, the relevance of the practicum experience for these students was examined. Relevance was assessed using a 7-point scale, l-Very Irrelevant to 43 7=Very Relevant. Chi-square analysis revealed no significant difference between program type or status of the student. The means for this item were as follows: 1. Current students: applied social-5.00, community-5.97, community-clinical-5.88, and clinical-community-6.39, and 2. Recent graduatesd: applied social-5.70, community-6.10, community-clinical-6.10, and clinical-community-5.36. The analyses performed on Questions 6a-9b indicated that there were clear differences between clinical-community program type and the applied social, community, and community-clinical program types. Students in clinical-community programs appear to become interested in community psychology after they have been in the program, rather than applying directly to program, plan to or did complete an APA approved internship, and plan to or are licensed psychologists more often than are respondents from the other program types. Differences Between Program Types The first research question was actually composed of three seperate questions. The first question examined the differences between program types (applied social, community, community-clinical, and 44 clinical-community) vis-a-vis the social policy areas or target populations worked with in field training, masters research, and doctoral research. The second question addressed differences between the above mentioned program types and the research issues and techniques used in masters or doctoral research. Finally, the third question examined differences between program types in the topics included in field training, and graduate program (i.e. coursework, assistantships, comprehensive exams, research, or other aspects of graduate trainig). The three questions are addressed individually. PolicyfiAreas and Target Populations Differences between program types vis-a-vis policy areas and target populations was addressed by performing a two-way analysis of variance on computed variables derived from Question 10. Due to low endorsement frequencies, two items were excluded from analysis. No one indicated working in the area of either employment or substance abuse. The analysis of variance revealed significant between groups effects, £(3,255) = 9.16, pp< .001 for the child/adolescent/family variable. A Scheffe test was done to examine differences in the means. This test found significant differences between clinically-oriented programs (community-clinical and clinical-community) and the other two program 45 types-applied social and community at the .05 level. These results indicate that the clinically-oriented respondents tend to work with more "traditional" clinical populations-children, adolescence, and families, while the applied social and community respondents did not. Data analysis on the health item revealed a significant difference between groups, [(3,255) = 7.25, p < .001. Scheffe tests confirmed these differences for respondents from the applied social programs and the community and clinical-community programs at the .05 level. This result indicated that more applied social respondents reported working in the health area than did respondents from either community or clinical-community programs. Analysis of the environment item indicated a significant between groups effect, £(3,255) = 3.28, p < .02. Scheffe tests (.05 level) indicated these differences to be between the community and clinical-community program types. These results indicated that respondents from community programs reported working in the environmental area more often than did clinical-community respondents. In summary, the results indicate that respondents from clinically-oriented programs report working in traditionally "clinical" areas such as child, adolescence, and family, while respondents from applied 46 social and community programs more often report working in areas such as health and environment, respectively. Research Issues and Techniques Respondents were given a list of 10 research issues and techniques and asked to indicate which were used in their masters research and doctoral research. Table 7 lists the percentage of respondents who indicated that they had used these techniques. An analysis of variance procedure was used to determine if there were any significant differences betweem program types or the status of respondents. Random assignment No significant differences were found on the use of random assignment in either masters or doctoral research or either current students or recent graduates. Treatment outcome study There were also no significant differences on the use of a treatment outcome study for masters research between program types or the status of the respondent. The analysis of the use of a treatment outcome study for doctoral research did reveal significant differences between groups, {(3,101) 8 2.76, p .05. This result indicated that respondents from community programs reported using a treatment outcome study more often than did respondents from the other program ‘17 Ammscfiucoo 3am“: 9mm o.o~. w.mm ooa m.mv «.8 7E. aim mwumsomuw o.mv ooa N.mm o.om m.~v m.mw v.3 «.mm ucmufld mfifimm 26E m.m~ o4: adv o.o m4“: 9mm «.mm 5.3 86966.6 93 o.m~ Wow o.o mKH o.m~ mfim mam 65.3.8 macaw meoouso yams—58.5 n.3, o4: m.mv o.o «.mv o.mm v.~m 0.2. «8389.6 v.3 0.0m Tom 92.. mfie mém m.~v o.om Hosanna pane—.535 50931 52258 1.358 388 DEB—So $358 #386. 68...: -3356 $5558 @2258 “633% L838 5.2258 52:5 8E9: Emumoum QR Emumoum a: Agmmm... Uwccommmm 0:3 mucmmflOfluumm mo mama—80.83 Emnmoum Honouooo mam Emnmoum mumummz mama. 5 mucmooum 3&680 an momma mmsmaqnoma new 833 noncommm N. magma 0000000000 00000. 0.00 0.00 0.00 000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000000000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0000000 :OUMBMRm 50.50000 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000000000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0000000 0000000000000 0.00 0.00 0.00 000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000000000 0.00 000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0000000 00000000>00 0000000000 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000000000 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0000000 0000 0000000 0000000 0000000 000020000 00000000 000000 000000000 00000000 000000 00000 00000000 000000000 0000000000 0000000 00000000 0000:0000 00002000 0000000 0000000 000 0000000 0: ‘49 .000000 0003.000 .0000: .0000 0000 0000000 .0002 . 000006000 000000000” . mucmvsum 95.0.0ch 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000000000 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0000000 00.0505 00000000000000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000000000 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0000000 00000000 00000000009 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000000000 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0000000 00000 0000 0000.00.00 00000000 000000 000000000 00000000 000000 00000 00000000 000020000 000008000 0000000 100000000 000030.00 000000000 0000000 0000000 000 000.5000 $0 50 types. However, this finding was not confirmed using Scheffe's test. There were no significant differences between program types for current students or for recent graduates.' Table 8 presents the means and analysis of variance for the use of a treatment outcome study for doctoral research. Field setting An analysis of variance test showed the use of a field setting in masters research to be significant, £(3,218) = 7.03, p .001. A Scheffe test was conducted to analyze the difference between the means of community and clinical-community program types. This analysis found the differences to be significant (p_< .OS) for current students, but not for recent graduates. Table 9 presents the means and analysis of variance for the use of field setting for masters research. These results indicate that community students do masters research in the field more often than do clinical-community students. The use of field setting in doctoral research was also examined using an analysis of variance. The means and analysis of variance are reported in Table 10. This analysis revealed a significant interaction between program type and status of the respondent, [(3,112) = 2.81, p < .04. This could be a result of the fact that simply by being a "current" student, indicates that these respondents have not yet completed their graduate training. 51 Table 8 Use of a Treatment Outcome Study in Doctoral Research Means (Scored l-No; 2=Yes) Program Type X Cur X Grad Applied Social 1.00 (3-6) 1.00 (2-2) Community 1.38 (3-15) 1.37 (2-24) Community-Clinical 1.25 (3&4) 1.09 (flfll) Clinical-Community 1.19 (3-21) 1.31 (2f26) Analysis of Variance __s°urce a E 3 2 02 Program Type (A) 3 .54 2.76 .05 .04 Current vs. Graduate (B) 1 .00 .00 .98 (A) x (B) 3 .10 .53 .66 Residual 101 .20 Table 9 52 Use of Field Setting in Masters Research Program Type Applied Social Community Community-Clinical Clinical-Community Source Program Type (A) Current vs. Graduate (B) (A) x (B) Residual Means X Cur 1.57 (3:21) 1.82 (3044) 1.71 (gél7) 1.40 (3042) 1.62 (3:124) (Scored 1=No; 2-Yes) X Grad 1.89 (g=9) 1.76 (3-37) 1.70 (2620) 1.53 (3=36) 1.68(g-102) Analysis of Variance «1.: 242 3 l. 9 1 .17 3 .28 218 .21 E 2 7.03 .001 .83 .37 1.30 .27 53 Table 10 Use of Field Setting in Doctoral Research Means (Scored 1=No; 2=Yes) Program Type X Cur X Grad Applied Social 1.33 (3'6) 2.00 (3&2) Community 1.88 (fl-17) 1.80 (2825) Community-Clinical 2.00 (264) 1.73 (2=11) Clinical-Community 1.45 (2'22) 1.73 (3-26) 1.63 (31-49) 1.77 (3-64) Analysis of Variance __S°urce E E E a 12 Program Type (A) 3 . 8 2.52 .06 Current vs. Graduate (B) 1 .48 1.41 .24 (A) x (B) 3 .53 2.81 .04 .005 Residual 112 .21 54 College student subjectgpool The use of a college student subject pool for both masters research and doctoral research was found to be significantly different between program types, E(3,218) = 4.20, p.< .05, and £(3,100) = 3.57, p < .02, respectively. The means and analysis of variance for the college student subject pool use during masters research can be found in Table 11, and the same information for doctoral research is presented in Table 12. A Scheffe test was used to examine the means of community and clinical-community programs. The Scheffe confirmed differences between these programs (3 (.05) for current students, but not for recent graduates. In both instances, respondents from community programs indicated that they used the college student subject pool less often than did clinical-community respondents in their masters and doctoral research. Instrument development The use of instrument development in masters research was not found significant using an analysis of variance, but was found significant in doctoral research, §(3,99) = 2.65, p (.05. Means and analysis of variance appear in Table 13. The differences were found to be between community and clinical-community program types, with community respondents reporting the use of instrument development more often than clinical-community respondents. A Scheffe test 55 Table 11 Use of a College Student Subject Pool in Masters Research Means (Scored l-No; 2=Yes) Program Type X Cur X Grad Applied Social 1.33 (3-21) 1.50 (3&10) Community 1.19 (2-43) 1.19 (3-36) Community-Clinical 1.24 (2'17) 1.29 (2&21) Clinical-Community 1.48 (2=42) 1.39 (g=36) 1.32 (2-123) 1.31 (2=103) Analysis of Variance _s°urce 2: M_S. z 2 :2 Program Type (A) 3 .8 4.20 .007 .007 Current vs. Graduate (B) l .00 .00 .98 (A) x (B) 3 .12 .57 .63 Residual 218 .21 56 Table 12 Use of a College Student Subject Pool in Doctoral Research Means (Scored l-No; Z-Yes) Program Type X Cur X Grad Applied Social 1.67 (2&6) 1.00 (EfZ) Community 1.00 (2514) 1.13 (3-24) Community-Clinical 1.25 (284) 1.00 (3-11) Clinical-Community 1.29 (2&21) 1.23 (3-26) 1.24 (3:45) 1.14 (na63) Analysis of Variance ___S°ur<=e 91 Eli .1: 2 12 Program Type (A) 3 . 9 3.57 .02 .01 Current vs. Graduate (B) 1 .06 .47 .49 (A) x (B) 3 .32 2.35 .08 Residual 100 .14 57 Table 13 Use of Instrument Development in Doctoral Research Means (Scored 1=No; 2-Yes) Program Type X Cur X Grad Applied Social 1.67 (2-6) 2.00 (3-2) Community 1.87 (3-15) 1.80 (3825) Community-Clinical 2.00 (2-4) 1.45 (3&11) Clinical-Community 1.45 (2f22) 1.65 (2-26) Analysis of Variance __80urce 9_f 12 z p. 22 Program Type (A) 3 .5 2.65 .05 .007 Current vs. Graduate (B) 1 .02 .08 .78 (A) x (B) 3 .51 2.50 .06 Residual 99 .23 58 revealed there were no significant differences between program types. Dissemination Dissemination, used in masters research, was found to be significantly different between groups, fi(3,215) = 2.62, £'< .05). (See Table 14 for means and analysis of variance). This indicated that, for current students, community-clinical respondents reported using dissemination more often than did respondents from other program types, and for recent graduates, applied social respondents indicated using dissemination more often than did other respondents. For both current students and recent graduates, clinical-community respondents reported using dissemination less often than did other respondents. Analysis of these means revealed no significant differences between program types. No significant differences were found for the use of dissemination in doctoral research. Program evaluation Program evaluation, was found to be significantly different between program types in masters research £(3,221) = 10.07, p (.001. Scheffe tests revealed significant differences between community and clinical-community programs at the .05 level. This results indicate that respondents from community programs used program evaluation in their masters 59 Table 14 Use of Dissemination in Masters Research Means (Scored I-No; Z-Yes) Program Type X Cur X Grad Applied Social 1.38 (BEZI) 1.56 (3-9) Community 1.31 (2-42) 1.27 (2&37) Community-Clinical 1.47 (2&17) 1.21 (gfl9) Clinical-Community 1.19 (2542) 1.17 (3-36) 1.30 (31-122) 1.25 (3-101) Analysis of Variance ___Source 9: as. 2 2 :2 Program Type (A) 3 o 2 2062 005 0004 Current vs. Graduate (B) 1 .11 .57 .45 (A) x (B) 3 .24 1.23 .30 Residual 215 .20 60 research more often than did respondents from clinical-community programs. A significant interaction was found for the use of program evaluation in doctoral research £(3,100) = 4.14, p < .008. As stated earlier, this interaction is thought to be the result of the fact that current students have not yet completed their graduate training. Tables 15 and 16 present the means and analysis of variance for masters research and doctoral research, respectively. No significant differences were found between program types or on the basis of status for the use of case study in either masters research or doctoral research. Treatment process A significant interaction {(3,218) 8 2.89, £.< .03, was found between program types for the use of treatment process in masters research. (See Table 17 for means and analysis of variance). No significant differences were found between program types in doctoral research. Organizational change The use of organizational change was found to be significant for both masters research £(3,217) ' 3.95, p < .009, and doctoral research £(3,100) - 3.26, £.< .03. The means and analysis of variance are found in Tables 18 and 19, respectively. Scheffe tests indicated that community and applied social programs Table 15 61 Use of Program Evaluation in Masters Research Program Type Applied Social Community Community-Clinical Clinical-Community Source Program Type (A) Current vs. Graduate (B) (A) x (B) Residual Means X Cur 1.29 1.58 1.47 1.14 1.37 (Scored l-No; (3=21) (3-43) (flé19) (3342) (2-125) Analysis of Variance a 3 2 1 3 221 MS . 9 .04 .16 .21 2-Yes) X Grad 1.44 (3-9) 1.51 (3&37) 1.47 (31-22) 1.17 (2:36) 1.35 (2-104) 1 22 10.07 .001 .01 .19 .67 .75 .52 62 Table 16 Use of Program Evaluation in Doctoral Research Means (Scored l-No; 2-Yes) Program Type X Cur X Grad Applied Social 1.00 (386) 2.00 (282) Community 1.47 (3&15) 1.33 (3-24) Community-Clinical 1.67 (3:3) 1.18 (3-11) Clinical-Community 1.19 (n=21) 1.38 (2826) 1.29 (31-45) 1.35 (3-63) Analysis of Variance __Source a 1L3 2 2 22 Program Type (A) 3 . 7 .35 .79 Current vs. Graduate (B) 1 .08 .37 .54 (A) x (B) 3 .86 4.14 .008 .01 Residual 100 .21 63 Table 17 Use of Treatment Process in Masters Research Means (Scored 1=No; 2-Yes) Program Type X Cur X Grad Applied Social 1.29 (2&21) 1.44 (2&9) Community 1.35 (2&43) 1.17 (2-36) Community-Clinical 1.06 (2&18) 1.33 (3'21) Clinical-Community 1.19 (3&42) 1.25 (2&36) Analysis of Variance __S°urce Q E E 2 12 Program Type (A) 3 .14 .74 .53 Current vs. Graduate (B) 1 .03 .16 .69 (A) x (B) 3 .53 2.89 .03 .005 Residual 218 .18 64 Table 18 Use of Organizational Change in Masters Research Means (Scored l-No; 2-Yes) Program Type X Cur X Grad Applied Social 1.05 (3-21) 1.33 (2-9) Community 1.38 (3842) 1.22 (3-36) Community-Clinical 1.22 (2&18) 1.19 (3821) Clinical-Community 1.07 (2&42) 1.14 (2-26) 1.20 (38123) 1.20 (3-102) Analysis of Variance __S°urce 2: Bi E 2 12 Program Type (A) 3 . 9 3.95 .009 .005 Current vs. Graduate (B) l .00 .01 .92 (A) x (B) 3 .37 2.45 .07 Residual 217 .15 65 Table 19 Use of Organizational Change in Doctoral Research Means (Scored l-No; 2-Yes) Program Type X Cur X Grad Applied Social 1.00 (2f6) 1.00 (n-2) Community 1.40 (BfIS) 1.39 (2f23) Community-Clinical 1.33 (2&3) 1.18 (3-11) Clinical-Community 1.05 (3:22) 1.23 (3-26) 1.17 (2&46) 1.27 (3-62) Analysis of Variance ___S<>urce 52 115. z 2 22 Program Type (A) 3 . 5 3.26 .03 .01 Current vs. Graduate (B) 1 .13 .75 .39 (A) x (B) 3 .11 .66 .58 Residual 100 .17 66 are significantly different at the .05 level, as well as, community and clinical-community (again, significant at the .05 level) for current students but not recent graduates. Again, these results indicated that respondents from community programs appeared to use organizational change in masters and doctoral research more often than do respondents from applied social or clinical-community programs, with the exception of recent graduates from applied social programs. These respondents indicated using organizational change more often than graduates of any other program type. (It should be noted that the sample of recent graduates for this program type that responded to this question is rather small, £69). In summary, differences appear to abound between community and clinical-community program types with regard to which research issues and techniques students of these program types utilize in their masters and doctoral research. In general these differences were that respondents from community programs indicated the use of field settings, program evaluation, and organizational change more often than respondents from clinically oriented programs, while the use of a college student subject pool was reported less often for community respondents than for clinical-community and applied social respondents. 67 Topics included in Field Training and Graduate Program As indicated in Chapter II, scales were developed from Question 12. These scales were: General Community - Field Training, General Community - Graduate Program, Research - Field Training, Research - Graduate Program, General Clinical - Field Training, and General Clinical - Graduate Program. An analysis of variance was performed on each of these scales to examine the difference between program types and status of the respondent. Community field training and graduate program scales Analysis of variance performed on the General Community - Field Training scale (means found in Table 20) revealed no significant effects, however, the Graduate Program scale revealed a significant difference between program types, §(3,215) = 14.90, p < .001. Table 21 shows the means for this item, and Table 22 shows the analysis of variance. Scheffe tests revealed significant differences between respondents from community programs and respondents from applied social and clinical-community programs. This’indicated that respondents from community programs did, indeed, receive more community training than did respondents from either applied social or clinical-community. Current Students Recent Graduates Table 20 ‘ General Community Field Scale .Scala15kzr19 36 P >0 aQQ t&_ 'OOOOOOOOOOOO' 0’2’2’032’2’23232’2’ ’2’ .3 O . VCIIn.-Comm. k 0" 30 ~ W/ l 24 18 ?/’// 0000 ”9%, ifiuaiii. N o-o 09 e’e’e 0'6'0'6'0'6'0'6'6'6'6'6'6'6 ":’:’e’e e . . AAAAAAAAAAAAAA ///// 1 90009 Qflfifih» dfifiap / Communltu Soclalfi Cona.-C1In. flpp. Fttgrnan Tlgxa Possible scale score of 36 Table 21 69 .Scale~£kxw12 Clln.-Coma. Comm.-Cl|n. Communltg fttgpflun Hype flpp. Soclal 33 E E 2 scale score of 36 Posslble 70 Table 22 Analysis of variance for General Community Graduate Program Scale Source df MS F p 1V2 Program Type (A) 3 289.29 14.90 .001 .01 Graduate‘vs. Graduate (B) 1 1.97 .01 .75 (A) X (B) 3 5.64 .29 .83 Residual 215 19.42 71 Research field training and graduate program scales Analysis performed on the Research - Field Training scale revealed a difference between groups, £(3,218) - 10.18, 2 < .001. Table 23 displays means for this item and Table 24 shows the analysis of variance. A Scheffe test was done to test differences between the means. This test revealed no significant differences for current students, but did reveal significant differences between both applied social and community with clinical-community program types. This result indicated that respondents from both applied social and community programs do more research than do respondents from clinical-community programs. The Research - Graduate Program scale analysis revealed significant effects, §(3,243) - 7.99, p < .001 (See Table 25 for the mean scores for this item and Table 26 the analysis of variance). An analysis of the means revealed no significant differences for current students, but a significant effect for recent graduates (.05). Again, applied social and community respondents were different from clinical-community respondents, in that they more often reported having been exposed to research-oriented content in their graduate program. Recent Graduates 0 90000990 ’39 ’3: 3.3:. eAAAAAAAAAAA AAAA 0 E ....... NNNNNNNNN OH ~ 73 Table 24 Analysis of variance for Research Field Scale Source df MS F p w2 Program Type (A) 3 59.15 10.18 .001 .009 Current vs. Graduate (B) 1 3.60 .62 .43 (A) X (B) 3 10.07 1.73 .16 Residual 218 5.81 74 'd MO .158“ C—OU. U—fl—IIO moms 359$ 5.51.5.3 3.5.300 .033 .3: 4‘- / 999.1% 96. 90 00. 00 00. 90%. 99¢. 999. 1 a“ «ovonOLw vsuom 1 N" //////////////////§ / 55:? V/ (O '0 m7 (’0 e ('0 .q 0') ~¢.NH r urcomBm .vceuhd wm.N~ mad" :6“ , . n; '— utoum Scum v". 98 as oucom Scumoum oaaflvauw Aoudomom mm 039”. 75 Table 26 Analysis of variance for Research Graduate Program Scale Source df MS F p ivz Program Type (A) 3 10.22 7.99 .001 .007 current vs. Graduate (B) 1 1.52 1.19 .28 (A) X (B) 3 1.53 1.20 .31 Residual 243 1.28 76 Clinical field training and graduate program scales The Clinical - Field Training scale revealed significant between groups effects, F(3,227) = 36.32, p < .001. Table 27 shows scale means and Table 28 shows the analysis of variance. A Scheffe analysis indicated significant differences at the .05 level. This analysis revealed these differences to be between the clinically-oriented programs (community-clinical and clinical-community) and the non-clinical programs, (applied social and community) for both current students and recent graduates. These results indicated that respodents from clinically-oriented programs reported doing more clinical activities in their field training than did respodents from other program types. Similar findings occurred for the Clinical - Graduate Program scale. (See Table 29 for scale means and Table 30 for analysis of variance). A significant between groups effect was found £(3,232) - 39'3l:.£ < .001. The Scheffe tests again revealed significant differences (.05 level) between the clinically-oriented and the non-clinical programs, with the clinically-oriented programs receiving more training in clinical areas than respondents from other program types. In summary, these findings indicate there are vast differences between program types on the amount of Table 27 General Clinical Field Scale Students 4.- h. m 09 O .. ’0’0’0’0’929203’3'32‘3 -Coma. 78 Table 28 Analysis of variance for General Clinical Field Scale Source df MS F p 192 Program Type (A) 3 85.46 36.32 .001 .01 Current vs. Graduate (B) 1 .96 .41 .52 (A) X (B) 3 .65 .28 .84 Residual 227 3.41 Table 29 General Clinical Graduate Program Scale Scale Score 10 - Coulunltg Comm-Cl In. Social é/////////////////. Program Type 80 Table 30 Analysis of variance for General Clinical Graduate Program Scale Source df MS F p W2 Program Type (A) 3 67.50 39.31 .001 .01 current vs. Graduate (B) 1 5.86 3.42 .07 (A) X (B) 3 .46 .27 .85 Residual 232 1.72 81 community-oriented content that is in the program, the amount of research they do, and the amount of clinically-oriented content in the program. These differences were that community programs tend to emphasize more community-type skills, applied social programs tend to emphasize more research skills, and clinical programs tend to stress more clinical skills. Scale correlations To examine relationships among the variables, Pearson correlations were run on the scales to determine possible relationships between the scales. Table 31 presents the correlation matrix for the Topic Scales. A negative correlation exists between the General Clinical - Field Scale and both the Research scales. In addition, a negative correlation also exist between the General Clinical - Graduate Program Scale and the Research - Field Scale. These results indicate the more clinically-oriented the program is, the less likely the program is to emphasize research. Single items Eight items (four each in field training and graduate program) were left as single items. These include environmental design (both field training and graduate program), epidemiology (field training and graduate program), social forecasting (field training Table 31 82 Correlation Matrix for T0pic Scales Com-F General Community- Field -- General Community- Grad. Program .46** Research- Field .46** Research- Grad. Program .36** General Clinical- Field .20** General Clinical- Grad. Program .16** Com-GP .26** .43** .03 .11* -.19** -ell* Res-F Res-GP Cli-F e34** -- -012* -- .01 .66** Cli-GP .05 .01 * p < ** p < 83 and graduate program), and teaching (field training and graduate program). Environmental design An analysis of variance was performed on each of these single items. Analysis of the environmental design field training item found significant between groups effects, £(3,228) - 4.03, p < .008. Table 32 displays the means and analysis of variance for this item. Post-hoe Scheffe tests failed to confirm these findings. Analysis of the environmental design graduate program item found significant between groups effects, F(3,240) = 5.95, p < .001. Table 33 shows the means and analysis of variance. Scheffe tests revealed no significant differences among current students, but did reveal significant differences between recent graduates of community and clinical-community programs. Recent graduates of community programs reported environmental design as part of their graduate program more often than did respondents from clinical-community programs. Epidemiology The epidemiology field training and graduate program items analysis indicated significant differences between current students and recent graduates, [(1,231) = 4.09, p_< .04, and [(1,240) = Table 32 Environmental Design Field 84 Training Data Analysis Means (Possi Program Type X Cur Applied Social 1.09 Community 1.36 Community-Clinical 1.16 Clinical-Community 1.20 1.23 Analysis Source 2: Program Type (A) 3 Current vs. Graduate (B) 1 (A) x (B) 3 Residual 228 ble Score of 2) X Grad (2-22) 1.20 (3'10) (3:44) 1.27 (g=37) (3-19) 1.13 (2723) (fl-44) 1.05 (gf37) (3e129) 1.16 (3=107) of Variance 2 £2 E 2 31 .62 4.03 .008 .005 .34 2.23 .14 .13 .82 .49 .15 Table 33 85 Environmental Design Graduate Program Data Analysis Program Type Means Applied Social Community Community-Clinical Clinical-Community Source Program Type (A) Current vs. Graduate (B) (A) x (B) Residual X Cur 1.33 1.64 1.32 1.37 1.46 (geZI) (3-50) (3-19) (3"46) (3:136) (Possible Score of 2) X Grad 1.40 1.59 1.48 1.28 Analysis of Variance 9.: 3 1 l 3 240 MS . 0 .02 .18 .24 (3-10) (2'39) (3-23) (3&40) (3-112) 2 E 1 5.95 .001 .008 .07 .80 .76 .52 86 4.05, p < .05, respectively. Tables 34 and 35 indicate the means and analyis of variance for this item. Social forecasting Analysis of the social forecasting field training item found no significant differences, but analysis of the graduate program item did reveal significant between groups effects, fi(3,241) = 2.75, p < .04. Table 36 shows means and analysis of variance. Community respondents reported using social forecasting more often than did respondents from other program types. However, Scheffe tests revealed that these differences were not significant at the .05 level. Teaching Data analysis revealed no significant results for either the teaching field training item or the teaching graduate program item. Personal Opinions and Beliefs about the Role of Community Psychology An analysis of variance was performed on the Personal Opinion items. Three of these Z-item scales revealed significant effects between groups. These scales were: Traditional Remedial, Community Development, and Preventive Intervention. The other three scales found no significant effects. 87 Table 34 Epidemiology Field Training Data Analysis Means (Possible Score of 2) Program Type X Cur X Grad Applied Social 1.32 (3&22) 1.00 (3&10) Community 1.25 (3844) 1.14 (2237) Community-Clinical 1.16 (p=19) 1.22 (2-23) Clinical-Community 1.27 (3845) 1.15 (pf39) 1.25 (3-130) 1.15 (le9) Analysis of Variance ___s°urce .cu 115 z 2 12 Program Type (A) 3 . 1 .03 .99 Current vs. Graduate (B) 1 .67 4.09 .04 .002 (A) x (B) 3 .20 1.22 .30 Residual 231 .16 88 Table 35 Epiemiology Graduate Program Data Analysis Means (Possible Score of 2) Program Type X Cur X Grad Applied Social 1.41 (p=22) 1.10 (3-10) Community 1.46 (psSO) 1.30 (3837) Community-Clinical 1.58 (3819) 1.39 (p=23) Clinical-Community 1.53 (2.47) 1.53 (3&40) 1.49 (p=138) 1.38 (p=110) Analysis of Variance ___Source 22 e 2 2 22 Program Type (A) 3 . 7 2.33 .08 Current vs. Graduate (B) 1 .98 4.05 .05 .002 (A) x (B) 3 .20 .83 .48 Residual 240 .24 89 Table 36 Social Forecasting Graduate Program Data Analysis Means (Possible Score of 2) Program Type X Cur X Grad Applied Social 1.13 (2&23) 1.30 (2=10) Community 1.32 (3850) 1.29 (2s38) Community-Clinical 1.16 (2719) 1.17 (2é23) Clinical-Community 1.17 (3&47) 1.10 (3-39) 1.22 (3-139) 1.20 (23110) Analysis of Variance __Source 22 22 2 2 22 Program Type (A) 3 . 5 2.75 .04 .005 Current vs. Graduate (B) 1 .01 .06 .81 (A) x (B) 3 010 06 e59 Residual 241 .16 90 Traditional remedial scale Analysis of variance for the Traditional Remedial scale found significant between groups effects, £(3,243) = 3.74, p_< .01. (See Table 37 for means and analysis of variance). This differences were found between the respondents from community programs, who scored low, and respondents from clinical-community and applied social programs who scored higher, indicating more agreement with the items. A Scheffe test was performed to analyze the means. This test found no significant differences between program type or status of the respondent. Community development scale The Community Development scale data analysis found significant between groups effects, F(3,245) = 3.25, p < .02. See Table 38 for means and analysis of variance. Respondents from community programs scored higher on this scale than did respondents from other programs, indicating more agreement with the items. Scheffe tests did not find these differences to be significant at the .05 level. Preventive intervention scale Finally, the analysis of variance on the Preventive Intervention scale found significant between groups effects, £(3,243) - 5.35, p < .001. Table 39 depicts the means and analysis of variance. 91 Table 37 Traditional Remedial Scale Data Analysis Means (Possible Score of 10) Program Type X Cur X Grad Applied Social 3.68 (2&25) 3.90 (2310) Community 2.88 (3e49) 3.12 (2é41) Community-Clinical 3.11 (3-18) 2.95 (2&22) Clinical-Community 3.35 (2846) 3.48 (3-40) 3.21 (2-138) 3.28 (pf113) Analysis of Variance 2 ___Source 52 e 2 2 Program Type (A) 3 6. 2 3.74 .01 .006 Current vs. Graduate (B) 1 1.11 .64 .43 (A) x (B) 3 .39 .22 .88 Residual 243 1.74 92 Table 38 Community Development Scale Data Analysis Means (Possible Score of 10) Program Type X Cur X Grad Ap‘plied Social 6.92 (p=25) 5.30 (2-10) Community 7.35 (p=49) 6.68 (2f41) Community-Clinical 6.68 (3819) 6.78 (£=23) Clinical-Community 6.70 (2546) 6.00 (2840) 6.96 (g=139) 6.34 (p=114) Analysis of Variance ____Source a M_8 .1: 2 Program Type (A) 3 8. 7 3.25 .02 Current vs. Graduate (B) 1 26.45 10.66 .001 (A) x (B) 3 4.20 1.69 .17 Residual 245 2.48 2 E. .001 .002 Table 39 93 Preventive Intervention Scale Data Analysis Mean Program Type Applied Social Community Community-Clinical Clinical-Community Source Program Type (A) Current vs. Graduate (B) (A) x (B) Residual 3 (Possible Score of 10) X Cur X Grad 7.08 (3=25) 7.90 (pg-10) 6.73 (3-48) 6.83 (2f41) 7.46 (31-46) 7.53 (31-40) 7.15 (r137) 7.32 (3-114) Analysis of Variance 2 a 112 E 2 a 3 9. 5 5.35 .001 .007 l 1.67 .92 .34 3 1.16 .64 .59 243 1.82 94 Community respondents scored lower on these items than did respondents from other program types, indicating less agreement with the items. Scheffe tests revealed no significant differences between program type or status of the respondent. Scale correlations Table 40 presents the correlation matrix for the Personal Opinion scales. A negative correlation exists between the Community Development scale and the Traditional Remedial, Long-term Therapy, Conservative Professional, and the Preventive Intervention scales, which indicates the differences between "community" type philosophies and those which are more traditionally clinical in nature. Prediction of Personal Opinions and Beliefs Research question #3 asked: if one accounts for gender, age, and ethnic group can one predict personal opinions and beliefs about the current state of psychology by the type of program the respondent was in, and the respondent's status (current or recent graduate of a program)? No significant correlations were found between any of the above variables and the demographics so a multiple regression was not performed on these items. Table 41 presents the correlation matgix for the demographics and personal opinion items. 95 Table 40 Correlation Matrix for Personal Opinion Scales TOR. COD. LOT. COP. POI. ROS. Traditional Remedial -- Community Development -.17** -- Long-term Therapy .15** -.10* -- Conservative Professional .14** -.O7 .15** -- Preventive Intervention -.01 -.01 .23** .02 -- Role SpBCifiCity -006 020** -007 -008 019** -- * p < .05 ** p < .01 v0. Q *# 96 mo. Q * camp *rr. no. mo. *nw.- Pr. *oo. *mr. so. so. No.1 so.u eaamoam macaw mo. .oo. oo. **:v. *F..1 **nv.u no. No.1 *m?. *or. oo.u unanpm so. **oa.n mo. mo. **or.u mo.u no.1 *oo.n no. so. no.1 amocmo mo. mo. *os. 4*oe.u mo.a No.1 oo. oo. so. No.1 mo.a ow< re or m m s o m z n N P swan coacfioo mEQPH coacmmo accompom ecu mowcndawOEmo pom waned: soapoamuaoo r: wanes 97 Summary Briefly, there appear to be significant differences between program types across all aspects of graduate training in "community" psychology, particularly between the community and the clinical-community programs. These differences are evident in the social policy areas and target populations students choose to work with in their field training, masters research, and doctoral training where the more clinically-oriented respondents work in traditional clinical areas, such as child, adolescence, and family. The research issues and techniques respondents used also differed. Community respondents reported using field settings, program evaluation and organizational change which are, of course, more community in nature. Clinical-community respondents reported using the use of a college student subject pool more often than did community respondents. Finally, the topics included in respondents field training and graduate programs differed, as well. Applied social respondents reported being exposed to research skills more often than other respondents, especially clinical-community respondents; community respondents were more exposed to community skills; and clinically-oriented respondents reported more exposure to clinical skills. Table 42 presents a summary of the 98 major differences between graduate training programs in community psychology. 99 coflucm>umucH 93888 326m 3828 Hood 08.38 888262 32:58 383829 39.258 8858 80:8 Ema A6858 boas 888362 $358 caacu Imuflcsesou omcmcv HmcowumNHcmmgo ucmemon>mo cowumsam>m emumoum >828 52:58 9508 29.8 com—aches figs-So coflpcm>umucH m>aucm>mum Hmflcmemm 383839 8888 .3me H688. 8:28 mcoflcwmo mmsvflczoma cam mmmu< Hchmumm moflmoa mwsmmH cvnmmmmm xoflaom mafia Emumoum we neoconmmmwa mafia: mo MHmeasm Nv magma CHAPTER IV DISCUSSION Limitations of the Study Several cautions concerning the present study should be noted. These include the fact that programs selected for inclusion were required to be at least five years old in order to obtain data on the job experiences of recent graduates. As a result, newer programs have been excluded and results, therefore, may not fully reflect the current state of graduate training programs in "community" psychology. Additionally, it is important to note that results from current students may not adequately reflect their respective programs, in that these students have not yet completed their graduate training. The data are further limited insofar as only 45% of the program chairs initially contacted provided the necessary student lists. However, based on the graduate programs represented, the response rate from students was acceptable, particularly given that many surveys were 100 101 mailed to university addresses after the end of the academic year (spring term). Finally, an important caveat to note, is the fact that the independent variable in this study, program type, may not reflect differences in program types but rather differential selection. Applied social, community, community-clinical, and clinical-community programs may very well simply attract different types of people. Program types, as indicated in Table 1, are reflective of the respondents' descriptions of their graduate training programs rather than the program chairs' designation of the programs. Within many programs, there was a lack of concensus in regard to the type of program. The agreement between chair description of the program and the students' designations was examined. In general, there was agreement between students and chair on what the designation of the program was. It should be noted that, in some instances, the designations of these programs have changed over time. Findings of the Present Study The results show clear differences between program types in the field of community psychology regardless of the status of the respondent (current or recent graduate of a program). Congruent with previous findings, training programs in community psychology 102 vary greatly (Iscoe, 1977). Clinical-community and community-clinical programs tend to emphasize the development of direct service, or clinically oriented skills, such as individual assessment and diagnosis, and individual or group therapy rather than on the more "community" aspects of graduate training. On the other hand, non-clinical programs, such as community or applied social, generally focus on the skills in organizational, institutional, and community assessment and change needed for systems-level intervention. These programs tend to embody more fully the attributes historically associated with the field of community psychology. It is no surprise that community and clinical-community programs are at odds with one another. It could be argued that the existence of clinical-community programs are really only a superficial attempt on the part of the "old guard" to appease those psychogists who believe that community psychology is not only important, but belongs as a part of graduate training. In some instances, clinical-community programs offer but one or two courses in community psychology related topics. This is in sharp contrast to free-standing community programs, and to the rhetoric of community psychology in general. It is interesting to note that those programs who are more clinically oriented apparently do not do or do 103 not emphasize research, as indicated by the negative correlation between the General Clinical Scales and the Research Scales. This is in contrast to what Trickett (1984) indicated community psychology should be: "community psychology enriches its origins when it is guided by the spirit of community development, anchored by research which embeds persons in social and cultural contexts, defines its criteria for impact as making a systematic difference, constructs its research relationships with citizens in such a way as to conserve and promote the resources of the settings where the research occurs, nurtures the values of cultural diversity, and designs training opportunities for succeeding generations of community psychogists that socialize a committment to these goals. Taken together, these aspirations provide the basis for a distinctive agenda for the field of community psychology, a blueprint for focusing on new research problems, a search for new models of relationships with citizens, and the creation of training programs appropriate to these goals" (p.261). As mentioned earlier, community psychology's origins reflect, in large part, a disagreement with the broader paradigm premises in psychology in general, and clinical psychology in particular. As the bases for alternative paradigms were articulated, a general paradigm was developed which encompassed a belief that individual difference should be viewed through the filter of cultural and ecological influences, that social structures do affect mental health and well-being, that nonprofessionals can also be resources for the delivery of service, and that interventions may be preventive as well as rehabilitative (Iscoe & 104 Spielberger, 1970). Given the nature of American psychology and the fact that the organizational roots of community psychology are found in clinical psychology and in the mental health arena, it is not surprising that community psychology faced considerable challenges in developing new paradigms deriving from the distinctive premises of the field. The difficulty of this struggle is exemplified by an analysis of research in the field of community psychology. Novaco and Monahan (1980) and McClure et al. (1980) examined the literature to study the research that had taken place during the early years of community psychology. Both essentially state that if the core of community psychology is a focus on prevention, institutional change, and ecological analysis, as is often suggested, then much of the published work in the field does not flow from these paradigm premises. If the results from the present study are to be believed, then it should come as no surprise that much of the research done in "community" psychology does not reflect the community paradigm. It is apparent that the umbilical cord which still keeps some programs attached to clinical programs hinders the growth and development of new paradigms in community psychology. An interesting statistic to examine is the difference between those individuals who applied directly to the community or community related tract 105 and those who did not. As noted earlier, nearly all respondents in the applied social, community, and community-clinical programs applied directly, while only about half of those respondents in clinical-community programs applied directly. One can only speculate why this is so. One explanation, of course, is that these respondents were more interested in clinical training to begin with, and for whatever reason, decided to apply to the clinical-community tract. Descriptions of the graduate training programs and experiences of the respondents indicate contextual differences between Applied Social, Community, Community-Clinical, and Clinical-Community programs. This examination of the data reflects considerable diversity within the field of "community" psychology. This heterogeneity of graduate training is evident by the differences in methodological training, topical issues of concern, and career aspirations. A number of interpretations of the present study are possible. First, as Feis, Mavis, and Weth (1986) have noted, these diverse programs may meet the demands of a multi-faceted, complex area of study. Together these programs may serve to create the proverbial "nomological net" within which many social problems may be approached. Alternatively, despite attempts to develop a unified and cohesive field of "community" 106 psychology, philosophical differences influencing graduate training may have been counterproductive to this end. The differences across these training programs may be reflective of the multiple philosophies still guiding this young field. In addition, many of those faculty currently involved in these training programs were themselves trained in areas other than "community" psychology, as there were fewer training opportunities available at that time. Political Implications This study has important implications in regard to which direction training programs take in the future. The concept of "community" psychology may be viewed as an umbrella under which many very distinct programs exist. It is clear from this study that there 313 differences between graduate training programs in community psychology. These differences are in the obvious direction - programs housed within a clinical program tend to emphasize more clinical skills and fewer core community concepts and research skills than do programs which are freestanding. This is important in that innovation, multidisciplinary approaches to social issues, and an integration of research and practice are core tenets of community psychology (Davidson, 1986). When these concepts and issues are no longer the focus of community psychology training programs, the field of community psychology may be in 107 danger of losing sight of its original objectives and goals. Regardless of how one interprets the results from this study, it is apparent that the field of "community" psychology is actually composed of several very distinct subfields, each with their own different philosophical stance on training issues and each with different goals. These are important findings in that the information from this study can potentially help fill the gap between the ideology of community psychology and current approaches to training. APPENDICES APPENDIX A CURRENT STUDENT SURVEY APPENDIX A CURRENT STUDENT SURVEY ' Thank-you for taking the time to complete this survey. It is sponsored by the Council of Directors of Community Psychology Training Programs of the American Psychological Association. The purpose of the survey is to determine the diversity of graduate training and employment opportunities for community psychologists. Your participation is voluntary: responses will be kept confidential. Please return the completed survey to: Community Psychology Training Survey Department of Psychology Psychology Research Building Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48824 108 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 041 0'3 Your present age. YEARS "a ’) \() Your sex. (Circle number of your answer) 1 MALE 2 FEMALE Your ethnic group. WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN OUIJDUNH NATIVE AMERICAN OTHER... (specify ethnic group) Educational History. all educational institutions attended at the graduate (post bachelor's degree) level. (Circle number) Please list, in chronological order, College Dates Degree(s) or Attended Awarded' University From To and Month/Year Month/Year Year. What is/was your major area of study for your master's degree and your doctoral degree? (Circle Number of One Choice in EACH Column) [”nasrsa's | l 0111!wa Ox] | DOCTORATE | 1 ‘0 u: -q as in a. u: he APPLIED SOCIAL conxunxrr couxuulry-CLINICAL_ CLINICAL-COMMUNITY ECOLOGICAL/SOCIAL scorocr HUMAN DEVELOPMENT OTHER (specify area) OTRER (specify area) NOT IN DOCTORAL PROGRAM YET 113 GRADUATE TRAINING An important part of understanding graduate training is the perspective .of the student. about your graduate training. Therefore, we would like to ask you several questions Please answer these questions in relation to the graduate program specified on the label on the front page of this booklet. Q-6a Q-6b Q-9a Q-9b Does your graduate program have an applied or community psychology tract or subspecialty? (Circle number) 1 YES 2 NO If yes did you apply to that tract directly? (Circle number) 1 APPLIED DIRECTLY 2 BECAME INTERESTED LATER Did you or do you plan to complete an internship at an APA approved placement? (Circle number) 1 YES Please specify: Where Address Phone Contact Person 2 NO Do you plan on becoming a licensed psychologist? (Circle number) 1 YES 2 ‘NO What year did you complete your practicum? (Circle number) FIRST YEAR SECOND YEAR THIRD YEAR FOURTH YEAR FIFTH YEAR OR LATER WILL NOT COMPLETE A PRACTICUM HAVE NOT NOT COMPLETE A PRACTICUM flatm-DWNH If you have completed a practicum, how relevant do you feel it was in relation to the rest of your graduate education? (Circle number) VERY IRRELEVANT IRRELEVANT SOMEWHAT IRRELEVANT NEITHER IRRELEVANT OR RELEVANT SOMEWHAT RELEVANT RELEVANT VERY RELEVANT \JO‘M‘UNP Q-lO Which of the following social policy areas and target populations best describe the populations you worked with in: a) your field training, b) your masters research, and c) your doctoral research? IN THE BOXES BELOW, list the single best descriptor first, followed by the second best descriptor. 1. Childhood 14. Child abuse and neglect 2. Adolescence 15. Homosexuality 3. Elderly 16. Physical handicaps 4. Minorities 17. Chronic mental illness 5. Poverty 18. Mental retardation 6. Health 19. Crime or delinquency . 7. Education 20. Environment 8. Homelessness 21. Groups 9. Employment 22. Families 10. Substance abuse 23. Other (specify) 11. Women's issues 24. Other (specify) 12. Domestic assault 25. Other (specify) 13. Rape 26. Other (specify) (Put ONE Number in EACH Box for EACH Situation) BEST SECOND BEST DESCRIPTOR DESCRIPTOR "77' FIELD TRAINING ____ (including practicum and internship) l____d l I MASTER'S RESEARCH l____l l l DOCTORAL RESEARCH Q—ll Below is a list of research issues and techniques. Did you use these for your master's (M.A.), or for your doctorate (Ph.D.)? (In EACH Column, Circle Y if Used or N if Not Used) | M.A. | I Ph.D. | 1. Random Assignment Y N Y N 2. Treatment Outcome Study Y N Y N (including Follow-up) 3. Field Setting Y N Y N 4. College Student Subject . Pool Y N Y N 5. Instrument Development Y N Y N 6. Dissemination Y N Y N 7. Program Evaluation Y N Y N 8. Case Study Y N Y N 9. Treatment Process Y N Y N 10. Organizational Change Y N Y N 112 0-12 Below is a list of topics. Which of these topics were included in your field training or your graduate program (i.e., coursework, assistantships, comprehensive exams, research, or other aspects of your graduate training program)? (In EACH Column, Circle Y if Used or N if Not Used) FIELD GRADUATE TRAINING PROGRAM 1. Adij'iiStIation o a o o o o a Y N o o o 0 Y N 2. Basic research/design . . . Y N . . . . Y N 3. Case consultation. . . . . . Y N 4. Community organization/ Enhancing citizen participation . . . . . . . Y N . . . . Y N 5. Crisis intervention . . . . Y N . . . . Y N 6. Empowerment/Advocacy . . . . Y N . . . . Y N 7. Environmental design . . . . Y N . . . . Y N 8. Epidemiology . . . . . . . . Y N . . . . Y N 9. Field research methods . . . Y N . . . . Y N 10. Grant writing . . . . . . . Y N . . . . Y N 11. Group process . . . . . . . Y N . . . . Y N 12. Information dissemination . Y N . . . . Y N 13. Instrument development . . . Y N . . . . Y N 14. Interorganization relations . . . . . . . . . Y N . . . . Y N 15. Mental health education . . N . . . . N 16. Mental health inter- ventions in industry . . . . Y N 17. Needs assessment . . . .'. . Y N . . . . Y N 18. Organization development and change . . . . . . . . . Y N . . . . Y N 19. Organizational consultation. Y N . 20. Paraprofessional training . Y N . . . . Y N 113 0-12 CONTINUED (In EACH Column, Circle Y if Used or N if Not Used) FIELD GRADUATE TRAINING PROGRAM 21. Prevention 0 O O O O O O O O Y N O .0 O O Y N 22. PrOgram evaluation . . . . . Y N . . . . Y N -23. Program planning/ implementation . . . . . . . Y N 24. Individual assessment and diagnosis . . . . . . . Y N 25. Individual or group therapy. H: 2 H: 2 26. Qualitative research methods . . . . . . . . . . Y N . . . . Y N 27. Research supervision . . . . Y N . . . . Y N 28. Resource development . . . . Y N . . . . Y N 29. Self-help training . . . . . Y N . . . . Y N 30. Social change . . . . . . . Y N . . . . Y N 31. Social forecasting . . . . . Y N . . . . Y N 32. Social network development . Y N . . . . Y N 33. Social policy analysis . . . Y N . . . . Y N 34. Statistical analysis . . . . Y N . . . . Y N 35. Systems/organizational diagnosis or analysis . . . Y N . . . . Y N 36. Teaching . . . . . . . . . . Y N . . . . Y N Please make sure that you have circled a reSponse for each of the 36 skill items in each of the two columns. 113. PERSONAL OPINIONS 0-13 The statements below present some opinions about the current state of psychology. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each statement by circling the appropriate response. SD= STRONGLY DISAGREE D = DISAGREE N a NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE A = AGREE SA= STRONGLY AGREE Mental health professionals should only SD D N A SA provide their services to individuals whom society defines as mentally ill or to those who voluntarily seek these services. The community mental health center should SD D N A SA be involved in such tasks as organizing block associations, tenant councils, and welfare client organizations. All staff of a community mental health SD D N A SA center should be psychoanalytically oriented. In community mental health, by shifting SD D N A SA the emphasis from the institution to the community, we are really only shifting the care of the mentally ill from trained staff to poorly trained staff, untrained staff, or no staff at all. Preventive psychiatry should concentrate SD D N A SA on strengthening the family unit. An important role for the social worker SD D N A SA is to teach people how to deal with social agencies. With our limited professional resources, SD D N A SA it makes more sense to use established knowledge to treat the mentally ill rather than trying to deal with the social conditions than may cause the mental illness. All important administrative decisions SD D N A SA should be voted on by both staff and patients. 115 9. The most effective way to treat the ., SD D N A SA emotionally disturbed child is by long-term psychotherapy of the child and his/her parents. 10. Enthusiasm for the new comprehensive ' SD D N A SA community mental health centers rests more on a base of hopefulness than on any real evidence. ' 11. Even a small intervention during a SD D N A SA personal crisis by a mental health professional will have a significant effect. 12. An important role for the psychologist SD D N A SA in the community mental health center is to develop new treatment approaches. SELF-PERCEPTIONS 0-14 Please rate yourself on the degree to which each of the following characteristics describes you. Circle the appropriate number in the first column. In the second column, we would also like you to rate the importance of each of these characteristics in fulfilling your current work or research. That is, given the expectations of your work, which of these characteristics are called for. 1= VERY LITTLE 2= A LITTLE 3= SOMEWHAT 4= QUITE A BIT S= A GREAT DEAL {Circle your answer)I {Circle your answel) a. IMAGINATIVE. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 b. DOMINANT. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 S c. VENTURESOME. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 S d. SOCIABLE. 1 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 e. SELF-SUFFICIENT. 1 2 3 4 S 1 2 3 4 5 Please use the space below to add any additional information or make any comments that you think would be useful. Thank you for your time in completing this survey. . APPENDIX B RECENT GRADUATE SURVEY APPENDIX B REcmT GRADUATE SURVEY Thank-you for taking the time to complete this surveY- It is sponsored by the Council of Directors of Community Psychology Training Programs of the American Psychological Association. The purpose of the survey is to determine the diversity of graduate training and employment opportunities for community psychologists. Your participation is voluntary; responses will be kept confidential. Please return the completed survey to: Community Psychology Training Survey Department of Psychology Psychology_Research;Buildingwr Michigan‘State'Dniversity East Lansing, MI 48824 117 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 0-1 Your present age. YEARS 118 Q-2 Your sex. (Circle number of your answer) 1 MALE 2 FEMALE Q-3 Your ethnic group. 1 WHITE 2 BLACK 3 HISPANIC 4 ASIAN 5 NATIVE AMERICAN 6 Q-4 Educational History. all educational institutions attendedfat the graduate (post bachelor's degree) level. (Circle number) OTHER... (specify ethnic group) Please list, inqdhronological order, College Dates Degree(s) or Attended Awarded University From To and Month/Year Month/Year Year Q-5 What was your major area of study for your master's degree and your doctoral degree? (Circle Number of ONE Choice in EACH Column) I'MASTER'S | 1 2 @QOU‘ | DOCTORATE | 1 APPLIED SOCIAL 2 COMMUNITY 3 COMMUNITY-CLINICAL 4 CLINICAL-COMMUNITY S ECOLOGICAL/SOCIAL ECOLOGY 6 HUMAN DEVELOPMENT 7 OTHER (specify area) 8 OTHER (specify area) 119 GRADUATE.TRAINING An important part of understanding graduate training is the perspective of the student and exéstudent. Therefore, we would like to ask you several questions about your graduate training. Please answer these questions in relation to the graduate program specified on the label on the front cover_of this booklet. ;"Q-6a Q-6b Q-9a Q-9b Did your graduate program have an applied or community psychology tract or subspecialty? (Circle number) 1 YES 2 NO If yes did you apply to that tract directly? (Circle number) 1 APPLIED DIRECTLY 2 BECAME INTERESTED LATER, Did you complete an internship at an APA approved placement? (Circle number) a. 1 YES Please specifyg'Where Address Phone Contact Person 2 NO Are you a licensed psychologist? (Circle number) 1 YES 2 NO What year did you complete your practicum (field placement in a community setting or agency, not required for licensing)? (Circle number) FIRST YEAR SECOND YEAR THIRD YEAR FOURTH YEAR FIFTH YEAR OR LATER DID NOT COMPLETE A PRACTICUM O‘U‘l-bWNH If you completed a practicum, how relevant do you feel it was in relation to the rest of your graduate education? (Circle number) VERY IRRELEVANT IRRELEVANT SOMEWHAT IRRELEVANT NEITHER IRRELEVANT OR RELEVANT SOMEWHAT RELEVANT RELEVANT VERY RELEVANT \lO‘U‘hWNH 120 Q-lO Which of the following social policy areas or target a populations best describe the populations you worked with in: a) your field training, b) your masters research, c) your doctoral research, and d) your first job? IN THE BOXES BELOW, list the single best descriptor first, followed by the second best descriptor. 1. Childhood 14. Child abuse and neglect 2. Adolescence 15. Homosexuality 3. Elderly 16. Physical handicaps 4. Minorities 17. Chronic mental illness 5. Poverty 18. Mental retardation 6. Health 19. Crime or delinquency 7. Education ‘ 20. Environment 8. Homelessness 21. Groups 9. Employment 22. Families 10. Substance abuse 23. Other (specify) 11. Women's issues 24. Other (specify) 12. Domestic assault 25. Other (specify) 13. Rape 26. Other (specify) (Put ONE Number in EACH Box for EACH Situation) BEST SECOND BEST DESCRIPTOR DESCRIPTOR ‘_—_' FIELD TRAINING ____ (including practicum and/or internship) I__I I I MASTER ' 5 RESEARCH I____I I I DOCTORAL RESEARCH I I I . FIRST JOB Q-ll Please specify which of the following research issues and techniques you used for your master's (M.A.), for your doctorate (Ph.D.), and in performing your duties in your first job? (In EACH Column, Circle Y if Used or N if Not Used) [TA—fl Im—I Iml 1. Random Assignment Y N Y N Y N 2. Treatment Outcome Study (including Follow-up) Y N Y N Y N 3. Field Setting Y N Y N Y N 4. College Student Subject Pool Y N Y N Y N 5. Instrument Development Y N Y N y N 6. Dissemination Y N Y N Y N 7. Program Evaluation Y N Y N Y N 8. Case Study Y N Y N Y N 9. Treatment Process Y N Y N Y N 10. Organizational Change Y N Y N Y N 121 Q-12 'Below is a list of topics. Which of these topics were included in your field training, your graduate program (i.e., coursework,.assistantships, comprehensive exams, research, or -other aspects of your graduate training program), and in your first job? (In EACH Column, Circle Y if Used or N if Not Used) 2. 3. 4. IO. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. FIELD . GRADUATE FIRST TRAINING PROGRAM JOB Administration . . . . . . . Y N . . . . Y N . . . Y N Basic research/design .’. . Y N . . . . Y N . . . Y N Case consultation . . . Community organization] Enhancing citizen participation . . . . . . . Y N . . . . Y N . . . Y N Crisis intervention . . . . Y N . . . . Y N . . . Y N Empowerment/Advocacy . . . . Y N . . . . Y N . . . Y N Environmental design . . . . Y N . . . . Y N . . . Y N Epidemiology . . . . . . . Y N . . . . Y N . . . Y N Field research methods . . . Y N . . . . Y N . . . Y N Grant writing . . . . . . . Y N . . . . Y N . . . Y N Group process . . . . . . . Y N . . . . Y N . . . Y N Information dissemination . Y N . . . . Y N . . . Y N Instrument development . . . Y N . . . . Y N . . . Y N Interorganization relations . . . . . . . . . Y N . . . . . . . Y N Mental health education . . Y N Mental health inter- ventions in industry . . . . Y N . . . . Y N . . . Y N Needs assessment . . . . . . Y N Organization development and change . . . . . . . . . Y N Organizational consultation. Y N . Paraprofessional training . Y N Q-IZ CONTINUED (In EACH Column, Circle Y if Used or N if Not Used) FIELD GRADUATE FIRST TRAINING PROGRAM JOB 21 0 Prevention 0 o o o o o o o a Y N o .0 o 0 Y N o o 0 Y N 22. Program evaluation . . . . . Y N . . . . Y N . . . Y N 23. Program planning/4 implementation . . . . . . 24. Individual assessment and diagnosis . . . . . . . Y N . . . . . . . N 25. Individual or group therapy. Y N . . . . Y N . . . Y N 26. Qualitative research methods . . . . . . . . . . Y N . . . . Y N . . . Y N 27. Research supervision . . . . Y N . . . . Y N . . . Y N 28. Resource development . . . . Y N . . . . Y N . . . Y N 29. Self-help training . . . . . Y N . . . . Y N . . . Y N 30. Social change . . . . . . . Y N . . . . Y N . . . Y N 31. Social forecasting . . . . . Y N . . . . Y N . . . Y N 32. Social network development . Y N . . . . Y N . . . Y N 33. Social policy analysis . . . Y N . . . . Y N . . . Y N 34. Statistical analysis . . . . Y N . . . . Y N . . . Y N 35. Systems/organizational diagnosis or analysis . . . K 2 K N . . . Y N 36. Teaching 0 O O O O O O O O I Y N O I O O Y N O I O Y N Please make sure that you have circled a response for each of the 36 skill items in each of the three columns. PERSONAL OPINIONS _1..» Q-13 The statements below present some opinions about the current state of psychology. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each.statement by circling the appropriate response. SD= STRONGLY DISAGREE D = DISAGREE N = NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE A = AGREE SA= STRONGLY AGREE Mental health professionals should only SD D N A SA provide their services to individuals whom society defines as mentally ill or to those who voluntarily seek these services. The community mental health center should SD D N A SA be involved in such tasks as organizing block associations, tenant councils, and welfare client organizations. All staff of a community mental health SD D N A SA center should be psychoanalytically oriented. In community mental health, by shifting SD D N A SA the emphasis from the institution to the ' community, we are really only shifting the care of the mentally ill from trained staff to poorly trained staff, untrained staff, or no staff at all. Preventive psychiatry should concentrate SD D N A. SA on strengthening the family unit. An important role for the social worker SD D N A SA is to teach people how to deal with social agencies. With our limited professional resources, SD D N A SA it makes more sense to use established knowledge to treat the mentally ill rather than trying to deal with the social conditions than may cause the mental illness. All important administrative decisions SD D N A SA should be voted on by both staff and patients. 10. 11. 12. 124 The most effective way to treat the SD D N A SA emotionally disturbed child is by long-term psychotherapy of the child and his/her parents. Enthusiasm for the new comprehensive SD D N A, SA community mental health centers rests ' more on a base of hopefulness than on any real evidence. Even a small intervention during a SD D N A SA. personal crisis by a mental health professional will have a significant effect. An important role for the psychologist SD D N A SA in the community mental health center is to develop new treatment approaches. SELF-PERCEPTIONS Q-14 Please rate yourself on the degree to which each of the following characteristics describes you. Circle the appropriate number in the first column. In the second column, we would also like you to rate the importance of each of these characteristics in fulfilling your first job after graduating. That is, given the expectations of your work, which of these characteristics are called for. l= VERY LITTLE 2: A LITTLE 3= SOMEWHAT 4= QUITE A BIT S= A GREAT DEAL YOURSELF | | JOB-WORK | (Circle your answer) (Circle your answer) a. IMAGINATIVE. l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 b. DOMINANT. l 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 C. VENTURESOME. l 2 3 4 S 1 2 3 4 S d. SOCIABLE. 1 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 e. SELF-SUFFICIENT. 1 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 POST DEGREE EMPLOYMENT In order to assess the appropriateness of graduate training for the real job world, we would like you to answer a few questions about your job experiences. The following items refer to your ”first job". These questions should be answered in relation to the first paying job you had' after completing your graduate education. Q-lS How many months passed between completion of your Ph.D. and your being hired for your first post-graduate job? MONTHS Q-16 Of this time, how many months were you actively looking for a job? MONTHS Q-17a Whit were your preferences for type of job upon leaving graduate so 00 (Circle Y if preferred or N if not preferred) 1. Field research 2. Laboratory research 3. Evaluation resarch 4. Academia (research oriented department) 5. Academia (teaching oriented department) 6. Clinical practice 7. Program development 8. Policy analysis 9. Administration 10. Advocacy 11. Social service agency 12. Organizational consultant 13. Other (specify) KKKKKKKKKKKKK 2222222222222 Q-17b Which one of the above best describes the first job you had after completing graduate school? (Put number of best descriptor in box) I I BEST DESCRIPTOR ' Q-18 How adequate was your graduate training in preparing you for your first job? (Circle number) VERY INADEQUATE INADEQUATE SOMEWHAT INADEQUATE NEITHER INADEQUATE NOR ADEQUATE SOMEWHAT ADEQUATE ADEQUATE VERY ADEQUATE dOM$UNH Please use the space below to add any additional information or make any comments that you think would be useful. Thank you for your time in completing this survey. REFERENCES REFERENCES American Psychological Association (1986). Briefing Book to the Executive Committees. Washington, DOC. Andrulis, D.P., Barton, A.K., & Aponte, J.F. (1978). Perspectives on the training experiences and the training needs of community psychologists. American Journal of Community Psychology, 2, 265-270. Barton, A.K., Andrulis, D.P., Grove, W.P., 6 Aponte, J.F. (1976). A look at community psychology training programs in the seventies. American Journal of Community Psychology, i, l-ll. Bennett, C.C., Anderson, L.S., Cooper, S., Hassol, L., Klein, D.C., & Rosenblum, G. (Eds.), (1966). Community Psychology: A report of the Boston Conference on the education of psychologists for community mental health. Boston: Boston University Press. Bloom, B.L. and Parad, H.J. (1977). Values of community mental health center staff. Professional Psychology, 33-47. Cowen, E.L. (1973). Social and community interventions. Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 423-472. Davidson, W.S. (1986). Specialization in community psychology: playing single digit games in a double digit world. The Community Psychologist, p. 32-340 Davidson, W.S., Redner, R. and Saul, J. (1983). Models of measuring social and community change. In E. Seidman (Ed.), Handbook of Community Assessment. Beverly Hills: Sage. 127 128 Fairweather, G.W. and Davidson, W.S. (1986). An Introduction to Community Experimentation: Theory, Methods, and Practice. New York: McGraw-Hill. Feis, C.L., Mavis, B.E., and Weth, J.E. (1986, August). A survey ongraduate training programs in community psychology. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C. Hull, C.H. & Nie, N.H. (1981). SPSS: Update 7-9. New York: McGraw-Hill. Iscoe, I. & Spielberger, C.D. (1970). The emerging field of community psychology. In I. Iscoe and C.D. Spielberger (Eds.), Community Psychology: Perspectives in Training and Research. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Iscoe, 1., Bloom, B.L. & Spielberger, C.D. (Eds.). (1977). Community Psychology in Transition. Washington: Hemisphere. Iscoe, I. (1975). National Conference on Training in Community Psychology: Conference preview. (APA, Division of Community Psychology) Newsletter, 8, 2-40 Iscoe, I. (1984). Austin-A decade later: Preparing community psychology students for work in social policy areas. American Journal of Community Psychology, 1;, 175-184. Jackson, D.N. (1971). A sequential strategy fpr personality scale development. In C. Spielberger (Ed.), Issues in Clinial and Community Psychology. New York: Academic Press. Korman, M. (1974). National conference on levels and patterns of professional training in psychology: The major themes. American Psychologist, 32, 441-449. Rappaport, J. (1977). Community Psychology: Values, Research and Action. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Reiff, R. (1970). The need for a body of knowledge in community psychology. In I. Iscoe and C.D. Spielberger (Eds.), Community Psychology: Perspectives in Training and Research. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. 129 Sandler, I.N. 6 Keller, P.A. (1984). Trends observed in community psychology training descriptions. American Journal of Community Psychology, 12, 157-164. Sarason, S.B. (1984). Community psychology and public policy: Missed opportunity. American Journal of Community Psychology, 12’ 199-207. Stenmark, D.E. (1977). Field training in community psychology. In I. Iscoe, B. Bloom, and C. Spielberger (Eds.), Community Psychology in Transition. Washington: Hemisphere. Trickett, E.J., Irving, J.B. 6 Perl, H.I. (1984). Curriculum issues in community psychology: the ecology of program development and the socialization of students. American Journal of Community Psychology, 12, 141-155. Zolik, E., Sirbu, W., 6 Hopkinson, D. (1975). Graduate student perspectives on training in community mental health-community psychology. Unpublished manuscript.