Self-reported comfort treating severe mental illnesses among pre-doctoral graduate students in clinical psychology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: One possible explanation for the dearth of psychologists working in severe mental illness (SMI) areas is a lack of training opportunities. Recent studies have shown that while training opportunities have increased, there remain fewer resources available for SMI training compared to other disorders. AIM: Examines whether students express discomfort working with this population and whether they are satisfied with their level of training in SMI. METHODS: One-hundred sixty-nine students currently enrolled in doctoral programs in clinical psychology in the United States and Canada were surveyed for their comfort treating and satisfaction with training related to a number of disorders. RESULTS: RESULTS indicate that students are significantly less comfortable treating and finding a referral for a patient with schizophrenia as well as dissatisfied with their current training in SMI and desirous of more training. Regression analyses showed that dissatisfaction with training predicted a desire for more training; however, discomfort in treating people with SMI did not predict a desire for more training in this sample. This pattern generally held across disorders. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest general discomfort among students surveyed in treating SMI compared to other disorders.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".