Disability, Resilience, and Success in Internship Accredited Graduate Programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Up to 48% of 1,958 graduate students surveyed across accredited U.S. and Canadian clinical, counseling, and school psychology programs reported having a diagnosed mental disorder, with 25% identifying as currently or previously disabled (Victor et al., 2022). Notably, the study's authors caution that these figures may underestimate the true prevalence due to the persistent stigma surrounding self-disclosure. This highlights the significant presence of mental illness and disability among psychology graduate students. Despite the prevalence of disability in this population, data on relevant success metrics of disabled graduate students remains limited and, when available, raises concerns. Indeed, recent survey data indicates early-career professionals with disabilities earn an average of $10,000 less per year than their non-disabled counterparts, and that there is significant underrepresentation of individuals with disabilities across higher levels of academia (Castro et al., 2023). Yet, little is known about how these identities and experiences affect markers associated with success including resilience and well-being during graduate school. This is especially relevant for clinical graduate students, as their clinical work directly impacts the patients they serve. Ensuring these students receive the necessary accommodations and support may enhance their own well-being and academic success as well as strengthen their ability to deliver higher quality mental healthcare. In the current study, we surveyed ~300 doctoral graduate students in internship-accredited (i.e., PCSAS and APA-accredited programs) Clinical Psychology doctoral programs across the US to better understand the experiences of clinical psychology graduate students with disabilities. Our study (IRB ID: 202405062) had four main aims: 1) to examine the relation between disability status and various indicators of success in graduate school, (2) to test factors, such as resilience and structural barriers to accommodation, as moderators of the relation between disability status and success in graduate school, and 3) Assess the current climate regarding attitudes toward accommodations and university, program, and lab level support in clinical psychology graduate programs. Ultimately, our goal is to characterize disability within programs and identify potential areas for further improvement in clinical graduate programs.
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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.005 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".