Expectations & Evaluation of Students

The success of the CCP Program is dependent upon the faculty and students within the program. In order to ensure continued success, the CCP Core Faculty members maintain high expectations for themselves and expect students in the program to aspire to the highest standards as well. To that end, the following guidelines governing student and faculty responsibilities are provided here.


Students are expected to: 


Students can expect the CCP Program Faculty to:


Note: Guiding principles are for instructive purposes and do not constitute statements of institutional policy or requirements.


Commitment to Ethical Practice


The CCP Program supports the adherence to Ethical Principles in the conduct of any professional activity, especially when it comes to the provision of psychological services to the public. As students work toward a doctoral degree, they will be asked to abide by these principles as well. Three booklets are available from the American Psychological Association; each includes statements concerning ethics. These three booklets are Ethical Standards of Psychologists, Ethical Principles in the Conduct of Research with Human Participants, and Standards for Providers of Psychological Services. The APA Ethical Standards are available online (https://www.apa.org/ethics/code). All CCP Students are required to read and affirm their commitment to conducting themselves in a manner that confirms to the ethical principles as part of their confirmation of having read the CCP Student Handbook.


Ethical behavior and acceptance of diversity are expected to be reflected in the actions of faculty, students, and staff. That is, in all professional relationships, the CCP Program expects that its constituents will (a) maintain a fundamental respect for human diversity, (b) accept the scientific method and empirical evidence as the primary criteria by which to determine the nature of their professional activities, and (c) rely upon the APA Ethical Standards of Psychologists and Code of Conduct to define the priorities given to their own and other's needs, and to guide their relationships with others. These principles govern to whom services will be offered by our students, the nature of those services, and the conduct of faculty, students, and staff in providing these professional services. The services that are provided by the CCP Program are not restricted by client age, gender, race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, language, or socioeconomic status. Every reasonable effort is made to ensure that the services provided are both empirically supportable and the objects of scientific inquiry. Both faculty and students are expected to work to expand knowledge, to learn to work with the widest possible range of diversities, and to conduct the most current and valid interventions available. Throughout training, ensuring each client's welfare is of preeminent importance. We strive to ensure that the needs and desires, as well as the diversities of clients and potential clients are respected, within three constraining influences: (1) limits established by ethical and scientifically sound practice, (2) limits allowed by reasoned professional judgments as to the compatibility of the client's goals with the educational and scientific missions of the CCP Program, and (3) limits imposed by the resources available to the CCP Program. It is the responsibility of faculty and students to keep clients fully apprised of these limitations and of the risk and benefits that can be expected to be attendant on service.


CCP Program also adheres to the APA Ethical Code 7.04 Student Disclosure of Personal Information wherein Psychologists do not require students or supervisees to disclose personal information in course- or program-related activities, either orally or in writing, regarding sexual history, history of abuse and neglect, psychological treatment, and relationships with parents, peers, and spouses or significant others. The only exception that might be applied to this rule is when information is considered necessary to evaluate or obtain assistance for a student whose personal problems could reasonably be judged to be preventing him or her from performing professional activities in a competent manner or when a student is judged to pose a threat to self, clients, other students or faculty.


Mid-Year & Annual Competency Evaluation


The CCP Faculty have a professional, ethical, and potentially legal obligation to: (a) establish criteria and methods by which CCP Students’ competence in the necessary knowledge and skills may be assessed, and (b) ensure—insofar as possible—that the students who complete CCP Program are competent to enter into the field of Health Service Psychology and manage future relationships (e.g., client, collegial, professional, public, scholarly, supervisory, teaching) in an effective and appropriate manner. Accordingly, all CCP Students are evaluated comprehensively at mid-year and the end of each academic year. Competency Evaluations are completed by all CCP Core Faculty involved with each student as warranted by the faculty’s role or experiences with the student.


Mid-year evaluations are completed during the month of December and provided to students by their primary mentor in January. The mid-year evaluation is formative and intended to provide students the opportunity to remedy any issues that may lead to future difficulties that might disrupt students’ progress towards their degree. Typically, the mid-year evaluation does not result in formal remediation, probation, or dismissal from the program, except under extraordinary circumstances.


Annual competency evaluations are completed in April and provided back to students by their primary mentor in June. The annual evaluation is summative and intended to evaluate whether students are progressing in their development appropriately. Annual competency evaluations may result in formal remediation, probation, or dismissal from the program as per the policies and procedures detailed on elsewhere in this Handbook. Students must review and provide their signature on the annual evaluation results and indicate whether a) they concur with the feedback, b) they have no comment regarding the feedback, c) they wish to provide a written response to the feedback, or d) they disagree with the feedback and request re-review that includes consideration of a written response to the feedback.


These evaluations provide a critical means by which a student can gain a more comprehensive understanding of their current competencies, areas of relative strength, and areas to target for growth and development. The competency domains evaluated are detailed in the Competency Evaluation Rubric. Evidence that faculty rate a student’s skills as meeting minimum competency benchmarks for their developmental level in both the foundation and functional areas listed below is necessary for professional practice and, therefore, is required for completion of the CCP doctoral training program.


Overall feedback will be also given about the student’s progress in academic courses, clinical casework, research progression, and fellowship/assistantship activities.


Faculty advisors will be responsible for taking notes during the program student evaluation meetings and writing the evaluative feedback in the prior to meeting with the student.


Quantitative ratings will be generated by the CCP Core Faculty and compiled by the DCT or their designate. A summary of the results will be distributed to the individual student in a meeting with his or her faculty mentor. While this process is the typical one, at any time, either a student or a CCP Core Faculty member, can request that the individual evaluation feedback meeting also be attended by or facilitated by the DCT.


Evaluation Rubric. The self-ratings, peer ratings and faculty ratings on each competency domain will be provided using a 3-point rating scale. A rating of 1 indicates that a student is NOT meeting expectations for their developmental level in that domain. A rating of 2 indicates that a student is meeting expectations for someone at that student’s level of professional development. A score of 3 is meant to denote that the student is exceeding expectations on that competency domain for students at that level of professional development. An average score across faculty raters of 1.75 or lower on any given competency domain automatically triggers a formal remediation plan.


However, we do institute remediation plans that are designed to catch problems early, with the hope that we will be able to help a student avoid more serious problem at the annual evaluation, which occurs at the end of the spring semester. The plan is designed to minimize program attrition and/or dismissal. This competency rating form is completed by; a) the student him or herself, e.g. self-rating, b) anonymously by the student’s peers (only in May/June at the annual summative evaluation period), and c) by the CCP core faculty who have had pertinent interactions with the student during the most recent time interval. The DCT, A-DCT, Clinic Director and the student’s mentor typically rate every student at each interval given the ongoing frequent interactions such parties have with the student. Other faculty rate the student based on whether they have taught, supervised or provided some secondary mentorship to the student in the time period in question. Each rater is asked to only rate competencies for which they have directly observed the student’s performance and to not rate competency domains for which they do not have direct observational data. Lastly, the self-ratings and peer ratings are not used to make decisions about remediation, probation and dismissal. Only the faculty ratings are used as a basis for decisions that may change a student’s good standing in the program. Moreover, any qualitative feedback provided by peers is not directly shared with students. Rather, the mentor will summarize the peer qualitative feedback and extract a summary of the most constructive feedback available from these statements. The qualitative faculty feedback is provided unaltered to the student.


Student Activity Report (SAR)


In addition to the mid-year and annual competency evaluation procedure students are also asked to submit a copy of their curriculum vita (CV) and complete a “Student Activity Report” for the year. The activity reports are designed to update each student’s assigned mentor regarding his or her activities during the past year and will allow all faculty to learn about the progress of students who are not directly under their supervision. This is also a good opportunity for students to reflect on their progress in the program and to develop personal goals for the coming year. The Student Activity Report (SAR) form is comprehensive in that it included opportunities for students to describe their coursework, research, clinical training, teaching, assistantships, and service activities during the past year. It is not expected that students will have participated in all of these activities during the year. In addition to the activity report, students are expected to provide copies of their clinical evaluations and teaching performance ratings from the past year. Students are encouraged to ask their supervisors for a copy of the written evaluation at the end of each semester. Students are required to give the completed activity report (including copies of teaching and clinical evaluations) and their CV to their mentor on or before May 1st of the year.


The CCP Program core faculty members meet to discuss students’ progress after the annual competency evaluations have been completed. During the annual meeting, faculty mentors will use results from the mid-year and annual competency evaluations and their own observations to present a brief overview of each student’s progress in the areas of research, clinical training, teaching, service, and coursework. The entire faculty will share information about each student’s strengths and any suggestions for improvement. Following this meeting, faculty mentors meet with their mentees to present the annual competency evaluation results, discuss the student’s accomplishments during the past year, and any suggestions from the faculty for the future year. These meetings will typically occur prior to or at the beginning of the following academic year. If the mentor does not schedule such a meeting in a timely manner, students are encouraged to either remind faculty members to schedule this meeting or to discuss the problem with the Director of Clinical Training (DCT). Students will be given the chance to write any comments at the bottom of the letter and then will be asked to sign the letter. A copy of the SAR, CV, annual competency evaluation results will be placed in each student’s file. 


Professionalism & Etiquette Guidelines


It is important to remember that clinical students represent the profession of clinical psychology in the classroom, clinical and research settings, and community. This involves demonstrating professionalism in your actions and interactions with peers, faculty, staff, supervisors and other professionals as well as with the students you teach/mentor, clients, research participants, and others with whom your work.


Responsibility for Websites, Blogs, Email, Email Signature and Answering Machine/Voice Mail Messages. The Council of University Directors of Clinical Psychology (CUDCP) has shared information with member programs concerning the potential implications of information clinical graduate students share in various electronic modalities, such as blogs, personal pages in sites such as Facebook or other social media, on personal web pages, emails, and recorded messages on home answering machines or voicemails. These electronic media are being accessed or used in ways that extend beyond their original intent. That is, what may seem to be fun, informative, and candid might actually put the student and, by extension, the Program, USA, and/or the profession in a bad light. Furthermore, there are now a number of negative episodes in training programs and at universities where graduate students have been negatively affected by material on WebPages, emails, and answering machine messages. 


Consequently, what might be seen as “private” self-disclosure reflecting a student’s perception of him/herself among friends may actually be much more public of a disclosure than one expected. This includes blogs, personal pages in Facebook and other social media that may have been started before graduate school. Anything on the World Wide Web is potentially available to all who seek.


Trainees are reminded that, if you identify yourself as a graduate student in the program, then the program has an interest in how you portray yourself and the program. Students are advised to engage in “safe” web practices and be concerned now about professional demeanor and presentations. If you report doing (or are depicted on a website or in an email as doing) something unethical or illegal, and this information is conveyed to program faculty, this information may be used by the program to determine probation or even retention. As a preventive measure, students (and faculty) should approach online blogs and websites that include personal information, carefully. Consider the image you wish to portray of yourself in the content and signature lines of your email. In these cases, is there anything posted that one would not want the program faculty, employers, family, or clients to read or view?


Students are expected to be familiar with and adhere to policies regarding appropriate use of information technology and network access.


Cell Phones. Professionalism is expected in appropriate student use of cell phones and texting. Use the vibrate function or turn your cell phone off during all classes, in clinical and research sessions, during supervision and meetings with your mentor or mentees, while teaching, and when presenting at or attending sessions at a professional meeting or conference. It is disrespectful and inappropriate to send or respond to calls or texts during these activities.


Furthermore, if your cell phone or home telephone is ever used for professional purposes (research, teaching, or clinical activities), be sure the voice mail greeting is appropriate and professional in demeanor and content. Greetings on voicemail services and answering machines should be thoughtfully constructed.


Email. With regard to email messages, students should not include content in their message concerning themselves, others, or the program that is inappropriate, unprofessional, or unethical to share with others. One is not in control of who eventually views these emails (e.g., if they are forwarded to others or inadvertently sent out to a complete email list) or how the content of the email will affect the impressions others may form of you, both personally and professionally.


USA provides an account for all students upon entering the University. The account is free of charge and currently remains active as long as the student remains actively enrolled. Email sent by the University and the CCP Program to the student’s university email address constitutes an official means of communication. Important program information and announcements are made primarily through email messages sent to USA email addresses, thus it is critical that students, faculty and staff check their messages regularly. Computers are available in the department and across campus to send and read email messages.