PhD/PsyD Interview study on PhD/PsyD Counseling/Clinical/School Psychology trainee dismissal

[xiangzhou]

If you are a current or former doctoral student in a Health Service Psychology program who has been dismissed from a predoctoral practicum and/or internship site, please consider participating in our qualitative study regarding trainee perspectives on dismissal from their practicum and internship sites (approved by Purdue University IRB-2021-180).

To qualify for the study, you must:

1) be a student, or have been a student within the last 7 years, from a PhD/PsyD APA-accredited Health Service Psychology program (i.e., Clinical Psychology, Counseling Psychology, School Psychology, or combined programs)

2) have had a premature termination with your practicum or internship site due to potential concerns with your competence.


Each participant will be compensated $30 at the end of their one-hour semi-structured interview, which will be focused on their experiences at their training site, their understanding of the dismissal process, and the impact on their professional development after dismissal.

If you are interested in the study, please fill out a brief interest survey below.

https://tinyurl.com/w9v7f8xm

If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to Dr. Xiang Zhou ([email protected]).

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[xiangzhou]

This is a relatively low frequency but high-impact event. However, trainees' perspectives have never been studied.

We are grateful and surprised by how many trainees have reached out to share their voices thus far. Please help share this study information to folx who have experienced dismissal in the past.

 

[PsyDr]

So the study that is directly referenced in the Jun Yu lawsuit is still recruiting. Which is funny because this type of study is exactly how one justifies damages in a lawsuit. Are all financial interests, including potential expert witness fees, disclosed in the IRB?

 

[WisNeuro]

So the study that is directly referenced in the Jun Yu lawsuit is still recruiting. Which is funny because this type of study is exactly how one justifies damages in a lawsuit. Are all financial interests, including potential expert witness fees, disclosed in the IRB?

I didn't see it in the most recent final text, was this in the original lawsuit?

 

[PsyDr]

I didn't see it in the most recent final text, was this in the original lawsuit?

Sorry, misspoke. It is referenced in the lawsuit website, not the lawsuit itself.

Study exploring issues of significance to Jun's case is recruiting participants - Justice for Jun

What happened to Jun is extreme but not unusual, as organizations have already noted that Jun’s experience is exemplary. And now research is also emerging to explore some issues of significance to Jun’s case. Dr. Xiang Zhou, an assistant professor of Counseling Psychology at Purdue University...

justiceforjun.com

 

[cara susanna]

Sorry, misspoke. It is referenced in the lawsuit website, not the lawsuit itself.

Study exploring issues of significance to Jun's case is recruiting participants - Justice for Jun

What happened to Jun is extreme but not unusual, as organizations have already noted that Jun’s experience is exemplary. And now research is also emerging to explore some issues of significance to Jun’s case. Dr. Xiang Zhou, an assistant professor of Counseling Psychology at Purdue University...

justiceforjun.com

It's referenced on the website, but does that mean the study investigators have ties to the case themselves? It's possible that Jun/Jun's wife found out about the study and linked it, right?

 

[WisNeuro]

Sorry, misspoke. It is referenced in the lawsuit website, not the lawsuit itself.

Study exploring issues of significance to Jun's case is recruiting participants - Justice for Jun

What happened to Jun is extreme but not unusual, as organizations have already noted that Jun’s experience is exemplary. And now research is also emerging to explore some issues of significance to Jun’s case. Dr. Xiang Zhou, an assistant professor of Counseling Psychology at Purdue University...

justiceforjun.com

No worries, I was just curious. Also curious as to how often this happens. If anything, in my experience as both a trainee and supervisor, the modal issue was more in incompetent trainees being inappropriately passed than being removed from a rotation.

 

[psych.meout]

It's referenced on the website, but does that mean the study investigators have ties to the case themselves? It's possible that Jun/Jun's wife found out about the study and linked it, right?

Yeah, based on her other online behavior, I wouldn't necessarily think anything negative about these researchers or anyone else simply because she posted about it.

No worries, I was just curious. Also curious as to how often this happens. If anything, in my experience as both a trainee and supervisor, the modal issue was more in incompetent trainees being inappropriately passed than being removed from a rotation.

Absolutely. I've met trainees from other programs at prac sites and some of them lack more fundamental skills in assessment and therapy to be at more advanced placements. I think they were just passed on by previous sites without noting their failings, were being supervised by interns or post docs who didn't fully communicate concerns to the licensed supervisor, and/or interview well despite lacking core skills and competencies.

 

[WisNeuro]

Yeah, based on her other online behavior, I wouldn't necessarily think anything negative about these researchers or anyone else simply because she posted about it.


Absolutely. I've met trainees from other programs at prac sites and some of them lack more fundamental skills in assessment and therapy to be at more advanced placements. I think they were just passed on by previous sites without noting their failings, were being supervised by interns or post docs who didn't fully communicate concerns to the licensed supervisor, and/or interview well despite lacking core skills and competencies.

Yeah, it happens more than people think. Definitely had interns and postdocs who somehow got to us with assessment skills (administration and knowledge base) that I would consider grad student level. It's amazing how much letter writers will avoid criticism or truthfulness in LORs. But, in the end, all they are doing is harming their own reputations and their future trainees.

 

[PsyDr]

It's referenced on the website, but does that mean the study investigators have ties to the case themselves? It's possible that Jun/Jun's wife found out about the study and linked it, right?

It's most likely that this study is completely driven by academic interest. If so, stating that there are no financial interests, and that it's not meant to be used in a lawsuit is a big nothing. If it's a study that is designed to generate revenue, then such disclosures should be made.

 

[Justanothergrad]

A key part of the study will be in evaluating not just perceptions by trainees, but how those perceptions are linked to actual problematic competency. Knowing the impact of dismissal is far less important than understanding steps taken prior to, how competency was assessed, how remediation at sites failed, etc. Dismissals for poor competency are an ethical and critical responsibility in training assuming other remediation steps aren't met (gate keeping is a hard responsibility that isn't taken nearly seriously enough). Knowing more about trainee competency, including outcomes amongst those who don't meet those milestones is important.

The referencing by Jun Yu's lawsuit is unfortunate and may cloud the waters about this important academic issue without a lot of clarity in disclosure, particularly since the study is outside of the PI's primary research (parenting). Side research happens.

 

[niceman]

FWIW, the PI did express his support for Jun Yu's case. I don't doubt the PI's research interest in the area but I agree that relevant disclosures should be made in this case.

 

[WisNeuro]

FWIW, the PI did express his support for Jun Yu's case. I don't doubt the PI's research interest in the area but I agree that relevant disclosures should be made in this case.

If that's true, definitely a hit to the credibility and objectivity of this research line. Assuming that he did not review all of the evidence and testimony from both sides.

 

[MCParent]

If that's true, definitely a hit to the credibility and objectivity of this research line. Assuming that he did not review all of the evidence and testimony from both sides.

I’m not sure the value of learning about this “from the trainees perspective.” Obviously most of them will be upset. I would not anticipate most would be fully in touch with why they were dismissed. I could see value if the researchers also linked it to interviews with the TD who did the dismissal and an open records request for the documents related to this dismissal, but otherwise don’t quite see the point, really

 

[PsyDr]

The referencing by Jun Yu's lawsuit is unfortunate and may cloud the waters about this important academic issue without a lot of clarity in disclosure, particularly since the study is outside of the PI's primary research (parenting). Side research happens.

I believe that financial conflicts are a key issue in research.

Most notably was Andrew Wakefield's 1996 meeting with Richard Barr, an attorney who was filing a class action lawsuit against MMR manufacturers. Following this meeting, Wakefield was reportedly paid approximately $611k by this law firm to perform a study to support suit against MMR manufacturers. In 1997, Wakefield filed a patent for an MMR replacement. IIRC, investor projections for this product were in the 9 figures. In 1998, Wakefield conducted his study, with 5 of the 8 participants being clients of Barr. Following Wakefield's publication, vaccination rates in the UK went below 80%. Which is a shame because in 2011, the study's data was declared fraudulent, and Wakefield lost his license.

So, I do think that it's an issue if someone is trying to do a study to support legal work .

 

[xiangzhou]

Thank you so much for this question! I can see where these might be coming from without further information/disclosure.

First, this is similar but different from Mr. Jun Yu's lawsuit because he was also dismissed from the academic program

I (PI) or any of our three team members did not serve as potential expert witnesses nor there were any financial interests.

Mr. Jun Yu did ask for our permission after we posted the study recruitment information on the APA Division 17 listserv. Our study team discussed his (as part of the qualitative research process) before we agreed he could re-post this study.

So the study that is directly referenced in the Jun Yu lawsuit is still recruiting. Which is funny because this type of study is exactly how one justifies damages in a lawsuit. Are all financial interests, including potential expert witness fees, disclosed in the IRB?

 

[psych.meout]

Thank you so much for this question! I can see where these might be coming from without further information/disclosure.

First, this is similar but quite different from Mr. Jun Yu's lawsuit because he was dismissed from the academic program, not from the practicum/internship sites.

I (PI) or any of our three team members did not serve as potential expert witnesses nor there were any financial interests.

Mr. Jun Yu did ask for our permission after we posted the study recruitment information on the APA Division 17 listserv. Our study team discussed his (as part of the qualitative research process) before we agreed he could re-post this study.

No, he was very much dismissed from practicum and internship sites. His dismissal from the overall program had nothing to do with his performance in research or other academic competencies, but rather that he had significant problems in his clinical training. Have you actually read any documents associated with this case?

 

[psych.meout]

I’m not sure the value of learning about this “from the trainees perspective.” Obviously most of them will be upset. I would not anticipate most would be fully in touch with why they were dismissed. I could see value if the researchers also linked it to interviews with the TD who did the dismissal and an open records request for the documents related to this dismissal, but otherwise don’t quite see the point, really

Exactly. Most of the students who I referenced earlier have poor insight about their clinical abilities and don't realize when they've done something inappropriate, made mistakes, are functioning below the level expected for a trainee at a more advanced site, etc. I imagine those who actually end up getting dismissed from practica or internships are at least as poor in insight or they would have followed remediation plans/suggestions enough to not get dismissed.

I don't know that it's all that compelling to just get their perspectives.

I believe that financial conflicts are a key issue in research.

Most notably was Andrew Wakefield's 1996 meeting with Richard Barr, an attorney who was filing a class action lawsuit against MMR manufacturers. Following this meeting, Wakefield was reportedly paid approximately $611k by this law firm to perform a study to support suit against MMR manufacturers. In 1997, Wakefield filed a patent for an MMR replacement. IIRC, investor projections for this product were in the 9 figures. In 1998, Wakefield conducted his study, with 5 of the 8 participants being clients of Barr. Following Wakefield's publication, vaccination rates in the UK went below 80%. Which is a shame because in 2011, the study's data was declared fraudulent, and Wakefield lost his license.

So, I do think that it's an issue if someone is trying to do a study to support legal work .

Didn't Wakefield get those participants at a kid's birthday party?

 

[xiangzhou]

No, he was very much dismissed from practicum and internship sites. His dismissal from the overall program had nothing to do with his performance in research or other academic competencies, but rather that he had significant problems in his clinical training. Have you actually read any documents associated with this case?

I only read the brief summary but not the entire court briefing. But I meant to note Jun Yu was also dismissed from the academic program and his lawsuit was against the university (as opposed to the training site). Again, that was not the primary reason for our team starting this project.

If disclosure of intention matters in this space, this study was driven by a student within our team (not Jun Yu) who was dismissed without any due process (which we discussed in our team meetings and plan to disclose if we were to pursue publication).

 

[PsyDr]

Thank you so much for this question! I can see where these might be coming from without further information/disclosure.

First, this is similar but different from Mr. Jun Yu's lawsuit because he was also dismissed from the academic program

I (PI) or any of our three team members did not serve as potential expert witnesses nor there were any financial interests.

Mr. Jun Yu did ask for our permission after we posted the study recruitment information on the APA Division 17 listserv. Our study team discussed his (as part of the qualitative research process) before we agreed he could re-post this study.

Great! That solves the majority of the issue. Just to clarify: You do not have any established plans to use this study for forensic purposes?

I appreciate the disclosures.

Didn't Wakefield get those participants at a kid's birthday party?

He got them at HIS child's birthday party. Cause, it's normal that 5/7ths of the your kid's friends happen to be clients in the same lawsuit that you're an expert witness for.

 

[futureapppsy2]

No worries, I was just curious. Also curious as to how often this happens. If anything, in my experience as both a trainee and supervisor, the modal issue was more in incompetent trainees being inappropriately passed than being removed from a rotation.

Eh, being someone who does work in the area of disabled trainees (like... most of the work in that area), there are a lot of supervisors who make things really unnecessarily difficult for disabled trainees.

 

[Justanothergrad]

I’m not sure the value of learning about this “from the trainees perspective.” Obviously most of them will be upset. I would not anticipate most would be fully in touch with why they were dismissed. I could see value if the researchers also linked it to interviews with the TD who did the dismissal and an open records request for the documents related to this dismissal, but otherwise don’t quite see the point, really

I think it depends on how they approach it. The perspective of the event themselves may have substantially less value; however, if its tied to reflective practice on how the situation might be approached differently, what they felt would have been needed to remediate, etc... Then those values might have substantial importance and significance to trainees and training program faculty facing these situation in the future. So I guess I disagree that this can't be of value. It depends a lot on what approach is taken.

No, he was very much dismissed from practicum and internship sites. His dismissal from the overall program had nothing to do with his performance in research or other academic competencies, but rather that he had significant problems in his clinical training. Have you actually read any documents associated with this case?

Reading those documents appear outside the scope of this study, so I'm not sure why he would have a need to do so.

Eh, being someone who does work in the area of disabled trainees (like... most of the work in that area), there are a lot of supervisors who make things really unnecessarily difficult for disabled trainees.

It seems like a poor assumption that fault can't also fall on supervisors...I'm fairly certain LPs can be as incompetent as trainees.

 

[psych.meout]

I only read the brief summary but not the entire court briefing. But I meant to note Jun Yu was also dismissed from the academic program and his lawsuit was against the university (as opposed to the training site). Again, that was not the primary reason for our team starting this project.

If disclosure of intention matters in this space, this study was driven by a student within our team (not Jun Yu) who was dismissed without any due process (which we discussed in our team meetings and plan to disclose if we were to pursue publication).

Ok, but his dismissal from the academic program was specifically because of his multiple dismissal from clinical training sites, which is relevant to your study and different from how you're characterizing it.

Reading those documents appear outside the scope of this study, so I'm not sure why he would have a need to do so.

He's the one who detailed his (limited) associated with the plaintiff and claimed that the case is different from what he's studying. This implies familiarity with the case, so it's reasonable to inquire whether he actually read the documents himself or how exactly he knows the case is "similar but different" from his research.

Thank you so much for this question! I can see where these might be coming from without further information/disclosure.

First, this is similar but different from Mr. Jun Yu's lawsuit because he was also dismissed from the academic program

I (PI) or any of our three team members did not serve as potential expert witnesses nor there were any financial interests.

Mr. Jun Yu did ask for our permission after we posted the study recruitment information on the APA Division 17 listserv. Our study team discussed his (as part of the qualitative research process) before we agreed he could re-post this study.

 

[Justanothergrad]

Ok, but his dismissal from the academic program was specifically because of his multiple dismissal from clinical training sites, which is relevant to your study and different from how you're characterizing it.


He's the one who detailed his (limited) associated with the plaintiff and claimed that the case is different from what he's studying. This implies familiarity with the case, so it's reasonable to inquire whether he actually read the documents himself or how exactly he knows the case is "similar but different" from his research.

He already answered your question (he read the brief). And frankly, it doesn't really matter. He isn't involved in the case and doesn't have to read the case materials.

 

[psych.meout]

He already answered your question (he read the brief). And frankly, it doesn't really matter. He isn't involved in the case and doesn't have to read the case materials.

He doesn't have to read anything, but he's the one who volunteered both his limited association with Jun Yu and his assessment of Yu's case as being dissimilar to what he is researching here. It is certainly germane to this discussion to ask whether he read the case when he is obviously misunderstanding the circumstances on which he is commenting. He's pedantically focusing on Jun Yu being dismissed from the his program even though the kinds of dismissals from clinical training that he's researching with this study are exactly why Yu was dismissed from his program. I think it's fair to question him on these matters because if that's how he's parsing Yu's case, how is he going to parse the cases of students volunteering to participate in his study?

 

[Justanothergrad]

He doesn't have to read anything, but he's the one who volunteered both his limited association with Jun Yu and his assessment of Yu's case as being dissimilar to what he is researching here. It is certainly germane to this discussion to ask whether he read the case when he is obviously misunderstanding the circumstances on which he is commenting. He's pedantically focusing on Jun Yu being dismissed from the his program even though the kinds of dismissals from clinical training that he's researching with this study are exactly why Yu was dismissed from his program. I think it's fair to question him on these matters because if that's how he's parsing Yu's case, how is he going to parse the cases of students volunteering to participate in his study?

You mistake this board for a peer review. It isn't, so no, I don't think its reasonable to expect him to justify anything.

 

[WisNeuro]

Eh, being someone who does work in the area of disabled trainees (like... most of the work in that area), there are a lot of supervisors who make things really unnecessarily difficult for disabled trainees.

I do not doubt that, and also an area I admittedly do not have much experience in, at least in the visible disability spectrum. But, I do think that there is a more of an assumption (in general) that students/trainees are the wronged party without knowing any of the details. Just look at all of the well known figures that jumped in to support the Jun lawsuit, and then looked like fools in cross examination. But even in cases without any obvious issues of discrimination, I think sites and programs are very averse to removing students/trainees for a variety of reasons, much to the detriment of future patients. Either way, one thing I always advise students is to document and archive anything that is related to training, supervision, performance review, etc. If you ever do have a problem, always a good thing to bring the receipts. And, in the one circumstance of a training program I was in (I was not a supervisor) documentation was key in the end result. So, the advice goes double for supervisors.

 

[psych.meout]

You mistake this board for a peer review. It isn't, so no, I don't think its reasonable to expect him to justify anything.

"Peer review" like this?

A key part of the study will be in evaluating not just perceptions by trainees, but how those perceptions are linked to actual problematic competency. Knowing the impact of dismissal is far less important than understanding steps taken prior to, how competency was assessed, how remediation at sites failed, etc. Dismissals for poor competency are an ethical and critical responsibility in training assuming other remediation steps aren't met (gate keeping is a hard responsibility that isn't taken nearly seriously enough). Knowing more about trainee competency, including outcomes amongst those who don't meet those milestones is important.

The referencing by Jun Yu's lawsuit is unfortunate and may cloud the waters about this important academic issue without a lot of clarity in disclosure, particularly since the study is outside of the PI's primary research (parenting). Side research happens.

 

[WisNeuro]

I'll pre-empt AA coming in and gently remind us all to steer back to the original intent of the thread.

 

[Justanothergrad]

No, I'm pretty sure that's you making this "mistake."

I'm not asking him to respond and don't expect him to do so. I don't think there is a 'right' to question him - its an internet forum. I'm simply providing a perspective on the influence of the study for discussion, by him or anyone else. You asked if I thought it was "fair" to 'expect him to respond'. I don't. This isn't peer review. I don't expect anything. You are sometimes aggressively assertive and argumentative.

I'll pre-empt AA coming in and gently remind us all to steer back to the original intent of the thread.

This thread does beg the question of what the original 'intent' of the thread was, since it is just an ad for a research study. While topical to SDN, it may open doors we don't want to open to allow for... but thats not my call so not something I'm worried too much about. *shrug*

 

[MCParent]

If the data were linked to evals of documents obtained via open records request, that would be a wild read.

 

[WisNeuro]

This thread does beg the question of what the original 'intent' of the thread was, since it is just an ad for a research study. While topical to SDN, it may open doors we don't want to open to allow for... but thats not my call so not something I'm worried too much about. *shrug*

Good point, technically IRB approved research requests should be posted here

IRB Approved Research Surveys (archive)

Archived: IRBs can now be posted throughout the SDN Communities. Please include the IRB approval when posting.

forums.studentdoctor.net

 

[futureapppsy2]

Good point, technically IRB approved research requests should be posted here

IRB Approved Research Surveys (archive)

Archived: IRBs can now be posted throughout the SDN Communities. Please include the IRB approval when posting.

forums.studentdoctor.net

Actually, we recently changed that as staff to allow specific training-related study recruitment posts on the forums, unless it becomes excessive!

 

[WisNeuro]

Actually, we recently changed that as staff to allow specific training-related study recruitment posts on the forums, unless it becomes excessive!

Ah, good to know. May want to update the closed sticky up top there.

 

[cara susanna]

Yeah, trust me, I read the case materials and am as much in the camp of "Jun is wasting his time" as someone can be, but the OP's explanation makes complete sense (and thanks for sharing that information, even though you didn't have to).

 

[futureapppsy2]

It seems like a poor assumption that fault can't also fall on supervisors...I'm fairly certain LPs can be as incompetent as trainees.

Do you mean "incompetent as trainers"?

 

[xiangzhou]

Thank you all for pointing out the potential limitations for the study design and future directions for this area of research. I truly believe there is so much to learn from trainees, supervisees, and students for the benefit of all stakeholders.

Eh, being someone who does work in the area of disabled trainees (like... most of the work in that area), there are a lot of supervisors who make things really unnecessarily difficult for disabled trainees.

Yes! (Without disclosing too much of what we have gathered thus far)

For any potential participants who see this post, our team is open to provide any more information about the study via emails (including interview questions that we sent to all of our participants ahead of time) for you to decide if participation is a good fit.

 

[StellaB]

Do you mean "incompetent as trainers"?

I read it to mean "as incompetent as trainees can be"

 

[WisNeuro]

I read it to mean "as incompetent as trainees can be"

I definitely review some community reports wherein the provider has a knowledge level that can best be described as "graduate level."

 

[Justanothergrad]

Do you mean "incompetent as trainers"?

I mean that getting a PhD doesnt make one competent in any domain, including in training.

 

[borne_before]

Thank you all for pointing out the potential limitations for the study design and future directions for this area of research. I truly believe there is so much to learn from trainees, supervisees, and students for the benefit of all stakeholders.




Yes! (Without disclosing too much of what we have gathered thus far)

For any potential participants who see this post, our team is open to provide any more information about the study via emails (including interview questions that we sent to all of our participants ahead of time) for you to decide if participation is a good fit.

I will make a bit of an observation, but some posters in this forum are overly scrutinizing Dr. Zhou and the study (and it's limitations). The good Dr. and his team have identified an interesting area of research that simply hasn't been studied yet. He has conducted himself in a very respectable manner on this forum. I have yet to identify any study that doesn't have limitations or potential conflicts when scrutinized hard enough. It's not the point of this post to act as his IRB or peer review. Quit being such turds! If their research helps people improve training, which it might, then it's worth it.