Views on Child Life Specialist Training
by
Gwendolyn Leigh Gerber, B.S.
A Thesis
In
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT AND FAMILY STUDIES
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty
of Texas Tech University in
Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for
the Degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
Approved
Dr. Jeffrey N. Wherry
Chair
Dr. Miriam Mulsow
Dr. Alan Reifman
Peggy Gordon Miller
Dean of the Graduate School
May, 2012
Copyright 2012, Gwendolyn L. Gerber
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank many individuals who have guided and supported me
through my thesis process. I am grateful for my advisor and committee chairperson,
Dr. Jeffrey Wherry. His continual encouragement and guidance has provided a
pathway for the completion of my thesis and without it the completion of my thesis
would be impossible. Dr. Wherry, thank you for all of the time and effort you have put
into helping me reach this goal!
I would also like to recognize my committee members. I am appreciative to Dr.
Miriam Mulsow and Dr. Alan Reifman for serving on my committee and providing
feedback, support, and encouragement.
I wish to recognize and express my appreciation to my mom and step-father,
for their endless encouragement and constant support throughout my life and
especially during the completion of my thesis. Mom, thank you for the frequent
reminder that “you can do this!” and the always listening ear.
Additionally, I would like to express my appreciation to my fiancé, for his
caring words during times of frustration and continual support throughout the process
of completing my thesis.
I would like to recognize my friends who have become my family while
completing my schooling in Lubbock, Texas. Thank you for always listening, caring,
and encouraging me throughout this stressful time!
ii
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................................ii
ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................................v
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... vi
I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1
II. LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................... 3
Certified Child Life Specialist (CCLS) .................................................................... 3
History of Child Life .......................................................................................... 4
Children’s Understanding of Illness......................................................................... 5
Effectiveness of Child Life ...................................................................................... 8
Steps to Child Life Certification .............................................................................. 9
Practicum.......................................................................................................... 13
Internship ......................................................................................................... 13
Upcoming Changes to Certification Eligibility................................................ 15
Child Life Professional Surveys ............................................................................ 17
Purpose of Study .................................................................................................... 19
Hypotheses ............................................................................................................. 19
III. METHODS .............................................................................................................. 21
Sample .................................................................................................................... 21
Procedure................................................................................................................ 23
Analysis Plan .......................................................................................................... 23
Preliminary Analysis ........................................................................................ 23
Hypothesis 1 Analysis Plan: Course Taught by CCLS .................................... 24
Hypothesis 2 Analysis Plan: Professional and Student Academic Degrees .... 24
Hypothesis 3 Analysis Plan: Application to Child Life Internship Sites ......... 24
Hypothesis 4 Analysis Plan: Difficulty Attaining Child Life Practica and
Internships ........................................................................................................ 24
Hypothesis 5 Analysis Plan: Child Life Career Guidance ............................... 25
IV. RESULTS ................................................................................................................ 26
Course Taught by a CCLS ..................................................................................... 26
Professional and Student Academic Degrees ......................................................... 26
iii
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
Application to Child Life Internship Sites ............................................................. 27
Difficultly Attaining Child Life Practica and Internships ...................................... 27
Child Life Career Guidance ................................................................................... 28
Exploratory Analyses ............................................................................................. 29
Minor or Emphasis/Specialization in Child Life ............................................. 29
New Course Requirement ................................................................................ 29
V. DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................. 44
Summary ................................................................................................................ 44
Strengths of the Current Study ............................................................................... 47
Limitations ............................................................................................................. 47
Implications for Future Research ........................................................................... 48
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 50
APPENDICES ................................................................................................................. 58
A. INTRODUCTORY RECRUITING POST FOR THE CHILD LIFE COUNCIL FORUM ......... 58
B. INTRODUCTION TO THE SURVEY ........................................................................... 59
C. SURVEY FOR PROFESSIONALS .............................................................................. 60
D. SURVEY FOR STUDENTS ....................................................................................... 69
iv
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
ABSTRACT
The present study examined course work requirements, academic degrees,
application to child life internship sites, difficulty attaining child life practica and
internships, child life practica site availability, and child life career guidance in the
field of child life. The participants in this study were 271 child life professionals (201)
and students (70). Participants in each group (professional and student) completed an
online survey about the training to become a Certified Child Life Specialist. The
online survey was available through the Child Life Council Forum. Analyses revealed
that (1) slightly more students than professionals had a course taught or available by a
CCLS; (2) overall, there were few bachelor’s degrees and master’s degrees in child
life; (3) students reported applying to more child life internship sites than
professionals; (4) professionals reported less difficulty in attaining child life practica
and internships than students; and (5) in general, there were no significant differences
between professionals and students regarding child life career guidance. Implications
for future research are discussed.
v
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
LIST OF TABLES
1. Undergraduate Curriculum Recommendations for Child Life
Academic Programs ............................................................................. 11
2. Graduate Curriculum Recommendations for Child Life Academic
Programs .............................................................................................. 12
3. Demographics .......................................................................................................... 22
4. Chi-Square with Professionals and Students Q19: Took or Have
Available a Course Taught by CCLS ................................................... 31
5a. Bachelor’s Degree of Professionals and Students (Child Life Only) ..................... 32
5b. Master’s Degree of Professionals and Students (Child Life Only) ........................ 33
5c. Chi-square with Professionals and Students and Receive Bachelor’s
Degree in Child Life? ........................................................................... 34
5d. Chi-square with Professionals and Students and Receive Master’s
Degree in Child Life? ........................................................................... 35
6. T-tests ....................................................................................................................... 36
7a. Child Life Academic Curriculum Requirements ................................................... 37
7b. Program Offer Career Guidance ............................................................................ 38
7c. Help Apply to Child Life Internship ...................................................................... 39
7d. Seminar in Child Life ............................................................................................. 40
8a. Chi-Square with Professionals and Students and Q10: Did You
Minor or Specialize in child life (bachelor’s degree)? ......................... 41
8b. Chi-Square with Professionals and Students and Q11: Did You
Minor or Specialize in Child Life (master’s degree)? .......................... 42
9. Completion/Availability of CCLS Taught Course and Negatively
Affecting the Profession ....................................................................... 43
vi
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Child life specialists are trained professionals who “promote effective coping
[for children and families] through play, preparation, education, and self-expression
activities” within healthcare settings (Child Life Council, 2010, p.1). Child life
specialists also provide psychosocial and emotional support to children and families.
According to the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Health Care (AAP;
2000), the number of child life programs has doubled since 1965. In 1998, a survey
conducted by the National Association of Children’s Hospitals and Related
Institutions of 152 of its members found that “97% of 112 responding hospitals
employed child life specialists” (p. 1156). The Child Life Council (CLC) and
Committee on Hospital Care (2006), citing a 2001 survey, found “95% of 188
responding hospitals employed child life specialists” (p.1757). In 2010: A Banner
Year, Child Life Council Annual Report to Membership (Reynolds, 2011) indicated
“at the end of 2010, [the] Child Life Council (CLC) had 4,373 members, which
represents a 7.6% growth in membership for the year and a two-year growth in
membership of 13.2%” (p. 9).
The field of Child Life has become a popular career path for many college and
university students. Snow and Triebenbacher (1996) conducted a survey to examine
child life employment trends and practices. They suggested that students should be
informed about limited employment opportunities in the child life field which exist
despite the aforementioned growth in the CLC membership. The same concerns have
1
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
been expressed recently in a special report in the Child Life Council Bulletin (Child
Life Council, 2011) explaining “in general the limited number of child life positions
currently available, coupled with an increasing number of new professionals entering
the field, worried many child life specialists. ‘We are educating a large number of
child life students, but there are not enough jobs for them,’ said one member” (p.9).
As a result of the increased interest in child life, the CLC has begun
implementing more rigorous requirements for certification eligibility. However, there
is limited research available regarding the nature of child life curriculum content and
practical preparation (Turner & Fralic, 2009). M. Boyd (personal communication,
June 10, 2011) confirmed the lack of research on internship programs for child life.
The present study will assess student and professional experiences, existing
knowledge, and understanding in relation to the current certification process. Finally,
the study will examine implications of internship preparation and accessibility from
professionals and students in the field of child life.
2
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
Certified Child Life Specialist (CCLS)
According to the Child Life Council, “the profession of child life exists to
promote optimal development of infants, children, youth and family members and to
minimize psychological trauma in children facing a broad range of challenging
experiences, particularly related to health care and hospitalization” (n.d, The value of
the certification credential in child life services: Position statement, p. 1). Rabetoy
(2008) explains:
Child life specialists are trained experts in child development, with the specific
focus of developmental needs in a hospital setting. They have earned a
bachelor’s or master’s degree in child life, child development, or related field,
and have completed a minimum of a 480-hour internship under the direct
supervision of a certified child life specialist (CCLS). After meeting the
required academic and clinical experiences, a child life specialist is eligible to
sit for the Child Life Professional Certification Examination and attain the
professional certification credential CCLS. This comprehensive training
provides the child life specialist with unique knowledge and skills to
successfully help children navigate the complexities of health care (p. 399).
The American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Hospital Care (2000) explains the
vital need for child life specialists to create and maintain child friendly environments
within hospital/medical settings. In 2003, Dr. Sigrest and the Committee on Hospital
Care recommended the use of child life services whenever possible.
3
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
History of Child Life
Emma Plank, the “Play Lady,” is credited as being one of the founders of
Child Life. In 1965, a group of child life workers gathered in Boston to share
experiences of working in the hospitals. These individuals established the Association
for the Well Being of Hospitalized Children and their Families. In 1967 it became
known as the Association for the Care of Children in Hospitals, and in 1979, was
renamed the Association for the Care of Children’s Health (ACCH). The ACCH was
comprised of doctors, nurses, child life specialists, other health professionals, and
families.
The Child Life Council was established in 1982 and reissued the Child Life
Position Statement in 1983. Wojtasik and White (2009) note “in 1992 the [CLC]
became incorporated as a free-standing organization” (p. 16). Also, in 1992 The
Standards for Academic and Clinical Preparation Programs in Child Life were
written and approved. These standards were revised in 2001. According to Parvin and
Dickinson (2010) the CLC is “composed of some 4,000 individuals representing more
than 600 organizations worldwide” (p.4).
Education related to working with children in hospitals has been found dating
back to the 1960s at Wheelock College. Majors or specializations in child life have
been recorded as early as the 1970s. Between 1972 and 1978, four universities and
colleges were the first to offer a major in child life including, Wheelock College, Mills
College, Utica College, and Syracuse University (Wojtasik & White, 2009).
Beginning in 1986, a professional certification became available for child life.
4
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
However, a standardized examination for professional certification was not established
until 1998. The standardized certification exam covers comprehension, understanding,
and application of the theoretical foundations of child life. Thus, it is important to
include the following sections which address children’s understanding of illness and
the effectiveness of child life specialists.
Children’s Understanding of Illness
A child’s conceptualization of health and illness changes over time
(Thompson, 1985). Children’s concepts of illness and understanding have been
researched using several types of theoretical and methodological perspectives.
Thompson (1985) dedicates a chapter of his review to the “conceptions of
hospitalization, illness, and medical care.” In fact, many of the current research
articles continue to cite previous research included in his review. Brewster (1982)
reported, “children’s understanding of illness is primarily determined by cognitive
maturation” (p. 361). As a child’s cognitive ability increases, their perceptions and
understanding of illness change (Myant & Williams, 2005; Vacik, Nagy, & Jessee,
2001).
Perrin and Gerrity (1981) used a scale corresponding to Piaget’s theoretical
framework of cognitive development to examine children’s responses about illness.
This study found that children’s understanding of illness progresses with Piaget’s
cognitive developmental stages. Children in the preoperational stage believed that
illness is caused by something he/she did or did not do (such as following the rules).
Children in concrete operational stage were able to define illness by concrete
5
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
symptoms. Children in formal operations were able to “define illness in abstract terms
with an emphasis on an internal feeling of non-wellness, independent of specific
complaints or external signs” (p. 847). Therefore, the development of the concept of
illness appears to be consistent with Piaget’s cognitive developmental stages.
Williams and Binnie (2002) studied children ages 4 and 7 years understanding
of illness and their improvement of knowledge following an intervention program.
The pre-test results showed a significant improvement in knowledge between 4 and 7
years. Post-test results showed an improvement for both age groups. However, 4-yearolds showed more improvement post-test than 7-year-olds. Williams and Binnie
(2002) noted, “providing 4- and 7-year-olds with indirect experience and correct
factual information, accompanied with a guided peer discussion about illness,
significantly increased their knowledge” (p.140). Therefore, by providing children
with factual information and allowing for discussion, children may have a better
understanding of illness.
Myant and Williams (2005) researched children’s (ages 4 to 12 years old)
understanding of illness, health, and specific illnesses. The younger children (4 to 5)
were less advanced in their explanations of illness and health than the older children.
The researchers noted a developmental progression of understanding of illness and
specific illnesses. Myant and Williams (2005) identified that young children are able
to understand how an individual becomes ill. However, children are not able to
accurately describe the biological systems that contribute to becoming ill until around
6
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
ages 9 or 10. Children also have different understandings of specific illnesses such as
asthma and injuries.
According to Vacik, Nagy, and Jessee (2001), recognizing children’s
perspectives and understandings of hospitalization might reduce the problems
encountered during hospitalization. Robinson (1987) noted that health care
professionals are encouraged to use developmentally appropriate explanations of
illness based on a child’s level of cognitive development. Prior to providing
information to a child, health care personnel should identify each child’s “base line”
understanding of the cause of their illness and the reason for treatment. Then,
information can be provided with a clear comprehension of the child’s current level of
understanding (Rushforth, 1999). As noted by Vacik, Nagy, and Jessee (2001),
“professionals need a thorough understanding of the developmental patterns in
children’s concepts about illness” (p. 431).
Child life specialists use their knowledge of human development and family
theories in every day interactions with patients and families. Child life specialists use
theory to guide their assessments, plans, interventions, and evaluations of children and
families. Turner (2009) noted, “child life professional preparation is grounded on an
accumulation of theory, knowledge, and skills focused on identifying and addressing
the needs of children and families within the health care setting” (p. 41). Theories that
child life specialist use in medical settings include and are not limited to
developmental theory, family systems, stress and coping, psychosocial development,
and attachment.
7
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
Effectiveness of Child Life
Research on effectiveness of interventions used by child life has been in
existence for over 40 years. According to Thompson and Snow (2009), there are
several areas which research has been primarily focused on in the field of child life.
These areas include effects of: hospitalization on children’s behavior, stress and
coping responses, interventions used by child life (such as play and preparation), and
parent presence and participation in the care of their children. Research has indicated
that child life specialists can make a positive difference for children and parents in
medical settings.
Wolfer, Gaynard, Goldberg, Laidley, and Thompson (1988) found children
who received child life services were significantly less emotionally distressed, had
more effective coping skills, understood hospital related experiences, and exhibited
better overall adjustment in the hospital and at post-hospital-discharge than the
children who did not receive child life services. Children who received preparation for
an elective day surgery were found to have less anxiety following surgery than those
receiving no preparation (Brewer, Gleditsch, Syblik, Tietjens, & Vacik, 2006).
Preparations by a CCLS for diagnostic procedures such as a voiding
cystourethrogram (VCUG) were found to be beneficial by reducing distress,
increasing coping skills, and cooperation during the procedure (Zelikovsky, Rodrigue,
Gidycz, & Davis, 2000). In a study of 542 children ages 4-10 years old, children who
received higher levels of distraction during an intravenous insertion (IV) by their
parents had lower scores on behavioral and physiological measures, and the lowest
8
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
percent of children in high distress as reported by parent report (McCarthy et al.,
2010). In summary, the field of child life has proven to be effective and is guided by
evidence-based practices.
Steps to Child Life Certification
According to the Child Life Certifying Committee (2011), there are three
requirements to establish eligibility to take the certification exam, which must be
completed before the application deadline for the exam. These requirements include:
(a) a bachelor’s degree or be in the final semester of study to attain that degree; (b)
complete a total of 10 college-level courses in child life or a related department; and
(c) completion of a minimum 480-hour child life clinical internship under direct
supervision of a CCLS who meets supervisor requirements outlined by the CLC. The
course work offered by college/university departments in the following areas count
toward the requirement of 10 college-level courses: child life, child development,
family development, human development, family dynamics, psychology, counseling,
sociology, therapeutic recreation, and expressive therapies (excluding fine arts
courses) (Child Life Certifying Committee, 2011). After completing all of the abovementioned requirements, an individual may apply to sit for the certification
examination. Additionally, there are changes to certification eligibility that will be
effective in 2012. These changes will affect individuals who are currently pursuing a
career in child life and have not taken the certification exam.
According to the CLC (Academic Program Directory), 41 programs have selfidentified as having degrees/curriculum in child life in the U.S. and Canada. The
9
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
Academic Task Force developed curriculum recommendations for child life academic
programs which were approved by the CLC Board of Directors in November, 2010.
Specific topics to be covered in an undergraduate child life curriculum (Table 1) and
in a graduate child life curriculum (Table 2) can be found on page 11 and 12.
10
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
Table 1. Undergraduate Curriculum Recommendations for Child Life Academic
Programs
Theoretical Foundations
Topics covered in curriculum
Supplemental Areas
Child development:
Human/Lifespan development
Attachment, Personality, Temperament
Family Systems
Learning
Play
Personality
Stress/Coping
Education
Separation and Loss
Organizational systems
Group dynamics
Applied Areas of Study
Topics covered in curriculum
Supplemental Areas
Child Life Practice
Medical sociology/ health and wellness
Therapeutic play
Programming for infants, children,
Designs for healing environments
youth, and families
Family-Centered Care
Group facilitation
Pain management (non-pharmacological)
Crisis interventions
Guided imagery, relaxation techniques, comfort
Program administration
positioning
Complementary (alternative medicine)
Preparation
Program and intervention evaluation
Expressive interventions
Medical terminology
Ethics
Anatomy and Physiology
Bereavement support and interventions
Health Care Trends
Impact of illness, injury on health care on
Child Life in the Community/World
patients and families
Global opportunities
Supervision/program administration
Community non-profit agencies
Pediatric diagnoses
Alternative settings
History of the Child Life Profession
Scope of practice
Child Life Documents
Charting/Documentation
Child Development
Observation and assessment
Guidance/Techniques
Developmentally-supportive play
Communication
Interpersonal relationships, Interdisciplinary team
functioning, Helping skills, Therapeutic
relationships, Written
Family Relationships
Parenting , Family dynamics, Families and stress
Diversity and cultural competence
Children with special needs/ Child maltreatment
Research methods and statistics
Note. Adapted from Child Life Council, Child Life Council Academic Task Force (2010).
Curriculum Recommendations Retrieved September 20, 2011, from
http://www.childlife.org/files/CLCCurriculumRecommendations.pdf
11
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
Table 2. Graduate Curriculum Recommendations for Child Life Academic Programs
Topics Covered in Curriculum
General Content
Specific Content
Child Development: Theoretical and Applied Course work should provide a foundation of
child development theories and applications
Family Theories
Course work should provide a foundation of
family theories and applications
Research
Research Methods
Statistics
Ethics
Completion of either: thesis; project paper;
internship with research paper or project
Child Life Professional Practice
Therapeutic play
Designs for healing environments
Family-centered care
Pain management (non-pharmacological) and
coping techniques
Guided imagery and relaxation techniques
Comfort positioning
Psychological preparation
Expressive interventions
Ethics/professionalism
Bereavement support and interventions
Impact of illness, injury, and health care on
patients
and families
Pediatric diagnoses
Scope of Practice
Child Life Documents
Code of Ethical Responsibility
Child Life Competencies
Standards of Clinical Practice
Charting/Documentation
Therapeutic Relationships
Cultural Competence
Program Administration
Leadership
Supervision
Clinical issues
Program Development
Clinical Training
Completion of a minimum of 480 hour child
life internship prior to graduation, unless
previously completed child life internship
prior to entering the graduate program
Note. Adapted from Child Life Council, Child Life Council Academic Task Force (2010).
Curriculum Recommendations Retrieved September 20, 2011, from
http://www.childlife.org/files/CLCGraduateCurriculumRecommendations.pdf
12
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
Practicum
Individuals must complete a practicum of at least 150 hours in a hospital
setting. Additionally, supervisors prefer some work experience with well, healthy
children before applying for an internship. According the Child Life Council, [CLC]
(2002) a practicum is designed to provide a general understanding of the profession;
“through observation and interaction, the practicum student gains a working
knowledge of infant, child, and youth growth and development and how they are
impacted by hospitalization and illness” (p. 33). During a child life practicum, students
also learn how child life specialists apply theory into their everyday routines within
the hospital setting.
Internship
Before an internship, students should have experience with healthy children of
all ages (infancy through adolescence) and families in diverse settings to validate their
desire to work with this population (CLC, 2002). An internship should “provide the
student with an opportunity to build on coursework and put theory into practice while
working in a variety of hospital and related settings under the direction of a certified
child life specialist (CCLS)” (CLC, 2002, p. 33). The goals of the child life internship
should include: improvement of the understanding of the psychosocial care of infants,
children, youth, and families; the development of assessment and intervention skills;
increased independence in providing services to children and families; and
development of necessary skills applicable to any entry-level child life position (CLC,
2002).
13
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
Child life internships are a minimum of 480 hours supervised by a CCLS.
However, internship programs at specific hospitals range from 560 hours to 640 hours
(Wilson & Cross, 2009). Along with the supervision hours, interns should complete
weekly reading assignments, journal entries, observations, therapeutic activities, and
developmental assessments. As an intern, one must be capable of providing
interventions and evaluations based on assessment and planning (Wilson & Cross,
2009).
Until May 2011, there was a lack of specific details for an internship
curriculum. The CLC released the “Child Life Clinical Internship Curriculum:
Learning Models” in May 2011. The modules specifically address 14 topic areas listed
by the CLC Board of Directors for child life clinical internship curriculums. These
topic areas include: development of child life profession, lifespan development,
applying theory to practice, patient and family-centered care, communication,
assessment, developing a plan of care, play, medical/health care play, therapeutic play
and coping, coping with pain and distress, psychological preparation, documentation,
palliative and end-of-life care, administration, and professional development (CLC,
2011).
The Child Life Directory lists 207 hospitals offering internships
(http://community.childlife.org/p/gr/ut/#1309469939419). However, the number of
hospitals the directory lists is not an absolute count of hospitals offering child life
internships. Currently, these hospitals are not required to offer more than one
internship position per semester (fall, spring, summer). Also, the hospitals are not
14
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
required to offer an internship position every semester (fall, spring, summer).
Therefore, this leads to confusion of students when beginning to apply for child life
internships. Additionally, there is a lack of information regarding the acceptance rates
of students receiving internships.
Upcoming Changes to Certification Eligibility
There have been several rather significant changes to the certification process.
Beginning in fall 2012, paid work experience will no longer count towards
certification eligibility. Furthermore, beginning in the fall of 2013, all applicants
sitting for the exam must have taken a course in child life taught by a CCLS (Child
Life Certifying Committee, 2011). According to the Child Life Certifying Committee
(2011)1, about one third of the respondents were introduced to the upcoming changes
to certification eligibility requirements through the survey distributed in July 2011.
The CLC Board of Directors (December, 2011) approved revisions to the course work
requirement effective June 2013. This revision expands the current coursework
requirements listed previously (page 9) to include a minimum of one course in child
life taught by a CCLS. According to the revision, the course may be taken in-person or
online with no minimum number of credit hours. To be accepted by the CLC the
course must be taken for credit at bachelor’s level or higher from an accredited
academic institution with a passing grade on an official transcript and submit a signed
Child Life Course Verification course. The accreditation must be “recognized by
either the US Department of Education or the Council on Higher Education
1
Child Life Certifying Committee. (2011). Child life professional certification program survey results
were not available until December 2011, following the collection of this current study data.
15
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
Accreditation or the international equivalent” (Child Life Council, 2012, p.1). The
child life course must include the following applied areas: child life documents, scope
of practice, impact of illness, injury, and health care on patients and families, familycentered care, therapeutic play, and preparation. Along with completing the course and
academic transcript, the CCLS instructor must provide a Child Life Course
Verification form to each student upon successful completion of the course. The
CCLS instructor must include the topics covered in the course in this form. Students
are responsible for retaining the Child Life Course Verification form for proper
documentation. The Child Life Council (2012) note that, “neither CLC nor CLCC will
pre-approve courses; it’s an instructor’s responsibility to confirm which topics are
covered in their course” (p. 1).
According to the Child Life Council (2012), there are 41 colleges/universities
within the United States and Canada offering a course taught by a CCLS that meets
the requirement described above. Of the 41 colleges/universities who self reported
offering the child life course, 23 of the colleges/universities offer the course to nonmatriculating students. Moreover out of the 41 colleges/universities, only 13 currently
report offering a child life course online. However, of the 13 colleges/universities
currently offering a course online 12 are offering to non-matriculating students. As a
result of these changes, there is a possibility that current students pursuing a career in
child life may be unable to attain professional certification.
16
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
Child Life Professional Surveys
The field of Child Life has been assessed previously using survey methods.
Surveys addressing issues for professionals in the field of child life include topics such
as salary and professional overviews. Jessee and Nagy (2000) examined national
salary trends of individuals employed in full-time positions in the field of child life.
The response rate with usable data was 39% with a final sample size of 502. Of these
respondents, 56.5% had completed a bachelor’s degree and 88% indicated that they
were CCLS. Jessee and Nagy (2000) reported that child life salaries ranged from
$12,500.00 to $100,000.00. Furthermore, Jessee and Nagy (2000) noted that, “on
average, individuals who were certified in child life earned $36,256.00” (p.1) and that
“full-time employees with a master’s degree earned an average of $38,904.00” (pp.12).
The CLC (2008) had an independent research company conduct an online
survey regarding child life salaries. The survey contacted over 3,500 child life
professionals in the U.S. and Canada. The response rate was 44.8% based on 1,631
responses. The survey target population included Director/Manager/Leader of Child
Life Program, Child Life Specialist with Leadership Responsibilities, and Child Life
Specialist. Of these respondents, 63% identified their highest education as a master’s
degree and 92% were Certified Child Life Specialists (CCLS). The CLC (2008)
reported salaries based on the target populations listed above. The mean salary of
Director/Manager/Leader of Child Life Program was reported to be $63,417. Child
Life Specialist with Leadership Responsibilities was reported to have a mean salary of
17
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
$44,185 and a Child Life Specialist mean salary was reported to be $39,775 (CLC,
2008).
In 2005, the CLC administered an online survey examining the target
population of individuals who were currently CCLSs. In the introduction to the
survey, respondents were informed that “if you are not certified, please skip those
questions or respond N/A” (Child Life Council, 2005, p. 1). There appears to be
approximately 650 total respondents. A response rate was not reported for this survey.
The majority (84%) of the respondents indicated that they were members of the CLC
and 84% were currently CCLS. Of these respondents 86% had completed a 480-hour
child life internship and 14% had not completed an internship. Respondents were
asked, “What year(s) did you take the Certified Child Life Specialist Examination
administered by CLC;” the answer range was between 1998 and 2004 with the option
of “did not take exam.” Fifty-two percent of the respondents indicated taking the
certification exam in 2003 and 2004.
A similar survey was administered by the CLC in July 2011; however, the
results were not available until December 2011. According to the Child Life
Certifying Committee (2011), “the survey was sent to over 5,000 individuals in the
certification database including current CCLSs, lapsed or inactive credential holders,
applicants who are not yet certified, and others who have expressed an interest in
certification” (p.2). There were approximately 1,184 respondents, a response rate of
23.68%. Education level of the sample was established by highest level of education.
Of the respondents, 56% reported having a bachelor’s degree, 40% reported having a
18
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
master’s degree, 3% indicated “other,” 1% reported having a PhD, and 1 respondent
identified having a high school diploma as their highest education level. The majority
of respondents (76%) were younger than 40 years old. The age range was from 18 to
over 60 years old. Once again, some of the questions were not applicable to all
respondents. Individuals who participated in the online survey were asked to skip
questions if they were not applicable, such as if a respondent was not a CCLS. Most of
the questions were directed towards CCLSs or individuals who had previously been
certified. Therefore, there is a need to survey both professionals and students in the
field of child life regarding the certification process.
Purpose of Study
The present study aims to survey professionals and students within the Child
Life field from a variety of regions throughout the United States and internationally to
determine their perceptions of the certification process, specifically addressing course
work requirements, as well as practicum and internship accessibility.
Hypotheses
1. As the requirement to take a course of child life by a CCLS has recently been
established, fewer certified professionals than non-certified students will have
taken a course in child life taught by a CCLS.
2. Due to the limited number of universities and colleges offering a specialization
in child life, (1) few certified professionals and non-certified students will hold
degrees in child life (i.e., in contrast to other degrees like human development
and family studies, early childhood education, psychology, and other degrees).
19
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
An exploratory research question will test to determine if there are differences
between professionals and students in receiving a child life degree (either the
bachelor’s degree or master’s degree).
3. Professionals will report applying to significantly fewer child life internship
sites than students.
4. An exploratory research question will test to determine if there are differences
between professionals and students in attaining child life practica, internship,
and practica site availability.
5. Significantly fewer certified professionals than non-certified students will have
received career guidance for child life in their college or university degree
programs (survey questions 24-30).
20
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
CHAPTER III
METHODS
Sample
The initial sample from the professional survey consisted of 244 professional
respondents. Of the 244 responses 24 were excluded because the respondent only
completed the first three questions of the survey or never began the survey.
Additionally, 19 others were excluded because they identified as students or other.
The final sample from the professional survey consisted of 201 certified professionals
(CCLS). The initial sample from the student survey consisted of 86 student responses.
Of the 86 responses 16 were excluded because four respondents never began the
survey, and 12 respondents identified as certified professionals. The final sample from
the student survey consisted of 70 non-certified students. The sample consisted of 201
certified professionals and 70 non-certified students in the field of Child Life. In the
remainder of the current study, certified professionals (CCLS) will be referred to as
“professionals” and non-certified students will be referred to as “students.”
Participants for the study were paying members of the Child Life Council.
These paid members of the Child Life Council are the only individuals with access to
the Child Life Council Forum (an online site). Nonprobability sampling methods were
used to identify participants. There is no identifying information linked from the
participants to their answers, and completion of the survey was voluntary.
Demographics for the sample are reported in Table 3.
21
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
Table 3. Demographics
Characteristic
Percent % (n)
CLC Membership Type
Professional (certified)
Student (non-certified)
Age
18-22
23-30
31-40
41-50
51-60
Over 60
Prefer not to answer
Missing
Mean (SD)
Range
1.52 (.50)
1-2
74.2% (201)
25.8% (70)
8.5% (23)
49.1% (133)
23.2% (63)
10.3% (28)
4.8% (13)
2.6% (7)
.4% (1)
1.1% (3)
Education
High school graduate
Bachelor’s degree
Master’s degree
PhD
Missing
Took or Have Available Course Taught by CCLS
Yes
No
5.2% (14)
51.3% (139)
41.0% (111)
1.1% (3)
1.5% (4)
48.1% (117)
51.9% (126)
Note. Total N = 271
22
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
Procedure
The participants were recruited using an online post on the Child Life Council
Forum (an online site). An introduction to the survey was posted with a link to the
Qualtrics Survey (see Appendix A for script). Two Qualtrics Surveys were posted; a
survey designed for students was posted on the student site, and a survey designed for
professionals was posted on the professional site. A reminder was posted a week after
the initial Forum post. Participants clicked on the link provided in the online post to
begin the survey. Before beginning the survey, participants read an introduction to the
survey (see Appendix B for script). The two separate surveys’ can be found in
Appendix C (professional survey) and Appendix D (student survey). Following
completion of the survey, participants were thanked for their time and completion of
the survey. Allowing for anonymity, no log in was required. Participation in the
survey(s) was voluntary. The survey did not ask any specific identifying information
from participants. The raw data is not available to the CLC, so the information cannot
be linked to one specific respondent.
Analysis Plan
Preliminary Analysis
The analysis included means and standard deviations. T-tests were performed
to examine group differences. The data set was checked for outliers, but none were
identified.
23
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
Hypothesis 1 Analysis Plan: Course Taught by CCLS
The first hypothesis in this study predicted that fewer professionals than
students would have taken a course in child life by a CCLS. Therefore, chi-square was
used to examine differences between professionals and students.
Hypothesis 2 Analysis Plan: Professional and Student Academic Degrees
The second research question in the current study examined bachelor’s and
master’s degrees of professionals and students and predicted that few professionals
and students would hold bachelor’s and master’s degrees in child life. Descriptive
statistics were performed to examine sample characteristics based on degree type for
both professionals and students. Then, the groups were collapsed to test for differences
between professionals and students in receiving a child life degree (either the
bachelor’s degree or master’s degree). A chi-square was used to examine differences
between professionals and students.
Hypothesis 3 Analysis Plan: Application to Child Life Internship Sites
The third hypothesis predicted that professionals would report applying to
significantly fewer child life internship sites than students. Therefore, an Independent
Samples t-test was conducted to test for hypothesis three. The two independent
variables were professionals and students and the dependent variable was number of
applications submitted for a child life internship.
Hypothesis 4 Analysis Plan: Difficulty Attaining Child Life Practica and Internships
The fourth exploratory research question was to determine if there were
differences between professionals and students in attaining child life practica,
24
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
internships, and practica site availability. Three separate Independent Samples t-tests
were conducted using the independent variables of professionals and students. For the
first Independent Samples t-test, the dependent variable was difficultly to attain child
life practica. For the second Independent Samples t-test, the dependent variable was
difficultly to attain child life internship. For the third Independent Samples t-test, the
dependent variable was child life practica site availability.
Hypothesis 5 Analysis Plan: Child Life Career Guidance
The fifth hypothesis predicts that fewer professionals will have received career
guidance for child life in their college or university programs than students. Therefore,
a chi-square was used to examine the differences between professionals and students.
25
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
Course Taught by a CCLS
Hypothesis 1 predicted that fewer professionals than students would have
taken a course in child life by a CCLS. There was a trend consistent with this
hypothesis, although the difference was not statistically significant. Specifically, there
was a greater percentage of students (52.9%) than professionals (46.9%) who had a
course taught or a course available by a CCLS. As noted, the difference was not
statistically significant, χ2 (1) = 0.59, NS (See Table 4).
Professional and Student Academic Degrees
Hypothesis 2 examined: (1) the percentage of professionals and students
earning a bachelor’s degree or master’s degree in child life; and (2) the differences in
the percentage of professionals and students holding bachelor’s and master’s degrees
in child life (See Table 5a-d).
Specifically, 2.2% of the sample had a bachelor’s degree in child life (solely
identified as a degree in child life no emphasis/specialization), and 97.8% of the
sample had a bachelor’s degree in another area. In examining master’s degrees, 9.6%
of the sample had a master’s degree in child life, and 90.4% had a master’s degree in
other areas. Thus, very few (2.2%) of professionals and students hold a bachelor’s
degree in child life and only about 10% have earned the master’s degree specifically in
child life .
In examining bachelor’s degree in child life between professionals and
students, more professionals (18%) than students (11.9%) reported receiving a
26
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
bachelor’s degree in child life, χ2 (1) = 0.247, NS. In examining master’s degree in
child life between professionals and students, more professionals (18.2%) than
students (7.9%) reported receiving a master’s degree in child life, χ2 (1) = 0.051, NS.
Application to Child Life Internship Sites
Hypothesis 3 was not well written; therefore it could not be properly tested.
Originally Hypothesis 3 stated, “Fewer students will be accepted to internship sites on
the first attempt than will have had to apply several times before gaining an
internship.” Therefore, a better, testable hypothesis (Revised Hypothesis 3) is
“Professionals will report applying to significantly fewer child life internship sites
than students.”
The Revised Hypothesis 3 predicted that professionals would report applying
to fewer child life internship sites than students. This hypothesis was supported (See
Table 6). The mean represents the mean number of applications to child life internship
sites. On average, professional (M = 4.63, SD = 4.46) compared to student (M = 10.54,
SD = 8.85) participants reported applying to less internships. This difference was
significant, t (51.190) = 4.39, p < .001.
Difficultly Attaining Child Life Practica and Internships
Research Question 4 examined differences between professionals and students
in attaining both child life practica and internships, and practica site availability.
Overall, professionals reported less difficulty in attaining both child life practica and
internships as compared to students (See Table 6). The mean represents difficultly
attaining a child life practicum or internship, on a scale from 1 (very difficult) to 7
27
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
(very easy). Specifically, professionals (M = 4.17, SD = 1.39) reported less difficulty
in attaining a child life practicum as compared to students (M = 3.02, SD = 1.16). This
difference was significant t (216) = 5.35, p < .001. Additionally, professionals (M =
4.07, SD = 1.62) reported less difficulty in attaining a child life internship as
compared to students (M = 1.94, SD = 1.14). This difference was significant t
(114.569) = 10.72, p < .001.
However, when surveyed on child life practica site availability, both
professionals (M = 3.50, SD = 1.51) and students (M = 3.27, SD = 1.52) were in slight
agreement that there are not enough practica sites to meet the training needs of child
life students. The mean represents 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) that there
are enough child life practica sites to meet student needs. There was not a significant
difference found, t (248) = .97, p =NS.
Child Life Career Guidance
Hypothesis 5 predicted that significantly fewer professionals than students
would have received career guidance for child life in their college or university degree
programs. Several survey questions were analyzed using chi-square to examine
Hypothesis 5. With respect to universities/colleges following child life academic
curriculum requirements, there was no significant difference between professionals
(55.5%) and students (56.9%), χ2 (2) = .033, p = NS. Additionally, no significant
difference was found between professionals (62.8%) and students (52.9%) related to
programs offering career guidance, χ2 (2) = 2.57, p = NS. Furthermore, no significant
28
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
difference was found between professionals (48.7%) and students (33.3%) related to
receiving guidance in applying for child life internships, χ2 (2) = 4.92, p=NS.
However, there was a significant difference between professionals and students
related to completion/availability of a child life seminar at their university or college,
χ2 (2) = 7.34, p < .025. Specifically, more professionals (40.1%) than students (19.6%)
either completed or had available a child life seminar in college. Overall, this
hypothesis was only partially supported. Results from separate chi-square analyses for
Hypothesis 5 can be seen in Table 7a-d.
Exploratory Analyses
Minor or Emphasis/Specialization in Child Life
Exploratory analyses were conducted to compare professionals and students
and to determine whether or not they minored or specialized in child life while
receiving bachelor’s degrees and master’s degrees. No significant differences were
found between professionals and students related to bachelor’s degree minor χ2 (1) =
.168, NS and master’s degree minor, χ2 (1) = 1.46, NS (See Table 8a-b).
New Course Requirement
An exploratory analysis examined the perceptions of the CLC requirement of
completing a course taught by a CCLS prior to certification. Participants were asked if
they thought the new requirement would negatively affect the growing professional
field of child life. Participants were able to provide open ended-responses that were
then coded accordingly. Answers were coded as 0 = No, 1 = Yes, and 2 = all others
including both positive and negative, not sure, and other. Responses with the word
29
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
“no” were coded as zero, responses with the word “yes” were coded as one, and
responses containing both positive and negative answers, “not sure,” or other answers
received a code of two. There was a significant difference between
completion/availability of a course taught by a CCLS and whether or not the course
requirement would have a negative effect on the profession, χ2 (2) = 25.994, p<.001
(See Table 9).
30
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
Table 4. Chi-Square with Professionals and Students Q19: Took or Have Available a Course Taught by CCLS
Q19: Took or Have Available Course Taught by CCLS?
Professional
Student
χ2 (1 df, N = 243) = 0.59, ns
31
Yes
No
90 (46.9% of prof.)
102 (53.1% of prof.)
27 (52.9% of students)
24 (47.1% of students)
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
Table 5a. Bachelor’s Degree of Professionals and Students (Child Life Only)
Percent % (n)
Bachelor Degree in Child Life
2.2% (6)
Bachelor Degree in All Other Areas (HDFS, EC, PSYCH, Etc.)
97.8% (265)
Note. Total N = 271
32
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
Table 5b. Master’s Degree of Professionals and Students (Child Life Only)
Percent % (n)
Master Degree in Child Life
9.6% (26)
Master Degree in Other Areas (HDFS, EC, PSYCH, Etc.)
90.4% (245)
Note. Total N = 271
33
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
Table 5c. Chi-square with Professionals and Students and Receive Bachelor’s Degree in Child Life?
Receive bachelor’s degree in Child Life?
Yes
No
Professional
36 (18%)
164 (82%)
Student
8 (11.9%)
59 (88.1%)
χ2 (1 df, N = 267) = .247, ns
34
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
Table 5d. Chi-square with Professionals and Students and Receive Master’s Degree in Child Life?
Receive master’s degree in Child Life?
Professional
Student
χ (1 df, N = 255) = .051, ns
2
35
Yes
No
35 (18.2%)
157 (81.8%)
5 (7.9%)
58 (92.1%)
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
Table 6. T-tests
Professional:
Mean (SD)
Student:
Mean (SD)
t-test
Open-ended responses,
ranged from 0-50
4.63 (4.46)
10.54 (8.85)
4.39***
Q25: How difficult was/is it to attain a CL
practicum?
1 (very difficult) to 7 (very
easy)
4.17 (1.39)
3.02 (1.16)
5.35***
Q26: How difficult was/is it to attain a CL
internship?
1 (very difficult) to 7 (very
easy)
4.07 (1.62)
1.94 (1.14)
10.72***
Q14: Are there enough Child Life practicum sites to
meet the training needs of students?
1 (strongly disagree) to 7
(strongly agree)
3.50 (1.51)
3.27 (1.52)
.97
Question Wording
Possible Range
Q33: How many times did/will you apply?
Note. *p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001
36
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
Table 7a. Child Life Academic Curriculum Requirements
Q22: Did or Does your program follow the
Child Life academic Curriculum requirements?
Professional
Student
Yes
No
I don’t know
106 (55.5% of prof.)
43 (22.5% of prof.)
42 (22.0% of prof.)
29 (56.9% of students)
11 (21.6% of students)
11 (21.6% of students)
χ2 (2 df, N = 242) = .033, ns
37
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
Table 7b. Program Offer Career Guidance
Q24: Program offer career guidance
in Child Life?
Professional
Student
Yes
No
I don’t know
120 (62.8% of prof.)
64 (33.5% of prof.)
7 (3.7% of prof.)
27 (52.9% of students)
20 (39.2% of students)
4 (7.8% of students)
χ2 (2 df, N = 242) = 2.57, ns
38
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
Table 7c. Help Apply to Child Life Internship
Q28: Did or Does your Program help apply
for Child Life internships?
Professional
Student
Yes
No
I don’t know
91 (48.7% of prof.)
81 (43.2% of prof.)
15 (8.0% of prof.)
17 (33.3% of students)
31 (60.8% of students)
3 (5.9% of students)
χ2 (2 df, N = 238) = 4.92, ns
39
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
Table 7d. Seminar in Child Life
Q23: Took or Have Available Seminar in
Child Life?
Professional
Student
Yes
No
I don’t know
75 (40.1% of prof.)
95 (50.8% of prof.)
17 (9.1% of prof.)
10 (19.6% of students)*
35 (68.6% of students)
6 (11.8% of students)
χ (2 df, N = 238) = 7.34, significant p <.025
Note. *Cells with standardized residual greater than positive 2 or less than negative 2
2
40
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
Table 8a. Chi-Square with Professionals and Students and Q10: Did You Minor or Specialize in child life (bachelor’s degree)?
Q10: Minor or specialize in child life (bachelor’s degree)
Professional
Student
χ (1 df, N = 258) = .168, ns
2
41
Yes
No
57 (28.9% of prof.)
140 (71.1% of prof.)
16 (26.2% of students)
45 (73.9% of students)
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
Table 8b. Chi-Square with Professionals and Students and Q11: Did You Minor or Specialize in Child Life (master’s degree)?
Q11: Minor or specialize in child life (master’s degree)
Professional
Student
Yes
No
42 (23.3% of prof.)
138 (76.7% of prof.)
9 (15.8% of students)
48 (84.2% of students)
χ (1 df, N = 237) = 1.46, ns
2
42
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
Table 9. Completion/Availability of CCLS Taught Course and Negatively Affecting the Profession
No
(Will Not negatively affect CL
profession)
Yes
(Negatively affect CL
profession)
All others
(+ & -, NS, Other)
Yes
83 (82.2% of
Completion/Availability)*
4 (4.0% of
Completion/Availability)*
14 (13.9% of
Completion/Availability)*
No
51 (48.6% of No
Completion/Availability)*
17 (16.2% of No
Completion/Availability)
37 (35.2% of No
Completion/Availability)*
Took or Have Available Course
Taught by CCLS?
χ2 (2 df, N = 206) = 25.994, p<.001
Note. *Cells with standardized residual greater than positive 2 or less than negative 2
43
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
Summary
The main purpose of this study was to conduct an analysis of professionals and
students in the field of child life concerning their perceptions and personal experiences
of certification course work requirements, availability of child life practicum, and
internship sites. More specifically, the current study examined child life course
availability, professional and student academic degrees, application to child life
internship sites, difficulty in attaining child life practica and internships, and career
guidance. This study examined areas not previously researched in child life literature
and has contributed in expanding the literature in the field of child life. Other studies
have suggested a need for research regarding child life training (Turner & Fralic,
2009).
The findings in Hypothesis 1 regarding completion/availability of a child life
course taught by a CCLS suggested a non-statistically significant trend in the
predicted direction with fewer professionals than students completing a course in child
life taught by a CCLS. These results are concerning due to the new requirement
effective June 2013, which states all individuals applying for the child life certification
exam must have completed a child life course taught by a CCLS. Currently 41
universities/colleges in the United States and Canada offer a course to meet the CLC
requirement (CLC, February 2012). As a result, students pursuing a career in child
life may not be eligible for certification due to limited availability of this course.
44
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
Therefore, it would be ideal for universities to include this course in their curriculum
for students pursuing a career in child life.
Moreover, an additional exploratory analysis was conducted to examine
perceptions of the CLC requirement of completing a course taught by a CCLS for
certification eligibility. A significant difference was found between
completion/availability of a course taught by a CCLS and whether or not the course
requirement would have a negative effect on the child life profession. These results
suggest that individuals who have met this requirement do not perceive the
requirement to be a negative for the profession. The results from the present study
appear to be similar to the concerns reported by the CLC (December, 2011), which
noted, 85 respondents commented on the upcoming change and 54 indicated a
disagreement with the change. As such a limited number of colleges/universities offer
a course in child life by a CCLS in both traditional and online settings to matriculating
students (18 colleges/universities) and non-matriculating students (23
colleges/universities) within the U.S. and Canada. These results support the need for
more colleges and universities to offer a course in child life taught by a CCLS. Thus,
more academic programs should offer a course taught by a CCLS either in person or
online.
In examining professional and academic degrees, results from Research
Question 2 indicated that few professionals and students hold academic degrees
(bachelor or master) in child life. This finding suggests that academic degrees in child
life continue to be in minority regardless of the popularity of the profession, as shown
45
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
by the limited number of colleges/universities in the U.S. and Canada, whom selfreported to the CLC offering degrees/curriculum in child life. Moreover, an
exploratory analysis was conducted to examine differences between professionals and
students regarding academic minor/specialization in child life. No significant
differences were found between professionals and students. Therefore these results
suggest that a child life minor/specialization is not common, similar to a degree in
child life.
The findings in Hypothesis 3 regarding applying to child life internships were
supported. Students report planning to or having applied to more child life internship
sites than professionals. These results support the growing popularity of the child life
field as noted by Snow and Triebenbacher (1996) and the Child Life Council (2011).
Overall, the results from Research Question 4 indicated that, on average,
professionals reported less difficulty in locating child life practica and internship sites
compared to students. However, students and professionals were both in slight
agreement that there are not enough practica sites to meet the training needs of
students. A possible explanation for this unexpected finding comes from the rapid
growth and popularity of the field, as reported by Reynolds (2011) and Snow and
Triebenbacher (1996). These results suggest that it is becoming more competitive to
attain child life practica and internships based on student reports of difficulty
compared to professionals.
Hypothesis 5 was not supported by the data in regards to career guidance for
child life. There were no statistically significant differences between professionals and
46
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
students regarding following child life academic curriculum requirements, programs
offering career guidance, and receiving guidance in applying for child life internships.
There was a trend, though nonsignificant between professionals and students regarding
universities/colleges offering seminars in child life. However, the results were
opposite of the hypothesized direction; students reported less availability to seminars,
less career guidance, and less help applying for internships in child life than
professionals. These results are of concern as the profession continues to increase
certification requirements.
Strengths of the Current Study
A strength of the current study is that it addresses the need for research in the
field of child life. The study attempts to include professional and student perspectives
(experiences) of the child life certification process. Moreover, the current study
attempts to identify differences between professionals and students. Specifically, the
study addresses training differences, site availability, and career guidance. Strengths of
the current study include the large sample size of professional and student respondents
(N = 271). The study included separate surveys for professionals and students to
account for the different groups addressed in the research.
Limitations
Limitations of the present study include the use of a sample using only
professionals and students who are paying members of the CLC. As a result, the
findings can only be generalized to this population (paying members of the CLC).
Moreover, this study was exploratory with limited theoretical basis. The reliability and
47
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
validity of the present study may be seen as a limitation. The data were collected using
two online surveys targeting different sample groups. Therefore, not all of the survey
questions were worded exactly the same for each group. Thus, the results were
compared based on concepts. The survey questions may have been worded differently
to increase the clarity of the questions. The response rate was not able to be recorded
due to the sampling method. This researcher requested to use a direct email, however
was declined, therefore the CLC Forum was the next best choice. As noted by G. Finn
(personal communication, February 23, 2012), there was no way of tracking the
number of times an online post had been viewed for the web site utilized in this study.
Potentially all members who are subscribers to the CLC Forum (3,960 members)
could have seen the online forum post, though unlikely. If all 3,960 members had seen
the online forum post, the response rate would be 8.3% in the present study.
Implications for Future Research
Future research addressing child life training should consider expanding the
current study by addressing specific academic courses. Child life departments should
be examined to identify differences between programs regarding student status,
number of interns, internship hours, etc. This may be accomplished by surveying child
life program directors and/or child life internship coordinators. By identifying the
differences between departments and standardizing child life training programs, the
field of child life should be able to provide students with consistency nationwide (for
example, as in fields like social work programs, licensed professional counselors,
etc.). Future research might benefit from using additional samples, for example an
48
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
alternative is to approach specific academic programs with child life academic
programs.
49
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
REFERENCES
American Academy of Pediatrics: Child Life Council & Committee on Hospital Care.
(2006). Child life services. Pediatrics, 118(4), 1757-1763. doi:
10.1542/peds.2006-1941
American Academy of Pediatrics: Committee on Hospital Care. (2000). Child life
services. Pediatrics, 106(5), 1156-1159.
American Counseling Association. (2011). Who are Licensed Professional
Counselors. Retrieved from
http://www.susanfee.com/coaching/documents/AmericanCounselingAssociatio
nLPC.pdf
Association for Play Therapy. (2010). Guide: RPT/S credentialing program. Retrieved
from http://www.a4pt.org/download.cfm?ID=28254
Brewer, S., Gleditsch, S.L., Syblik, D., Tietjens, M.E., & Vacik, H.W. (2006).
Pediatric anxiety: child life intervention in day surgery. Journal of Pediatric
Nursing, 21(1), 13-22.
Brewster, A. B. (1982). Chronically ill hospitalized children’s concepts of their illness.
Pediatrics, 69(3), 355-362.
Child Life Council Academic Task Force (2010). Curriculum Recommendations.
Retrieved from
http://www.childlife.org/files/CLCGraduateCurriculumRecommendations.pdf
50
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
Child Life Council Certifying Committee. (2011). Child Life Professional
Certification Candidate Manual. Retrieved from
http://www.childlife.org/files/CandidateManual.pdf
Child Life Council Certifying Committee. (2011). 2011 Child life professional
certification survey. Retrieved from
http://www.childlife.org/files/Survey%20Summary.pdf
Child Life Council. (n.d.). Academic program directory. Retrieved from
http://childlife.org/StudentsInternsEducators/AcademicStudents/AcademicProg
ramDirectory.cfm
Child Life Council. (n.d.). The value of the certification credential in child life
services: Position statement. Retrieved from
http://www.childlife.org/files/PositionStatementValueofCertificationCredential.pdf
Child Life Council. (2002). The Official Documents of the Child Life Council.
Rockville, MD: Child Life Council, Inc.
Child Life Council. (2005). 2005 Child life professional certification survey. Retrieved
from http://www.childlife.org/files/2005CertificationSurveyResultsCondensed.pdf
Child Life Council. (2006). Child Life Council directory of child life programs.
Retrieved from http://community.childlife.org/p/gr/ut/#1309469939419
51
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
Child Life Council. (2008). Summary of the 2008 child life profession
compensation survey results. Retrieved from
http://childlife.org/files//Summary08CLSalarySurvey.pdf
Child Life Council. (2010). The child life profession. Retrieved from
http://childlife.org/The%20Child%20Life%20Profession
Child Life Council. (2011). Child Life Clinical Internship Curriculum: Learning
Models. Rockville, MD: Child Life Council, Inc.
Child Life Council. (2011). Special report: 2010 member survey results. Child Life
Council Bulletin, 29(2), 8-9. Rockville, MD: Child Life Council, Inc.
Child Life Council. (2011). Special report: CLC Board of Directors
approves important policy changes and initiatives at November meeting.
Retrieved from
http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs015/1102561681924/archive/1108963743
422.html
Child Life Council. (2012). Course work requirement. Retrieved from
http://www.childlife.org/files/Revised%20CW%20Requirement.pdf
Child Life Council. (2012). Academic programs offering a class taught by
a CCLS. Retrieved from
http://childlife.org/StudentsInternsEducators/AcademicStudents/ChildLifeCour
se.cfm
Committee on Hospital Care. (1994). Staffing patterns for patient care and support
personnel in a general pediatric unit. Pediatrics, 93(5), 850-854.
52
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
Cuenca, A. (2011). The role of legitimacy in student teaching: Learning to “feel” like
a teacher. Teacher Education Quarterly, 117-130.
Edwards, R.L., Shera, W., Reid, P.N., & York, R. (2006). Social work practice and
education in the US and Canada. Social Work Education, 25(1), 28-38.
Graham, R. M. (1974). The education of music therapist. College Music Symposium,
14, 50-59.
Jessee, P. O., & Nagy, M.C. (2000). The earning capacity of Child Life Specialists.
Retrieved from http://www.childlife.org/files/salarysurvey.pdf
Licensed Professional Counselor Act, 3 Texas Occupations Code §503.001(a).
Retrieved from
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/OC/htm/OC.503.htm#503.001
McCarthy, A.M., Kleiber, C., Hanrahan, K., Zimmerman, M.B., Westhaus, N., &
Allen, S. (2010). Impact of parent-provided distraction on children responses
to an IV insertion. Children’s Health Care 39, 125-141.
doi:10.1080/02739611003679915.
Myant, K.A., & Williams, J. M. (2005). Children’s concepts of health and illness:
Understanding of contagious illnesses, non-contagious illnesses and injuries.
Journal of Health Psychology, 10(6), 805-819.
doi: 10.1177/1359105305057315
53
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
National Association of Early Childhood Teacher Educators (NAECTE) Advocacy
Committee. (2009). National Association of Early Childhood Teacher
Educators (NAECTE) position statement on early childhood certification for
teachers of children 8 years old and younger in public school settings. Journal
of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 30, 188-191.
doi: 10.1080/10901020902886677
National Council for Therapeutic Recreation Certification. (2011). Information for the
Certified Therapeutic Recreation Specialist and new applicants. Retrieved from
http://www.nctrc.org/documents/1NewAp.pdf
Parvin, K.V., & Dickinson, G.E. (2010). End-of-life issues in US child life specialist
programs. Child Youth Care Forum, 39, 1-9. doi: 10.1007/s10566-009-9086-6.
Perrin, E. C., & Gerrity, P.S. (1981). There’s a demon in your belly: Children’s
understanding of illness. Pediatrics, 67(6), 841-849.
Porter, M.L., Hernandez-Reif, M., & Jessee, P. (2009). Play therapy: A review. Early
Child Development and Care, 179(8), 1025-1040.
doi: 10.1080/03004430701731613
Rabetoy, C.P. (2008). The benefits of a school teacher vs. a child life specialist serving
pediatric patients on dialysis. Nephrology Nursing Journal, 35(4), 399-401.
Reynolds, D. (2011). 2010: A banner year: Child Life Council annual report to
membership. Child Life Council Bulletin, 29(1), 8-9. Rockville, MD: Child
Life Council, Inc.
54
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
Robinson, C. A. (1987). Preschool children’s conceptualizations of health and illness.
Children’s Health Care, 16(2), 89-96.
Rushforth, H. (1999). Practitioner Review: Communicating with hospitalized
children: Review and application of research pertaining to children’s
understanding of health and illness. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 40(5), 683-691.
Sigrest, T. & Committee on Hospital Care (2003). Facilities and equipment for the
care of pediatric patients in a community hospital. Pediatrics, 111(5), 11201122.
Snow, C.W., & Triebenbacher, S.L. (1996). Child life program employment trends
and practices. Children’s Health Care, 25(3), 211-220.
Social Work Practice Act (1999), 3 Texas Occupations Code § 505.001 (a). Retrieved
from http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/OC/htm/OC.505.htm
Tanguay, C. L. (2008). Supervising music therapy interns: A survey of AMTA
national roster internship directors. Journal of Music Therapy, XLV(1), 52-74.
Texas Education Agency. (2010). Becoming a classroom teacher in Texas. Retrieved
from
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=5352&menu_id=865&menu_id2=79
4
Thompson, R. H. & Snow, C. W. (2009). Research in child life. In R.H. Thompson
(Ed.), The Handbook of Child Life: A guide for pediatric psychosocial care
(pp. 136-56). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher, LTD.
55
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
Thompson, R.H. (1985). Psychosocial research on pediatric hospitalization and
health care: A review of the literature. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas
Publisher.
Turner, J. C., & Fralic, J. (2009). Making explicit the implicit: Child life specialists
talk about their assessment process. Child Youth Care Forum, 38, 39-54. doi:
10.1007/s10566-009-9066-x
Vacik, H.W., Nagy, M.C., & Jessee, P. O. (2001). Children’s understanding of illness:
Students’ assessments. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 16(6), 429-437. doi:
10.1053/jpdn.2001.27883
Williams, J.M., & Binnie, L.M. (2002). Children’s concepts of illness: An intervention
to improve knowledge. British Journal of Health Psychology, 7, 129-147.
Wilson, J. M., & Cross, J. (2009). Program administration and supervision. In R.H.
Thompson (Ed.), The Handbook of Child Life: A guide for pediatric
psychosocial care (pp. 199-219). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher,
LTD.
Wojtasik, S.P., & White, C. (2009). The story of child life. In R.H. Thompson
(Ed.), The Handbook of Child Life: A guide for pediatric psychosocial care
(pp. 3-22). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher, LTD.
Wolfer, J., Gaynard, L., Goldberger, J., Laidley, L., & Thompson, R. (1988). An
experimental evaluation of a model child life program. Children’s Health
Care, 16(4), 244-254.
56
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
Zelikovsky, N., Rodrigue, J., Gidycz, C., & Davis, M. (2000). Cognitive behavioral
and behavioral interventions help young children cope during a voiding
cystourethrogram. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 25(8), 535-543.
57
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
APPENDIX A
INTRODUCTORY RECRUITING POST FOR THE CHILD LIFE COUNCIL
FORUM
Greetings,
We are asking you to assist us in the completion of the following
survey designed to gather a greater understanding of the current
child life certification process among students and professionals.
We are hoping to gather information on past and present
certification processes and experiences within the child life field.
The information gathered in this survey will be analyzed and results
will be used to expand the literature on the child life field.
The survey should take approximately 15 minutes to complete. We
will not ask about any specific identifying information. Any
information you provide will not be linked to you. Participation is
voluntary and you are free to discontinue the survey at any time.
Please complete the survey by December 20, 2011.
Survey Link:
https://ttuhumansciences.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_3rshHp8OAlqsEcY
Thank you for your willingness to participate in this survey.
58
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
APPENDIX B
INTRODUCTION TO THE SURVEY
We are asking you to assist us in the completion of the following survey
designed to gather a greater understanding of the child life certification
process. We are hoping to gather information on current and previous
experiences in relation to becoming a certified child life specialist. The
information gathered in this survey will be analyzed, and the results will be
used to expand the literature on the child life field.
The survey should take approximately 15 minutes to complete. We will not ask
any specific identifying information about you. Any information you provide
will not be linked to you in any way. Participation is voluntary and you are free
to discontinue the survey at any time. This research study has been approved
by the Texas Tech Institutional Review Board. Questions may be directed to
the principal investigator, Jeffrey N. Wherry, Ph.D. (806) 742-3000, x 242, or
to the IRB at Texas Tech University at (806) 742-3905.
59
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
APPENDIX C
SURVEY FOR PROFESSIONALS
Q1 Are you currently a Certified Child Life Specialist (CCLS)?
 Yes (1)
 No (2)
Q2 Are you currently a member of the Child Life Council (CLC)?
 Yes (1)
 No (2)
Q3 Which best describes your membership type with the CLC?
 Professional (certified) (1)
 Student (non-certified) (2)
 Other (3)
If you are a student, please do not continue.
Q4 Which of the following ranges does your age fall?
 18-22 (1)
 23-30 (2)
 31-40 (3)
 41-50 (4)
 51-60 (5)
 Over 60 (6)
 Prefer not to answer (7)
Q5 What is your highest level of education?
 High school graduate (1)
 Bachelor's degree (2)
 Master's degree (3)
 PhD (4)
Q6 Did you receive your Bachelor’s degree in Child Life?
 Yes (1)
 No (2)
Q7 In what major did you receive your Bachelor’s degree?
60
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
Q8 Did you receive your Master’s degree in Child Life?
 Yes (1)
 No (2)
Q9 In what major did you receive your Master’s degree?
Q10 Did you minor or specialize in Child Life in your Bachelor's degree?
 Yes (1)
 No (2)
Q11 Did you minor or specialize in Child Life in your Master’s degree?
 Yes (1)
 No (2)
Q12 How important is majoring/specializing in Child Life for internships?
 Not at all Important (1)
 Very Unimportant (2)
 Somewhat Unimportant (3)
 Neither Important nor Unimportant (4)
 Somewhat Important (5)
 Very Important (6)
 Extremely Important (7)
Q13 How important is majoring/specializing in Child Life for jobs?
 Not at all Important (1)
 Very Unimportant (2)
 Somewhat Unimportant (3)
 Neither Important nor Unimportant (4)
 Somewhat Important (5)
 Very Important (6)
 Extremely Important (7)
Q14 Are there enough Child Life practicum sites to meet the training needs of students?
 Strongly Disagree (1)
 Disagree (2)
 Somewhat Disagree (3)
 Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)
 Somewhat Agree (5)
 Agree (6)
 Strongly Agree (7)
61
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
Q15 How important is volunteering in a child life setting when applying for a practicum?
 Not at all Important (1)
 Very Unimportant (2)
 Somewhat Unimportant (3)
 Neither Important nor Unimportant (4)
 Somewhat Important (5)
 Very Important (6)
 Extremely Important (7)
Q16 How important is volunteering in a child life setting when applying for internships?
 Not at all Important (1)
 Very Unimportant (2)
 Somewhat Unimportant (3)
 Neither Important nor Unimportant (4)
 Somewhat Important (5)
 Very Important (6)
 Extremely Important (7)
Q17 How important is volunteering in a child life setting when applying for jobs?
 Not at all Important (1)
 Very Unimportant (2)
 Somewhat Unimportant (3)
 Neither Important nor Unimportant (4)
 Somewhat Important (5)
 Very Important (6)
 Extremely Important (7)
Q18 How did you become interested in Child Life?
Q19 Did you complete a course in Child Life taught by a Certified Child Life Specialist?
 Yes (1)
 No (2)
62
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
Q20 How important is completing a course in Child Life taught by a Certified Child Life
Specialist?
 Not at all Important (1)
 Very Unimportant (2)
 Somewhat Unimportant (3)
 Neither Important nor Unimportant (4)
 Somewhat Important (5)
 Very Important (6)
 Extremely Important (7)
Q21 Are you aware of the curriculum recommendations for child life academic programs?
 Yes (1)
 No (2)
Q22 Did your program follow the curriculum recommendations for child life academic
programs?
 Yes (1)
 No (2)
 I don't know (3)
Q23 Did your program offer a seminar in child life for students?
 Yes (1)
 No (2)
 I don't know (3)
Q24 Did your program offer any guidance for a career in child life?
 Yes (1)
 No (2)
 I don't know (3)
Q25 How difficult was it to attain a practicum in child life?
 Very Difficult (1)
 Difficult (2)
 Somewhat Difficult (3)
 Neutral (4)
 Somewhat Easy (5)
 Easy (6)
 Very Easy (7)
63
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
Q26 How difficult was it to attain a child life internship?
 Very Difficult (1)
 Difficult (2)
 Somewhat Difficult (3)
 Neutral (4)
 Somewhat Easy (5)
 Easy (6)
 Very Easy (7)
Q28 Did your program offer help in applying for child life internships?
 Yes (1)
 No (2)
 I don't know (3)
Q27 What is the typical salary range for a Certified Child Life Specialist?
 $20,000-$30,000 (1)
 $31,000-$40,000 (2)
 $41,000-$50,000 (3)
 $51,000-$60,000 (4)
 $60,000 and above (5)
Q29 Approximately how many hospitals currently offer child life internships?
Q30 Under what department name are most courses for child life listed?
Q31 Did you complete an internship prior to certification?
 Yes (1)
 No (2)
Q32 In which year did you complete an internship?
Q33 Approximately how many hospitals did you apply to for an internship?
Q34 How long have you worked in the child life field?
Q35 How many full-time child life employees does your facility currently employ?
64
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
Q36 Are you currently qualified to be a Certified Child Life Specialist (CCLS ) supervisor?
 Yes (1)
 No (2)
Q37 Does your facility accept students from any university/college?
 Yes (1)
 No (2)
Q38 How many practicum students does your facility currently have?
Q39 How many hours do your practicum students complete?
Q40 How many times a year are practica offered at your current facility?
 0 (1)
 1 (2)
 2 (3)
 3 (4)
Q41 How many interns does your facility currently have?
 0 (1)
 1 (2)
 2 (3)
 3 (4)
Q42 How many rotations do your interns complete?
 1 (1)
 2 (2)
 3 (3)
 We currently do not have interns (4)
 Our interns do not do rotations (5)
Q43 Do your interns need to be enrolled with a university/college during the internship?
 Yes (1)
 No (2)
Q44 Does your facility accept both bachelor and master level students?
 Yes (1)
 No (2)
65
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
Q45 How many times a year are internships offered at your current facility?
 0 (1)
 1 (2)
 2 (3)
 3 (4)
Q46 How many hours do your interns complete?
Q47 How long have you as an individual been certified as a Child Life Specialist?
Q48 Which of the following ranges best reflects your current salary?
 $20,000-$30,000 (1)
 $31,000-$40,000 (2)
 $41,000-$50,000 (3)
 $51,000-$60,000 (4)
 $60,000 and above (5)
Q49 Will the new requirement of completing a course taught by a CCLS for certification be a
negative for the growing profession of Child Life?
66
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
Q50 Please indicate the barriers that might interfere with the completion of a Child Life practicum.
Strongly
Disagree (1)
Disagree (2)
Somewhat
Disagree (3)
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree (4)
Somewhat
Agree (5)
Agree (6)
Strongly
Agree (7)
Finances (1)







Relocation
(2)







Child care
(3)







Course work
(4)







Lack of
availability
(5)







67
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
Q51 Please indicate the barriers that might interfere with the completion of a Child Life internship.
Strongly
Disagree (1)
Disagree (2)
Somewhat
Disagree (3)
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree (4)
Somewhat
Agree (5)
Agree (6)
Strongly
Agree (7)
Finances (1)







Relocation
(2)







Child care (3)







Course work
(4)







Lack of
availability
(5)







68
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
APPENDIX D
SURVEY FOR STUDENTS
Q1 Are you currently a Certified Child Life Specialist (CCLS)?
 Yes (1)
 No (2)
Q2 Are you currently a member of the Child Life Council (CLC)?
 Yes (1)
 No (2)
Q3 Which best describes your membership type with the CLC?
 Professional (Certified) (1)
 Student (Non-certified) (2)
 Other (3)
If you are a professional, please do not continue.
Q5 Which of the following ranges does your age fall?
 18-22 (1)
 23-30 (2)
 31-40 (3)
 41-50 (4)
 51-60 (5)
 Over 60 (6)
 Prefer not to answer (7)
Q6 What is your highest level of education?
 High school graduate (1)
 Bachelor's degree (2)
 Master's degree (3)
 PhD (4)
Q7 Did you receive your Bachelor’s degree in Child Life?
 Yes (1)
 No (2)
Q8 In what major did you receive your Bachelor’s degree?
69
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
Q9 Did you receive your Master’s degree in Child Life?
 Yes (1)
 No (2)
Q10 In what major did you receive your Master’s degree?
Q11 Did you minor or specialize in Child Life in your Bachelor's degree?
 Yes (1)
 No (2)
Q12 Did you minor or specialize in Child Life in your Master’s degree?
 Yes (1)
 No (2)
Q13 How important is majoring/specializing in Child Life for internships?
 Not at all Important (1)
 Very Unimportant (2)
 Somewhat Unimportant (3)
 Neither Important nor Unimportant (4)
 Somewhat Important (5)
 Very Important (6)
 Extremely Important (7)
Q14 How important is majoring/specializing in Child Life for jobs?
 Not at all Important (1)
 Very Unimportant (2)
 Somewhat Unimportant (3)
 Neither Important nor Unimportant (4)
 Somewhat Important (5)
 Very Important (6)
 Extremely Important (7)
Q15 Are there enough Child Life practicum sites to meet the training needs of students?
 Strongly Disagree (1)
 Disagree (2)
 Somewhat Disagree (3)
 Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)
 Somewhat Agree (5)
 Agree (6)
 Strongly Agree (7)
70
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
Q16 How important is volunteering in a child life setting when applying for a practicum?
 Not at all Important (1)
 Very Unimportant (2)
 Somewhat Unimportant (3)
 Neither Important nor Unimportant (4)
 Somewhat Important (5)
 Very Important (6)
 Extremely Important (7)
Q17 How important is volunteering in a child life setting when applying for internships?
 Not at all Important (1)
 Very Unimportant (2)
 Somewhat Unimportant (3)
 Neither Important nor Unimportant (4)
 Somewhat Important (5)
 Very Important (6)
 Extremely Important (7)
Q18 How important is volunteering in a child life setting when applying for jobs?
 Not at all Important (1)
 Very Unimportant (2)
 Somewhat Unimportant (3)
 Neither Important nor Unimportant (4)
 Somewhat Important (5)
 Very Important (6)
 Extremely Important (7)
Q19 How did you become interested in Child Life?
Q20 How important is completing a course in Child Life taught by a Certified Child Life
Specialist?
 Not at all Important (1)
 Very Unimportant (2)
 Somewhat Unimportant (3)
 Neither Important nor Unimportant (4)
 Somewhat Important (5)
 Very Important (6)
 Extremely Important (7)
71
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
Q21 How certain are you about becoming a Certified Child Life Specialist?
 Definitely will not (1)
 Probably will not (2)
 Don't know (3)
 Probably will (4)
 Definitely will (5)
Q39 How much do you know about becoming a Certified Child Life Specialist?
 Below Average (1)
 Average (2)
 Above Average (3)
Q23 Is there a child life course currently offered at your university/college?
 Yes (1)
 No (2)
 I don't know (3)
Q24 Are you aware of the curriculum recommendations for child life academic programs?
 Yes (1)
 No (2)
Q25 Does your program follow the curriculum recommendations for child life academic
programs?
 Yes (1)
 No (2)
 I don't know (3)
Q26 Does your program offer a seminar in child life for students?
 Yes (1)
 No (2)
 I don't know (3)
Q27 Does your program offer any guidance for a career in child life?
 Yes (1)
 No (2)
 I don't know (3)
72
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
Q30 Does your program offer help in applying for child life internships?
 Yes (1)
 No (2)
 I don't know (3)
Q28 How difficult is it to attain a practicum in child life?
 Very Difficult (1)
 Difficult (2)
 Somewhat Difficult (3)
 Neutral (4)
 Somewhat Easy (5)
 Easy (6)
 Very Easy (7)
Q29 How difficult do you think it is to attain a child life internship?
 Very Difficult (1)
 Difficult (2)
 Somewhat Difficult (3)
 Neutral (4)
 Somewhat Easy (5)
 Easy (6)
 Very Easy (7)
Q31 What is the zip code of your current university/college?
Q32 Under what department name are most courses for child life listed?
Q33 Approximately how many hospitals currently offer child life internships?
Q35 Approximately how many hospitals have/will you apply to for an internship?
Q34 What is the typical salary range for a Certified Child Life Specialist?
 $20,000-$30,000 (1)
 $31,000-$40,000 (2)
 $41,000-$50,000 (3)
 $51,000-$60,000 (4)
 $60,000 and above (5)
Q38 Will the new requirement of completing a course taught by a CCLS for certification be a
negative for the growing profession of Child Life?
73
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
Q36 Please indicate the barriers that might interfere with the completion of a Child Life practicum.
Strongly
Disagree (1)
Disagree (2)
Somewhat
Disagree (3)
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree (4)
Somewhat
Agree (5)
Agree (6)
Strongly
Agree (7)
Finances (1)







Relocation
(2)







Child care (3)







Course work
(4)







Lack of
availability
(5)







74
Texas Tech University, Gwendolyn L. Gerber, May 2012
Q37 Please indicate the barriers that might interfere with the completion of a Child Life internship.
Strongly
Disagree (1)
Disagree (2)
Somewhat
Disagree (3)
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree (4)
Somewhat
Agree (5)
Agree (6)
Strongly
Agree (7)
Finances (1)







Relocation
(2)







Child care (3)







Course work
(4)







Lack of
availability
(5)







75