Section 5: Student Progress

Annual Evaluations

The Council of Chairs of Training Councils developed a model policy for the comprehensive evaluation of student competence in professional psychology programs. The clinical psychology program at Washington State University has adopted this policy (see Council of Chairs of Training Council website resources). The next three paragraphs describe this model policy with the final paragraphs in this section describing the implementation of this policy within the clinical program at Washington State University.

Students and trainees in professional psychology programs (at the doctoral, internship, or postdoctoral level) should know—prior to program entry, and at the outset of training—that faculty, training staff, supervisors, and administrators have a professional, ethical, and potentially legal obligation to:

• Establish criteria and methods through which aspects of competence other than, and in addition to, a student-trainee’s knowledge or skills may be assessed (including, but not limited to, emotional stability and well-being, interpersonal skills, professional development, and personal fitness for practice); and,
• Ensure—insofar as possible—that the student-trainees who complete their programs are competent to manage future relationships (e.g., client, collegial, professional, public, scholarly, supervisory, teaching) in an effective and appropriate manner.

Because of this commitment, and within the parameters of their administrative authority, professional psychology education and training programs, faculty, training staff, supervisors, and administrators strive not to advance, recommend, or graduate students or trainees with demonstrable problems (e.g., cognitive, emotional, psychological, interpersonal, technical, and ethical) that may interfere with professional competence to other programs, the profession, employers, or the public at large.

As such, within a developmental framework, and with due regard for the inherent power difference between students and faculty, students and trainees should know that their faculty, training staff, and supervisors will evaluate their competence in areas other than, and in addition to, coursework, seminars, scholarship, comprehensive examinations, or related program requirements. These evaluative areas include, but are not limited to, demonstration of sufficient:

• Interpersonal and professional competence (e.g., the ways in which student- trainees relate to clients, peers, faculty, allied professionals, the public, and individuals from diverse backgrounds or histories);
• Self-awareness, self-reflection, and self-evaluation (e.g., knowledge of the content and potential impact of one’s own beliefs and values on clients, peers, faculty, allied professionals, the public, and individuals from diverse backgrounds or histories);
• Openness to processes of supervision (e.g., the ability and willingness to explore issues that either interfere with the appropriate provision of care or impede professional development or functioning); and
• Resolution of issues or problems that interfere with professional development or functioning in a satisfactory manner (e.g., by responding constructively to feedback from supervisors or program faculty; by the successful completion of remediation plans; by participating in personal therapy in order to resolve issues or problems).

This policy is applicable to settings and contexts in which evaluation would appropriately occur (e.g., coursework, practica, supervision), rather than settings and contexts that are unrelated to the formal process of education and training (e.g., non-academic, social contexts). However, irrespective of setting or context, when a student-trainee’s conduct clearly and demonstrably

• Impacts the performance, development, or functioning of the student-trainee,
• Raises questions of an ethical nature,
• Represents a risk to public safety, or
• Damages the representation of psychology to the profession or public, appropriate representatives of the program may review such conduct within the context of the program’s evaluation processes.

Within the PhD program in clinical psychology at Washington State University, each student’s professional competence and progress toward the PhD are evaluated in a number of ways– course grades, practicum performance, professional behavior, progress on thesis, preliminary examinations, and on the dissertation. All aspects of a student’s progress (completion of program requirements and acquisition of professional, clinical, teaching, and research skills) are evaluated annually by the clinical faculty.

At the end of the fall semester, the clinical faculty reviews each student’s progress through the program. The primary purpose of this mid-year review is to identify students having difficulties and to put in place a plan to aid the student with their continued advancement in the program. The DCT and the student’s advisor are responsible for meeting with those students identified as of concern and documenting a course of remedial action. More formal evaluations are completed at the end of the spring semester each year. Prior to this evaluation meeting, students complete a form that summarizes their performance in their courses, practica, teaching, and research. Students provide the DCT and their advisor a copy of this form prior to the student evaluation meeting. Students also meet with their advisor prior to the meeting to discuss their progress. The DCT also obtains written evaluative information from students’ clinical, teaching, and research supervisors prior to the student evaluation meeting.

The entire clinical faculty attends the evaluation meeting in the spring semester. In addition, experimental faculty who have input to provide are encouraged to attend or, if they cannot attend the meeting, are asked to provide their input in writing. At this meeting, each student’s progress toward graduation is discussed in detail on a number of professional competence dimensions:

• Quality of academic work;
• Overall clinical skills;
• Overall research skills;
• Progress through the program;
• Openness to supervision and responsiveness to feedback;
• Interpersonal and professional competence;
• Self-awareness (i.e., having a clear sense of own strengths and limitations and impact on others in different contexts/situations);
• Professional and ethical behavior;
• Involvement in service/advocacy/leadership activities;
• Problem areas, if any, and suggestions for remediation;
• Self-evaluation and progress toward goals; and
• Evaluation of overall professional competence and progress.

The student’s advisor summarizes the comments of the faculty as these various areas are discussed for each student in this meeting. With the completion of the meeting, the student’s advisor meets with the student to provide them with verbal and written feedback (i.e., the student is provided with a copy of the evaluation form). If students have any questions about their evaluation, they may also meet with the DCT. In addition, whereas formal feedback is provided once per year, students should feel free to discuss all aspects of their progress through the program with their advisor or the DCT at any time. Significant deficits in the student’s progress on the professional competence dimensions (see above) can result in the clinical faculty recommending to the Graduate School at Washington State University the dismissal of a student from the program and/or assistantship.

Appendix L contains a copy of the Annual Student Evaluation Form. This form is used by the faculty to evaluate the student’s progress on the above eleven dimensions and the nine PWCs.

The Graduate School at Washington State University requires that all departments/programs conduct an annual review of each graduate student in the spring semester (see Academic Procedures and Standards at the WSU Graduate School). The spring evaluation of the clinical psychology graduate students covers all the requirements of the Graduate School (i.e., course work, research, examinations, and progress toward graduation). The evaluation of the clinical students also covers other aspects of professional competence as described above.

Remediations Policies and Procedures

Criteria for Remediation

If any of the following are true, remediation may be necessary:

• A student’s performance is evaluated as less than satisfactory during the course of the annual review procedure,
• The student’s academic performance falls below the minimum acceptable level during the course of the year (e.g., the student receives a C in a required course or the student’s GPA drops below 3.0), or
• The student demonstrates behaviors that are a cause for serious concern during the academic year (e.g., serious difficulties during supervision or practicum training).

If any of the above are true, the CTC will discuss the issue and draft a remediation plan. The DCT, the student’s major professor, and the student (and when appropriate the practicum supervisor, clinic director, or another party issuing the cause for concern) will then meet to discuss the concern and the remediation plan. Following this meeting the plan may be modified. The final plan will be presented in writing and will include steps for correcting the problem, how the program can support the student in addressing the problem, criteria for satisfactorily addressing the problem, and consequences for failing to satisfactorily address the problem. After the student receives the written plan, the student will meet with the DCT and major professor to discuss the plan and address any questions that the student may have about the plan. The plan will also contain target outcomes and dates for follow-up assessment of progress. This written document will be signed by the DCT, the student, the student’s major professor, and any appropriate third parties (e.g., clinic director, supervisor), with copies given to all parties involved and placed in the student file. Throughout the remediation period students are encouraged to meet regularly with their major professors and the DCT to discuss their progress with the plan. This group (DCT, student, major professor, etc.) will then meet on the follow-up date(s) to assess the student’s progress with the remediation plan and provide the student with feedback regarding their progress on the remediation plan. Based on the relevant evidence (e.g., course grades if it is an academic issue, progress on thesis or dissertation if it is an issue of failing to make appropriate progress, supervisor feedback if it is a clinical issue), this group will recommend to the CTC either that:

1. The student has remediated and no further remediation is necessary,
2. The student is making progress but that the remediation plan needs to be continued or adjusted, or
3. The student has not been able to remediate and may need to be terminated from the clinical program (see section below).

Methods Used to Facilitate Progress of Students Experiencing Difficulty in the Program

When a student experiences difficulty in the training program, several steps may be taken. These include but are not limited to:

• Reducing the student’s course load and/or other expectations,
• Approving a request for a formal leave-of-absence through the Graduate School,
• Recommending a student seek medical treatment or psychological therapy,
• Requiring additional semesters of practicum or other clinical experience beyond the minimum normally required by the program, and
• Providing additional faculty mentoring and encouragement.

Grievance and Conflict Resolution Procedures

If any of the following are true, the student has the right to express these concerns, including directly presenting concerns in a meeting with the CTC if desired and requested by the student:

• There is a complaint against a student,
• A student objects to a negative evaluation or a proposed remediation plan,
• A student objects to any other CTC decision concerning that student, or
• A student has a conflict with a faculty member.

Grievances and conflict resolution should be resolved in the following manner: If a student has grievances or conflicts with a specific faculty member, supervisor, or with the program more broadly, the student is first directed to the relevant faculty member or student’s committee Chair (major professor) to work toward a resolution. If there is a failure to resolve the matter at that level, the matter should be referred to the DCT. At this point, the student may also meet with the CTC to discuss her or his grievances if desired and requested by the student. If there is a failure to resolve a grievance at that level or if the matter is a conflict rather than a more formal grievance, the matter should be referred to the Department Chair for resolution (after the DCT, and possibly CTC). If the matter cannot not be resolved at the Department level, the student can seek resolution at the College or University level, as described in WSU Graduate School’s Policies and Procedures Manual (Chapter Twelve, Graduate Student Rights and Responsibilities). Attempting to resolve conflicts at the College or University level should only occur once these other avenues have been exhausted.

Resolution of conflicts should be in keeping with the spirit of the APA Ethics code by which we abide as professionals. Specifically, APA Ethics Code 1.04 Informal Resolution of Ethical Violations states, “When psychologists believe that there may have been an ethical violation by another psychologist, they attempt to resolve the issue by bringing it to the attention of that individual, if an informal resolution appears appropriate and the intervention does not violate any confidentiality rights that may be involved.”

Although the faculty encourage an attempt at conflict resolution at the lowest level possible, these guidelines do not preclude students from making a relevant complaint to the Compliance and Civil Rights (CCR) if they believe they have experienced discrimination or discriminatory harassment under a protected class or have experienced sexual harassment or sexual misconduct (consistent with CCR’s mission).

Faculty also have the right to report concerns about such discrimination, harassment, or misconduct to CCR. Likewise, if students share these types of concerns with faculty, students should be aware that faculty are required to report discrimination against a protected class, discriminatory harassment, sexual harassment, and sexual misconduct to CCR pursuant to the EP-15 employee reporting requirements.

The Psychology Graduate Resource Coordinator (currently Paul Strand located on the Tri-Cities campus: CIC 125S, 509-372-7177; pstrand@wsu.edu) can also provide assistance in situations involving grievances and conflict resolution. The GRC is available to serve as a resource to psychology graduate students in both the experimental and clinical programs on all campuses, providing guidance and referral on a wide range of issues and concerns in the event that you do not wish to take these concerns to your major advisor, DCT/CTC, or the department chair.

Students also may seek assistance from the Ombudsman Office, which functions as an impartial and neutral resource to assist all members of the university community. The ombudsman provides information relating to university policies and procedures and facilitates the resolution of problems and grievances through informal investigation and mediation.

Expectations for Faculty

The CTC faculty is the governing body of the clinical psychology doctoral program. That is, the clinical psychology doctoral program values the input of students and wants to hear student feedback – both on a global program level and when individual students have specific needs. The CTC faculty is also committed to being responsive to student concerns. However, our program does not operate within a shared governance model, and there are many decisions that must be made by the faculty only. Again, we welcome feedback from students on issues that arise from the students’ perspective. We also will actively seek student input on various training issues. One mechanism (although not the only mechanism) is to submit student issues to the student representatives. Notably, student representatives participate in CTC meetings as appropriate but are not voting members of the CTC. Information regarding concerns brought to the CTC by the student representatives, the content of related discussion, and any resolution that follows, is shared in the minutes from the CTC meetings, distributed to the entire student body by the student representatives via the listserv – please review these carefully. The CTC also holds the expectation that issues discussed only among the faculty will not be shared with students outside of CTC meetings. Additionally, if a student shares concerns regarding program training or faculty/supervisor conduct with a faculty member of the CTC, it is expected that the faculty member would share the information with the CTC so that it can be addressed.

Faculty’s Role in Conflict Resolution

Faculty who have a direct conflict with a student that cannot be resolved between the two of them should work with the student to follow the program’s conflict resolution procedure. That is, the faculty member and student should approach the DCT with the conflict and, if necessary, then the Department Chair. Resolutions at a College or University level should occur only after these departmental-level avenues have been exhausted. If a faculty member receives a complaint from a student about another faculty member, the faculty member should try to resolve the issue with the specific faculty member first. If that process does not lead to a resolution, the same chain of meeting with the DCT, then the Department Chair, should be followed before bringing the issue to a level outside of the department. This is in keeping with the spirit of the APA Ethics code by which we abide as professionals (as noted earlier). In cases where conflict of interest occurs, the next step in the sequence would take place. That is, if the DCT has a conflict of interest, the Department Chair would be consulted first. If the Chair has a conflict of interest, the College administration would be approached instead, etc.

Intellectual Property: Faculty are expected to recognize a student’s contributions to projects as part of that student’s intellectual property. That is, when a student invests a significant amount of time and contributes ideas to a project, the student should be considered to be part of that project unless he or she voluntarily withdraws. If there is a division between contributors to a project where the contributors are no longer going to continue on a project together, the decision about the work products for that project must be determined through a mutually agreed upon process. If this decision cannot be resolved between the faculty member and the student, a decision should be made following the program’s conflict resolution and/or grievances procedures. Regarding authorship, note that faculty and students should consult the APA website at Publication Practices and Responsible Authorship, and develop an authorship agreement prior to beginning work on the publication. This expectation regarding intellectual property is also in the section on Graduate Students’ Obligation to Ethical and Professional Behavior.

Communication with Students from Full CTC

As a faculty, we are sensitive to student concerns and their professional development needs. As stated above, we want our program’s students to be successful and, as a CTC, we want to be responsive to students needs some of which cannot be anticipated in advance by the CTC. Our goal as a CTC is to be a unified body in our communications with students about student concerns and issues. The CTC, as a group, will process concerns and present our recommendations or decisions as one unified body. For issues that impact all students in a program, those communications will be to the full student body. For issues that impact only a specific student or students, those communications will be only with those specific students.

Interpersonal Communication

As faculty members, we hold the shared expectation that we will be respectful and professional (i.e., ethical and responsible) in our interpersonal communication with students, staff, and fellow faculty when engaging in professional activities related to training in the program. Interpersonal communication includes written and oral communication related to these training activities, wherein we value accountability, ethical engagement, self-reflection, civility, collaboration, and cultural humility. Our goal is to maintain a respectful and positive educational community.

If a student has grievances or problems with a specific faculty member, supervisor, or with the program, the student is first directed to the relevant faculty member or student’s committee Chair. If there is a failure to resolve the matter at that level, the matter should be referred to the DCT. At this point the student may also meet with the CTC to discuss her or his grievances. If there is a failure to resolve at that level, the matter should be referred to the Department Chair for resolution. If the matter cannot not be resolved at the Department level, the student can seek resolution at the College or University level, as described in WSU policies for student conduct.

Terminating the Enrollment of a Student

The attrition rate in the clinical program is low. When a student does leave, it is usually for a personal reason (e.g., incompatible program fit) rather than an academic reason. There have been a few instances in the past, however, when students have been counseled out of the program or have voluntarily withdrawn from the program because of difficulty making progress, and there have been instances in which students have been terminated for academic reasons. Failure to meet Program, Departmental, or Graduate School requirements (e.g., timeline on research, meeting requirements for grades in coursework) is grounds for termination. Unethical behavior, such as plagiarism and other forms of academic dishonesty, or unethical behavior in a clinical setting is also grounds for termination.

Leaves of Absence

Students who have personal difficulties (e.g., serious illness) that prevent them from participating in the program for a given period of time may request a leave of absence from the program for one year. Further requests for leave will be evaluated after that period. To request a leave of absence, the student submits a request for a leave to the DCT for consideration. The DCT will then forward the recommendation to the Department Chair who is responsible for Departmental approval. If approved at the Departmental level, the Chair forwards the request to the Graduate School for consideration. Students taking a leave of absence must complete the Graduate Leave form and file it with the Graduate School. The Policies and Procedures Manual of the Graduate School provides additional information on the Leave of Absence Procedure.