Genetic Counselors’ and Genetic Counseling Students’ Attitudes Around the Clinical Doctorate and Other Advanced Educational Options for Genetic Counselors: A Report from the Genetic Counseling Advanced Degree Task Force
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since its establishment over 40 years ago, the genetic counseling profession has grown to an estimated ~4,000 professionals in North America. While the profession has maintained the Master's degree as the entry-level and terminal degree, many other allied health professions have added advanced training pathways, such as the clinical doctorate (ClinD) either as an optional post-professional degree or required entry-level degree. Discussions regarding advanced degrees have also occurred within the genetic counseling profession, dating back to as early as the 1980s. In 2011, the Genetic Counseling Advanced Degree Task Force (GCADTF) was convened to explore the issue again, with the goal of "[engaging] all of the professional leadership organizations in the field of genetic counseling in a decision-making process about whether the profession should move to a Clinical Doctorate". As part of their work, the GCADTF surveyed practicing genetic counselors (n = 4,321) and genetic counseling students (n = 522) in the US and Canada regarding their interest in moving to the ClinD as the entry-level degree. This survey also included questions about other options for advanced training to generate data to inform future discussions around this very important professional issue. Herein, we describe the results of the survey, with particular attention to genetic counselor preferences for additional advanced education/certification opportunities and recommendations for future discussion.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".