critical review - Assignment Essays

attachment

The purpose of this assignment is for you to show your understanding of

peer-reviewed empirical articles

through: 1) reviewing original research; 2) evaluating claims, methods, and conclusions; and 3) communicating your analysis in a way that translates scientific information into common terms for a general audience. In writing an article review, you gain skills in summarizing key points and findings, interpreting results, evaluating the validity of the methods used and results reported, and communicating information to an audience in ways they understand.

Step 1: Read the tips from the UMGC library on “

Finding Experimental (Empirical) Research Articles

.” Pay special attention to the sections on “Scholarly Research Articles” the “Structure of An Experimental Article”

Step 2: (article provide) find an article published in the last seven (7) years in a psychology journal with a focus on Clinical Psychology (e.g., Journal of Clinical Psychology). The article should describe an

experimental manipulation

by the researchers specifically. This means that the researchers conducted a study that is an experiment with easily identifiable

independent

and

dependent

variables. (Do not select meta-analyses, summaries, correlational studies, editorials, or theoretical articles. It is your responsibility to make sure that the journal article you select is appropriate. If you are unsure about the relevance of your article, contact your instructor for approval.).

Step 3: Read the article starting with the Title and Abstract, which will give you a quick preview of the purpose and results of the article.

Step 4: Read the Introduction. Highlight the purpose of the article and the author’s hypothesis (e.g., what was studied, what the authors predicted, and why they found the topic worthy of study). Pay attention to the context provided for the research. (For example: What research has been done previously in the field? What issue or problem is this study trying to address?)

Step 5: Read the Methods section. Note the description of the participants and any tests, surveys, questionnaires, apparatus, or other materials that were used. Pay particular attention to the details involved in the experimental procedure. How were the variables manipulated or measured? Recall that the independent variable (IV) is the variable that is manipulated by the research [e.g., whether the room is hot or cold – if that is the variable of interest) or whether participants are given a placebo, shown any type of media or other stimuli, given talk therapy, or instructed to take medication (if that is the variable of interest)]. Remember that the independent variable is what was different about the experiences of the different groups. Recall also that the dependent variable (DV) is that variable that is measured, or, the outcome of the study (i.e., test performance or lessening of depressive symptoms).

Step 6: Read the Results. Try not to get intimidated by complex statistical analysis. Instead of focusing on the numbers, focus on the short descriptions that accompany the findings explaining what the researchers found. (Did the researchers find evidence that supports their hypothesis?)

Step 7: Read the Discussion. Pay special attention here to what the authors say about the importance of their findings or the lack of findings. Think about other things you could do to look at this issue.

Step 8: Prepare a 3- to 5-page summary of the article fully paraphrased in your own words and your own writing style and structure. Changing a few words from the original is not fully paraphrasing. Be sure to address the following questions in your summary:

· What is the purpose of the research? (Address specifics regarding the overall purpose of the research in question.)

· What

hypothesis

is tested? (Provide a clear statement of the researchers’ prediction.)

· How did the researchers investigate their research question? (Provide details regarding the study methodology.)

· What are the pertinent results of the manipulation? (What were the findings and conclusions drawn?)

· What is your personal opinion of the study conducted? Should it be repeated? What could be improved?

· What is your overall impression of the work? What are the implications of the study for the practice of counseling psychology?

Your summary should be written as a coherent essay (do not format as a bullet list of answers to these questions). You may include additional insights in your analysis, but you must address these key issues.

Step 9: Prepare your Article Review according to the following guidelines:

· Structure your paper utilizing

APA style

(7th Edition); this includes title page,

headings

in-text citations

, reference page, and general paper format (1-inch margins, double-spaced, appropriately sized

sans serif or serif fonts

– e.g., 12 Times Roman).
An abstract is
not required.

· Apply sound writing mechanics: write with clarity, paying attention to spelling, grammar, and syntax.

· Submit to your Assignment Folder as a single document in either Microsoft Word, PDF, or RTF format.

Racial and Ethnic Diversity Among Clinical Psychology
Doctoral Students Applying for Internship

A. Andrew Dimmick and Jennifer L. Callahan
Department of Psychology, University of North Texas

Racial and ethnic diversity constriction in the psychology training-to-workforce pipeline has been broadly
identified at the undergraduate, graduate, and licensure levels. Within that context, the present study sought
to investigate the rate at which racial and ethnic minority students matched for internship compared to
majority non-Hispanic White graduate students. Consistent with prior reports, racial and ethnic minority
students were significantly underrepresented in clinical psychology doctoral programs. However, internship
match rates did not differ significantly by racial and ethnic minority status. Placed within the larger context
of established literature, the findings suggest that internship match is not likely to be a significant contributor
to the constriction of racial/ethnic diversity in the training-to-workforce pipeline. As an exception to the
problem, other points in the training-to-workforce pipeline that have been identified as points of diversity
constriction (e.g., doctoral recruitment and admissions, licensure) may benefit from careful consideration of
internship application criteria and/or review processes in formulating constriction remediation plans.
Programmatic remediation of underrepresented minorities can lead to several gains for the profession,
including improved educational outcomes; improved leadership and critical thinking skills; and increased
openness and tolerance for racial, cultural, and value diversity.

Public Significance Statement
With declines in representation in the range of 50%–70%, diversity constriction of underrepresented
minorities (i.e., Hispanic/Latinx; Black/African American individuals; Native American) is a pernicious
problem within clinical psychology for which discipline-level remediation seems appropriate. Points of
known constriction, such as doctoral recruitment and admissions and examination for licensure, are
encouraged to learn from the more effective methods and processes of internship match to foster greater
inclusiveness and equity.

Keywords: race/ethnicity, diversity, clinical psychology, doctoral training, internship

As the population of the United States continues to become
increasingly racially and ethnically diverse (U.S. Census Bureau,
2020), the necessity of a more diverse workforce in psychology to

meet the mental health needs of the population has become ever
more apparent. A crucial step for increasing racial/ethnic diversity in
the workforce of psychology is addressing diversity disparities in
the training of future psychologists. Extensive evidence suggests
that increased racial/ethnic diversity in higher education leads to
student gains, such as positive educational outcomes, critical think-
ing skills, personal development, social competence, and openness
to diversity (Antonio, 2001; Bowman, 2010; Boylan et al., 2003;
Chang, 1999; Denson & Chang, 2009; Flowers & Pascarella, 1999;
Gurin et al., 2003; Henderson-King & Kaleta, 2000; Hu & Kuh,
2003; Nishina et al., 2019; Pascarella et al., 1996; Pike, 2002;
Taylor, 1998; Terenzini et al., 2001; Umbach & Kuh, 2006;
Whitt et al., 2001). Importantly, these positive outcomes from
exposure to racial/ethnic diversity in higher education are not
limited to the short period a student spends at a higher education
institution. Research suggests that White individuals who are
exposed to individuals of multicultural backgrounds during their
education are more cross-culturally competent when they enter the
workforce (Jayakumar, 2008).

Despite the various positive outcomes that accompany increased
racial/ethnic diversity, minority underrepresentation in psychology
persists as a problem in the psychology training-to-workforce
pipeline. A report by the American Psychological Association
(APA, 2018b) found that of the 94,643 psychologists working in

This article was published Online First July 22, 2021.

A. Andrew Dimmick https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1975-7869

Jennifer L. Callahan https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9190-3886
A. ANDREW DIMMICK earned his BS in Psychology from Idaho State

University. He is currently a student in the Clinical Psychology doctoral
(PhD) program in the Department of Psychology at the University of North
Texas (Denton, TX) where he works under the direction of Jennifer L.
Callahan.
JENNIFER L. CALLAHAN earned her PhD in Clinical Psychology from the

University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, completed her internship and postdoc-
toral training at Yale University, and holds board certification in Clinical
Psychology. She is currently Professor and Director of Clinical Training for
the Clinical Psychology program in the Department of Psychology at the
University of North Texas (Denton, TX) where she directs the Evidence-
Based Training and Competencies Research Lab.
CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING THIS ARTICLE should be addressed to Jennifer L.

Callahan, Department of Psychology, University of North Texas, 1155 Union
Circle #311280, Denton, TX 76205, United Stated. Email: Jennifer.Callahan@
unt.edu

Training and Education in Professional Psychology

© 2021 American Psychological Association 2022, Vol. 16, No. 4, 412–419
ISSN: 1931-3918 https://doi.org/10.1037/tep0000382

412

T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by

th
e
A
m
er
ic
an

P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al

A
ss
oc
ia
tio

n
or

on
e
of

its
al
lie
d
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.

T
hi
s
ar
tic
le

is
in
te
nd
ed

so
le
ly

fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al

us
e
of

th
e
in
di
vi
du
al

us
er

an
d
is
no
t
to

be
di
ss
em

in
at
ed

br
oa
dl
y.

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1975-7869

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9190-3886

mailto:Jennifer.Callahan@unt.edu

https://doi.org/10.1037/tep0000382

2016, only 15,143 (16%) identified as racially or ethnically diverse.
Concurrently, the proportion of racially/ethnically diverse workers
that made up the U.S. workforce at the time was more than double
that rate (39%). To understand why workforce diversity is low, the
higher education pipeline to the profession must be considered.
Beginning with undergraduate majors in psychology, a report

by Luebbe and Ogbaselase (2018) found that the racial/ethnic
minority student representation in undergraduate psychology
majors was significantly lower than what was expected based
on U.S. population census data. Drawing from concurrent census
figures (Humes et al., 2011), we would expect 36.3% of U.S.
psychology majors to identify as racially or ethnically diverse, in
contrast to the smaller 31.9% found by Luebbe and Ogbaselase
(2018). These omnibus figures do not fully capture the extent of
the problem however. Parsing of diverse students reveals uneven
constriction across groups. Representation of Hispanics/Latinx
decreased in the diversity pipeline by 23.93% from population
diversity to undergraduate psychology student diversity. Diversity
constriction of a slightly smaller magnitude was observed in Native
American representation with representation of Native Americans
decreasing by 11.11%. In contrast, no significant diversity constriction
occurred for Black/African American or Asian/Pacific Islander in-
dividuals from population representation to undergraduate psychology
major representation.
Research by Callahan et al. (2018) focused on the doctoral

education years and found evidence of additional diversity constric-
tion and even greater underrepresentation of specific racial/ethnic
minority groups within accredited doctoral psychology programs.
Although no significant diversity constriction occurred among
Native American students or Asian/Pacific Islander students, mas-
sive constriction was localized to Hispanic/Latinx and Black/
African American individuals. Hispanic/Latinx representation
decreased by 34.05% from population diversity to diversity in
psychology doctoral programs. Black/African American student
representation decreased by 43.81%. With strong constriction in
doctoral training, the observation of poor workforce diversity in
professional psychology is perhaps not surprising (APA, 2018b;
Buchanan & Wiklund, 2020). Unfortunately, past efforts to reme-
diate underrepresentation of diversity in the field have been insuffi-
cient and largely insubstantial (Borrego, 2018).
With few racial/ethnic minorities from underrepresented groups

emerging from the training pipeline, surviving racial/ethnic minori-
ties who enter faculty positions suffer as well (Niemann, 2016).
When racial/ethnic minority faculty are significantly underrepre-
sented and/or characterized as a “token” faculty member, they may
be more subject to racial/ethnic stereotypes imposed by faculty
members belonging to the racial/ethnic majority. These racial/ethnic
minority faculty members are often viewed through the lens of their
racial/ethnic identity, instead of as experts and professionals in their
specific area of research. Ultimately, the lack of racial/ethnic
minority professionals in the psychology workforce fosters a
homogenous field and can lead to a reduction in the talents, ideas,
and perspectives of the field as a whole (Grapin et al., 2016).
An additional side effect of the racial/ethnic diversity constriction

of clinical psychology doctoral students is the racial/ethnic diversity
constriction among psychotherapists in the workforce. Racial/ethnic
minority psychotherapy clients have been found to show a strong
preference for working with a racially/ethnically matching psycho-
therapist. They view their racially/ethnically matching therapist as

superior to a nonmatching psychotherapist and have been found to
develop a stronger therapeutic alliance with matching psychothera-
pists (Cabral & Smith, 2011; Chao et al., 2012). Through the
systemic constriction of racial/ethnic diversity from undergraduate
psychology students to applicants seeking licensure, the likelihood
that a racial/ethnic minority client will be able to receive treatment
from a matching therapist is sharply reduced.

While biased admission metrics are of concern (Callahan et al.,
2018), an unexplored possibility is that existing homogeneities
(e.g., as described by Grapin et al., 2016) may also contribute to
sustenance of diversity constriction. Research indicates that certain
personality characteristics play a role in admission to graduate psy-
chology programs (Appleby et al., 1999) and in matching for intern-
ship (Collins et al., 2007; Ginkel et al., 2010). Personality factors such
as friendliness, assertiveness, and self-efficacy have been shown to
have significant correlations with psychology doctoral students’ like-
lihood to match for internship (Callahan et al., 2014). These findings
are alarming when examined through the lens of personality differ-
ences between racial/ethnic groups. A large meta-analysis of racial/
ethnic differences in personality indicated that small but significant
differences exist among the Big Five personality traits (Foldes et al.,
2008). As some personality traits are preferred in regards to admission
to graduate psychology programs and during the internship match
process, racial/ethnic groups with personality traits that do not map
onto these preferences risk systematic exclusion from psychology
graduate programs and internship match.

Congruent with the previously discussed necessity in identifying
and remediating constrictions in the racial/ethnic diversity pipeline,
the primary aim of this study was to explore whether or not internship
match, a high stakes competitive process in which not all who apply
are matched, might be contributing to diversity constriction in the
clinical psychology training-to-workforce pipeline. In light of the
extant literature pointing to significant constriction at the undergrad-
uate, graduate, and licensure levels, it was hypothesized that under-
represented clinical psychology racial/ethnic minority students—
specifically Black/African American and Hispanic/Latinx—would
have a higher ratio of internship site applications to interviews and
match for internship at a lower rate than non-HispanicWhite students.
A secondary aim of this study was to investigate possible confound-
ing variables—various applicant qualifications—for prevalence of
underrepresented racial/ethnic minority students at the internship
match level. In light of an earlier report finding no significant
difference in academic qualifications among those admitted to
doctoral training (Callahan et al., 2018), we did not expect under-
represented racial/ethnic minority student qualifications for
internship—the number of publications on their curriculum vitae
(CV), the number of supervision hours, the number of intervention
and assessment hours—to significantly differ from those of non-
Hispanic White students. However, differences in normative person-
ality traits—Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeable-
ness, and Neuroticism—were explored to determine whether
personality trait differences between racial/ethnic groups, in the
aggregate, might differ in similar ways to those in normative samples.

Method

Participants

To maximize variability in match outcomes, the data set built for
the present study pulled data from two previous studies examining

INTERNSHIP MATCH AND DIVERSITY 413

T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by

th
e
A
m
er
ic
an

P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al

A
ss
oc
ia
tio

n
or

on
e
of

its
al
lie
d
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.

T
hi
s
ar
tic
le

is
in
te
nd
ed

so
le
ly

fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al

us
e
of

th
e
in
di
vi
du
al

us
er

an
d
is
no
t
to

be
di
ss
em

in
at
ed

br
oa
dl
y.

clinical psychology doctoral student variables and internship match
rate at the height of the internship match imbalance (Callahan et al.,
2010, 2014). One noteworthy change was made in the combined
data set. Five participants were excluded from the combined data set
as they did not indicate their racial/ethnic status. Data from 28
participants were removed as they were from the 2011 match year
and indicated that they had applied for internship for two or more
years. These participants were removed to preclude counting them
twice in data analyses. A total of 131 participants were excluded
from analyses pertaining to internship match as they did not respond
or indicate their match status in the postmatch follow-up survey.
Our final sample (N = 568) was majority Female (77.6%) and
non-Hispanic White (80.3%; Asian/Pacific Islander, 6.0%; Black/
African American, 4.2%; Hispanic/Latinx, 4.0%; Native American,
0.4%; multiracial, 3.0%; other, 2.1%). The average age of students
in our sample was 29.16 (SD = 3.78). They were primarily enrolled
in clinical psychology doctoral programs (96.6%) with small pro-
portions being enrolled in counseling psychology doctoral programs
(0.9%), school psychology doctoral programs (0.2%), or a com-
bined program (2.3%). Student data were treated according to
the American Psychological Association Ethical Principles of
Psychologists and Code of Conduct (2017).

Procedure

Prior to internship match notification day, students in the present
study completed a survey regarding their demographic information,
internship qualifications, the number of their internship applications
and interviews, as well as a personality measure. A subsequent
postmatch survey was distributed to all students who completed the
original survey to follow-up regarding the students’ match status. A
total of 76.9% of the students in the study completed the postmatch
survey, with 89.2% of the completers indicating they matched for
internship.

Measures

International Personality Item Pool Representation of the
NEO-PI-R (IPIP-NEO)

Students completed a version of the IPIP (Goldberg et al., 2006)
developed for measuring personality domains included in the NEO
Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992). The
IPIP-NEO is a self-report questionnaire containing 300 questions,
each on a 5-point Likert scale. The IPIP-NEO measures personality
across the five big personality traits—Openness, Conscientiousness,
Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism. Cronbach’s α reli-
ability coefficient was calculated for each of the big five personality
traits and are as follows: Openness = .64, Conscientiousness = .79,
Extraversion = .78, Agreeableness = .77, Neuroticism = .84. It has
also shown construct validity with the NEO-PI-R, with significant
mean trait correlation (r = .68; Lim & Ployhart, 2006). The five-
factor personality model utilized in the IPIP-NEO has been found to
fit well across gender and ethnic groups (Ehrhart et al., 2008). Racial
and ethnic norms for the IPIP-NEO are not available and use of such
norms is discouraged by the inventory developers (Goldberg et al.,
2006). The IPIP-NEO was chosen over more common personality
measures for a few reasons. The measure is both nonpathologizing
and nonclinical, which was important given the nature of the sample.

Additionally, the IPIP-NEO is less commonly used and therefore the
students were likely less familiar with it compared to more widely
used measures in clinical settings of five-factor personality inven-
tories. Recent evidence suggests that the IPIP-NEO is also a more
reliable measure of personality than more commonly used person-
ality inventories (Hamby et al., 2016).

Results

Hispanic/Latinx and Black/African American clinical psychology
doctoral students were significantly underrepresented, χ2(2) = 57.98,
p < .001, compared to the representation rates found in the general United States population (Humes et al., 2011). Hispanic/Latinx and Black/African American students were also significantly underrepre- sented, χ2(2) = 36.5, p < .001, in this largely clinical psychology subdiscipline sample as compared to representation in accredited psychology doctoral programs more broadly (Callahan et al., 2018). However, underrepresented Hispanic/Latinx and Black/African American students were not significantly less likely to match for internship than non-Hispanic White students, χ2(3) = 2.73, p = .44. Figure 1 displays this finding within the context of the broader training-to-workforce pipeline. There were also no significant differ- ences in the ratio of applications to interviews, F(2, 380) = .49, p = .62, the number of supervision hours, F(2, 372) = 1.12, p = .33, the number of interventions and assessment hours, F(2, 375) = .80, p = .45, or the number of publications, F(2, 381) = .08, p = .92, as a function of racial/ethnic status.

Personality traits were measured to investigate if trait differences
between racial/ethnic groups among those accepted into clinical
psychology doctoral programs differed from trait differences found
in the population, as well as to examine if trait differences between
racial/ethnic groups of those students who matched for internship
differ from those found in clinical psychology doctoral programs in
general. First, the effect sizes of differences across the big five
personality domains by racial group (non-Hispanic White compared
with Black/African American, non-Hispanic White compared with
Hispanic/Latinx, etc.) were analyzed and compared with differences
found in a large meta-analysis by Foldes et al. (2008). Effect size
differences can be found in Table 1. Notably, Black/African Amer-
ican students in clinical psychology doctoral programs differed from
non-Hispanic White students in agreeableness, d = −.07; 95% CI
[−.15, .00], and neuroticism, d = −.10; 95% CI [−.19, .00], at
different magnitudes, compared to observed differences in agree-
ableness (d = .03) and neuroticism (d = .09) found in a normative
sample (Foldes et al., 2008). Asian/Pacific Islander students in
clinical psychology doctoral programs differed from non-Hispanic
White students in conscientiousness, d = .44; 95% CI [−.03, .90],
agreeableness, d = .41; 95% CI [−.03, .84], and neuroticism, d =
−.78; 95% CI [−1.59, −.04], at different magnitudes, compared to
observed differences in conscientiousness (d=−.11), agreeableness
(d = −.63), and neuroticism (d = .12) found in normative samples.
Finally, Hispanic/Latinx students in clinical psychology doctoral
programs differed from non-Hispanic White students in openness, d
=−.10; 95% CI [−.20, .01], and conscientiousness, d= .09; 95% CI
[−.01, .19], at different magnitudes, compared to observed differ-
ences in openness (d = .02) and conscientiousness (d = −.08) found
in normative samples.

Next, the effect sizes of personality trait differences by racial
group of clinical psychology doctoral students who matched for

414 DIMMICK AND CALLAHAN

T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by

th
e
A
m
er
ic
an

P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al

A
ss
oc
ia
tio

n
or

on
e
of

its
al
lie
d
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.

T
hi
s
ar
tic
le

is
in
te
nd
ed

so
le
ly

fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al

us
e
of

th
e
in
di
vi
du
al

us
er

an
d
is
no
t
to

be
di
ss
em

in
at
ed

br
oa
dl
y.

internship were examined and compared to personality trait differ-
ences of clinical psychology doctoral students as a whole. Effect size
differences can be found in Table 1. Notable differences in the
magnitude of trait differences were found between Hispanic/Latinx
students and non-Hispanic White students who matched for intern-
ship in openness, d = −.02; 95% CI [−.05, .00], and extraversion,
d = .01; 95% CI [.00, .02], compared to observed differences in

openness and extraversion found in clinical psychology doctoral
students as a whole.

Discussion

The present study investigated constrictions of racial and ethnic
diversity in the professional psychology pipeline, specifically at the

Table 1
Differences in Personality Traits by Racial Group Between Clinical Psychology Doctoral Students, Clinical Psychology Doctoral Students
Who Matched for Internship, and Normative Samples Found by Foldes et al. (2008)

Racial group
comparisona

Differences in normative
samples (Foldes et al., 2008)

Differences among students
across programs

Differences among students that
matched for internship

Mean (M) d d 95% CI d 95% CI

White-Black
Openness .10 .33 [−.02, .67] .17 [−.01, .35]
Conscientiousness −.07 .13 [−.09, .34] .32 [−.22, .85]
Extraversion .16 .41 [−.02, .83] .55 [−.02, 1.12]
Agreeableness .03 −.07 [−.15, .00]b −.06 [−.12, 0.00]
Neuroticism .09 −.10 [−.19, .00]b −.42 [−.85, .01]

White-Asian/Pacific Islander
Openness −.11 −.14 [−.30, .01] −.21 [−.43, .01]
Conscientiousness −.11 .44 [−.03, .90]b .43 [−.03, .90]
Extraversion .14 .34 [−.02, .70] .21 [−.01, .44]
Agreeableness −.63 .41 [−.03, .84]b .47 [−.04, 1.07]
Neuroticism .12 −.78 [−1.59, −.04]b −.77 [−1.57, .04]

White-Hispanic/Latinx
Openness .02 −.10 [−.20, .01]b −.02 [−.05, .00]c

Conscientiousness −.08 .09 [−.01, .19]b .17 [−.01, .36]
Extraversion .02 −.03 [−.08, .02] .01 [.00, .02]c

Agreeableness .05 .27 [−.02, .55] .47 [−.24, .96]
Neuroticism −.03 −.41 [−.82, .01] −.41 [−.83, .01]

Note. Bold font indicates statistically significant differences.
a White-Native American comparisons were excluded due to insufficient sample size. A correction factor was used in calculating effects size for personality
differences among students to account for smaller samples. b 95% Confidence interval does not contain personality effect size difference observed in
normative samples. c 95% confidence interval does not contain personality effect size difference observed among students across programs.

Figure 1
Constriction of the Racial and Ethnic Diversity Pipeline in Clinical Psychology

INTERNSHIP MATCH AND DIVERSITY 415

T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by

th
e
A
m
er
ic
an

P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al

A
ss
oc
ia
tio

n
or

on
e
of

its
al
lie
d
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.

T
hi
s
ar
tic
le

is
in
te
nd
ed

so
le
ly

fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al

us
e
of

th
e
in
di
vi
du
al

us
er

an
d
is
no
t
to

be
di
ss
em

in
at
ed

br
oa
dl
y.

doctoral and internship match levels within the subdiscipline of
clinical psychology. Within this clinical psychology subdiscipline
sample, the observed constriction represents significant racial/ethnic
minority underrepresentation when compared to (a) the demo-
graphics of the United States (Humes et al., 2011) and (b) psychol-
ogy doctoral programs as a whole (Callahan et al., 2018). Yet,
importantly, racial/ethnic minority students in this sample were as
likely to match for internship as the dominant majority (non-
Hispanic White students). Regardless of race/ethnicity, successfully
matched internship applicants were similarly qualified with respect
to the number of supervision hours, intervention and assessment
hours, and publications.
Personality differences were examined to explore the possibility

that field homogeneity might foster diversity constriction suste-
nance. The magnitude of personality differences between racial/
ethnic groups in our sample did somewhat differ from those found in
a normative sample (Foldes et al., 2008). Personality trait differ-
ences between racial/ethnic groups of students who matched for
internship were generally similar to the differences found in clinical
psychology doctoral students as a whole. Due to the exploratory
nature of this finding, it is unclear whether the differing magnitude
of personality traits according to racial group is due to systematic
exclusion of racial/ethnic applicants that do not map onto a stereo-
typical “White” personality type (i.e., the hypothesis of field homo-
geneity), or if the differences are due to another variable entirely.
Despite the encouraging finding pertaining to racial/ethnic diver-

sity at internship match, diversity constriction remains a serious
problem within clinical psychology. A call for discipline-level
remediation seems appropriate. The representation of Hispanics/
Latinx cumulatively decreased 67.74% from undergraduate psy-
chology student representation to clinical psychology doctoral
student representation. Similarly, a decrease of 65.29% in Black/
African American representation and 50% in Native American
representation occurred from undergraduate psychology student
diversity to clinical psychology doctoral student diversity. The
only racial/ethnic group that was not underrepresented or evidencing
constriction was that of Asian/Pacific Islander students, as the
representation of Asian/Pacific Islander individuals remained rela-
tively stable from population to undergraduate to clinical psychol-
ogy doctoral representation.
A possible contributor to the significant underrepresentation of

racial/ethnic minority students in our sample could be due to the type
of programs sampled in the study. Due to the source data from the
original studies from which data were derived from this study, our
sample was constrained to students recruited through member
programs of the Council of University Directors of Clinical
Psychology (CUDCP). Evidence suggests that programs following
the clinical-science or scientist–practitioner training models—the
two primary training models of CUDCP programs—admit racial/
ethnic minority students at a rate of 22.2%–22.7% (Sayette et al.,
2011). Programs that instead follow the practitioner–scholar model
of training—a program training model not represented within this
sample—accept racial/ethnic minority students at a rate of 42.0%.
The acceptance rate of CUDCP programs in the present study
(19.7%) closely resembles the acceptance rate of similar programs
in past research (22.2%–22.7%). This could explain why the clinical
psychology doctoral programs in our study underrepresented racial/
ethnic minority students compared to the results found by Callahan
et al. (2018) regarding doctoral psychology programs in general.

This suggests that there may be distinct differences in clinical
psychology training models—clinical-science/scientist–practitioner
compared to practitioner–scholar—that attract differing rates of
racial/ethnic student applicants or differences in training model
admission criteria that constricts racial/ethnic program diversity.

The reason racial/ethnic diversity constriction occurs at the
clinical psychology doctoral level but not at the internship match
level is unknown, but it may be due to different criteria and/or
application review processes. One distinct difference between the
internship application process and clinical psychology doctoral
program application process is the lack of standardized testing.
The Graduate Records Examination (GRE) is a common standard-
ized test that is used in the admissions process for clinical psychol-
ogy doctoral programs, and evidence indicates that racial/ethnic
groups do not perform equally well on this exam (The National
Center for Fair and Open Testing, 2007), possibly contributing to
racial/ethnic diversity constriction (Callahan et al., 2018). The lack
of standardized test information on the internship application
(Association of Psychology Postdoctoral and Internship Centers
(APPIC), n.d.), may encourage more holistic applicant review and
weighting of criteria tied to assessment, intervention, supervision,
and research metrics (Callahan et al., 2010, 2014).

Extant literature points to recurrence of constriction at a subse-
quent point in the training-to-workforce pipeline: the requisite
national licensure exam (Sharpless, 2019, 2021; Sharpless &
Barber, 2009). Many issues have been raised regarding the Exami-
nation for Professional Practice in Psychology (EPPP) and its
validity (Callahan et al., 2020, 2021; DeMers, 2009; DiLillo &
Tremblay, 2009; Erikson Cornish & Smith, 2009; Ryan & Chan,
1999), but one particularly problematic concern is the role of the
EPPP in furthering diversity constriction occurring at the precipice
of entering the profession. Research has consistently indicated that
fail rates of first-time EPPP test takers differ significantly by racial/
ethnic status, with a much higher rate of failure being found among
underrepresented Black/African American (23.33%) and Hispanic/
Latinx (18.60%) applicants as compared to Asian (3.33%) or White
(5.75%) applicants (Sharpless, 2019, 2021). Our findings, coupled
with research indicating the significant barriers occurring at the
undergraduate psychology and licensure levels, help to identify
which areas of the training-to-workforce clinical psychology diver-
sity pipeline are laudable (i.e., internshipmatch) and which areas are
in dire need of improvement (i.e., doctoral recruitment and admis-
sions; licensure examination).

The seriousness of constriction in the training-to-workforce
pipeline in clinical psychology is exacerbated when taking into
consideration the current state of mental health services in the
United States. Recent evidence suggests that although the workforce
of mental health providers is steadily increasing, it is being far
outpaced by the growing need for mental health services (Reinert
et al., 2021). In addition to this, the demand for mental health
services appears to be highest among racially/ethnically diverse
individuals—specifically those who identify as Native American,
Black, or multiracial. A report by the American Psychological
Association (2018a) of the demand for mental health services
between 2015 and 2030 indicates that the need for mental health
services will continue to increase, with the largest demands being
seen among racial/ethnic minority groups. This increase in the
mental health needs of the population emphasizes the necessity
to not only train psychologists in multicultural competence, but to

416 DIMMICK AND CALLAHAN

T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by

th
e
A
m
er
ic
an

P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al

A
ss
oc
ia
tio

n
or

on
e
of

its
al
lie
d
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.

T
hi
s
ar
tic
le

is
in
te
nd
ed

so
le
ly

fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al

us
e
of

th
e
in
di
vi
du
al

us
er

an
d
is
no
t
to

be
di
ss
em

in
at
ed

br
oa
dl
y.

erode the existing barriers in the diversity pipeline for racially and
ethnically diverse students to pursue advanced degrees in
psychology.

Limitations

Notwithstanding the important implications of the previously
discussed findings, the present study has limitations. Our research
suggests that diversity constriction occurs between the undergradu-
ate psychology major and clinical psychology doctoral program
levels, but the exact point at which constriction occurs is unclear. A
possible area of constriction discussed is through the GRE, but it is
possible that instead of application criteria excluding racial/ethnic
minorities, fewer racial/ethnic minorities apply to clinical psychol-
ogy doctoral programs. An additional limitation of our study was the
age of the data. The archival data used in this study were combined
from two previous studies (Callahan et al., 2010, 2014) pertaining to
the 2010 and 2011 internship match. These previous studies
occurred during an ideal time to investigate internship match
variables: When the rate of unmatched students was highest.
This imbalance in matching, while unfortunate, provided a unique
opportunity to examine which variables contribute to students
matching and receiving their preferred match. Nevertheless, due
to the changing nature of the demographics in the United States
(U.S.), our findings may not be representative of current clinical
psychology doctoral programs. If they are not fully representative, it
is likely in the direction of underappreciating the magnitude of
underrepresentation. An examination of diversity representation
over a 10-year period indicated remarkable stability in prevalence
rates of underrepresented minority students in accredited doctoral
programs (Callahan & Watkins, 2018) despite the U.S. population
demographics changing considerably over the same period (U.S.
Census Bureau, 2020).
Our study has several directions for future research. Future

research should focus on the clinical psychology doctoral program
application process and investigate the extent of racial/ethnic diver-
sity constriction that occurs at that level. Research in this area should
focus on investigating whether there is a significant difference in the
rate of racial/ethnic minority student applications compared to the
general population as well as any differences in applicant
qualifications—GRE scores, presentations on CV, publications
on CV, grade point average (GPA), and so forth—by racial/ethnic
status. Due to complications caused by the COVID-19, many
clinical psychology doctoral programs excluded GRE score report-
ing as an application requirement during the application season tied
with fall 2021 admissions. That disruption will provide a novel
opportunity to analyze the rate of racial/ethnic minority students’
applications submitted, the rate of racial/ethnic minority students
invited to interview, and the rate of racial/ethnic minority students
offered admissions compared to previous years when GRE score
reporting was a requirement. Programs are encouraged to analyze
and report their data transparently.

Conclusions

Evidence suggests that increased racial/ethnic diversity in higher
education promotes positive educational, social, and developmental
outcomes. Despite these gains, racial/ethnic minority students are
underrepresented in clinical psychology doctoral programs

compared to the United States population and psychology doctoral
programs in general. The observed diversity constriction does not
occur at the doctoral internship match level. Racial/ethnic diversity
constriction in the clinical psychology workforce negatively impacts
the field, prospective psychotherapy clients, and racial/ethnic minor-
ity psychologists in academia. More research is needed to investi-
gate what about the clinical psychology doctoral admissions process
constricts diversity and at what part of the process diversity con-
striction is the most severe.

References

American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychol-
ogists and code of conduct (2002, amended effective June 1, 2010, and
January 1, 2017). http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.html

American Psychological Association. (2018a). A summary of psychologist
workforce projections: Addressing supply and demand from 2015–2030.

American Psychological Association. (APA). (2018b). Demographics of the
U.S. psychology workforce: Findings from the 2007–2016 American
Community Survey.

Antonio, A. L. (2001). The role of interracial interaction in the development
of leadership skills and cultural knowledge and understanding. Research
in Higher Education, 42(5), 593–617. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:
1011054427581

Appleby, D., Keenan, J., & Mauer, B. (1999). Applicant characteristics
valued by graduate programs in psychology. Eye on Psi Chi, 3(3),
Article 6.

Association of Psychology Postdoctoral and Internship Centers. (n.d.).
Internships/AAPI. https://www.appic.org/Internships/AAPI

Borrego, J. (2018). It takes a village for meaningful and sustainable change in
diversifying psychology. Training and Education in Professional
Psychology, 12(4), 297–300. https://doi.org/10.1037/tep0000224

Bowman, N. A. (2010). College diversity experiences and cognitive
development: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 80(1),
4–33. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654309352495

Boylan, H. R., Sutton, E. M., & Anderson, J. A. (2003). Diversity as
a resource in developmental education. Journal of Developmental
Education, 27(1), 12–17.

Buchanan, N. T., & Wiklund, L. O. (2020). Why clinical science must
change or die: Integrating intersectionality and social justice. Women &
Therapy, 43(3–4), 309–329. https://doi.org/10.1080/02703149.2020
.1729470

Cabral, R. R., & Smith, T. B. (2011). Racial/ethnic matching of clients and
therapists in mental health services: Ameta-analytic review of preferences,
perceptions, and outcomes. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58(4),
537–554. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025266

Callahan, J. L., Bell, D. J., Davila, J., Johnson, S. L., Strauman, T. J., &
Yee, C. M. (2020). The enhanced examination for professional practice in
psychology: A viable approach? American Psychologist, 75(1), 52–65.
https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000586

Callahan, J. L., Bell, D. J., Davila, J., Johnson, S. L., Strauman, T. J., & Yee,
C. M. (2021). Inviting ASPPB to address systemic bias and racism: Reply
to Turner et al. (2021). American Psychologist, 76(1), 167–168. https://
doi.org/10.1037/amp0000801

Callahan, J. L., Collins, F. L., Jr., &Klonoff, E. A. (2010). An examination of
applicant characteristics of successfully matched interns: Is the glass half
full or half empty and leaking miserably? Journal of Clinical Psychology,
66(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20664

Callahan, J. L., Hogan, L. R., Klonoff, E. A., & Collins, F. L. (2014).
Predicting match outcomes: Science, practice, and personality. Training
and Education in Professional Psychology, 8(1), 68–82. https://doi.org/10
.1037/tep0000030

INTERNSHIP MATCH AND DIVERSITY 417

T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by

th
e
A
m
er
ic
an

P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al

A
ss
oc
ia
tio

n
or

on
e
of

its
al
lie
d
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.

T
hi
s
ar
tic
le

is
in
te
nd
ed

so
le
ly

fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al

us
e
of

th
e
in
di
vi
du
al

us
er

an
d
is
no
t
to

be
di
ss
em

in
at
ed

br
oa
dl
y.

http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.html

https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011054427581

https://www.appic.org/Internships/AAPI

https://doi.org/10.1037/tep0000224

https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654309352495

https://doi.org/10.1080/02703149.2020.1729470

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025266

https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000586

https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000801

https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20664

https://doi.org/10.1037/tep0000030

Callahan, J. L., Smotherman, J. M., Dziurzynski, K. E., Love, P. K., Kilmer,
E. D., Niemann, Y. F., & Ruggero, C. J. (2018). Diversity in the
professional psychology training-to-workforce pipeline: Results from
doctoral psychology student population data. Training and Education
in Professional Psychology, 12(4), 273–285. https://doi.org/10.1037/te
p0000203

Callahan, J. L., & Watkins, C. E., Jr. (2018). The science of training I:
Admissions, curriculum, and research training. Training and Education in
Professional Psychology, 12, 219–230. https://doi.org/10.1037/tep0000205

Chang, M. J. (1999). Does racial diversity matter? The educational impact of
a racially diverse undergraduate population. Journal of College Student
Development, 40(4), 377–395.

Chao, P. J., Steffen, J. J., & Heiby, E. M. (2012). The effects of working
alliance and client-clinician ethnic match on recovery status. Community
Mental Health Journal, 48(1), 91–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10597-
011-9423-8

Collins, F. L., Jr., Callahan, J. L., & Klonoff, E. A. (2007). A scientist-
practitioner perspective of the internship match imbalance: The stairway to
competence. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 1,
267–275. https://doi.org/10.1037/1931-3918.1.4.267

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality
Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI)
professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources.

DeMers, S. T. (2009). Understanding the purpose, strengths, and limitations
of the EPPP: A response to Sharpless and Barber. Professional Psychology,
Research and Practice, 40(4), 348–353. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015750

Denson, N., & Chang, M. J. (2009). Racial diversity matters: The impact of
diversity-related student engagement and institutional context. American
Educational Research Journal, 46(2), 322–353. https://doi.org/10.3102/
0002831208323278

DiLillo, D., & Tremblay, G. C. (2009). How should the effectiveness of the
EPPP be judged? Professional Psychology, Research and Practice, 40(4),
345–347. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015734

Ehrhart, K. H., Roesch, S. C., Ehrhart, M. G., & Kilian, B. (2008). A test
of the factor structure equivalence of the 50-item IPIP five-factor
model measure across gender and ethnic groups. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 90(5), 507–516. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022389080224
8869

Erikson Cornish, J. A., & Smith, R. D. (2009). Reflections on the EPPP: A
commentary on Sharpless and Barber. Professional Psychology, Research
and Practice, 40(4), 341–344. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015412

Flowers, L., & Pascarella, E. T. (1999). Does college racial composition
influence the openness to diversity of African American students? Journal
of College Student Development, 40(4), 405–417.

Foldes, H. J., Duehr, E. E., & Ones, D. S. (2008). Group differences in
personality: Meta-analyses comparing five US racial groups. Personnel
Psychology, 61(3), 579–616. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008
.00123.x

Ginkel, R. W., Davis, S. E., & Michael, P. G. (2010). An examination of
inclusion and exclusion criteria in the predoctoral internship selection
process. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 4, 213–218.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019453

Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C.,
Cloninger, C. R., & Gough, H. C. (2006). The International Personality
Item Pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal
of Research in Personality, 40, 84–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2005
.08.007

Grapin, S. L., Bocanegra, J. O., Green, T. D., Lee, E. T., & Jaafar, D. (2016).
Increasing diversity in school psychology: Uniting the efforts of
institutions, faculty, students, and practitioners. Contemporary School
Psychology, 20(4), 345–355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-016-0092-z

Gurin, P. Y., Dey, E. L., Gurin, G., & Hurtado, S. (2003). How does racial/
ethnic diversity promote education? TheWestern Journal of Black Studies,
27(1), 20–29.

Hamby, T., Taylor, W., Snowden, A. K., & Peterson, R. A. (2016). A meta-
analysis of the reliability of free and for-pay big five scales. The Journal of
Psychology, 150(4), 422–430. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2015
.1060186

Henderson-King, D., & Kaleta, A. (2000). Learning about social diversity:
The undergraduate experience and intergroup tolerance. The Journal of
Higher Education (Columbus), 71(2), 142–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00221546.2000.11778832

Hu, S., & Kuh, G. D. (2003). Diversity experiences and college student
learning and personal development. Journal of College Student Devel-
opment, 44(3), 320–334. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2003.0026

Humes, K. R., Jones, N. A., & Ramirez, R. R. (2011). Overview of race and
Hispanic origin: 2010. U.S. Census Bureau.

Jayakumar, U. (2008). Can higher education meet the needs of an increas-
ingly diverse and global society? Campus diversity and cross-cultural
workforce competencies. Harvard Educational Review, 78(4), 615–651.
https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.78.4.b60031p350276699

Lim, B., & Ployhart, R. E. (2006). Assessing the convergent and discriminant
validity of Goldberg’s international personality item pool: A multitrait-
multimethod examination. Organizational Research Methods, 9(1),
29–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428105283193

Luebbe, A. M., & Ogbaselase, F. A. (2018). Constriction of the educational
pipeline for students of color at the point of entry to doctoral work in
psychology: Commentary on Callahan and colleagues (2018). Training
and Education in Professional Psychology, 12(4), 291–294. https://
doi.org/10.1037/tep0000211

Niemann, Y. F. (2016). The social ecology of tokenism in higher education.
Peace Review (Palo Alto, Calif.), 28(4), 451–458. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10402659.2016.1237098

Nishina, A., Lewis, J. A., Bellmore, A., & Witkow, M. R. (2019). Ethnic
diversity and inclusive school environments. Educational Psychologist,
54(4), 306–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2019.1633923

Pascarella, E. T., Edison, M., Nora, A., Hagedorn, L. S., & Terenzini, P. T.
(1996). Influences on students’ openness to diversity and challenge in the
first year of college. The Journal of Higher Education (Columbus), 67(2),
174–195. https://doi.org/10.2307/2943979

Pike, G. R. (2002). The differential effects of on- and off-campus living
arrangements on students’ openness to diversity. NASPA Journal, 39(4),
368–384. https://doi.org/10.2202/0027-6014.1179

Reinert, M., Nguyen, T., & Fritze, D. (2021). 2021 The state of mental health
in America. Mental Health in America. https://mhanational.org/issues/me
ntal-health-america-printed-reports

Ryan, A. M., & Chan, D. (1999). Perceptions of the EPPP: How do licensure
candidates view the process? Professional Psychology, Research and
Practice, 30(5), 519–530. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.30.5.519

Sayette, M. A., Norcross, J. C., & Dimoff, J. D. (2011). The heterogeneity of
clinical psychology Ph.D. programs and the distinctiveness of APCS
programs. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 18, 4–11. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2850.2010.01227.x

Sharpless, B. A. (2019). Are demographic variables associated with
performance on the Examination for Professional Practice in Psychology
(EPPP)? The Journal of Psychology, 153(2), 161–172. https://doi.org/10
.1080/00223980.2018.1504739

Sharpless, B. A. (2021). Pass rates on the Examination for Professional
Practice in Psychology (EPPP) according to demographic variables: A
partial replication. Training and Education in Professional Psychology,
15(1), 18–22. https://doi.org/10.1037/tep0000301

Sharpless, B. A., & Barber, J. P. (2009). The Examination for Professional
Practice in Psychology (EPPP) in the era of evidence-based practice.
Professional Psychology, Research and Practice, 40, 333–340. https://
doi.org/10.1037/a0013983

Taylor, S. H. (1998). The impact of college on the development of
tolerance. NASPA Journal, 35(4), 328–342. https://doi.org/10.2202/
0027-6014.1065

418 DIMMICK AND CALLAHAN

T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by

th
e
A
m
er
ic
an

P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al

A
ss
oc
ia
tio

n
or

on
e
of

its
al
lie
d
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.

T
hi
s
ar
tic
le

is
in
te
nd
ed

so
le
ly

fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al

us
e
of

th
e
in
di
vi
du
al

us
er

an
d
is
no
t
to

be
di
ss
em

in
at
ed

br
oa
dl
y.

https://doi.org/10.1037/tep0000203

https://doi.org/10.1037/tep0000205

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10597-011-9423-8

https://doi.org/10.1037/1931-3918.1.4.267

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015750

https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831208323278

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015734

https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890802248869

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015412

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00123.x

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019453

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.007

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-016-0092-z

https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2015.1060186

https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2000.11778832

https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2003.0026

https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.78.4.b60031p350276699

https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428105283193

https://doi.org/10.1037/tep0000211

https://doi.org/10.1080/10402659.2016.1237098

https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2019.1633923

https://doi.org/10.2307/2943979

https://doi.org/10.2202/0027-6014.1179

https://mhanational.org/issues/mental-health-america-printed-reports

https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.30.5.519

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2850.2010.01227.x

https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2018.1504739

https://doi.org/10.1037/tep0000301

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013983

https://doi.org/10.2202/0027-6014.1065

Terenzini, P. T., Cabrera, A. F., Colbeck, C. L., Bjorklund, S. A., & Parente,
J. M. (2001). Racial and ethnic diversity in the classroom. The Journal of
Higher Education, 72(5), 509–531. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546
.2001.11777112

TheNational Center for Fair and Open Testing (Fairtest). (2007).Examining the
GRE: Myths, misuses, and alternatives. http://www.fairtest.org/facts/gre.htm

Umbach, P. D., & Kuh, G. D. (2006). Student experiences with diversity at
liberal arts colleges: Another claim for distinctiveness. The Journal of
Higher Education (Columbus), 77(1), 169–192. https://doi.org/10.1353/
jhe.2006.0008

U.S. Census Bureau. (2020). Annual estimates of the resident population
by sex, race, and Hispanic Origin for the United States: April 1, 2010 to

July 1, 2019 [Data set]. https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/de
mo/popest/2010s-national-detail.html#par_textimage_1537638156

Whitt, E. J., Edison, M. I., Pascarella, E. T., Terenzini, P. T., & Nora, A.
(2001). Influences on students’ openness to diversity and challenge in the
second and third years of college. The Journal of Higher Education
(Columbus), 72(2), 172–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2001
.11778877

Received December 14, 2020
Revision received May 7, 2021

Accepted May 22, 2021 ▪

INTERNSHIP MATCH AND DIVERSITY 419

T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by

th
e
A
m
er
ic
an

P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al

A
ss
oc
ia
tio

n
or

on
e
of

its
al
lie
d
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.

T
hi
s
ar
tic
le

is
in
te
nd
ed

so
le
ly

fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al

us
e
of

th
e
in
di
vi
du
al

us
er

an
d
is
no
t
to

be
di
ss
em

in
at
ed

br
oa
dl
y.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2001.11777112

http://www.fairtest.org/facts/gre.htm

https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2006.0008

https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/popest/2010s-national-detail.html#par_textimage_1537638156

https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2001.11778877

Racial and Ethnic Diversity Among Clinical Psychology Doctoral Students Applying for Internship

Method

Participants

Procedure

Measures

International Personality Item Pool Representation of the NEO-PI-R (IPIP-NEO)

Results

Discussion

Limitations

Conclusions

References

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ critical review ”

Get high-quality paper

NEW! AI matching with writer

Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:

Turnitin Report

Formatting

Title Page

Citation

Outline

Place an Order