Introductory Overview
In lieu of traditional written Preliminary or Comprehensive Examinations, students in the KU Clinical Program are required to demonstrate professional competency in one of three areas of professional activity. This is known as the Program's "Task Requirement."
Tasks may be in one of three areas: Area A: Clinical Demonstration, Area B: Research/Methodology, or Area C: Program Evaluation. Tasks are intended to be substantial work products that demonstrate substantial competency. The subsequently described modules are provided as models. Student should consult with their advisory committee, the relevant task review committee, or the Program Director if there are questions as to the appropriateness of a proposed task.
Consistent with the philosophy behind the task system, it is recommended that tasks be planned and conceptualized prospectively in the educational setting. Although certain tasks may be carried out in areas where students are employed, work products from another setting are unlikely to be suitable for the purposes of the task requirement. Such products typically lack the comprehensive scope that must characterize a successful task. Furthermore, the detailed documentation that must accompany a task is likely to be very different from an agency write-up.
In developing a task (especially clinical demonstration tasks where supervision is mandatory), most students will work with a supervisor or advisor. Students should inform their supervisors that they wish to use the activity as a task, and should offer to provide a task proposal for the supervisor should he/she desire to see one. The supervisor should determine at the outset whether the proposed task would be an appropriate one, in terms of both its content and the student's ability to perform the task independently.
Students also are required to seek the judgment of the relevant task reviewers as to a proposed task's appropriateness. To do this, students submit a completed "Task Appropriateness Form" (appended below and also available from the Clinical Program Office) to the Program Director. On the form, the student indicates the type of task he or she is proposing and provides a summary of its nature and scope. Students are well advised to provide a thorough description of the proposed task so that the task review committee will not be required to seek additional elaborations or clarifications.
Once the Task Appropriateness Form has been completed, three copies are delivered into the Clinical Program Director who distributes two of them to the two-person task review committee and retains the third for the files. Task review committees are ordinarily asked to render their appropriateness judgments within 2 weeks of receiving a request. Copies of the task review committee's decisions are returned, through the Program Director, to the student and to the student's file.
Once a task proposal is approved, the approval will apply irrespective of the subsequent composition of the task review committee. Whenever possible, however, the committee members who approved the proposal will also review the completed task. If a proposed task is not approved, it may be modified and resubmitted, depending on the committee's recommendation. Copies of all documents pertaining to a particular task and the initial approval or disapproval regarding appropriateness (including the Task Appropriateness Form) are placed in the student's file.
Although students often consult with a supervisor or advisor during the planning and implementation stages of a task, especially clinical demonstration tasks, task write-ups are to be the independent work of the student. When the write-up is completed, three copies are submitted to the Program Director, along with a "statement of independence" from any faculty consultant who was involved with the task. These statements must describe the nature of the advisor's or supervisor's input (if any) into the final product. If the faculty consultant is also a member of the two-person review committee for the type of task being submitted, the Program Director will appoint a replacement reviewer for the task. Task reviewers are ordinarily asked to provide their evaluations of tasks within one month of receiving them.
Because tasks are conceived of as demonstrations of competence rather than as iterations of a process of successive approximations, task reviewers typically provide summary judgments rather than detailed feedback regarding the acceptability of completed tasks. Accordingly, students may expect to receive the reviewer's task copies, including any comments written therein, along with a statement from the Program Director indicating the review committee's decision. If the committee members render a "split" decision regarding a task's acceptability, the Program Director is responsible for casting the deciding vote.
Students whose tasks are judged to be unacceptable, insofar as satisfying the program's task requirement are concerned, may either prepare a different task for submission or petition the committee to be allowed to prepare a revision for resubmission. Only one resubmission (or different task submission) is possible. A second decision is that a given student's task is not acceptable represents the final decision.
Copies of all previously accepted tasks are kept on file and may be checked out for examination.
Three Types of Tasks
Area A: Clinical Demonstration
A client intervention demonstrating a particular theoretical model and its application:
A written document is required describing the introduction, progress, and summary of treatment outcome. The written document must also contain the most relevant and up to date reviews of the chosen approach from peer reviewed journals and appropriate book chapters. The review should provide a brief historical overview, definition of theory and approach, and review of outcome literature regarding approach. The written documentation should be approximately 15-20 pages of text written in APA style (page count does not include Figures, Tables, Appendices or References) and be modeled after case studies that appear in various journals (See Dr. Kirk for examples).
Finally, one must submit video tape footage of the entire application. Footage length may vary depending on the application but should be at least 4 sessions in length and no longer than 12 sessions.
Example: Treatment of Panic Disorder with Agoraphobia
Review of literature on Panic Control Treatment with specific focus on Barlow & Craske.
Integrated report of interview, treatment and outcome to include all assessment measures utilized in treatment (Beck Anxiety Inventory results, Self Monitoring data, Personality Assessment Inventory).
All written materials and documents making reference to the client are to be thoroughly de-identified prior to submission for review.
Video tapes of (up to) 12 sessions.
One copy of a signed informed consent statement indicating that the client is aware that his/her sessions are being recorded for purposes of the therapist's satisfying a program requirement, and that the tapes will be reviewed by up to three clinical faculty members before being destroyed. This consent statement will be separated from the task write-ups by the Program Director and retained in a locked file in the Director's office until the task reviews are completed.
Once the task reviews are completed, the Program Director will destroy both the videotaped sessions and the associated consent statement. (No client videotapes will be filed with successful clinical demonstration tasks. Only the de-identified write-ups are retained.)
Area B: Review Paper Demonstration
The student will prepare a review article about a topic directly relevant to clinical psychology. The review article should be of the form and quality of those suitable for submission to Psychological Bulletin, Psychological Review, or to one of the more specialized journals that also accept review papers (e.g., Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology). The focus of the paper may be empirical, theoretical, or methodological. The final review will be prepared in APA style, and it should be appropriate for submission to one of the many relevant journals.
Area C: Program Evaluation Demonstration
Develop or expand a clinical or community program of service. This project would entail program development for the clinical community and associated outcome evaluation. This may involve the KU Psychological Clinic or serve another agency or community.
The report would include an analysis of the community need (why the program is needed) and the relevant literature regarding the particular program development. The report would further include a description of the program, process of implementation, any and all outcome data collected, and suggestions for future change or expansion. The report would also include (in Appendices) any outcome measures utilized.
The written documentation should be approximately 15-20 pages of text written in APA style (page count does not include Figures, Tables, Appendices, or References) and be modeled after program evaluation studies that appear in various journals (See Dr. Kirk for articles/examples).
Example: Implementation of outcome measurement in the KU Psychological Clinic.
Report would include a literature review on functional outcomes in training clinics, why outcome measures are helpful to trainees and the community they serve, and the plan for implementation. The report would further name measures used, describe data collected, and describe barriers to and successes of implementation. Finally the report would give suggestions for the future use in the clinic and any changes suggested.
For additional information or questions on the accreditation of the KU Clinical Psychology Program, contact the Office of program Consultation and Accreditation, American Psychological Association, 750 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20002-4242. Web: http://www.apa.org/ed/accreditation/ Phone: 202-336-5979. E-Mail: apaaccred@apa.org.
Task Appropriateness Form
Student Name: _________________________________________________
Date Submitted: ________________________________________________
Name of Proposed Task: ________________________________________________________
Type of Task: (Check One)
______ Area A: Clinical Demonstration
______ Area B: Review Paper Demonstration
______ Area C: Program Evaluation Demonstration
Summary of Proposed Task (append additional pages as needed):
This proposed task (__is__is not) appropriate
(check committee decision). Approval/disapproval of the content
of the task as being appropriate does not relate to the
subsequent approval/disapproval of the quality of the finished
task.
______________________________________________________-----____________
Signature of Task Review Committee Member ...................................Date
