AY 2014-2015 ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW SELF-STUDY TEMPLATE
Reporting School/College: St. John’s College
Program Reviewed: Psychology PsyD Q
Date Submitted to Department/Division Chair: 10/2/15
Overview and Program Review Summary: Please summarize this program’s mission and its relationship to the vision
and mission of St. John’s University, and the program’s School/College. Identify similar programs regionally and
nationally and distinguish this program from them. In addition, summarize your findings as they relate to (1) program
quality, (2) market growth potential, and (3) student learning. Also, summarize any significant changes, achievements
(by faculty and students and the program itself), and plans for the future. Finally, based on the information gleaned
from the data in the self-study, give an overall rating of the program’s Enrollment/Market Potential by categorizing it as
one of the following: (1) Enhance; (2) Maintain; (3) Reduce support, Phase out, Consolidate, or Discontinue.
(Suggested limit 1 page)
STANDARD 1. The purpose of the program reflects and supports the strategic vision and mission of St. John’s
University, and the program’s School/College.
1a.
What evidence can you provide that demonstrates that the program embodies the Catholic, Vincentian, and
metropolitan identity of St. John’s University? http://www.stjohns.edu/about/our-mission. (Suggested limit 1/3 page)
The Doctor of Psychology (Psy.D.) degree program in School Psychology is housed in the Department of Psychology,
College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, at St. John’s University and is fully approved by the American Psychological
Association as of April 2007 and the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) through December 2019. The
105 credit program follows a practitioner-scientist model designed to ensure that school psychologists base their
professional activities on a scientific understanding of human behavior, lifespan development, and the social and
cultural influences of behavior. The program prepares students to provide evidence-based psychological services to
children, adolescents, and families in general and special education settings. In addition to the general track, the Psy.D.
program also has a bilingual track to better prepare bilingual students to work with culturally and linguistically diverse
youth. Both tracks lead to eligibility for New York State Certification that authorizes practice as a School Psychologist or
Bilingual School Psychologist and eligibility to sit for the licensure exam for the psychology license.
As a University, St. John’s strives to preserve and enhance an atmosphere in which scholarly research, imaginative
methodology, serve as the basis of a vital teaching and lifelong learning process. Our Psy.D. program strives to train
excellent professionals and to develop the ethical and aesthetic values to imagine and realize their impact upon society.
As a Catholic University, St. John’s embraces the Judeo-Christian ideals of respect for the rights and dignity of every
person and the responsibility of each individual for the world in which we live. Our program infuses these values into
every course and program requirement.
Consistent with the Vincentian mission, rigorous courses and program requirements that include a community service
component are combined with intensive practica and internship experiences to develop School Psychologists who can:
engage in evidence-based assessment, consultation, and who can develop treatment plans and select interventions that
are based on data- driven methods to address the education and mental health needs of children and their families; and
LAS_PSY_PSYCH_PSYD_Q
Self-Study Template 1
deliver or adapt evidence-based educational and mental health services with consideration of the diversity of economic,
cultural, and linguistic experiences that influence human behavior, academic performance, and student development.
Perhaps the most salient embodiment of this integration of evidence-based and culturally sensitive practice can be seen
in the program's commitment to assessment, in particular nondiscriminatory assessment, which has garnered it a
reputation as a leader in this area. This dedication to evaluation methods that promote justice and equity are not
restricted to the education of particular students or limited to certain populations. Rather, theoretically-based and
empirically defensible practices underlie all aspects of training. It is our belief that the philosophy described herein
provides the type of broad goals for psychological training that ultimately results in psychologists who are able to deal
with diverse perspectives and situations and who possess the ability to interact effectively with all people in all sectors
of society, and in a manner that reflects the Vincentian tradition under which they were trained.
As a metropolitan university, we are dedicated to educating psychologists to be sensitive to issues of diversity, including,
the impact of culture, language, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. Through our Center for Psychological Services, we
reach out to the metropolitan community to serve its needs. The primary practicum training site, the St. John’s
University Center for Psychological Services, is located with-in 5 minutes of the university in the heart of an ethnically
diverse community and provides convenient access for training purposes to students and faculty supervisors.
Furthermore, internship sites are located within the greater metropolitan New York area, including Long Island,
Westchester County, Connecticut, and New Jersey. Operating in the midst of the largest metropolitan area, we have the
advantage of having developed many excellent internship-training opportunities with strong site supervisors who reflect
the goals and mission of the program.
In addition, consistent with the University's mission as a Catholic, Vincentian, and metropolitan institution, the
University is committed to nondiscrimination on the basis of race, religion, color,
national or ethnic origin, age, sex,
sexual orientation, marital status, citizenship status, disability, genetic predisposition or carrier status, or status in the
uniformed services of the United States. The psychology department and the school psychology Psy.D. program have
embodied this mission fostering respect for the dignity and worth of each individual.
1b.
What evidence can you provide that demonstrates that the program embodies the University’s vision.
http://www.stjohns.edu/about/our-mission/vision-statement. (Suggested limit 1/3 page)
The goals of the Psy.D. program are consistent with the University’s Mission that involves a commitment to scholarly
research, quality education for all people, especially those lacking economic, physical, or social advantages, and service
to individuals from diverse cultural backgrounds. The educational experiences of our students are infused with an
understanding of the importance of issues of cultural and individual diversity and this is articulated and practiced in our
policies for student recruitment, admissions and retention, faculty hiring and retention, and research activities. In
addition, through coursework, practica and internship placements, we encourage our students to increase their
awareness of the impact of poverty and social injustice and that seek to find solutions to these problems.
1c.
What evidence can you provide that demonstrates that the program embodies the vision and mission of the
program’s School/College? (Suggested limit 1/3 page)
Consistent with St. John’s College of Liberal Arts and Sciences vision, we are dedicated to student-centered teaching that
emphasizes the diverse prospectives of our local metropolitan and global community. The Psy.D. program involves a
systematic progression of course work and fieldwork necessary for the development and integration of professional
practice, scholarship, and research competencies. The course sequence allows the core theoretical and science-based
courses to serve as the foundation for the advanced, applied courses. In addition, our program educates psychologists to
be sensitive to issues of diversity, including the impact that culture, language, ethnicity, and sexual orientation have on
LAS_PSY_PSYCH_PSYD_Q
Self-Study Template 2
school-age students and their families. Understanding how to work with students from diverse language backgrounds, in
particular, is addressed directly in the courses that correspond to our programs’ bilingual track. Students who have
opted for our bilingual track specialization are expected to practice multicultural competencies while working under
supervision in settings with culturally and linguistically diverse individuals.
Standard 1.
Additional comments if needed. (Suggested limit 1 page)
STANDARD 2. The program attracts, retains, and graduates high quality students.
2a.
Undergraduate SAT and High School Average
N/A to our program. However, we do have GRE scores and Undergraduate GPA data.
Academic Year
GRE-Verbal
GRE-Quantitative
GRE-Analytical
GRE-Psychology
Average
Median
Average
Median
Average
Median
Average
Median
Average
Undergraduate GPA
20072008
543
520
640
630
4.6
4.5
600
580
3.6
2b.
Undergraduate 1st Year Retention Rate
Not applicable
2c.
Undergraduate 6 Year Graduation Rate
20082009
516
500
622
620
4.6
4.5
595
590
3.5
20092010
496
480
608
615
4.3
4.5
598
595
3.5
20102011
532
535
608
640
4.5
4.5
619
630
3.5
20112012
542
540
614
635
4.36
4.5
N/A
N/A
3.5
20122013
578
590
710
710
4.3
4
N/A
N/A
3.66
20132014
570/158
158
620/154
156
4.54
4.5
680
670
3.69
20142015
153.68
153.5
151.45
151
4.05
4
634.4
640
3.68
Not applicable to the PsyD program.
Outcome
Total number of students
with doctoral degree
conferred on transcript
Mean number of years to
complete the program
Median number of years to
complete the program
Time to Degree Ranges
LAS_PSY_PSYCH_PSYD_Q
Year in which Degrees were Conferred
200920102011201220132010
2011
2012
2013
2014
22
23
12
17
23
20072008
12
20082009
22
5.5
5.41
6.27
5.83
5.83
5.53
5.39
5.68
5
5
5.5
5
5.5
6
5
5.29
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
Total
131
N
%
Self-Study Template 3
Students in less than 5
years
Students in 5 years
Students in 6 years
Students in 7 years
Students in more than 7
years
2d.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
4
1
0
58
33
8
0
17
2
2
1
77
9
9
5
11
2
1
8
50
9
5
36
13
5
1
4
57
22
4
17
6
3
2
1
50
25
17
8
8
9
0
0
47
53
0
0
16
5
2
0
70
21
9
0
78
30
9
14
60
23
7
10
Graduate Standardized Test Scores
Program
2005
496/580
2006
510/591
Fall
2007
515/613
2008
532/627
2009
491/611
School/College
Average Rate
481/561
494/569
465/551
501/588
472/577
Regional
Comparison
N/A
N/A
See below
N/A
N/A
N/A
National
Comparison
New Graduate Students GRE Verbal
Mean Scores
School Psychology PSYD
old
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Ir Grev Score
Ir Grev Score
Ir Grev Score
Ir Grev Score
519
553
500
590
162
158
new
New Graduate Students GRE Quantitative
Mean Scores
School Psychology PSYD
old
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Ir Greq Score
Ir Greq Score
Ir Greq Score
Ir Greq Score
612
605
626
688
158
154
new
As of August 1, 2011, ETS revised the GRE General Test with a new scoring scale. Prior to 8/1/11 on a scale of 200-800(old) and after 8/1/11 on a scale of 130-170(new)
Based on students with valid scores in BANNER - therefore n maybe small in some cases.
New Graduate Students GRE Verbal
Mean Scores
LAS_PSY_PSYCH_PSYD_Q
Self-Study Template 4
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Ir Grev Score
Graduate School Arts & Sci old
Ir Grev Score
491
Fall 2012
Ir Grev Score
500
new
Fall 2013
Ir Grev Score
497
532
154
153
New Graduate Students GRE Quantitative
Mean Scores
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Ir Greq Score
Graduate School Arts & Sci old
Ir Greq Score
585
Fall 2012
Ir Greq Score
566
new
Fall 2013
Ir Greq Score
593
604
149
150
As of August 1, 2011, ETS revised the GRE General Test with a new scoring scale. Prior to 8/1/11 on a scale of 200-800(old) and after 8/1/11 on a scale of 130-170(new)
GRE (Based on the performance of seniors and nonenrolled college students who tested between August 1,
2001, and June 30, 2014)
Intended Graduate Major
Test-Takers
Mean Score (Verbal)
Mean Score (Quantitative)
Psychology*
66,895 Verbal
152
149
149
146
66,893 Quantitative
Student Counseling and Personnel
Services
1,691
* For further information, please visit http://www.ets.org/s/gre/pdf/gre_guide.pdf.
2e.
Please describe how the program compares with peer and aspirational institutions.
(Suggested limit 1/2 page)
We use Fordham and Teachers College Columbia as benchmark universities. We compare very favorable to them in
many respect. Our faculty are equally or more productive scholastically than our benchmark. Our students are equally or
more desirable on the job market as are the graduates of the benchmark universities. The curriculum is equally to the
benchmark universities in its reflection of current developments in the field.
2f.
If applicable, describe the program’s student performance over the past five years on licensure or professional
certification exams relative to regional and national standards. (Suggested limit 1/4 page)
100% of our graduates are certified school psychologists. 43.75% of our graduates (data only available for 91 of 208
graduates from 2004-2012) are licensed doctoral level psychologists. Some program graduates have pursued careers for
which licensure is not required, for example a career in academia and in some states for practice as a school
psychologist doctoral level licensure is not required (this is true for NY State).
LAS_PSY_PSYCH_PSYD_Q
Self-Study Template 5
2g.
Number of majors and minors enrolled over the past five years. See table below.
Fall
Number of
Students
Majors
Minors
Total
2010
14
14 0
14
MAJORS
2011
13
2012
18
0
13
2013
26
0
0
18
0
26
20
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Fall 2014
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
PSY5
PSYD
14
13
18
26
20
PSY6
PSYD
0
0
0
0
0
14
13
18
26
20
Total
2h.
2014
20
Number of degrees granted during the past five years. See table below.
Degrees
Granted
PSYD
SJC-GR
09/10
10/11
26
26
Academic Year
11/12
14
12/13
13/14
14
10/11
11/12
Degrees
Conferred
Degrees
Conferred
21
12/13
13/14
Degrees Degrees
Conferred Conferred
14
6
7
PSY5
School Psychology
PSYD
22
PSY6
Sch Psychology with Bili Ext
PSYD
4
8
7
7
26
14
14
21
Total
Below is comparison degrees conferred data for local and national institutions based on data retrieved from the IPEDS
website. This is based on the Classification of Instructional Program (CIP) Code of 42-Psychology.
20092010
20102011
20112012
20122013
Doctorate
Local
180
174
178
211
National
5,540
5,851
5,928
5,966
LAS_PSY_PSYCH_PSYD_Q
Self-Study Template 6
1
Local institution include: Adelphi University, Columbia University, CUNY Queens College, Fordham University,
Hofstra University, Iona College, C.W. Post University, Manhattan College, New York University, Pace University,
Seton Hall University, Stony Brook University, and Wagner College.
Comments : Based on the data in 2g and 2h, how do these trends compare to institutional, regional and national
patterns? (Suggested limit 1/2 page)
The St. John’s University Doctor of Psychology Degree in School Psychology Program compares very favorably to other
institutions with similar programs at both the local and national level. Given the Program’s resources, particularly the
relatively small number of full time faculty members, the standards and expectations of accrediting and approval bodies
(e.g., American Psychological Association and National Association of School Psychologists), and the significant number
of nearby institutions with which it competes. There are 8 other institutions near St. John’s University that confer the
PsyD in School Psychology degree including Columbia University, Pace University, Fordham University, Hofstra
University, Yeshiva University, Fairleigh Dickinson University, Seton Hall University, and Stony Brook University. Despite
the enormity of potential competition, the program continues to produce well trained graduates in relatively high
numbers each year. There was a slight downward trend in both enrollment and subsequent graduation rates and degree
conferrals that occurred after stabilization of the most recent economic recession. This pattern was a common theme
among most all institutions and is not an issue specific to St. John’s University. The recent data suggest, however, that
students are returning to school in increasing numbers and that this trend is also at the national level as indicated by the
significant increase in Doctoral degrees in School Psychology awarded by all U.S. institutions last year and by the number
of PsyD degrees in School Psychology conferred by the St. John’s School Psychology Program. During the past 3 years,
the program again received accreditation from the American Psychological Association (APA) as well as approval by the
National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) which provides an indication that not only is the program being
successful in attracting, retaining, and graduating students, it is also doing so in accordance with the rigorous training
standards set forth by both APA and NASP. In addition, the Program is one of only a few in the region that provides an
option for obtaining additional certification from NYS referred to as the Bilingual Extension—an additional certification
to the Pupil Personnel Services credential that all graduates receive following completion of the third year. The Bilingual
Extension (or BEA) is predicated upon a specialized sequence of coursework and training related specifically to the
provision of services to student who are non-native English speakers. In this regard, the School Psychology Program is a
leader in the field in providing the requisite program for the additional certification and in so doing, produces graduates
in rates that only a few other institutions could even match. In short, the data indicate that the PsyD in School
Psychology Program is thriving and succeeding quite well in comparison to neighbor institutions.
2i.
What mechanisms are in place to monitor students’ progress toward degree? And, to what extent is there a
collaborative effort to provide quality advising and support services to students? (Suggested limit 1/4 page)
The PsyD in School Psychology Program provides several mechanisms to monitor and assess each individual student’s
progress toward the degree. Students’ progress in the M.S. program is regularly monitored through advisement, review
of course grades, annual performance evaluations, and feedback from practicum and internship supervisors. Upon
entering the program, each student is assigned an advisor (a core program faculty member) who helps to ensure that
the student is completing his or her program of study according to schedule and is maintaining a satisfactory level of
performance in all courses. If a student fails to meet academic standards (e.g., GPA falls below a 3.0 during any given
semester) the student is placed on academic probation and he or she must meet with the Program Director to arrange a
course of action. However, program faculty strive to ensure that all students maintain satisfactory progress in the
program and pride themselves on being readily available to students who may be experiencing obstacles to success.
Beyond the traditional classroom-based instructor-student monitoring, the nature of the training includes practicabased supervisor-supervisee evaluation and monitoring as well. In addition, several formal mechanisms are in place to
LAS_PSY_PSYCH_PSYD_Q
Self-Study Template 7
further support student progress and address any issues that may arise in their education or training. The two major
frameworks for monitoring occur annually and include:
Student Reviews. At the conclusion of each semester, the faculty review the most recent transcript of each student
enrolled in the PsyD Program. In addition to assisting in monitoring individual study progress, information relative to
course grades and examination performance is used to assess the appropriateness of the course content as it relates to
the training objectives of the program. It has been found that such reviews allow the program to be flexible and
responsive to necessary changes in course content and structure that can addresses potential problems, or be realigned
in accordance with particular initiatives or goals, while still maintaining the training objectives of the course and the
program as a whole.
Trainee Evaluations. Although the main purpose of trainee evaluations is to evaluate the development of our students
and their competencies, this information is also useful for evaluating the effectiveness of the PsyD Program in actually
promoting their development. To that end, the program relies on externship and internship supervisors to complete
written student evaluations following each semester of training. As above, the information is very helpful in evaluating
whether the program is performing as intended.
2j.
If available, provide information on the success of graduates in this program as it relates to employment or
attending graduate school. (Suggested limit 1/4 page)
The PsyD in School Psychology Program relies on a variety of methods and information in its effort to evaluate and
assess the success of its graduates. Some of the information is anecdotal, however, collectively the information and data
continue to yield an extremely positive view of our graduates by employers as well as by graduates themselves with
respect to their training and education. The majority of the formal data and information is derived from graduates of the
Program directly via annual surveys. The PsyD in School Psychology Program has for many years conducted routine
annual surveys of our alumni to ascertain the degree to which the program was successful in meeting its training
objectives and of the value derived from the degree with respect to employment. These surveys actually serve multiple
purposes for the program: (1) they provide data on alumni judgments regarding the ability of the program to effectively
meet its goals and objectives, (2) they provide information on success of the professional and scholarly activities of the
program, (3) they provide insight into the overall and specific satisfaction with the program, particularly interactions
between faculty and students, and (4) they identify areas in which the program has been successful and those in which it
has not. Within the surveys, the Program is able to assess the extent to which graduates have been successful in
obtaining employment, the quality of the agencies or institutions offering employment, and the perception of students
regarding the extent to which they believe their degree has been respected and valued in attempts for gaining
employment. It is of note that students rarely find any difficulty in obtaining full-time employment, often in very
desirable locations, and that they are highly regarded by the hiring agencies. The success of graduates is a difficult thing
to quantify but it is clear from these surveys, anecdotal reports from students, formal supervisor evaluations, and
comments from local agencies that hire graduates that a PsyD degree in School Psychology from St. John’s University
carries significant weight and imbues graduates with a higher degree of respect than that offered by other institutions in
the area.
2k.
Please comment on the students’ competencies in the program. Support your response using data provided
below and any other data available. (Suggested limit 1/3 page)
The PsyD in School Psychology is an applied psychological degree designed to produce graduates who can immediately
provide relevant psychological services in the educational or related settings. To this end, the focus on education and
LAS_PSY_PSYCH_PSYD_Q
Self-Study Template 8
training is the development of competencies in several areas above and beyond the accrual of core knowledge of
psychological foundations. Thus, apart from the typical rigorous coursework and program requirements that include a
community service component, training and education are bolstered heavily by intensive practica and internship
experiences. The collective purpose of these experiences is to develop School Psychologists who can: 1) conceptualize
the psychological problems of children, adolescents, and their families as they relate to functioning within the school
environment, 2) engage in evidence-based assessment, consultation, and who can develop treatment plans and select
interventions that are based on these data- driven methods to address the education and mental health needs of
children and their families, 3) review the theoretical and empirical literature on a professional topic and draw
conclusions concerning how research will drive professional school-based practice, 4) gather empirical data to answer
professional questions, 5) engage in professional activities at a level of competence that is consistent with professional
standards, and aspire to develop their professional practices at a level consistent with the highest ethical principles, 6)
appreciate and consider the diversity of social, cultural, and linguistic experiences that influence human behavior,
academic performance, and student development, 7) deliver or adapt evidence-based educational and mental health
services to underserved populations, and 8) become regional, national, and international leaders in the field of school
psychology and promote the aforementioned aims throughout their career. That students are in the program are able to
successfully internalize the necessary psychological foundations that form the bulk of the core knowledge essential to
psychological service delivery can be seen in the cumulative GPA provided in the table below for the past several years.
In addition, as previously noted, students’ competencies are evaluated on an annual basis via the Student Review
process, the main purpose of which is to monitor progress in the development of three basic skills—core knowledge,
clinical expertise, and interpersonal interactions. In this way, the Program is able to monitor development of appropriate
competencies and intercede whenever insufficient or problems with progress are noted.
Standard 2.
Additional comments if needed: (Suggested limit 1 page)
LAS_PSY_PSYCH_PSYD_Q
Self-Study Template 9
Considering that there 17 other School Psychology programs in the State of New York alone, it can be a challenge to
stand out from the rest. Our program’s commitment to the overarching mission of the University that focuses heavily
on social justice and service to the needy and disenfranchised is what makes us unique. We not only expect our students
and alumni to engage in best practices using the skills and knowledge required for professional psychologists, but also to
base all of their professional decision-making on the ethical and moral principles and to always advocate for those who
cannot advocate for themselves. The program begins to develop and the professional, ethical, and moral growth of all
students upon enrollment. Thus development is then reinforced via program requirements that include practica and
internship experiences that are intended to be responsive to the large, metropolitan location of the campus, and the
ethnic and cultural diversity of the communities we seek to serve. The quality of the program, combined with its unique
focus on issues of diversity and social justice not only makes it an excellent training program for our current students
and graduates, but also makes the program very appealing to new applicants. In U.S. News & World Report (2015)
recently included school psychology as the #17 of the 100 best careers of 2015, ranked #1 in Best Social service jobs,
and ranked #6 in best STEM jobs (http://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/rankings/the-100-best-jobs?page=2). It
is expected that this publicity, will increase the market growth potential of school psychology programs in the near
future, particularly in regards to our M.S. program that already stands out from its competitors here in the lower-New
York region. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that 16,400 new school psychologist jobs will be added between 2012
and 2022, at an employment growth rate of 11.3 percent. Part of that expansion comes from an increasing need for
schools to assist students with learning disabilities, special needs and behavioral issues. We believe that the training
provided to our students will make them increasingly attractive to prospective employers in this growing job market.
STANDARD 3. The program engages in ongoing systematic planning that is aligned with the University and
School/College planning, direction, and priorities.
3a.
How does your program’s strategic goal/objectives link to your School/College plan and the University’s strategic
plan? http://www.stjohns.edu/about/leadership/strategic-planning
The strategic goals of the Psy D Program are consistent with University’s strategic plan in the A) stated mission, B)
student engagement, and C) global education.
A) MISSION
The program is consistent with the stated mission of the University both in principle and in practice. As a University, St.
John’s strives to preserve and enhance an atmosphere in which scholarly research and imaginative methodology serve
as the basis of a vital teaching and lifelong learning process. The University strives to train professionals in a manner that
fosters ethical and aesthetic values, allowing them to imagine and realize their impact on society. As a Catholic
University, St. John’s embraces the Judeo-Christian ideals of respect for the rights and dignity of every person and the
responsibility of each individual for the world in which they live. St. John's is a Vincentian University inspired by St.
Vincent de Paul's compassion and zeal for service, striving to provide excellent education for all people, especially those
lacking economic, physical, or social advantages. Our practica, internship, and community service program provide
reflective learning opportunities to enhance the classroom experience. We offer field placements that encourage our
students to increase their awareness of the impact of poverty and social injustice and that seek to find solutions to these
problems. As a Metropolitan University, our program benefits from the diversity of New York City. Specifically, our
program educates psychologists to be sensitive to issues of diversity, including the impact that culture, language,
ethnicity, and sexual orientation have on school-age students and their families. Understanding how to work with
students from diverse language backgrounds, in particular, is addressed directly in the courses that correspond to our
programs’ bilingual track. In addition, our Center for Psychological Services reaches out to the metropolitan community
to serve its needs.
LAS_PSY_PSYCH_PSYD_Q
Self-Study Template 10
B) Student Engagement
Student engagement in the Psy D program is demonstrated in the areas of a) faculty-student interactions and b) clear
articulation of educational and training objectives.
1) Faculty-Student Interactions:
St. John’s University has a strong commitment to promoting good relations between students and faculty and that
commitment starts with a culture of respect and courtesy. The Student Handbook emphasizes the importance of an
atmosphere that is supportive, open, flexible, and inclusive, and that stresses courtesy, respect, and collegiality.
Upon admission, each doctoral student is assigned a faculty advisor with whom they meet to discuss program
requirements, course schedules, research opportunities, and evaluation of progress in the program. This faculty member
serves as the student’s advisor throughout the program. The student’s advisor may also serve as his or her dissertation
mentor, although this is not a requirement. In the faculty member’s role as advisor, he or she often encourages and
mentors students in the development of a research agenda. Such research often leads to presentations and publications
for the student, as well as a dissertation. All School Psychology faculty members maintain regular office hours, and
typically have an open door policy beyond their regularly scheduled hours. Faculty members are also required to post
their office hours as well as their email addresses and office phone numbers. Relationships between faculty and
students are monitored through a student survey. Several items on this survey are directly relevant to issues of facultystudent courtesy and respect.
Another mechanism to enhance faculty-student communication is included within our annual review of student
progress. At the end of each Spring semester, a special Excel file named for the current academic year is updated to
include all new 1st year students and is placed on the Department's networked "faculty" hard drive. Faculty then rate
students with whom they have had contact within the past academic year on four areas of interaction (i.e., Academics,
Clinical Skills, Interpersonal Skills, Responsibility). Each core faculty member provides a rating (3=exemplary,
2=satisfactory, 1=problematic) corresponding with their evaluation of each student along the four listed dimensions.
Information from clinical supervisor ratings is included for students in practica courses or ratings from
internship/externship supervisors where appropriate.
In cases where a faculty member assigns a rating of "1," they are also required to provide a notation regarding the rating
in the comments section and to annotate the comments with their initials. After all ratings have been made, the DGPSP
reviews the results and sends out written feedback on the faculty's collective evaluation of a student’s general
performance and competency development along the four dimensions. For any faculty rating of 1 (below expectancy) on
any of the four areas evaluated, the letter directs the student to schedule a meeting with their advisor to discuss the
concerns and be counseled regarding how to improve his or her performance. Depending upon the degree of concern
and the nature of the problem, a remediation plan may be developed.
Another avenue in facilitating communication between faculty and students is the Student Affiliates of School
Psychology (SASP). Student representatives of this organization are invited to faculty meetings and Graduate Education
and Policy Committee (GEPC) meetings to give their voice in program development. Students also report to the
committee on issues that are of concern to the students as a whole. Since 2009, Graduate Student Association (GSA) has
provided a forum to voice and take action on issues of concern to all graduate students at the university.
2) Clear Articulation of Educational and Training Objectives
The PsyD program articulates clear educational and training objectives consistent with the practitioner-scientist model.
In this regard, the intent of our training and educational model is for school psychologists to use scientific methodology
in the decisions that they make in their day-to-day practice. We expect that our students will practice using methods,
LAS_PSY_PSYCH_PSYD_Q
Self-Study Template 11
tools, procedures, and techniques that are firmly grounded in theory and research. We also expect that some of our
students will conduct practice-based research thereby ultimately influencing the professional practice of psychology.
Courses, practica, fieldwork and research experience provide our students with the knowledge and skills necessary to
meet our program’s specific goals and objectives. Our goals and objectives are consistent with those specified in the
School Psychology: A Blueprint for Training and Practice III published by the National Association of School Psychologists
(NASP). In addition, the program is closely aligned with the domains of school psychology training and practice that were
refined recently in the Standards for Training and Field Placement Programs in School Psychology. Specifically, we expect
our graduates to demonstrate competency in each of the following domains of professional practice: 1) Data-Based
Decision-Making and Accountability; 2) Consultation and Collaboration; 3) Effective Instruction and Development of
Cognitive/Academic Skills; 4)Socialization and Development of Life Skills; 5) Student Diversity in Development and
Learning; 6) School and Systems Organization, Policy Development, and Climate; 7) Prevention, Crisis Intervention, and
Mental Health; 8) Home/School/Community Collaboration; 9) Research and Program Evaluation; 10) School Psychology
Practice and Development; and 11) Information Technology. The 11 domains became our program goals; each has a set
of objectives. These goals and objectives have been incorporated into the course syllabi of our program faculty.
Students’ competencies in each domain have been directly linked to the objectives so that our students can be
evaluated in a manner consistent with our program philosophy and practice.
C) Global Education
Consistent with the University's mission as Vincentian, the institution is committed to nondiscrimination on the basis of
race, religion, color, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, citizenship status, disability,
genetic predisposition or carrier status, or status in the uniformed services of the United States. In 1870, the Archbishop
of Brooklyn asked the Vincentian order to found a university to educate the children of immigrants. The education of
immigrants and the poor has remained the mission of St. John’s University. The Psychology Department and the School
Psychology PsyD program have embodied this mission of fostering respect for the dignity and worth of each individual.
The educational experiences of our students are infused with an understanding of the importance of issues of cultural
and individual diversity and this is articulated and practiced in our policies for student recruitment, admissions and
retention, faculty hiring and retention, course content, practica and internship/externship placements, and research
activities. Students with documented disabilities receive reasonable accommodations to facilitate academic access.
1) Recruiting Diverse Students
The Psy D program has been successful in attracting and retaining students from many diverse backgrounds and
continues to make progress toward increasing the overall diversity of the student body. For example, our current
student body represents diverse cultural and ethnic backgrounds including African-American, Albanian, Haitian,
Panamanian, Puerto Rican, Indian, Pakistani, Arabian, Spanish, Portuguese, Chinese, Taiwanese, Korean, Russian,
Ukrainian, Lebanese, Bosnian, Romanian, Ecuadorian, and Vietnamese. The program maintains a strong commitment to
the training of international students. The Program has begun preliminary talks with Saudi Arabia for the purposes of
potentially providing training to their graduate students who will carry their school psychology education and
experiences for use and application in their home country. We believe that our success in recruiting and retaining
students of color can be attributed to our use of a multifaceted recruitment effort.
Our recruitment effort has not been restricted to funding alone. Faculty members of ethnically diverse
backgrounds often serve as role models and mentors for minority students, providing the necessary support for these
students. Many of our ethnically diverse faculty and students attend the graduate and undergraduate open houses
sponsored by the university, department, or the program in order to actively demonstrate our acceptance of diversity to
prospective students. This is a powerful recruiting tool. One area in which it has been particularly successful has been in
efforts to target undergraduate students in the McNair Scholars Program at St. John's where several of the School
LAS_PSY_PSYCH_PSYD_Q
Self-Study Template 12
Psychology faculty are mentors. The McNair Scholars Program is designed to educate undergraduate students from
backgrounds traditionally underrepresented in higher education in a manner that prepares them to pursue a faculty
position. The availability of a Bilingual Track in the program attracts diverse individuals. The bilingual track has 21
students representing 11 different languages including: Spanish, Hebrew, Filipino, Romanian, German, Russian, Polish,
Mandarin, Vietnamese, Korean, and Creole.
2) Educating Students about Diversity Issues
The program places a strong emphasis on providing students with knowledge and training relevant to service
delivery with diverse populations. Through their coursework and training, students routinely work with individuals from
diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Our association with the Center, as well as numerous community
organizations and schools outside of the university, makes students aware of the importance of connecting to those
with different ethnicities, personal backgrounds, and lifestyles.
Students are provided with a wide range of opportunities that enhance their knowledge of diversity and
multicultural issues through their coursework. Perhaps the one course devoted specifically to fostering multicultural
competency is PSY 627, “Cultural Diversity in Psychological Services,” which is a required course for all students. This
course is specifically designed to promote the development of knowledge, skills, and competency in psychological
service delivery when working with groups from diverse cultural, ethnic, socioeconomic, gender, sexual orientation, and
disability backgrounds, as well as the manner in which the unique characteristics of diverse individuals affects decisionmaking and service delivery. Although students may choose to enroll in the bilingual track, the coursework remains
much the same as that of the general track except that for some courses (e.g., practica, assessement) special sections
are created to provide bilingual supervision to bilingual students from culturally and linguistically diverse faculty. In
addition, students in the bilingual track are required to take PSY 729 (Psycholinguistics) which replaces one of the
electives in the general track. The opportunity for all students to develop cultural competency is provided via content
taught in courses across the curriculum. For example, all students are required to take PSY 722, “Social Psychology,”
which integrates numerous topics and sources relevant to understanding diverse groups. Likewise, any student may
choose to take PSY 625, “Cross-Cultural Psychology” as an elective. This course includes discussion of the psychological
variability between different cultural groups within U.S. mainstream society as well as comparisons to groups outside
the United States. The “Introduction to School Psychology” course, PSY 665, is required for all students and also touches
on many of the practical issues related to the tasks of school psychologists in providing services to multicultural and
diverse individuals. Other courses where topics related to diversity are incorporated thematically include PSY671
(Personality Assessment) and PSY659 (Scaling and Measurement).
Students in both tracks have the added opportunity to take electives toward a concentration in certain areas.
The bilingual/multicultural education concentration allows students to learn issues in teaching English to children with
diverse language backgrounds and issues concerning teaching in a bilingual classroom. Although this concentration is
straightforward in its connection to multiculturalism, some of the other concentrations also include components related
to diversity. For example, the reading concentration offers classes on teaching reading skills to English Language
Learners.
A significant benefit to the Program derived from its residence within St. John’s University is the opportunity to
provide coursework beyond the confines of the main campus in Queens. St. John’s University has campuses in Rome,
Manhattan, and Oakdale, and facilities in Salamanca, London, and Paris available for course delivery. Also, the program
faculty have delivered a variety of courses in Saigon, Hanoi, and Rome. The opportunity to take both required and
elective courses in venues beyond the main campus is a significant contribution to the diversity in training and
educational experiences of all students.
LAS_PSY_PSYCH_PSYD_Q
Self-Study Template 13
There are three additional methods where student competency in mastering issues related to diversity are
assessed: 1) a general self-assessment on diversity issues that is included as a part of the Alumni Survey; 2) a coursespecific self-assessment in Cultural Diversity in Psychological Services (PSY627) that evaluates growth and change in
cultural competency in the course; and 3) students’ dissertations on multicultural issues.
3) Diverse Faculty
With respect to the current constitution of the faculty based on ethnicity, there are eight full-time core faculty
members, twelve associated program faculty, and thirteen other contributors to the MS program. Of the core program
faculty, four (50%) come from diverse ethnic backgrounds including Chinese (Dr. Zhou), Puerto Rican (Dr. Ortiz), Puerto
Rican-Chinese (Dr. DelVecchio), and one who is bilingual (Spanish) and bicultural (Dr. Sotelo-Dynega). The program also
benefits from diversity found in the associated and non-faculty psychologists within the department who provide
instruction, supervision, and mentoring to students in the MS program. For example, among the other full-time faculty
members in the department, there are four African Americans (Drs. Greene, Clauselle, Wallace, and Wellington), one
Hispanic/Dominican (Dr. Javier) and one Cuban-American (Dr. Roig). The commitment to seeking out and retaining
faculty who come from diverse backgrounds also extends to the composition of the adjunct faculty who have taught or
who currently teach students in the program. For example, students in the bilingual track are specifically assigned
bilingual supervisors for their second year psychoeducational assessment practica. These particular sections have been
taught by faculty who possess bilingual-bicultural backgrounds including Dr. Emma Cruz-Duran (Spanish), Dr. Agnieszka
Dynda (Polish-English-Spanish), Dr. Helen Stevens (Argentine – Spanish speaking), and Dr. Yuvelin Gutierrez (SpanishEnglish).
Another example of the department's and the University's efforts to seek and retain diverse faculty members
can be seen in the establishment and support of formal links to other University's outside the U.S. For example, the
University established a memorandum of understanding with the Hanoi National University of Education (HNUE) in
Vietnam designed to promote interaction between the two schools. One of the more productive endeavors has been the
relationship between HNUE and the School Psychology Program where faculty from St. John's have participated in
building an infrastructure for the development of School Psychology as a profession in Vietnam, as well as providing
training for faculty in the content, structure, and design of school psychology curricula. Numerous faculty from the
Department of Psychology and several Psy D students have made trips to Hanoi to conduct research, as well as provide
support and training to members of the HNUE faculty. We have trained the first school psychology doctoral student (Dr.
Toan Khuc) from Vietnam who is currently faculty at Hanoi National University.
3b.
What is the evidence of monitoring the external and internal environments, specifically what are the strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities and threats facing the program? How were they identified? What actions have been taken
in response to these findings? What characteristics of the program suggest a competitive edge against other programs
regionally and nationally?
Externally, the Psy D program monitors local, regional, and national needs for school psychology services by
monitoring state and federal sources of information, professional organizations (including the American Psychological
Association, APA Division 16–School Psychology, the New York Association of School Psychologists, the New York State
Psychology Association, and the National Association of School Psychologists) and staying abreast of local, state, and
national trends through numerous publications (such as the APA Monitor, School Psychology Quarterly-Division 16
journal, and the Chronicle of Higher Education). At the state level, the Program training requirements are consistent with
New York State licensing requirements in psychology. The Program is registered with the State so that graduates can sit
for the licensing exam. At the national level, the Program is consistent with the requirements identified by the APA’s
Commission on Education and Training Leading to Licensure in Psychology. The program and the program faculty keep
abreast of resolutions passed by the Council of Directors of School Psychology Programs (CDSPP) through the work of
LAS_PSY_PSYCH_PSYD_Q
Self-Study Template 14
the DGPSP as a participant in CDSPP meetings and related activities. The DGPSP also regularly attends meetings of a
Consortium of School Psychology programs in the New York City area. This consortium serves to enhance
communication across state-wide graduate programs, allows for dissemination of information regarding changes that
are occurring in the field, and facilitates discussions that often result in positive programmatic changes. Two school
psychology faculty members and our Dean are frequent APA site visitors. As such, we always review our program with
the standards for professional practice at the forefront.
Internally, the Program faculty attends to the evolving body of scientific and professional knowledge and
practice by monitoring professional literature, developments within professional organizations such as APA, APS, and
NASP, as well as changes in scientific standards and credentialing regulations. The evolving body of scientific and
professional knowledge that serves as the basis for practice is reviewed at least once a year and sometimes semiyearly
by faculty members as they prepare for their classes. As each faculty member keeps current in their respective teaching,
research, and practice areas, all relevant sources of information are utilized in order to assess the evolving body of
scientific and professional knowledge, including journals, compilations of empirical work, political and legal sources,
conference presentations, and data gleaned from personal involvement in state or national level task forces,
committees, and other organizations.
The Psy D program maintains a competitive edge against other programs at the state and national levels. The Psy.D.
Program is APA-accredited through 2019 by the American Psychological Association (APA). The program is also
accredited by the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) and is approved by the ASPPB/National Register.
One of the major strengths of the Program is its faculty. The Program has a balance of faculty with expertise in
psychological assessment, intervention, consultation, cognitive, academic, social-emotional, and behavioral assessment
and intervention, and in a range of professional issues pertaining to the field of school psychology. Very few of our
courses are covered by adjuncts and the majority of courses that are taught by adjuncts are practica sections. The
program has made a decision to have practica sections taught by practicing psychologists when possible to ensure that
students learn practice skills from faculty with active professional experiences.
The core faculty possesses appropriate credentials (e.g., Ph.D. in school psychology, certification in school
psychology, licensure in psychology, and in some cases, diplomate status in school psychology through various learned
societies and organizations) as well as the relevant training and professional experience to serve in primary training roles
in the program. Drs. DiGiuseppe, Flanagan, Terjesen, and Zhou are fellows of the American Psychological Association.
Dr. DiGiuseppe is a diplomate in clinical psychology and behavior therapy and served as President of the Association for
Behavioral and Cognitive Therapy (2006- 2007). Dr. Flanagan is a diplomate of the American College of Forensic
Examiners in the areas of School Psychology and Psychological Assessment, Evaluation, and Testing. Dr. DelVecchio is a
licensed Psychologist and Chairperson of the Parenting Special Interest Group in the Association for Behavioral &
Cognitive Therapies. Dr. Terjesen has served as the President of the School Division of the New York State Psychological
Association (NYSPA), the Trainers of School Psychologists (TSP) and Division 52 (International Psychology) of the
American Psychological Association. Moreover, each of the core faculty members participate in ongoing researcher that
embodies the practitioner-scientist model that defines our training approach.
In addition to core faculty, non-faculty psychologists were specifically hired for their expertise and ability to
contribute meaningfully to the program. Dr. McDonough is a licensed psychologist who serves as the coordinator of our
fieldwork experiences. The Department has 30 faculty members who serve several important functions for the school
psychology program, including teaching the basic science courses, serving as members of doctoral dissertation
committees, assisting in interviewing prospective MS students, supporting students, and so forth. Dr. Elissa Brown is a
clinical-child psychologist who does research on abuse, neglect, and trauma in children. Dr. William Chaplin is a
personality psychologist and expert in quantitative methods. Dr. Jeffery Fagen, as well as being dean, is a professor of
LAS_PSY_PSYCH_PSYD_Q
Self-Study Template 15
psychology and runs an active Infant Memory Lab. He has supported some of our students in his lab and serves on
dissertation committees. Dr. Beverly Greene is a renowned clinical psychologist who teaches Cultural Diversity in
Psychology Services. Dr. Ernest Hodges is a developmental psychologist who spends half the year in Finland researching
Bullying. Dr. John Hogan specializes in the history of psychology, teaches History of Psychology and mentors
dissertations. Dr. Wilson McDermut, a clinical psychologist, teaches Psychopathology across the Life Span and mentors
dissertations. Dr. Alice Pope, a clinical child psychologist, teaches Psychopathology across the Life Span and mentors
dissertations. Dr. Scyatta Wallace, an applied developmental psychologist who researches health disparities in
adolescents, supports some students on her grants, mentors dissertations, and has taught the Developmental
Psychology course. Dr Kate Walton, a personality psychologist, teaches the second statistics course in the program and
the psychometrics course. Dr. Walton is also the Director of our BA-MA General Experimental Program. Dr. Robin
Wellington, an experimental Cognitive Neuroscientist, teaches Physiological Psychology, Affective and Cognitive Bases of
Behavior, and mentors dissertations. Dr. Wellington has also taught Neuropsychological Assessment.
All adjunct faculty members have a doctoral degree. Most are certified school psychologists and/or licensed
psychologists. In addition, many adjunct faculty members serve as either internship or practicum supervisors. Most of
our adjunct faculty members work in applied settings. The adjunct school psychology faculty members are committed to
the program and students as evidenced by their serving as outside readers for doctoral dissertation projects and
meeting with students via set office hours or scheduled appointments.
3c.
What is the current and future market demand for the program? Support your response using the data
provided below or any other internal or external sources to justify your response.
Fastest Growing
Occupations
Psychologists
Change, 2010-20
Percent
Numeric
22%
37,700
Occupations having the Change, 2010-20
largest numerical
Percent
Numeric
increase in employment
Psychologists
22%
37,700
Changes, 2010-20
Grow faster than average - Increase 15 to 20.9%
Psychologists
Percent
Numeric
22%
37,700
*For more information please visit: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecopro.toc.htm
Since the 1980s, the mean age and years of experience of school psychologists has been consistently increasing
(NASP, 2014, (http://www.nasponline.org/about_sp/careerfaq.aspx) Because of this “graying of the profession”, it is
predicted that there will be a large number of school psychologists retiring between 2010 and 2020. In 2004, it was
estimated that 37.7% of school psychologists would retire by 2010, 53% by 2015, and 67% by 2020 (Curtis et al., 2004).
Seeing as the supply of school psychologists is decreasing and expected to continue decreasing across this decade, the
employment of school psychologists is projected to grow at least 12% from 2012 to 2022 (“A Career”). Additionally, the
Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that school psychology is among the five fastest growing doctoral-level occupations
through 2012 due to shortages in K-12 and university settings (Fagan & Wise, 2007). As mentioned earlier, the Bureau of
Labor Statistics reports that 16,400 new school psychologist jobs will be added between 2012 and 2022, at an
employment growth rate of 11.3 percent. The most favorable opportunities for school psychology practitioners exist in
LAS_PSY_PSYCH_PSYD_Q
Self-Study Template 16
geographically isolated areas, and urban areas that are under pressure to increase mental health resources in schools.
There is also an increased need for bilingual school psychologists due to increasing heterogeneity within the United
States student population. Approximately 1,900 students graduate from school psychology programs each year and, on
average, approximately 1,750 new school psychologists graduate and enter the field each year.
Our mission and training model is compatible with the present and anticipated needs for psychological services
at the local, regional and national levels. At the present time there are considerable opportunities for graduates of
school psychology programs. Nationally, there is a shortage of school psychology practitioners in public school settings
These shortages are particularly pronounced in the Western part of the United States, in rural areas, and in large innercity school districts. Increasingly, there are also concerns regarding future shortages of new faculty members in school
psychology training programs and, therefore, the outlook has never looked better for graduates of high quality doctoral
programs to obtain academic positions. Our graduates often receive multiple job offers, and can be found working in
public school districts, universities, state departments of education, and private clinics in the tri-state area (NY, NJ, and
CT) as well as in other locations throughout the country (e.g., AZ, CA, FL, MA, TX). As such, our program trains school
psychologists to be competitive both regionally and nationally.
In addition to the national shortage, there is a growing need for school psychologists who are trained to serve the needs
of multiethnic, multilingual populations. It is estimated that over 300 languages and dialects are spoken in the greater
New York City metropolitan area. There is a general concern in the field regarding the proper means of training school
psychologists in service delivery to culturally and linguistically diverse students and their families. Our Bilingual Program
prepares students to meet the challenges associated with serving an increasingly diverse and at-risk local student
population. Our program also offers students the option of concentrating in a particular area of study that includes a
concentration in education and administration law that allows a student to become a chairperson of a CSE or a school
administrator, therapeutic interventions, reading, psychological research, family studies, bilingual / multicultural
education, and management & organizational development. We will soon offer concentrations in autism and
neuropsychology. The concentrations we offer assist our students in gaining the knowledge and skills necessary to
remain competitive in an ever-changing field.
According to our 2014 alumni survey, 96% (n=77) of our graduates reported employment in the field of school
psychology. The survey in 2014 showed 96% of our alumni working as a school psychologist. Currently, eight of our
graduates have independent practices, two hold academic/research positions, and four are completing a post-doc. One
of our graduates hold a neuropsychologist position and one is a behavior consultant. Although the majority of our
graduates are employed in schools (96%), they are prepared to work as psychologists in a variety of settings serving
different populations.
Standard 3.
Additional comments if needed: (Suggested limit 1 page)
STANDARD 4. The program provides a high quality curriculum that emphasizes and assesses student learning and
engagement.
4a.
Please indicate how the program curriculum is in alignment with the following three items:
(Suggested limit 1/2 page for each of the three categories below)
1. Standards within the discipline
2. Curriculum integrity, coherence, academic internships, teaching excellence, teaching vibrancy, and study
abroad experiences.
LAS_PSY_PSYCH_PSYD_Q
Self-Study Template 17
3. The University Core competencies
The School Psychology Psy.D. Program was designed by using the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP)
Standards for Training and Practice as well as recommendations specified by the American Psychological Association
(APA), both organizations that are the premier professional organizations for school psychologists and doctoral level
psychologists in the country. The School Psychology PsyD Program follows a tripartite model – practitioner-scholarscientist. This model is designed to ensure that school psychologists base their professional activities on a scholarly
understanding of human behavior, child development, and the social and cultural influences of behavior. The Program
model is science integrated into practice. The Program provides students with a broad scientific foundation and a wide
array of practicum experiences using empirically based interventions in the schools and community settings that support
the training of practitioners with research skills and knowledge to evaluate their practices by current scientific
standards. The scholarly ability to evaluate theory and research and the ability to connect research with practice is the
core value that forms the basis for the program. The PsyD Program requires the satisfactory completion of 107 credits
through four full- time academic years of graduate study (or the part-time equivalent), a comprehensive examination, a
professional practice competency examination, five semesters of practica courses, two 3 days/week externships, each
lasting at a minimum one full academic or calendar year, a doctoral dissertation project, and a full-time internship,
lasting at a minimum one full academic year. Upon completion of all program requirements, students are awarded the
PsyD in School Psychology. This degree qualifies the student to take the New York State Psychology Licensing exam.
Consistent with the University’s goal of globalization, the Psychology department offers graduate courses on the Rome
campus to engage our students and faculty in the study aboard program. The department also supports the Vietnamese
initiative by training faculty from Vietnam’s Hanoi National University of Education for their new program in child/school
psychology, the only program of its kind in Vietnam or Southeast Asia. We also send our graduate students and faculty
to Vietnam during the summer sessions to continue this cultural exchange.
The core school psychology faculty developed all of the Program’s courses to be consistent with the NASP Standards for
Training and Practice and APA’s guidelines and recommendations. Considering that the majority of the Program’s
courses that are taught by the core faculty who developed them, there are minimal issues regarding curriculum integrity
and coherence. Adjunct faculty are carefully selected to ensure not only that they are highly qualified to teach these
courses, but to also determine whether or not their practice and teaching methods are in line with the curriculum that
we have developed. Once an adjunct is contracted, he or she is given access to the respective course syllabus and is
asked to develop the course so that it is consistent with the Program’s training goals. Furthermore, course evaluations
completed by the Program’s students are reviewed by the Department Chair regularly to ensure that the course goals
and objectives are clearly stated and covered by faculty during the semester and that the quality of teaching is
appropriate.
Taken as a whole, the core school psychology faculty have appropriate credentials (Ph.D. in school psychology,
certification in school psychology, licensure in psychology, and in some cases, diplomate status in school psychology
through various learned societies and organizations) as well as the relevant training and professional experience to serve
in primary training roles in the program. Drs. DiGiuseppe, Flanagan, Terjesen and Zhou are fellows of the American
Psychological Association. Dr. DiGiuseppe is a diplomate in clinical psychology and behavior therapy, Dr. Flanagan is
diplomate of the American College of Forensic Examiners in the areas of School Psychology and Psychological
Assessment, Evaluation, and Testing, and Dr. Sotelo-Dynega is a diplomate of the American Board of School
Neuropsychology. Moreover, each of the core school psychology faculty members are active researchers who embody
the practitioner-scholar-scientist model that defines our training approach. All core school psychology faculty members
perform important training functions, such, as mentor, supervisor, advisor, and course instructor. Socialization of the
students into the discipline and profession is facilitated by the close working relationships that most students have with
LAS_PSY_PSYCH_PSYD_Q
Self-Study Template 18
individual faculty members. These relationships develop as a function of students’ involvement with faculty in various
contexts, including instruction, research mentorship, doctoral dissertation work, and supervision.
The school psychology Psy.D. Program is consistent with the stated mission of the University both in principal and in
practice. As a University, St. John’s strives to preserve and enhance an atmosphere in which scholarly research,
imaginative methodology, serve as the basis for vital teaching and lifelong learning. St. John's, as a Vincentian University,
is inspired by St. Vincent de Paul's compassion and zeal for service. The mission strives to provide excellent education for
all people, especially those lacking economic, physical, or social advantages. Given that professional psychologists work
with a diverse human population, the Program educates psychologists to be sensitive to issues of diversity, including,
the impact of culture, language, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. This is also demonstrated by our training of bilingual
school psychologists through our bilingual track in the Psy.D. Program to work with the increasingly diverse student
population in the New York metropolitan area.
Through our training Center for Psychological Services, we encourage the metropolitan community to use our resources
to serve its needs. This is further demonstrated by the recent relocation of our center to a geographic location that is
more accessible by the community. The PsyD practica, internship, and community service programs are combined with
reflective learning opportunities to enhance the classroom experience. In the first year of the PsyD program, a
community service commitment is required, which provides an opportunity for students to utilize their strengths and
provide service to the local community. Students will complete 30 hours of community service and gain a better
understanding of the community in which they will interact throughout their practica and internship experience. We
promote field placements that encourage our students to increase their awareness of the impact of poverty and social
injustice, and to encourage solutions to the problems seen in individuals and in society at large. Through our structured
coursework and field placement experiences, the St. John’s PsyD program provides our students with sensitivity and
understanding of the special needs of those whose cultural backgrounds and/or language skills make their receiving
quality education a particular challenge.
4b.
The syllabi for the courses within this program incorporate the suggested elements of a syllabus – an example of
which can be found at the following St. John’s University Center for Teaching and Learning link. (Suggested limit 1/3
page) http://stjohns.campusguides.com/content.php?pid=71651&sid=984766
All of the Program’s course syllabi are consistent with the “suggested elements of a syllabus” document that is available
on St. John’s University’s Center for Teaching and Learning link
(http://stjohns.campusguides.com/content.php?pid=71651&sid=984766). Furthermore, to ensure this consistency, the
Psychology Department Chair requests updated syllabi from faculty at the beginning of each semester, and posts them
to the a Digication ePortfolio that is available to the entire Psychology Department faculty.
4c.
Describe the assessment model currently in place for the program and indicate the extent to which disciplinary
and core knowledge, competence, and values are met, as well as findings and action plans for improvement. For
reference, visit WeaveOnline – https://app.weaveonline.com//login.aspx; Digication – https://stjohns.digication.com
(Suggested limit 1/2 page)
The Psy.D. Program in School Psychology Program engages in a regular program of self-study, not only in response to
improving the structure and quality of the programs of study, but also to ensure they embody the initiatives and mission
of the University. The following is a review of this ongoing process.
Departmental Governance
LAS_PSY_PSYCH_PSYD_Q
Self-Study Template 19
The faculty who teach in the Psy.D. School Psychology Program (both general and bilingual track) are drawn from the
cadre of larger professors who comprise the whole of the Department of Psychology, in which the program is housed. In
general, the Psy.D. program is governed at the departmental level primarily through the GEPC, which is formed via
election of members from the general faculty whose core teaching responsibilities are in the MS or Psy.D. in School
Psychology Programs. In addition, representation from the student body is achieved by having elected members attend
and participate within the GEPC, although by statute, such representatives are non-voting members. Nevertheless, their
attendance and participation provides valuable input from the perspective of the very individuals whom we serve
directly and their involvement in the meetings provides a forum for students to be able to voice and express any
concerns relevant to the business of the GEPC. Moreover, such contact provides a direct conduit for the exchange of
information between the Psy.D. Program, the Department, and the student body that facilitates monitoring the quality
and structure of the curriculum.
Faculty Meetings
One of the primary means of ensuring that the Psy.D. Program maintains both quality in structure as well as consistency
and promotion of the University’s missing and strategic initiatives is via regularly scheduled monthly meetings of the
school psychology faculty. These meetings are chaired by the Director of Graduate Programs in School Psychology
(DGPSP; currently Dr. Terjesen) who oversees both the MS and Psy.D. programs. At these meetings, the core school
psychology program faculty (a) discuss the processes currently in place to achieve the program’s and university’s goals,
(b) evaluate the effectiveness in attaining these goals, and (c) plan, review, and modify as necessary, any goals to ensure
they are appropriate for meeting the mission of the program, the University, and the field. School psychology students
are often invited to attend the meetings and to provide input from their perspective.
Annual Faculty Retreat
Beyond the monthly faculty meetings, the school psychology faculty also hold a special day long retreat at the end of the
school year that focuses on evaluation and improvement of any aspect of the program. These retreats include the
participation of any faculty who teach a course in the program, adjunct faculty, the Coordinator of Field Placement
Experiences, and the Director of the School Affiliate Program, so that broad input is gained.
Within the context of the GEPC meetings, monthly faculty meetings, and the annual faculty retreat, information from
the following sources are introduced to help inform decisions regarding the quality of the existing program, areas for
improvement, and avenues for planning to ensure that the program embodies and reflects the mission of the university
and its strategic initiatives.
Student Input
The Psy.D. Program regularly solicits student input regarding the quality of the training program by inviting comments
and suggestions. This feedback is done in both a formal manner (e.g., student representation on the GEPC, student
surveys, “town meetings”) and through informal contact with students in the classroom or via engagement activities
outside the classroom, both locally and abroad.
Student Academic Performance
At the conclusion of each semester, the faculty review the most recent transcript of each student enrolled in the Psy.D.
Program. In addition to assisting in monitoring individual study progress, information relative to course grades and
examination performance is used to assess the appropriateness of the course content as it relates to the training
objectives of the program. It has been found that such reviews allow the program to be flexible and responsive to
LAS_PSY_PSYCH_PSYD_Q
Self-Study Template 20
necessary changes in course content and structure that can addresses potential problems, or be realigned in accordance
with particular initiatives or goals, while still maintaining the training objectives of the course and the program as a
whole.
Trainee Evaluations
Although the main purpose of trainee evaluations is to evaluate the development of our students and their
competencies, this information is also useful for evaluating the effectiveness of the Psy.D. Program in actually promoting
their development. To that end, the program relies on externship and internship supervisors to complete written
student evaluations following each semester of training. As above, the information is very helpful in evaluating whether
the program is performing as intended.
Alumni Surveys
Efforts to evaluate and monitor the Psy.D. Program do not rely solely on information culled from current students but
also includes the opinions of past students. To that end, the Psy.D. Program routinely conducts surveys of our alumni to
ascertain the degree to which the program was successful in meeting our training objectives. These surveys serve
multiple purposes for the program: (1) they provide data on alumni judgments regarding the ability of the program to
effectively meet its goals and objectives, (2) they provide information on success of the professional and scholarly
activities of the program, (3) they provide insight into the overall and specific satisfaction with the program, particularly
interactions between faculty and students, and (4) they identify areas in which the program has been successful and
those in which it has not.
4d.
What, if any, external validations, e.g. specialized accreditations, external awards, other validations of quality
has the program received? (Suggested limit 1/3 page)
After the completion and submission of a highly detailed application, the School Psychology Psy.D. Program has received
full approval by the National Association of School Psychologists through December 2019. This approval serves as
validation of the Program’s alignment with the NASP Standards for Training and Practice that are the highest standards
available for the profession. Furthermore, as of April 2007, the Psy.D. Program received accreditation from the American
Psychological Association. The Program is also approved by the ASPPB/National Register.
Standard 4.
Additional comments if needed. (Suggested limit 1 page)
STANDARD 5. The program has the faculty resources required to meet its mission and goals.
5a.
Below you will find the number of students enrolled as majors and minors in the program. Please complete the
table by adding the number of full-time faculty assigned to the program. Then calculate the student to full-time faculty
ratio.
Fall 2005
# Majors/
FT Faculty
Majors
FT
54
PT
72
Fall 2006
Total
126
Minors
LAS_PSY_PSYCH_PSYD_Q
FT
74
0
PT
47
Fall 2007
Total
FT
121
70
0
PT
43
Fall 2008
Total
FT
113
75
0
PT
40
Fall 2009
Total
FT
115
80
0
PT
30
Total
110
0
Self-Study Template 21
Majors 54
& Minors
Combined
72
# of FTE 54.00
Students
(Majors &
Minors)
24.00 78.00 74.00 15.67 89.67
# of FTE 5.33
Faculty
assigned to
the
program
3.33 8.67
126
FTE
Student/
FTE Faculty
Ratio
74
47
121
70
7.75 3.67 11.42
8.996
43
75
40
115
80
30
70.00 14.33 84.33
75.00
13.33
88.33
80.00
10.00 90.00
8.83
8.83
4
12.83
8.55
3.66
4
12.83
7.85
6.60
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Total
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
F
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
41
98
63
Fall 2010
FTE MAJORS
30
12.210
7.37
P
57
110
6.88
F
MAJORS
Total
113
93
74
Fall 2011
28
102
P
71
Fall 2012
Total
Majors Majors
32
103
Fall 2013
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
57
13.667
70.667
63
10
73
74
9.333
83.333
71
10.667
81.667
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
# of FTE faculty assigned
to the program
10.5
10.5
10.5
11
FTE Student/FTE Faculty
Ratio
6.73
6.95
7.93
7.42
Important Notes:
FTE Students = Number of FT Students + (number of PT Students/3)
LAS_PSY_PSYCH_PSYD_Q
Self-Study Template 22
FTE Faculty = Number of FT Faculty + (number of PT Faculty/3)
This methodology is used by STJ for all external reporting.
The above data indicate that the program has sufficient faculty FTEs to un the program. However, the FTE that is
calculated does not consider the number of full time faculty that is needed to support the doctoral dissertations. We will
discuss this more at the end of this section.
5b.
Below you will find the credit hours the department has delivered by full-time faculty and part-time faculty
(including administrators) and the total credit hours consumed by non-majors.
Credit
Hours
Taught
FT Faculty
Fall 2005
#
%
4860 69%
Fall 2006
#
%
4733
68%
Fall 2007
#
%
4598
67%
Fall 2008
#
%
4911
71%
Fall 2009
#
%
5465
76%
PT Faculty
Total
2139
6999
2244
6977
2262
6860
2010
6921
1719
7184
31%
100%
%
consumed
by
NonMajors
25%
Credit Hrs Taught
32%
100%
24%
Fall 2010
23%
Number
Fall 2012
Percent
F-T Faculty
5,048
65.4%
4,736
58.4%
P-T Faculty (inc
Admin)
2,665
34.6%
3,370
41.6%
0.0%
% Consumed by
Non-Majors
7,713
1,716
100%
22.2%
Percent
Number
1,891
100%
23.3%
24%
100%
20%
Fall 2013
Percent
Number
Percent
5,108
65.6%
4,687
63.3%
2,684
34.4%
2,721
36.7%
0.0%
8,106
29%
100%
22%
Fall 2011
Number
Total
33%
100%
0.0%
7,792
1,819
100%
23.3%
0.0%
7,408
1,436
100%
19.4%
5c.
Below you will find the number of courses the department has delivered by full-time faculty and part-time
faculty (including administrators).
LAS_PSY_PSYCH_PSYD_Q
Self-Study Template 23
Courses
Taught
FT Faculty
PT Faculty
Total
Fall 2005
#
%
55
63%
32
87
Fall 2006
#
%
56
Courses Taught
63%
33
89
37%
100%
Fall 2010
Number
Fall 2007
#
37%
100%
%
Number
Fall 2009
#
%
60
67%
63
69%
68
71%
30
90
33%
100%
28
91
31%
100%
28
96
29%
100%
Fall 2011
Percent
Fall 2008
#
%
Fall 2012
Percent
Number
Fall 2013
Percent
Number
Percent
F-T Faculty
63
66.3%
100
62.1%
69
69.7%
65
61.3%
P-T Faculty (inc Admin)
32
33.7%
61
37.9%
30
30.3%
41
38.7%
0.0%
Total
95
100%
0.0%
161
100%
0.0%
99
100%
0.0%
106
100%
5d.
What is the representative nature of faculty in terms of demographics, tenure and diversity? (See departmental
information on next page). How well does this support the program? (Suggested limit 1/2 page)
The core faculty of this program includes one Asian Faculty (Dr. Zhou), two Hispanic (Drs. Ortiz, and Sotelo) faculty
members, and one faculty member who is Asian and Hispanic (Dr. DelVecchio). In addition, several of the adjuncts who
teach regularly in the program are Hispanic (Drs. Cruz-Duran & Gutierrez), or bilingual in Spanish (Dr. Stevens), and
Polish (Dr. Dynda). The students also take course with three Africa- American faculty members who are full time
members of the department and teach courses in the program (Drs. Greene, Wallace, & Wellington). Thus, the faculty
represents a diversity of ethnic and language groups and exposes the students to many cultural groups. Three of the
eight full time core faculty members are male. Of the eight full time faculty members in the core school psychology
faculty, six are tenured, one is untenured (Dr. Moskowitz) and one is a non-tenure track teaching appointment (Dr.
Kurasaki). The diversity of the program faculty serve as positive models for the students. The faculty are diverse in their
backgrounds and level of professional experience/interest which serves to support the goals of the program.
LAS_PSY_PSYCH_PSYD_Q
Self-Study Template 24
Departmental Data
2005
FT
2006
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
Female
20
11
65%
35%
14
17
45%
55%
Total
31
100%
31
2
3
1
25
0
6%
10%
3%
81%
0%
31
100%
23
5
3
31
FT
2007
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
34
28
18
12
60%
40%
14
20
41%
59%
100%
62
30
100%
34
1
1
1
28
0
3%
3%
3%
90%
0%
3
4
2
53
0
2
4
1
23
0
7%
13%
3%
77%
0%
31
100%
62
30
100%
74%
23
24
16%
10%
5
3
5
1
100%
31
30
FT
2008
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
32
32
16
13
55%
45%
15
15
50%
50%
100%
64
29
100%
30
1
3
1
28
1
3%
9%
3%
82%
3%
3
7
2
51
1
2
5
1
21
0
7%
17%
3%
72%
0%
34
100%
64
29
100%
80%
24
23
17%
3%
5
1
4
2
100%
30
29
FT
2009
PT
Total
FT
#
%
#
%
#
31
28
15
15
50%
50%
14
12
54%
46%
29
27
15
15
100%
59
30
100%
26
100%
56
1
1
1
26
1
3%
3%
3%
87%
3%
3
6
2
47
1
3
5
1
21
0
10%
17%
3%
70%
0%
0
0
2
23
1
0%
0%
8%
88%
4%
30
100%
59
30
100%
26
100%
79%
23
24
14%
7%
4
2
4
2
100%
29
30
PT
%
#
Total
%
Gender
Male
Ethnicity
Black
Hispanic
Asian
White
Unknown
Total
Tenure Status
Tenured
Tenure-Track
Not Applicable
Total
LAS_PSY_PSYCH_PSYD_Q
54%
46%
29
27
30
50% 14
50% 12
100% 26
100%
56
3
5
3
44
1
3
5
1
21
0
10% 0
17% 1
3% 0
70% 24
0% 1
0%
4%
0%
92%
4%
3
6
1
45
1
56
30
100% 26
100%
56
80%
24
25
80%
25
13%
7%
4
2
5
1
17%
3%
5
1
100%
30
30
100%
30
Self-Study Template 25
2010
FT
2011
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
Male
15
52%
12
46%
Female
14
48%
14
54%
Total
29
FT
2012
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
27
15
52%
12
48%
28
14
48%
13
52%
55
29
0%
3
3
10%
4%
6
5
17%
0%
1
1
3%
20
69%
FT
2013
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
27
15
52%
13
43%
27
14
48%
17
57%
54
29
0%
3
3
10%
FT
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
28
16
52%
16
53%
32
31
15
48%
14
47%
29
59
31
0%
3
3
10%
1
3%
4
Gender
26
25
30
30
61
Ethnicity
Black
3
10%
Hispanic
5
17%
Asian
American
Indian/Alaskan
Native
1
3%
White
20
69%
0%
5
5
17%
2
7%
7
5
16%
3
10%
8
1
4%
2
2
7%
2
7%
4
2
6%
2
7%
4
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
23
92%
43
19
66%
25
83%
44
21
68%
23
77%
44
2 or More Races
0
0%
0
Native
Hawaiian/Pacific
Islander
0
0%
0
1
3%
1
0%
Unknown
Total
1
0%
29
24
1
26
0%
0
92%
44
4%
0%
1
0%
55
29
1
25
4%
0%
1
0%
54
29
1
30
3%
1
0%
59
31
30
61
Tenure Status
Tenured
23
79%
23
23
79%
23
26
90%
26
28
90%
28
Tenure-Track
5
17%
5
5
17%
5
2
7%
2
2
6%
2
Not Applicable
1
3%
1
1
3%
1
1
3%
1
1
3%
1
Total
29
29
29
29
29
29
31
LAS_PSY_PSYCH_PSYD_Q
31
Self-Study Template 26
5e.
What evidence exists that the program’s faculty have engaged in research and scholarship on teaching and/or
learning in the program’s field of study? (Suggested limit 1/2 page)
The AFAR reports submitted to the department chair and the dean each year demonstrate that this is a highly
productive faculty. They have published numerous books and peer reviewed journal articles. They serve on editorial
boards of relevant scholarly journals. They have been elected to leadership roles in professional organizations. They
present every years at local, regional, national, and international conferences. They frequently receive
invitations to speak at other universities and to give key addresses at conferences. The number of publications and
presentations by this group of faculty is vast. They usually receive research reductions from the university to pursue
their scholarship, which is an acknowledgement that the Dean and Provost see them as productive scholars.
The full time and part-time faculty members engage in sufficient scholarship to support a doctoral program.
5f.
What initiatives have been taken in the past five years to promote faculty development in support of the
program? (Suggested limit 1/2 page)
The department has promoted faculty development through support to attend/present at conferences, receive
additional training, and by offering support for initial research programs to develop teaching and scholarship.
Further, the department runs an active colloquium program that invites four or more external speakers to the
department each semester. The Department has purchased web-based survey software to help the faculty collect data,
and we have purchased appropriate statistical software when faculty members need it for their teaching or research.
The department has found money to provide training for the faculty for new psychological tests, new testing platforms,
and the recent publication of DSM-5. Most importantly, all of the faculty who teach in the program and who have
requested research reductions and research leaves have received them from the University; thus faculty have sufficient
time to work on their scholarship and to increase their skills.
The department has had no increases to its travel budget in five years. So, we cannot always send faculty the number of
conferences that they wish to attend.
5g.
The table below shows the amount of external funding received by the department. If available, please provide
the dollar amount of externally funded research for full-time faculty supporting the program under review. (Program
dollar amounts are available through departmental records.)
External
Funding
$ Amount
Program
04/05
$ Amount
1,154,015
Department
External
Funding
$ Amount
Program
$ Amount
Department
05/06
Fiscal Year
06/07
07/08
08/09
1,465,723
1,326,898
597,315
793,401
Fiscal Year
09/10
10/11
11/12
406,258
821,179
789,022
12/13
1,310,434
Note: Drs. Flanagan, Terjesen, and Zhou have received external funding approximating $220,000 over the last four years.
LAS_PSY_PSYCH_PSYD_Q
Self-Study Template 27
5h.
Please comment on the table below that shows trends in overall course evaluation and instructional vibrancy for
your program (if available), your college and the university. (Suggested limit ½ page)
Overall Evaluation (Spring)
2011
2012
2013
Instructional Vibrancy (Spring)
2011
2012
2013
Psychology (Q)
4.24
4.24
3.99
4.33
4.37
4.23
Saint John’s
College
4.23
4.26
4.19
4.37
4.40
4.40
Total Graduate
4.14
4.16
4.30
4.37
4.39
4.52
Note: Institutional Vibrancy is the average of the first 14 questions on the course evaluation, with questions pertaining
to course organization, communication, faculty-student interaction, and assignments/grading. All course evaluation
questions range from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree).
These summary course evaluations are reflective of very positive ratings from graduate students in terms of their
perception of the courses and faculty-student evaluations and appear to be consistent with the aggregate summary of
data from the graduate programs at SJU. We are not sure why the Overall ratings for the Spring 2013 semester dropped.
Because only the department chair has the information on such rating for individual professors, the chair would have to
monitor this rating for the 2014 semester to see if this was a temporary drop and whether it was due to one or two
professors or a continuing trend.
5i.
What percentage of full time faculty assigned to this program have terminal degrees or industry certifications
renewed within the past 2 years? Comment. (Suggested limit 1/3 page)
100% of the faculty have the terminal degree required for their field. In this case, it is either the PhD or PsyD degrees
but none have had them granted or renewed in the last two years.
Standard 5.
Comments: Indicate to what extent the program has the faculty resources required to meet its mission
and goals. Include references from 5a – 5i. (Suggested limit 1 page)
The University engaged in a Voluntary Step-down Offer in the spring of 2014. The data from this have not yet influenced
the statistics that make up this program review. The department is struggling to meet its teaching load with the loss of
faculty from this and other retirement offers that the University has initiated. The step-down was predicated on the
assumption of a dropping enrollment. No such drop in enrollment is planned or expected for the PsyD program. Thus
the needs of the program, and we would say the department in general, have not changed. We do not have lower
enrollments. We did lose some faculty and some professional and support personal in the Center for Psychological
Services. The failure to replace these faculty negatively influences the program because it is difficult to find talented and
knowledgeable adjunct faculty for doctoral level course. Also we need full-time faculty who can mentor dissertations
and serve on dissertation committees. The mentoring of dissertations is a task that is not reflected in any of the statistics
that you provide us. The tuition that students pay is recorded but the faculty time spent in this activity is not accounted
for. Faculty receive no teaching credit or compensation for these activities. If you reduce the number of faculty in the
department the dissertation load (for this and the PhD program) falls on fewer and fewer faculty. Thus the work load on
LAS_PSY_PSYCH_PSYD_Q
Self-Study Template 28
the faculty caused by the early retirements and faculty to replace them increase the faculty work load which is not
accounted for by any of the statistics presented in this report. This time-consuming work we cannot assign to adjuncts.
With fewer faculty, there is likelihood of faculty carrying more of the burden as far as mentoring, which may make it
difficult for such faculty to exercise SJU's values of providing innovative teaching and commitment in leadership. The
increased mentoring workload of faculty does not meet with the demands of students' needs. Students may express
research interests but these interests are not cultivated due to faculty having time due to their being committed to
other students.
The failure to replace the professional staff in the Center will negatively affect the nature of the practica we provide for
our students.
The university has provided the department with sufficient resources to run the program in most areas.
The university funds the Center for Psychological Services, which allows the program to provide high quality practica
experiences for our students. Over the years the university has provide research reductions for the faculty and many of
the faculty who teach in this program have competitively earned this reductions. We have small classes for our practica
courses and many other courses. We have had adequate funds for research for the faculty who teach in the program.
The university has provided funds for the expensive psychological assessment instruments that are required of the
program.
The dean has funded the travel of the Program Direct and Chair to important conference relevant to the business of the
program.
The Dean has provided some funds to graduate students who present at conferences.
We have barely sufficient faculty to teach the courses in the program and this was commented upon by the recent
review of the doctoral program by the American Psychological Association (APA).
We have recently begun an initiative to expand our work and training in Autism. This will increase student
competitiveness for jobs. Additional support in this area may be warranted to truly develop this program.
In the present financial environment there have been some cut backs throughout the University that may threaten the
quality of the program. More specifically, having the resources for program promotion would be beneficial and not
having the cost allocation and specific marketing of the programs be left to faculty and program directors who have no
experience/training in that area.
Further, the program is seeking to develop new intervention practica (autism, neuropsychology, parenting, ADHD) and
will require some additional resources for this program as well.
Standard 5.
Additional comments if needed. (Suggested limit 1 page)
STANDARD 6. The program has adequate resources to meet its goals and objectives. And, it is cost-effective.
LAS_PSY_PSYCH_PSYD_Q
Self-Study Template 29
6a.
Narrative/Supportive Technological Environment - Comment on classrooms and labs meeting industry-standards
for quality and availability of hardware, software, and peripherals; library space, holdings and services; science
laboratories, TV studios, art/computer graphic labs; etc. (Suggested limit 1 page)
The program has sufficient facilities to meet the needs of the program’s faculty and students alike (e.g., a universitybased training center, a state of the art psychological testing library, student lounge, computer lab. The University
updated the video recording equipment in the Center this year at a cost that exceeded $10,000.00. The Center’s old
analogue system was replaced with a digital system that makes it easier to record students’ sessions with clients for
later observation.
The primary practicum training site, the Center for Psychological Services, is located within 5 minutes of the university in
the heart of an ethnically diverse community and provides convenient access for training purposes to students and
faculty supervisors. The Center is well equipped with a computerized record-keeping system for all client-related records
and maintains an extensive inventory of psychological assessment instruments. The Center consists of 10 private,
soundproof treatment rooms, many of which are connected by one-way mirrors to adjacent treatment rooms by state
of the art electronic equipment that allows for direct observation and videotaping. A new digital recording system allows
for the live observation or recording of all student professional activities at the Center. Administrative offices, a separate
supervisory office, waiting room, secretarial area, student/research work area and two bathrooms complete the Center.
University Libraries. When classes are in session, the University Library is open 85 hours, 7 days per week. A full range of
library services are available for student use, including government documents and reference materials, interlibrary loan
services, and a Computer Assisted Reference Service which provides access to computerized bibliographies, including
Psychological Abstracts. The library provides access to PsycINFO, PsycEXTRA, PsycBOOKS, PsycARTICLES, ERIC,
EBSCOhost, MEDLINE, Proquest Direct, PUBMED, and other electronic database holdings other bibliographic data bases,
all of which are available online from computer workstations or remotely from users’ computers. Almost all journals
relevant to psychology are available electronically.
The department maintains a Psychological Testing Library. We have always had sufficient resources to purchase new and
revised psychological tests. Whenever we purchase psychological tests for courses, we also purchase them for the
Center so that new and revised tests will be used in practica, allowing students to practice the instruments on which
they were trained. When new editions of tests are released, the cost to obtain them can be substantial. We have
requested and received additional funds from the Provost’s office to be added to our budget in any year in which such
purchases were necessary. No faculty member in the department has ever been denied a request to purchase new
psychological instruments and new editions of tests or related material (e.g., scoring programs). Drs. Flanagan, Ortiz, and
Morrissey have secured a number of training grants through Riverside publishing company, the Woodcock-Munoz
Foundation, and American Guidance Services that amounted in more than $55,000.00 in psychological tests for our
program.
In 2008, the department built a computer lab for graduate students in a space that had previously been poorly used. The
computer lab has 25 computer workstations, each with access to SPSS, MS Office, and the internet. Some computers in
the lab have access to additional software such as MPlus, Multilog, & SYSTAT.
A psychology student lounge is located on the fourth floor of Marillac Hall. The lounge provides graduate students with a
place for socializing, studying, or simply resting, and serves as a location for student-related activities. Previously a
classroom, the space was refurbished to make it more comfortable for student use about 6 years ago. Regrettably, there
was a refrigerator in there that was removed about 3 years ago and the microwave is now broken. Further, there was a
computer in there for student use but it also has been removed. Students have direct access to the lounge through a
combination lock. Student mailboxes are also located in the lounge.
LAS_PSY_PSYCH_PSYD_Q
Self-Study Template 30
6b.
Narrative/ Supportive Physical Environment - Comment on level of faculty and student satisfaction with HVAC;
faculty and student satisfaction with classroom lighting, crowdedness, and acoustics; flexible teaching environments,
and faculty offices, etc.. (Suggested limit 1 page)
Although we could use more space, the School Psychology program has adequate space to fulfill its mission. Faculty
offices are in Marillac Hall, which is also the site of the Psychology Department and the building in which the majority of
our classes meets. In 2011, some classes began meeting in the D’Angelo Center. Faculty have expressed a preference to
teach there and students report to prefer that learning environment given the fact that it has state of the art
classrooms. Dissertation defenses and department meetings are also held in the D’Angelo Center’s conference rooms.
The heating and cooling system in the subbasement of Marillac Hall is quite variable and inconsistent and requires
regular communications with building management. There have been repeated floods in the subbasement of Marillac
that were addressed as recently as the fall of 2014. The Center for Psychological Services also has had a history of
flooding over the past few years.
As the breadth of services at the Center for Psychological Services continues to expand based on training and research
needs, there is an increased need for more space. The programs in school psychology are currently limited space-wise
and without further expansion this will limit the opportunities provided to our student and the community. We
currently (fall 2015) are out of classroom space at the Center on Wednesday evenings and cannot host all of the classes
scheduled to meet here. We are making use of the space vacated by Reading and Writing, but this space is not outfitted
with technology. Therefore, that class does not have the ability to review recorded sessions. In addition, we are out of
space for clinical use on Monday evenings. This poses a scheduling difficulty for students and clients because students in
the PsyD are only available on Monday evenings due to their class schedule.
6c.
To what extent has the University funded major capital projects, e.g., renovations, which are linked directly to
the program during the past five years? (Bulleted list)
We have been able to purchase all software that facilitates faculty or student research, the scoring of psychological
tests, and data collection that has been requested by our faculty and students to date. For example, the department has
purchased and operated two programs that have computerized data collection for student and faculty research. The first
is the SONA system, which tracks and monitors participation from undergraduates in our human subjects pool. The
second was the acquisition of Qualtrics, which creates and hosts online surveys. The department assigns a full-time
doctoral fellow to operate these software systems and to train students and faculty in their use. As a result of these
purchases, students no longer need to pay for their own web-based data collection. These software programs
represented a capital expense of over $50,000.00, plus annual maintenance fees.
6d.
If external data that describes the cost effectiveness of the program has been provided by your School/College
Dean, please comment on the program’s cost-effectiveness. (Suggest limit 1 page)
The external data provided by the college through the Program Contribution Margin Initiative (PCMI) indicated that in FY
2014 the PsyD program in school psychology had a Contribution Margin of $12,985. This amount reflects $ 1,352,634
in fellowships and graduate assistantships where the students in the program worked in many departments throughout
the University. This contribution margin is influenced by the smaller sections of the practica at the Center for
Psychological Services which is essential for learning and developing competency to function as a school psychologist.
Additional revenue for the program in the future may be influenced by the development of the BCBA program.
LAS_PSY_PSYCH_PSYD_Q
Self-Study Template 31
Standard 6.
Additional comments if needed. (Suggested limit 1 page)
STANDARD 7. Effective actions have been taken based on the findings of the last program review and plans have
been initiated for the future.
Comments: (Suggested limit 1page)
The School Psychology faculty members engage in a regular program of self-study as part of their responsibility to
monitor and evaluate our program as required by the American Psychological Association (APA) and the National
Association of School Psychologists (NASP). Here we review these efforts, discuss the steps involved, and provide
examples regarding how we have modified our program based on the results of our internal self-assessment
process.
The faculty uses evaluations of student competency and student attainment of competencies to assist in evaluating
the program’s effectiveness in meeting its goals and objectives. The program is able to monitor effectiveness of
training through evaluations of students in applied courses, in practica, and in internship, as well as through
monitoring students’ attainment of competencies. Subsequent to the review of these competencies, curriculum
changes are often recommended. Some examples follow.
First, a recent modification (spring 2011) was having the Coordinator of Field Placements teach some of the fieldbased courses. This decision was based on feedback from students, program graduates, and field-based supervisors
that the connection between placement and instruction was weak (e.g., instructor was not necessarily versed in the
types of disorders students were identifying and treating), and that students did not believe they had sufficient
influence with regard to selecting a placement. Preliminary feedback suggests that this restructuring has been a
successful approach to improved supervision as well as student input in the externship and internship decisionmaking process.
Second, a modification to the Psy 666 course was made based on feedback from students and field-work supervisors
to allow for greater opportunities for preparation in psychological interventions. To further this desired change, the
program faculty is exploring how to change the Psy 761/762 practica experience to allow for greater psychological
intervention experience. We are assessing outcomes to see if the changes in Psy 666 are sufficient.
Third, concern was noted about the level of performance of students on the 3rd year comprehensive examination.
The faculty spent several of their monthly meetings discussing our expectations of students for the exam, the
precision of the rubrics for evaluating students, the places students would have learned the material for the exam,
and the students’ ability to attain the real world cases needed to display their competency. Review of student
performance and informal communication with students and field-work supervisors appeared to indicate that a
January 15 deadline was not sufficient to allow students to complete a case adequately. To address this concern, the
school psychology faculty moved the date back to March 15th beginning in 2012. Also, we learned that some field
placements had not provided student with the type of cases they needed to complete the exam. The Coordinator of
Field Placements discussed these issues with the field supervisors to correct the situation.
Fourth, some graduates reported that they did not feel adequately prepared to supervise students. To address this
concern, beginning in the fall of 2009, the Psy 754 course was modified to allow for both didactic and experiential
opportunities in supervision. In the spring of 2011, we also added material, class time, and discussions on
supervision to Psy 755. The program faculty is still considering methods to formally incorporate direct supervision
training in the curriculum.
LAS_PSY_PSYCH_PSYD_Q
Self-Study Template 32
Fifth, in preparing this self-study, we discovered that a smaller percentage of our graduates than expected applied
for and took the National Psychology Licensing Exam. We redesigned Psy 755, the last professional seminar and
course, to discuss the process of licensure, the different State laws in region, the content of the national exam, and
how to prepare for the exam. In addition, we invited Dr. Kathleen Doyle of the New York State Department of
Education to speak to our faculty and students. Dr. Doyle’s presentation was on November 8, 2011. Following her
presentation, she fielded questions on issues related to licensure.
Sixth, students and faculty provided feedback that there was a diversity of student ability and educational
background in some of the basic science courses. As a result, the faculty, in consultation with the GEPC, decided to
place masters and doctoral students into separate courses for the topics of Statistics, Developmental Psychology,
and Social Psychology.
Seventh, there appears to be a differentiation of specialties within the field of school psychology. More specifically,
there is a growing interest and job demand for school psychologists who have training/experience in working with
individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). To this end, the faculty have begun the process of collaborating
with the School of Education on formal coursework in this area and received approval (Fall 2015) for certification as
a behavior analyst. This may be a very attractive initiative for recruiting students to the PsyD program. The challenge
with this for students in the doctoral program (bilingual track) is that they do not have enough electives to allow
them to take these courses. As such, the faculty are exploring how to integrate/combine some of the existing
courses to allow for greater flexibility in elective and allow students the opportunity to pursue this certification.
Summary Statement
Finally, based on the information gleaned from the data in the self-study, the program faculty propose an overall
rating of the program’s Enrollment/Market Potential as Enhance.
LAS_PSY_PSYCH_PSYD_Q
Self-Study Template 33