Prevalence and Characteristics of School Psychology Preparation Programs Around the World

Transcription

1 Prevalence and Characteristics of School Psychology Preparation Programs Around the World UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA BARBARA The School Psychology International Survey 2008 (SPIS) included questions to address the prevalence and characteristics of school psychology professional preparation programs in countries around the world. The purpose of this brief is to present key findings from this section of the survey, providing school psychologists around the world with contemporary information regarding: (a) the prevalence of professional preparation programs at various training levels, (b) the institutional location of professional preparation programs, (c) the reviewing and accrediting of such programs, and (d) the general prestige of institutions that offer these programs. The School Psychology International Survey 2008 (SPIS) relied upon resident experts to respond to approximately one hundred multi-part questions regarding the nature and status of school psychology in their countries. Of the 198 countries invited to participate in the survey, experts in 48 countries agreed to provide leadership in completing the SPIS (participating countries are delineated in Table 1). Further details about this project are available from the International Institute of School Psychology online at Professional Preparation at Various Levels of Training The SPIS documented how many school psychology professional preparation programs existed in each of the participating countries, considering six levels of training (i.e., 3-year bachelor s degree, 4-year bachelor s degree, bachelor s degree plus 1 year additional specialization, master s degree, specialist degree, and doctoral degree). Among the 48 participating countries, 90% reported having school psychology preparation programs. Results revealed that over 50% of the countries reported at least one master s level training program, fewer than 25% of the countries had at least one training program at each of the other training levels (see Table 2). The number of programs existing within each country varied greatly (see Table 3). Specifically, responses indicated that in the majority of countries over twice as many training programs were available at the Bachelor s level compared with programs at the Master s or Specialist level and the Doctoral level. For example, South Africa reported having 40 Bachelor s, 10 Master s, and 0 Doctoral level school psychology training programs; Lebanon reported having 95 Bachelor s, 50 Master s/specialist, and 0 Doctoral level programs; and England reported having 50 Bachelor s, 0 Master s/specialist, and 13 Doctoral level programs. However, there were some exceptions to this trend, given

2 2 that some countries had no Bachelor s level training programs. For instance, the United States of America reported 0 Bachelor s, 215 Master s/ Specialist, and 102 Doctoral level programs which was also the highest frequency of total training programs for all of the participating countries. Institutional Location of Training Programs The SPIS data also indicated that the majority of reporting countries had training programs that were housed in or sponsored by public universities (n = 33), with a minority of countries having programs in private universities (n = 12), professional schools (n = 3), or other institutions (n = 3; see Table 3). Furthermore, results also revealed that the proportion of training programs located in various institutions within individual countries varied greatly, with some countries having all of their school psychology training programs located in public universities (e.g., Croatia, Hungary, and Cyprus), one having all of its programs in private universities (i.e., Denmark), and some having all of their programs in other institutions of learning (i.e., Lebanon, Jamaica, and Belize). Moreover, most countries programs were located in multiple venues (e.g., public university, private university, professional school), with the majority having more in public universities and less in private universities (e.g., Colombia, Estonia, and Hong Kong); a couple having more in public universities, fewer in private universities, and still fewer in professional schools (e.g., Germany and India); one having more in private universities and less in public universities (i.e., Brazil); one having an equal amount in both public and private universities (i.e., Venezuela); one having more in professional schools and fewer in public universities (i.e., Suriname); and a few having all programs in other institutions of learning (i.e., Jamaica, Finland, and Belize). Moreover, a majority of reporting countries (n = 33) noted the presence of institutions that included two or more school psychology training programs (see Table 3). Reviewing and Accrediting of Training Programs The SPIS also included questions addressing the types of agencies that reviewed and accredited school psychology programs. Findings from this section of the survey indicated a range of review and accreditation practices. Considering all participating countries, 13 (e.g., Romania, Czech Republic, and Turkey) reported being reviewed and 12 (e.g., Hungary, Slovak Republic, and Switzerland) accredited by professional associations of psychology; 3 (i.e., United States of America, Turkey, and Zimbabwe) reviewed and 3 (i.e., Canada, Turkey, and Hungary) accredited by professional associations of education; 18 (e.g., Scotland, Colombia, and Brazil) reviewed and 14 (e.g., Cyprus, Grazina, and Estonia) accredited by national, federal, or central governments; 4 (i.e., India, United States of America, Canary Islands, and Germany) reviewed and 6 (e.g., Canary Islands, India, and United States of America) accredited by state or provincial governments; and 1 (i.e., Hong Kong) reviewed and 0 accredited by local or municipal governments (see Table 4). Of countries with reviewed and/or accredited programs, several had multiple agencies that served as quality controllers for school psychology at one or more levels of training. For instance, Turkey reported that their programs are both reviewed and accredited by professional associations in psychology, professional associations in education, and national, federal, or central governments. The United States of America reported that their training programs are reviewed by professional associations in psychology, professional associations in education, and state or provincial governments, while they are only accredited

3 3 by the first and the latter of these agencies. And Cyprus indicated that their programs are both reviewed and accredited by professional associations in psychology and national, federal, or central governments. Prestige of Institutions Offering Training Programs Another section of the SPIS addressed the level of prestige of institutions that housed or sponsored school psychology training programs. The results suggested that most school psychology programs are located in institutions of higher prestige, with fewer located in institutions of average prestige, and still fewer in institutions of lower prestige. Specifically, 24 countries reported that they had training programs located in institutions of higher prestige, 14 reported programs in institutions of average prestige, and 7 reported programs in institutions of lower prestige (see Table 5). Furthermore, many countries noted that school psychology programs were located within various institutions with various levels of prestige. For example, Brazil reported that the majority of their programs are in institutions of average prestige, with fewer in institutions of higher and lower prestige. And Canada reported that the majority of its institutions are located in institutions of higher prestige with substantially fewer programs in those of average and lower prestige. Summary and Conclusions The SPIS provides valuable information through approximately one hundred multi-part questions regarding the nature and status of school psychology. Of the 198 countries invited to participate in the survey, 48 identified resident experts that were able to provide leadership to collaboratively complete Table 1. Countries Participating in the SPIS the survey for their country. This research brief presented results from one segment of this survey, focusing on the prevalence and characteristics of professional preparation or training programs in school psychology. Results provide important information regarding the status of professional preparation around the globe. For instance, findings indicated that more training programs are available at Master s/specialist and Bachelor s levels, with very few countries with school psychology programs at the doctoral level; that the majority of training programs are located in public universities; that although most countries do not have established review and accreditation processes, those that do are typically reviewed and accredited by professional boards of psychology and national, central, or federal governments; and that the majority of training programs appear to be located in institutions of higher prestige, with fewer in institutions of average and lower prestige. The results presented herein are not exhaustive nor comprehensive, as additional data was obtained from country representative regarding these topics. These results serve as highlights of future analyses and findings to be presented on this topic. Such findings will contribute to the advancement of school psychology internationally by providing baseline information that will inform our understanding of current global efforts to serve children and schools around the world. Moreover, such findings will also provide valuable insights regarding challenges that may be faced by school psychologists in multiple countries. Additional research briefs and details about this project are available online at the International Institute of School Psychology. Country Name (n = 48)

4 4 Austria Estonia* Ireland Seychelles Belgium* Finland Jamaica Slovak Republic Belize France Lebanon South Africa Brazil Germany Malta Suriname Canada Grazina Netherlands Switzerland Canary Islands Greece New Zealand Turkey Colombia Grenada Norway Trinidad & Tobago* Croatia Hong Kong Pakistan United Arab Emirates* Cyprus Hungary Portugal United States of America Czech Republic Iceland Puerto Rico Venezuela Denmark India Romania Vietnam England Indonesia* Scotland Zimbabwe * Countries reporting not having school psychology training programs Table 2. Professional Preparation at Various Levels of Training

5 5 Level of Training % of Countries with at Least One Program Available Range # of Programs for All Countries 3-Year Bachelor s 20% Year Bachelor s 14% 1-95 Bachelor s + 1 Yr. Specialization 16% Master s 55% Specialist 27% Doctoral 20% Table 3. Institutional Location of Training Programs Location # of Countries with Programs 0% 1-25% 26-50% 51-75% % Public University Private University Professional School Other Institution Institutions with 2 or More Programs

6 6 Table 4. Reviewing and Accrediting of Training Programs Agency Type # of Countries Receiving Evaluation Reviewed Accredited Professional Association in Psychology Professional Association in Education 3 3 National, Federal, or Central Government State or Provincial Government 4 6 Local or Municipal Government 1 0 Table 5. Prestige of Institutions Offering Training Programs Level of Prestige # of Countries with Programs 0% 1-25% 26-50% 51-75% % High Average Low