Clinical Psychology-Task Guidelines

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.

Task Appropriateness Requests (electronic form available from the Program Director)

We also require that students 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" (available in electronic form from the Program Director). On the form, the student indicates the type of task being proposing and provides a summary of its nature and scope. Students are advised to provide a thorough description so that the task review committee will not be required to seek additional elaboration.

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. (Alternatively, students may submit their task Appropriateness request to the Program Director electronically as a Microsoft Word document.) 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 retained in the student's file.

Submitting Completed Task Manuscripts for Review

Although students often consult with a supervisor or advisor during the planning and implementation stages of a task, especially clinical demonstration tasks, task manuscipts are to be the independent work of the student. When the manuscript is completed, it is submitted electronically (as a Microssoft Word document) to the Program Director, along with a "statement of independence" from any faculty consultant who was involved with the task. When they are appropriate, these statements describe describe the nature of the advisor's or supervisor's input (if any) into the final product. Task reviewers are ordinarily asked to provide their evaluations of tasks within one month of receiving them.

Because tasks are conceived as demonstrations of competence rather than as iterations in 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 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. Only one resubmission (or different task submission) is possible. A second decision is the final decision.

It should be noted that, at the Program Director's discretion, even manuscripts that are judged to satisfy the program's task requirement may be returned to the author for minor editing or corrections (e.g., typographial errors) prior to final acceptance.

Copies of all accepted tasks are retained and may be checked out from the Clinic office 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 videotape 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.

• Integrated report of interview, treatment and outcome to include all assessment measures used.

• All written materials and documents making reference to the client are thoroughly de-identified.

• Video tapes of (up to) 12 sessions.

• One copy of the original 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 erased. (This consent statement will be separated from the task write-ups by the Program Director and retained securely until the task review is completed.

• Once the task review is completed, the Program Director will destroy both the videotapes and the consent statement copy. (Only the de-identified write-ups are retained on file for clinical demonstration tasks.

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 is to be prepared in APA style, approximately 20-30 pages in length (not including Figures, Tables, or References).

The completed manuscript should be submitted for review to the Program Director in electronic form (as a Microsoft Word document).

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 the associated outcome evaluation.  This may involve the KU Psychological Clinic or another agency or community.

The reports include an analysis of the community need (why the program is needed) and the relevant literature regarding the particular program development.  The reports further include a description of the program, process of implementation, any and all outcome data collected, and suggestions for future change or expansion.  The reports also include (in Appendices) any outcome measures used.

The written documentation should be approximately 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). 

The completed manuscript should be submitted to the Program Director in electronic form (as a Microsoft Word document).

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 names measures used, describes data collected, and describes barriers to and successes of implementation.  Finally the report gives 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.or