Value of interviews for admission to clinical training programs: Perspective of program directors

Abstract

The interview has a long history of being used to select individuals for positions in industry, professional occupations, and for a variety of specialised educational programs. Despite its widespread popularity, the selection interview is often criticised for its potential bias and unreliability, which in turn has led to its decreasing use in some settings. The purpose of the present study was to explore the views of the directors of 21 Australian clinical training programs as to the value of interviews as part of the admission process for their clinical psychology postgraduate training candidates. Three programs reported not conducting interviews at all, expressing reservations concerning their validity. Most other directors saw interviews as having at least some value, with the opportunity to evaluate interpersonal skills being one of the most commonly mentioned advantages. A variety of methods was used for the final admission decisions, with substantial variation in acceptance rates by candidates who survived the interview process. Implications for selection processes in the future are discussed.

Towards a model for student selection in clinical psychology

“…Helmes and Pachana () questioned the value of the interview for selection of candidates for professional psychology training programmes and indicated that the rationale for this selection method was based upon an assessment of interpersonal skills. The findings point to the potential value of systematic evaluation of higher order information processing skills rather than informal or semi‐formal interviews designed to assess interpersonal skills.…”

“…Helmes and Pachana () identified that interviews combined with academic entry scores were still the most common method for assessing students for entry into clinical training programmes. Identifying the limitations of this methodology, they concluded that “at the very least, programmes that use such interviews could increase the methodological reliability of the interviews by training interviewers, increasing the structure related to past behaviours, and constructing better scoring procedures for such structured interviews” (p. 254).…”

“…Based upon the authors' experience, almost all candidates, once accepted, go on to complete the programme indicating that the selection process is potentially the most important decision we make in determining the future clinical psychology workforce in Australia. Nevertheless, the selection process, relying upon a combination of academic results, letters, or reference and interview results, remains relatively unsystematised (Helmes & Pachana, ).…”

“…Applicants into postgraduate psychology programmes in Australia are usually assessed on undergraduate GPA, two letters of reference, previous experience, and their performance on an interview. The criteria differ from institution to institution but GPA, which is seen as a good reflection of cognitive and academic ability (Kuncel, Credé, & Thomas, ), is generally accepted by course directors as the most important factor in determining selection (Helmes & Pachana, ). Despite this, GPA has come under increasing criticism as a valid and reliable measure of learning outcomes (Soh, ).…”

“…In addition, there is little agreement between psychology programme directors in Australia about the value of selection interviews (Helmes & Pachana, ). Research on interviews of potential medical students generally suggests that interviews lack the power to predict clinical performance (Dubovsky et al., ; Goho & Blackman, ).…”