The first (but not last) paper with Joe Currin was accepted yesterday in Counseling Psychology Quarterly. In this paper, we examine ECP (those graduating within the last 10 years) Counseling Psychologists who are currently employed in Tenure Track (TT) positions at the 69 doctoral training programs for Counseling Psychology (APA, 2018) across the country. Given the centrality of research during the tenure process and the intentional vagueness of tenure guidelines (a positive for review committees to allow for latitude, and a negative for TT faculty seeking assurance), we wanted to know what trends in research are common over the last decade, what is typical for faculty, and if R1/R2 Carnegie institution distinctions made a difference (given the different expectations, support, etc.).

READ THE PRE-PRINT OF THE PAPER HERE

A few things stood out to us based on the sample (publications were collected using Web of Science accounts by year for all ECP TT faculty for all with a searchable account).

• ECP Faculty published an average 9.4 articles over their first six years (SD = 12.5). R1 Faculty published more (M = 12.2; SD = 14.7) than R2 faculty (M = 8.6; SD = 8.6), t(158)=3.26, p < .01, d = .53.
• Google Scholar metrics for the subsample of those with GScholar accounts (n = 92; 57.5% of sample) provide the following descriptive information:
  • h-index M = 10.3, SD 7.8,
    • R1 H-index M=12.1, SD = 8.4
    • R2 H-index M=7.1, SD = 5.0
  • i10-index M = 12.7, SD = 17.1
    • R1 i10-index M = 15.9, SD = 20.0
    • R2 i10-index M = 6.9, SD = 6.9
• Year by Year average of publications for ECP (analysis excluded year that faculty started their position, as work published there is reflective of work conducted elsewhere and may well have published prior to starting their position)
  • R1
    • Year 1   M = 2.6, SD = 2.5
    • Year 2   M = 3.5, SD = 2.8
    • Year 3   M = 3.3, SD = 2.9
    • Year 4   M = 3.3, SD = 3.5
    • Year 5   M = 4.4, SD = 4.6
    • Year 6   M = 5.1, SD = 6.7
  • R2
    • Year 1   M = 1.4, SD = 1.6
    • Year 2   M = 1.7, SD = 1.5
    • Year 3   M = 2.2, SD = 1.7
    • Year 4   M = 1.9, SD = 2.0
    • Year 5   M = 3.8, SD = 3.1
    • Year 6   M = 3.7, SD = 4.3
• Year by year of 1st authored publications
  • R1
    • Year 1   M = 1.0, SD = 1.4
    • Year 2   M = 1.8, SD = 1.6
    • Year 3   M = 1.6, SD = 1.4
    • Year 4   M = 1.5, SD = 1.3
    • Year 5   M = 2.1, SD = 2.1
    • Year 6   M = 1.6, SD = 1.6
  • R2
    • Year 1   M = 0.6, SD = 0.9
    • Year 2   M = 0.9, SD = 1.1
    • Year 3   M = 1.0, SD = 1.0
    • Year 4   M = 0.9, SD = 1.4
    • Year 5   M = 1.8, SD = 1.4
    • Year 6   M = 1.9, SD = 1.5

Our hope within this project was to provide some sense of what is normal within the most recent cohort of early career faculty that have entered (and remained) within TT faculty positions. Rates of those currently pre-tenure are slightly higher than those who have obtained tenure, likely reflecting the increased pressure to ‘publish or perish’; however, these differences were substantially less than a full publication indicating that trends are increasingly from 10 years ago but that those differences are relatively modest (~.5 publication or less by year when contrasting tenured with pre-tenure faculty during their first 3 years of faculty position, at both R1 and R2 institutions).

The lab didn’t win the TTU Psych Department’s lab logo contest, but we certainly did well with a strong showing coming up short to our departmental collaborator’s lab, Dr. Schmidt. There were so many super cool logos from all the labs.

Dr. Schmid’ts lab design was made by our lab’s very own Liz Morger [CLICK ME], and this is a good chance to plug some of her work. She will be presented at the Association for Psychological Science this year with some work based on a collaboration between our labs on the MMPI-A-RF in adolescents assessed at a local youth detention center as part of a larger study on trauma.

Title: Childhood Adversity and Externalizing Behaviors Among Justice-Involved Youth

Abstract: The current study examined differences between the total score of the ACE Questionnaire and four subscales of the MMPI-A-RF that measure externalizing dysfunction. Independent t-tests and correlations indicate that justice-involved youth who have higher ACE scores exhibit significantly more behavioral dysfunction and substance abuse.

 

I just got out of a meeting with Dr. Schmidt yesterday talking about one of our papers on training outcomes and it occurred to me that a summary of those projects is long overdue here. So here we go – how is PATS working to help train better clinicians and inform the field about outcome standards:

1. We have a paper in review looking at the pedagogical practices of assessment training based on a review of syllabi from instructors all around the country. There are conceptual frameworks for what should happen (teaching knowledge, skills, and attitudes; Kaslow, 2018) but we wanted to know if this is happening and how students are achieving mastery of those domains?
2. The national survey of graduate student trainees in HSP finished collection last summer and we are in the midst of a few papers from that. We have one out in review with a state of the field summary of training experiences in psychological assessment. We have another being presented in a few months at the Society for Personality Assessment about what factors (conceptually grouped as trainee characteristics, clinical experiences, or program traits) predict the intention to utilize psychological assessments in clinical practice. After those two we will be focusing on the third, and last, part of that project – performance based benchmarks
3. After a survey of training directors at APPIC internship sites, we are finalizing two manuscripts giving a (much needed) update to what internship sites find important. The first evaluates the different elements of the APPIC on a numeric system and compares across different site types what matters to get an interview, and then what matters in terms of ranking order once they interview. The second paper is a qualitative analysis of what ‘fit’ is so that trainees can understand what they actually need to be describing when they write letters and personal statements.

It should be a big year for training.

I’m excited to have another paper in press, this time at the Journal of Personality Assessment. This paper utilizes the same national sample I’ve previously published on to examine service era differences, provide comparison groups for specific treatment clinics, and examine trends in validity scale performance. In my new paper, we provide correlations between the MMPI-2-RF and a variety of commonly utilized self-report measures of symptom severity within the VA (e.g., those for anxiety, depression, and PTSD). This, in conjunction with these other VA papers, offers an interpretive framework for clinicians to use as they interpret assessment profiles for Veterans receiving care.

You can download the pre-print of the accepted paper HERE.

Here are a few of the key take aways that stand out to me:

1. Of those given the PCL in the sample (a PTSD screener for DSM-5), the average score is a 50 (the cut score recommended for screening for PTSD is a 33).
2. Across the board, DSM-4 screeners for PTSD have stronger/more reliable relationships to content associated with a PTSD diagnosis on the MMPI-2-RF than the DSM-5 PTSD screener. The reasoning for this is unclear.
3. The BDI-2 (a measure of depression that makes up part of a major suicide screener) is not related meaningfully to any of the types of indicators you would expect (e.g., hopelessness, suicidality, depression, anhedonia) on the MMPI-2-RF. That’s really surprising and alarming given how it gets used in the VA.
4. Adding to the last point, elevations are fairly high across a lot of measures (both screeners and those on the MMPI-2-RF). This is consistent with the high rate of disorders in the VA and suggest that those who get assessed are likely to experience a variety of mental health problems.

Here are those relationships for the internalizing and scales of the MMPI-2-RF

This year the lab had two papers accepted with Brittney on them. The most recent was accepted into the Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology and covered her AACN presentation from this summer on use of the MMPI-2-RF to detect invalid responding in a sample of active duty army. Download the paper HERE.

Recap of the presentation on her most recent publication:

And here is the article from earlier this year on the PAI response profiles using a sample collected on a VA outpatient PTSD Clinic

Ingram, Sharpnack, Mosier, & Golden (in press) Evaluating symptom endorsement typographies of trauma-exposed veterans on the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI): A latent profile analysis

 

Note. This post has been updated to include a link to the paper on the MMPI-2-RF validity scales with the military sample (update 1/4/2020).

Another great door decorating year for the lab. We had a lab meeting yesterday and all the undergrads brought their greatest ideas – we settled on the evil laboratory door and it turned out great. There were working on this til 6:30 last night and I love it.

Admittedly, the whole department has some awesome doors and I’m digging the bracket challenge we’re doing.

Now the next question, how long can you leave Halloween decorations up for?

Question after that, when is too early to start planning for next year?

 

The article Brian Cole and I wrote is online now at Psychology of Men and Masculinities. It’s a super cool article that starts to break down the influence of self-stigma and gender role norms to see how they predict different types of help seeking – friends, professionals, self-help, and (of course) avoidance.

Check it out! We’re already planning for our follow-up study!

I am excited to be continuing the growth of my lab and will be accepting a student to start next year in the Counseling psychology PhD program. We have a ton of projects going on and its a great time to jump in. If you are interested in help seeking behaviors, we have a ton of cool projects in the middle of data collection. Those interested in military populations, we’ve got those as well. If you are interested in assessment, we have even more!

If you are interested in the lab, I’d LOVE to hear from you! Send me an email with info about your experiences, interests, and questions you have about how you would fit. I’m happy to give you more details about my mentoring style, the lab, TTU, and the Counseling program.

 

As you consider becoming a Red Raider, here is some actual footage of our lab environment

I wanted to take a minute to brag about one of the lab members. Liz was an awesome addition to the lab this semester and I’m glad she joined us. Clearly she stands out to the TTU department as well!

I’m thrilled to have the new paper with Dr. Brian Cole accepted to Psychology of Men and Masculinities. We took at a look at help seeking behaviors in men with depressive symptoms to get a better idea of what coping and help seeking looks like, and then at how stigma and gender identity conflict predicts those behaviors.

Above is a slightly simplified figure from the paper, but the take away is clear for me. Help seeking varies, and so do their relationships to classic barriers to mental healthcare like self-stigma. If we want to improve our understanding of therapy engagement, we can’t act like everyone copes the same or that everything will influence those different methods the same way.