Graduate preparation in research methods is needed to help ensure that the next generation of psychologists is prepared to consume and engage in research. This study examined the availability of courses in research methods in 192 American Psychological Association (APA)-accredited programs based on reports from program directors in clinical, counseling, school, and combined psychology programs. Results suggest that, although most doctoral-level psychology programs require introductory methods courses, the requirement to take more advanced courses in research methods is less common. Although many programs offer advanced methods courses as electives, fewer than 10% of program directors believe additional courses are needed. Among the areas of specialization, significant differences in required coursework in research methods were found only for factor analysis, which was required most by school psychology programs, followed by clinical psychology and then counseling psychology. In addition, PhD and PsyD programs generally do not differ in requiring coursework in research methods. Data from this study reflect a significant improvement in course offerings in research methods during the last two decades. Implications of these findings are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
"Information regarding dissertations produced in CACREP-accredited doctoral programs and dissertation committees was collected as part of a larger survey focused on research training in those programs (see Borders et al., 2013). Although the authors reviewed similar published surveys (e.g., Aiken, West, & Millsap, 2008; Okech, Astramovich, Johnson, Hoskins, & Rubel, 2006; Rossen & Oakland, 2008) in an effort to create a comprehensive survey, no dissertationrelated questions were included in previous surveys. Thus, questions were created based on the authors' knowledge of the relevant literature (cited above), the first two authors' experiences as dissertation chairs and committee members, and professional conversations with colleagues at counselor education conferences. "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Psychological research that involves cross-cultural comparisons has increased considerably during the last decade and is expected to escalate further. Given its growing popularity within mainstream psychology, cross-cultural research no longer can be considered the sole domain of experts trained in this specialization. Concomitant with this expansion, important methodological advances in quantitative psychology (e.g., measurement, statistical analysis, and research design) impact the study of cultural differences. The purpose of this article is to heighten awareness of important methodological advances among psychologists being prepared for or engaged in teaching, research, consultation, or other forms of practice that focus on diverse cultural groups. Credible and unbiased research findings coupled with psychometrically sound selection and use of assessment instruments contribute importantly to attaining the gold standard for all psychological research and testing practices. This article highlights methodological advancements and other issues that bear importantly on both the preparation and subsequent practices of psychologists in ways that promote credibility and lessen bias.
Training and Education in Professional Psychology 05/2009; 3(2). DOI:10.1037/a0014516 · 1.58 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Recent articles in The Journal for Specialists in Group Work have discussed credibility indicators for quantitative and qualitative studies (Asner-Self, 2009; Rubel & Villalba, 2009). This article extends upon these contributions by discussing measurement issues that are relevant to producers and consumers of quantitative group research. This article is necessary as measurement quality is directly associated with research credibility. The topics of reliability and validity along with credibility indicators for measures are discussed. This is followed by a description of the statistical assumption of independent measurements in relationship to group research. Implications for research and practice are provided.
The Journal for Specialists in Group Work 10/2010; 35(4):331-348. DOI:10.1080/01933922.2010.514978
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.