Clinical Psychology Department
Receives Accreditation
Chancellor
Penney Reflects on Twelve Years At UMass Boston
UMass
Boston First Celebrates Early Victory
Years
of Service Reception Honors 152 Employees
Sherry
H.Penney Endowed Professorship in Leadership
Situation
Critical:
UMass Boston Releases Vital Housing Study
Gordon
Wallace Named Outstanding Faculty Member
Clinical
Psychology Department
Receives Accreditation
by Dick Lourie
In 1993, an American Psychological Association (APA) committee accredited
UMass Boston’s Doctoral Program in Clinical Psychology, calling
it “a creative new program, developed at an underfunded university,
in a state which has suffered years of financial adversity.” This
year the program was revisited, and again received full accreditation.
It’s a record of which the program, and the larger University community,
can be proud.
The second doctoral program to be established at the University, the clinical psych program, housed in CAS’ Psychology Department, admitted its first students in 1989. Among its principles, in keeping with UMass Boston’s mission, was a focus on the needs of underserved multi-ethnic urban populations. It follows the “scientist-practitioner” model of training, which entails equal attention within the curriculum to a strong theoretical foundation, research, and clinical training.
The program has always been interdisciplinary in nature, and one of
its unusual features is its emphasis on both human development and culture,
as well as clinical psychology.
To initiate the accreditation process, faculty, and students in the
program undertook a yearlong “self-study,” and sent a report
to the APA. The APA in turn suggested several names to be considered
for a three-person site visit committee; the program chose three names
from that list.
The APA committee spent two days on the campus last March, meeting
with students, faculty, and University administrators. Their report
rated the program in eight categories: eligibility (the structure of
the program); faculty and student relations; individual and cultural
difference and diversity; philosophy, objectives, and curriculum; public
disclosure; quality enhancement and self-assessment; relationship with
the accrediting body; and resources. In all but the last—where
the committee cited graduate stipends and potential space constraints—the
program received the highest (“exemplary”) rating. The committee
recommended accreditation for seven years, the maximum allowable period
between reaccreditation visits.
Program director Joan Liem points out that graduates from an accredited program are likely to have an easier time finding internships, getting licensed, and ending up with good jobs. “Accreditation,” she says, “has really helped us in terms of the quality of both the faculty and students we’ve been able to attract.” Both faculty and students, she says, are “very happy that our creativity and hard work having once again been recognized by the accrediting team.”