Religious and spiritual diversity training in clinical psychology doctoral programs: do explicitly Christian programs differ from other programs?
McMinn, Mark R. ; Vogel, Michael J. ; Hall, M. Elizabeth Lewis 等
The American Psychological Association (APA) accredits several
explicitly Christian doctoral programs in clinical psychology. To what
extent do these programs offer training in religious and spiritual
diversity that students may not receive at other APA-accredited
programs? A total of 353 students from 5 explicitly Christian programs
were surveyed using the same questionnaire used in a more general
national sample of APA-accredited doctoral programs a year previously.
Students in explicitly Christian programs reported receiving more
training in religious and spiritual diversity and more training in
advanced competencies regarding religious and spiritual issues in
professional work than students in the general sample of APA-accredited
programs. At the same time, students in explicitly Christian programs
reported receiving less training in ethnic/racial and socioeconomic
diversity than students in other programs. Diversity training
implications are considered.
**********
The American Psychological Association's (APA) Commission on
Accreditation accredits several explicitly Christian psychology doctoral
programs that are housed within distinctively Christian institutions.
Though the relationship between the APA and these programs has been
marked with a degree of tension (see Campbell, 2011, for a helpful
overview), the APA's Commission on Accreditation has accredited
several explicitly Christian programs and various reasons have been
offered for why accreditation is appropriate (Johnson & McMinn,
2003). Among these reasons is that explicitly Christian programs are
presumed to enhance diversity training related to religious and
spiritual issues (e.g., McMinn et al., 2014). To date, this assumption
has not been tested empirically.
The APA has demonstrated an enduring commitment to diversity
training, including religious and spiritual diversity, through
accreditation standards, ethics codes, and public statements. Still, it
is increasingly clear that most psychology training programs do not
devote adequate attention to religious and spiritual diversity (Brawer,
Handal, Fabricatore, Roberts, & Wajda-Johnston, 2002; Hage, 2006;
Hathaway, Scott, & Garver, 2004; Schafer, Handal, & Brawer,
2011; Schulte, Skinner, & Claiborn, 2002; Vogel, McMinn, Peterson,
& Gathercoal, 2013). Doctoral programs housed in Christian
institutions appeal to this need, but the argument begs the question as
to whether explicitly Christian programs actually train students to deal
with religious and spiritual diversity, per se, or to deal with
committed Christian clients. Moreover, when explicitly Christian
programs are reviewed for accreditation, it is not uncommon for
questions to be raised regarding other forms of diversity training,
especially those related to sexual orientation. The purpose of the
current study is to compare perceptions of students at explicitly
Christian doctoral programs with perceptions of students in a broad
sample of APA-accredited doctoral programs in various areas of diversity
training.
Though most religious expression in the United States (US) is
Christian, a sizeable number identify with other religions, or identify
as being spiritual without being religious (Gallup, 2009). An increasing
number of US residents report having no religion (Gallup, 2010), which
also must be considered when discussing religious and spiritual
diversity. It is likely true that explicitly Christian programs help the
US workforce by preparing psychologists who are able to deal well with
Christian clients--an important goal given the gap between psychologists
and the general public regarding religious values (Delaney, Miller,
& Bisono, 2007; McMinn, Hathaway, Woods, & Snow, 2009). Still,
it seems somewhat disingenuous to argue for APA accreditation on the
basis of diversity training if these programs are not, in fact, training
students to deal with varied expressions of religious and spiritual
diversity.
The impetus for training psychologists to address the particular
needs of those individuals in the US with religious or spiritual
commitments is not merely practical; it also ought to be considered an
ethical mandate for professional psychologists in the APA. The Ethics
Code (APA, 2010) clearly outlines guidelines requiring psychologists to
provide services that are both aware of and sensitive to the religious
aspects of their clients' cultural worldviews. Psychologists almost
certainly need professional training in these areas of diversity,
otherwise they risk practicing outside of the boundaries of their
competence, although it remains unclear as to whether explicitly
Christian programs actually expand these boundaries vis-a-vis
non-religious programs. In addition, research shows that in the absence
of specific training in these areas, psychologists may employ religious
or spiritual interventions in ways that are not thoughtfully
incorporated into the therapeutic context (Sorenson & Hales, 2002).
A number of previous studies have investigated the extent to which
doctoral students in psychology are trained in religious and spiritual
issues (Brawer et al., 2002; Green, Callands, Radcliffe, Luebbe, &
Klonoff, 2009; Russell & Yarhouse, 2006; Schafer et al., 2011;
Schulte et al., 2002). All of these studies suggest cause for concern as
religious and spiritual issues receive relatively little emphasis in
training. In the most recent published study on the topic, Vogel et al.
(2013) gathered survey data from doctoral students, interns, faculty,
directors of training, and internship directors and compared religious
and spiritual diversity training with other forms of diversity training.
In all, they collected data from 532 respondents from 50 doctoral
programs and 60 internship sites and concluded that very little emphasis
is being placed on religious and spiritual diversity training in
doctoral psychology programs.
How do the Vogel et al. (2013) findings compare to the experience
of doctoral students at explicitly Christian institutions? The current
study is a replication of the Vogel et al. study, but at five explicitly
Christian doctoral training programs in professional psychology.
Comparing results from explicitly Christian programs with the broader
sample collected by Vogel et al., we expected students at Christian
institutions to report relatively greater training emphasis in religious
and spiritual diversity issues than other programs in clinical
psychology. We did not expect differences between samples in other areas
of diversity training.
Methods
Procedure
To facilitate a multisite study, a team of collaborators at four
explicitly Christian APA-accredited psychology doctoral programs was
assembled. A faculty member at an additional Christian APA-accredited
psychology doctoral program agreed to help collect data but opted not to
be a collaborator on the study. After review boards at the various
institutions approved the study, students were invited to participate in
the study. In most cases, the survey instrument was distributed in
classrooms and then collected at a later time. No identifying
information was collected from respondents, making their responses
anonymous. In order to foster collaboration among programs, all
co-investigators agreed that the data obtained would not be used to
compare specific Christian programs with other programs. As such, all
data are reported in the aggregate.
Participants
The four collaborators provided the number of students currently
studying on campus in their doctoral clinical psychology program (s)
(predoctoral interns were excluded), resulting in a total of 455
potential respondents. The number of potential students at each of these
schools ranged from 90 to 160. In addition, a colleague at another
Christian doctoral program in clinical psychology offered to distribute
50 survey packets to a subset of students studying at that institution,
resulting in a total of 505 potential respondents. Completed
questionnaires were obtained from 353 doctoral students, for an overall
response rate of 70%.
Among the 353 respondents, 67.5% were female. Approximately
two-thirds (67.6%) reported a European American ethnicity, with another
11.9% being Asian American, 4.3% African American, 7.7% Hispanic/
Latino/a, 0.9% Native American, 4.5% Multiracial, and 3.0% Other. Just
over half (57.3%) reported being trained in a practitioner-scholar model
with most of the remaining respondents (34.2%) reporting a
scientist-practitioner model. The distribution among years of training
was quite even, with 25.8% of respondents being in the first year of
training, 26.5% in the second year, 26.7% in the third year, and 19.9%
in the fourth or fifth year. The average age of respondents was 27.25
years (standard deviation of 4.98), ranging from 21 to 54.
The comparison group consisted of 129 students at 50 different
APA-accredited doctoral programs in clinical or counseling psychology
from a study reported by Vogel et al. (2013). Respondents in the current
study completed the same questionnaire as was used for the comparison
sample. Only one program in Vogel et al.'s sample was an explicitly
Christian program. Only 11 students in the current study came from the
explicitly Christian program included in the Vogel et al. study. Though
both studies used anonymous data collection methods, we can be quite
confident that the samples were independent because the data for the two
samples were collected two years apart (2011 and 2013) and because all
of the 11 respondents from the school in question were in their second
and third years of training for the current study. These students would
have not been in the program yet, or in their first year of training
during the Vogel et al. study (and very few first year students were
surveyed in that study).
Though Vogel et al. (2013) collected data from doctoral students,
faculty, training directors, and interns, only student respondents from
that study were used in order to allow for a reasonably close comparison
with the student data collected in the current study. Several
differences were noted between the students sampled from explicitly
Christian schools and the students in the comparison group. Students
from explicitly Christian schools were younger (26.63 years) than
students in the comparison group (28.91 years), t (473) = 4.52, p <
.001, d = 0.45. Accordingly, students in explicitly Christian programs
had been in their programs fewer years (2.25 years) than students in the
comparison group (3.18 years), t (470) =7.84, p < .001, d = 0.78. In
addition, fewer students from explicitly Christian programs were female
(64.1% as compared to 76.7% in the comparison group), [X.sup.2] (1, N =
477) = 6.88, p = .008. Students in explicitly Christian programs were
also less likely to be European American (62.8%, as compared to 80.5% in
the comparison group), [X.sup.2] (1, N = 469) = 13.33, p < .001.
Finally, students in explicitly Christian programs were more likely to
report being trained in a practitioner-scholar model (72.6%) whereas
more students in the comparison group reported being trained in a
scientist-practitioner model (69.8%), [X.sup.2] (1, N = 443) = 98.09, p
< .001. Because of these differences, demographic variables were used
as covariates in subsequent analyses.
Instruments
The same survey instruments used by Vogel et al. (2013) were used
for this study, with each respondent randomly selected to receive one of
two forms of the questionnaire. Form A of the questionnaire asked about
training in religious diversity whereas the Form B used the term
spiritual diversity. The items were identical on the two forms except
the words "religious" or "religion" in Form A were
replaced with "spiritual" or "spirituality" in Form
B. Vogel et al. found no distinction in how respondents answered
questions on Form A and Form B and combined results on the two forms for
purposes of analysis. These two versions were included in case
respondents were to perceive training in religion differently than
training in spirituality.
Respondents answered a total of 28 items, which were divided into
three sets of questions: Perceived Effectiveness of Diversity Training,
Advanced Competencies in Religious/Spiritual Diversity, and Methods of
Training in Religious/Spiritual Diversity. The Perceived Effectiveness
of Diversity Training section was comprised of seven items on a 5-point
Likert-type scale ranging from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree.
Respondents were asked to rate the extent to which their training
program is equipping them with knowledge and skills in seven forms of
diversity (gender, ethnic/ racial, sexual orientation, age,
disabilities, socioeconomic, religious/spiritual). The Advanced
Competencies in Religious/Spiritual Diversity section was comprised of
12 items examining advanced competency in either religious or spiritual
diversity (e.g., "case conceptualization in light of clients'
religious values"), using the same Likert-type scale as was used in
the first section. The Methods of Training in Religious/ Spiritual
Diversity section requested the information about how diversity training
is accomplished in the respondents' doctoral training program. This
section contained nine items (coursework; advisers and mentors;
practicum experiences; peer interaction; personal therapy; didactics,
seminars, and/or grand rounds; extracurricular pursuits; research;
other) on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from Never to Always.
Results
A number of tests were used to investigate differences both within
the sample of students from explicitly Christian programs and between
these students and the comparison group. To control for Type I error,
and because the sample size was deemed large enough to have minimal risk
of Type II error, a conservative alpha of .01 was used for all analyses.
Religious and Spiritual Diversity
Vogel et al. (2013) discovered that students responded in similar
ways whether receiving the religious diversity or spiritual diversity
version of the questionnaire, so they combined results for the two
questionnaires in their analyses. Similarly, respondents in the current
study responded similarly to the two versions of the questionnaire. This
was determined by computing a mixed model multivariate analysis of
variance (MANOVA) with the two forms of the questionnaire as the
between-groups factor and the seven items in the Perceived Effectiveness
of Diversity Training section as the repeated-measures factor.
Repeated-measures differences were found, indicating that students
reported being trained better in some forms of diversity than others,
Wilks' [lambda] (6,469) = .48,p < .001, but no between-group
differences were found, A (1, 474) = 0.37, p = .54. The same pattern
emerged when the 12 items in the Advanced Competencies in
Religious/Spiritual Diversity section were compared in a similar mixed
model MANOVA. That is, significant repeated-measures differences were
observed for the 12 items, Wilks' [lambda] (11,465) = .37,p <
.001, but no between-groups differences were observed, A (1, 475) =
1.65,p = .20. Given that no differences were observed between those
responding to religious diversity and those responding to spiritual
diversity, all responses were combined for subsequent analyses.
Importance of Religion and Spirituality
Respondents were asked to rate the importance of religion to them
on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (Not at all important; I
have none) to 5 (Extremely important; It is the center of my life).
Similarly, participants were asked to rate the importance of
spirituality in their life, using a similar scale. An analysis of
covariance (ANCOVA) was used to compare samples on both importance of
religion and spirituality. Covariates included the demographic variables
where the two samples differed. In the case of the ethnicity and
training model variables, the nominal data collected were transformed
into binary dummy variables so that they could meet the assumptions of
ANCOVA. Respondents in explicitly Christian doctoral programs were
substantially higher on both ratings than respondents in the more
general sample from Vogel et al. (2013). Among students in explicitly
Christian programs the average importance of religion was 4.26 (SD =
0.82) as compared to the comparison sample where the importance of
religion was 2.60 (SD = 1.41), F(1, 426) = 127.32, p < .001, d =
1.44. No covariate effects were observed. Students in explicitly
Christian programs rated the importance of spirituality as 4.23 (SD =
0.96) whereas the general sample averaged 3.38 (SD = 1.25), F(1, 426) =
33.32, p < .001, d = 0.76. A covariate effect was observed, with
reported importance of spirituality increasing slightly with age, F(1,
426) = 10.53, p = .001, r = .075.
Perceived Effectiveness of Diversity T raining
To determine if perceived differences in diversity training exist
both within types of diversity training and between the two samples of
students, a mixed model multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA)
was computed with the seven types of diversity as the repeated-measures
variable and the two samples as the between-groups variable. The same
covariates as described previously were used. Though overall differences
were not observed between the two samples, F(1, 424) = 0.61, p = .44, a
significant interaction effect was found, Wilks' [lambda] (6, 419)
= .84, p < .001. This suggests that students in both the explicitly
Christian and general samples perceive a similar amount of overall
diversity training, but the specific diversities in which they are best
trained vary between the samples. These differences justified a profile
analysis where the mean ratings of the seven diversities were rank
ordered and then each mean was compared with the adjacent mean. Results
of the profile analysis are reported in Table 1. Based on these overall
MANOVA results, we followed up with a series of independent samples
1-tests to compare the two samples on the seven areas of diversity.
Results are reported in Table 1.
Two covariate by repeated-measures interactions were also observed.
Reported exposure to different forms of diversity was different among
students in different years of training, Wilks' [lambda] (6,419) =
.95 ,p = .002. It makes intuitive sense that diversity training would
vary with years of training, which may or may not be related to the
hypothesis of this study. To test this we computed a 2 x 4 analysis of
variance (ANOVA) with the sample and the year of training as independent
variables and religious diversity training as the dependent variable. As
expected, a main effect was found for the sample, F(1, 462) = 58.22, p
< .001. No main effect was found for year in training, and no
interaction effect was found. Also, reported diversity training differed
by training model, Wilks' [lambda] (6, 419) = 2.87, p = .009. A 2 x
2 ANOVA was computed to see if this is relevant to religious diversity
training. The sample and the training model were used as independent
variables and religious diversity training as the dependent variable.
The expected main effect was found for the sample, F(1, 437) = 29.75, p
< .001. No main effect was found for training model, and no
interaction effect was observed.
Advanced Competencies in Religious/Spiritual Diversity
A similar procedure was followed for the 12 advanced
religion/spirituality competencies. As with areas of diversity,
differences were observed in the repeated-measures by sample
interaction, Wilks' [lambda] (11, 415) = .85, p < .001,
justifying a profile analysis (see Table 2). Overall differences were
observed between samples, F(1, 425) = 115.57, p < .001. As seen in
Table 2, many of the items show very large effect sizes between the two
samples. Overall, students in explicitly Christian programs report
receiving more training in these advanced competency areas than students
in the general sample of APA-accredited programs. A covariate by
repeated-measures interaction was observed for year in training,
Wilks' [lambda] (6, 415) = .94, p = .007, indicating that some
forms of advanced training in religious issues occur earlier in training
than other forms of advanced training.
Methods of Training in Religious/Spiritual Diversity
Finally, a similar MANOVA was computed for the first eight methods
of diversity-training questions. The final question in this section was
titled, "Other" and required respondents to write in an
additional method of training not covered in the other eight items.
Because only 49 participants provided a response to this item, and
because their responses were not uniform, this final item was omitted
from the MANOVA. Differences were observed in the repeated-measures by
sample interaction, Wilks' [lambda]. (7, 355) = .81, p < .001,
justifying a profile analysis (see Table 3). Overall differences were
observed between samples, F(1, 361) = 64.18,p < .001. As seen in
Table 3, many of the items show very large effect sizes between the two
samples. Overall, students in explicitly Christian programs report
receiving more training in religious and spiritual diversity than
students in the general sample of APA-accredited programs. No covariate
effects were observed.
Discussion
Based on student report, it appears that explicitly Christian
programs provide diversity training in religious and spiritual issues
that surpasses other APA-accredited doctoral programs. This is a
consistent finding seen in overall diversity training ratings, advanced
competencies in religious and spiritual issues, and reported methods of
training. Based on student report, this religious and diversity training
appears to apply across religious traditions, and not just with
Christian clients. At the same time, students in explicitly Christian
training programs report receiving relatively less diversity training
than other APA-accredited programs in areas of ethnic/racial diversity
and socioeconomic diversity. No differences were reported in diversity
training related to gender, sexual orientation, age, or disabilities.
Training Implications
Throughout the past decade a number of researchers have been
calling for greater attention to religious and spiritual issues in
APA-accredited doctoral programs (Brawer et al., 2002; Hage, 2006;
Hathaway et al., 2004; Schulte et al., 2002; Vogel et al., 2013). The
APA now has many training resources available, including published books
and videos, but religious and spiritual diversity training still appears
to be lagging behind other forms of diversity training (Vogel et al.,
2013). Perhaps the best news from the current study is that some
programs seem to have accomplished this relatively well. The large
effect sizes are especially worth noting. In areas such as considering
professional ethics and countertransference in relation to religious and
spiritual issues, and implementing religious or spiritual interventions
in psychotherapy (Aten, McMinn, & Worthington, 2011), the
differences between explicitly Christian programs and other
APA-accredited programs are striking. One area of professional service
for faculty and students within explicitly Christian programs is to make
their training methods known through presentations at APA conventions
and publications (e.g., McMinn et al., 2014). From the present study, it
appears that coursework, didactics, and advising/mentoring related to
religious and spiritual issues are perceived very differently at
explicitly Christian programs than at other APA-accredited programs (all
have effect sizes greater than 1).
Vogel et al. (2013) observed that the most frequent advanced
competency observed among their respondents in areas of religion and
spirituality pertains to understanding religious issues related to
abnormal behavior. Interestingly, this advanced competency is the only
one where a difference was not observed between students in explicitly
Christian programs and students in other APA-accredited programs. This
supports the concern raised by Vogel et al. that considering
psychopathology may be the primary way that students in many
APA-accredited doctoral programs are exposed to religion and
spirituality. This would be unfortunate for many reasons, including the
failure to see the adaptive and health-promoting dimensions of religion
and spirituality (Koenig, King, & Carson, 2012).
Another training implication from this study is that explicitly
Christian programs appear to be exposing students to relatively less
diversity training in areas of ethnic/racial diversity and socioeconomic
diversity. It is important to note that these programs were considered
in aggregate for purposes of this study, so it is possible that some
individual programs are doing better than others in these areas of
diversity training. Also, it is important to note that racial/ethnic
diversity remains among the highest rated diversity training areas for
students in explicitly Christian programs. This area of training is not
being overlooked. It is worth noting that respondents from explicitly
Christian programs were reporting at an earlier point in training than
students in the comparison sample. It is likely that some students early
in training had not yet taken courses in multicultural diversity.
Socioeconomic diversity training receives a moderate degree of attention
in explicitly Christian programs--less than spiritual, racial/ethnic,
and gender diversity, but more than sexual orientation, age, and
disabilities. In contrast, it was the among the highest rated forms of
diversity training in Vogel et al.'s study, second only to
ethnic/racial diversity. Reasons for the disparity in socioeconomic
diversity training are less clear, and worthy of further investigation.
We hope these findings serve as reminders to faculty in explicitly
Christian programs to monitor and maintain excellence in all area of
diversity training, including racial/ethnic and socioeconomic diversity.
Diversity training requires a degree of creativity and ongoing
innovation. Having an active diversity committee comprised of both
faculty and students is one way to keep various forms of diversity
training central in program planning and implementation.
Limitations and Future Research
Perhaps the most unsettling limitation of this study is the
reliance on student self-report. Student perceptions of training are
presumably good markers, or at least ubiquitous markers insofar as most
programs rely on student evaluations to assess faculty competency.
Previous research has demonstrated that alumni and faculty perceptions
of training tend to be somewhat more favorable than student perceptions
(McMinn, Bearse, Heyne, & Staley, 2011; McMinn, Hill, & Griffin,
2004; Vogel et al., 2013). In future studies it may be best to determine
training acumen by including external markers such as the type of
research being published at explicitly Christian programs or the type of
patient care being provided by faculty, students, and alumni of these
programs.
The explicitly Christian sample had more diversity than the
comparison sample, both in terms of ethnic diversity and gender
diversity. Students in the explicitly Christian programs were also
earlier in training than students in the comparison group. Though these
variables were used as covariates in the analyses, it would be optimal
to have more balanced samples for future studies.
It would also be helpful to study the extent to which diversity
training is a zero-sum endeavor. Does excellence in one form of
diversity training necessarily result in less training among other forms
of diversity? If not, can exemplary programs be identified that train
students well in all forms of diversity, including religious and
spiritual diversity?
Conclusion
Based on self-report information from current students in
explicitly Christian programs, it appears that these programs are
succeeding in providing a training environment that considers religious
and spiritual diversity as well as providing advanced competencies in
working with religious and spiritual issues in clinical psychology. This
is being accomplished through coursework, mentoring, didactics, and
other supplementary training opportunities.
Author Note: Correspondence concerning this article should be
addressed to Mark R. McMinn, Graduate Department of Clinical Psychology,
George Fox University, 414 N. Meridian St., #V104, Newberg, OR 97132.
Email: mmcminn@georgefox.edu.
Mark R. McMinn
George Fox University
Michael J. Vogel
Private Practice
M. Elizabeth Lewis Hall
Biola University
Alexis D. Abernethy
Fuller Theological Seminary
Ryan Birch, Timofey Galuza, and Jacqi Rodriguez
George Fox University
Kathryn Putman
Azusa Pacific University
References
American Psychological Association. (2010). Ethical principles of
psychologists and code of conduct. Retrieved from http://apa.org/
ethics/code/index.aspx
Aten, J. D., McMinn, M. R., & Worthington, E. D., Jr. (2011).
Spiritually oriented interventions in psychotherapy. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Brawer, P. A., Handal, P. J., Fabricatore, A. N., Roberts, R.,
& Wajda-Johnston, V. A. (2002). Training and education in religion/
spirituality within APA-accredited clinical psychology programs.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33, 203-206.
Campbell, C. D. (2011). APA accreditation of doctoral psychology
programs in Christian universities. Journal of Psychology and Theology,
39, 59-67.
Delaney, H. D., Miller, W. R., & Bisono, A. M. (2007).
Religiosity and spirituality among psychologists: A survey of clinician
members of the American Psychological Association. Professional
Psychology: Research and Practice, 38, 538-546.
Gallup Polls, Inc. (2009). Religion. Retrieved February 4, 2010,
from http://www.gallup.com/poll/ 1690/religion.aspx
Gallup Polls, Inc. (2010). In U.S., increasing number have no
religious identity. Retrieved December 12, 2011, from http://www.gallup.
com/poll/128276/Increasing-Number-No-Religious-Identity.aspx
Green, D., Callands, T. A., Radcliffe, A. M., Luebbe, A. M., &
Klonoff, E. A. (2009). Clinical psychology students' perceptions of
diversity training: A study of exposure and satisfaction. Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 65, 1056-1070.
Hage, S. M. (2006). A closer look at the role of spirituality in
psychology training programs. Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, 37, 303-310.
Hathaway, W. L., Scott, S. Y., & Garver, S. A. (2004).
Assessing religious/spiritual functioning: A neglected domain in
clinical practice? Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 35,
97-104.
Johnson, W. B., & McMinn, M. R. (2003). Thirty years of
integrative doctoral training: Historic developments, assessment of
outcomes, and recommendations for the future. Journal of Psychology and
Theology, 31, 83-96.
Koenig, H. G., King, D., & Carson, V. B. (Eds.). (2012).
Handbook of religion and health (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
McMinn, M. R., Bearse, J. L., Heyne, L. K., & Staley, R. C.
(2011). Satisfaction with clinical training in Christian psychology
doctoral programs: Survey findings and implications. Journal of
Psychology and Christianity, 30, 156-162.
McMinn, M. R., Bufford, R. K., Vogel, M. J., Gerdin, T., Goetsch,
B., Block, M. M.,... Wiarda, N. R. (2014). Religious and spiritual
diversity training in professional psychology: A case study. Training
and Education in Professional Psychology, 5(1), 51-57.
McMinn, M. R., Hathaway, W. L., Woods, S. W., & Snow, K. N.
(2009). What American Psychological Association leaders have to say
about Psychology of Religion and Spirituality. Psychology of Religion
and Spirituality, 1, 3-13.
McMinn, M. R., Hill, P. C., & Griffin, J. W. (2004).
Satisfaction with research training in Christian psychology doctoral
programs: Survey findings and implication s. Journal of Psychology and
Christianity's, 305-312.
Russell, S. R., & Yarhouse, M. A. (2006). Training in
religion/spirituality within APA-accredited psychology predoctoral
internships. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 37,
430-436.
Schafer, R. M., Handal, P. J., & Brawer, P. A. (2011). Training
and education in religion/spirituality within APA-accredited clinical
psychology programs: 8 years later. Journal of Religion and Health, 50,
232-239. doi: 10.1007/s10943-009-9272-8
Schulte, D. L., Skinner, T. A., & Claiborn, C. D. (2002).
Religious and spiritual issues in counseling psychology training. The
Counseling Psychologist, 30, 118-134.
Sorenson, R. L., & Hales, S. (2002). Comparing evangelical
protestant psychologists trained at secular versus religiously
affiliated programs. Psychotherapy: Theory/Research/Practice/Training 2,
163-170.
Vogel, M. J., McMinn, M. R., Peterson, M. A., & Gathercoal, K.
A. (2013). Examining religion and spirituality as diversity training: A
multidimensional study of doctoral training in the American
Psychological Association. Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, 44, 158-167.
Author Information
McMINN, MARK R. PhD. Address: Graduate Department of Clinical
Psychology, George Fox University, 414 N Meridian Street, #V104,
Newberg, OR 97132. Title: Professor of Psychology. Degrees: PhD
(Vanderbilt University). Specializations: Church-psychology
collaboration, integration of psychology and Christianity, positive
psychology.
VOGEL, MICHAEL J. PsyD. Address: Private Practice, 1408 Poyntz
Avenue, Manhattan, KS 66502. Title: Clinical Psychologist. Degrees: PsyD
(George Fox University). Specializations: Integration of psychology and
Christianity, psychodynamic psychotherapy, religious and spiritual
diversity.
HALL, M. ELIZABETH LEWIS. PhD. Address: Biola University, Rosemead
School of Psychology, 13800 Biola Avenue, La Mirada, CA 90639. Title:
Professor of psychology. Degrees: PhD (Biola University).
Specializations: Women's issues, integration of psychology and
Christianity, mental health and missions.
ABERNETHY, ALEXIS D. PhD. Address: Graduate School of Psychology,
Fuller Theological Seminary, 180 North Oakland Avenue, Pasadena, CA
91101. Title: Professor of Psychology. Degrees: PhD (University of
California, Berkeley), CGP (Certified Group Psychotherapist), FAGPA
(Fellow of the American Group Psychotherapy Association).
Specializations: Spirituality and health.
BIRCH, RYAN F. MA. Address: Graduate Department of Clinical
Psychology, George Fox University, 414 N Meridian Street, Newberg, OR
97132. Title: Doctoral candidate in clinical psychology. Degrees: BA
(Christian Ministry) Azusa Pacific University, MA (Clinical Psychology)
George Fox University. Specializations: Psychoanalysis, integration of
psychology and Christianity.
GALUZA, TIMOFEY S. MA. Address: Graduate Department of Clinical
Psychology, George Fox University, 414 N Meridian Street, Newberg, OR
97132. Title: Doctoral candidate in clinical psychology. Degrees: BA
(Psychology) University of Portland, MA (Clinical Psychology) George Fox
University. Specializations: Psychological assessment.
RODRIGUEZ, JACQI M. MA. Address: Graduate Department of Clinical
Psychology, George Fox University, 414 N Meridian Street, Newberg, OR
97132. Title: Pre-doctoral psychology intern. Degrees: MA (Clinical
Psychology) George Fox University.
PUTMAN, KATHERINE M. PsyD. Address: Graduate School of Psychology,
Azusa Pacific University, 901 E. Alosta Avenue, P.O. Box 7000, Azusa, CA
91702. Title: Associate Professor of Psychology. Degrees: PsyD (Wheaton
College). Specializations: Cross-cultural psychology, child and
adolescent trauma, spiritual outcomes of therapy.
TABLE 1
Perceived Effectiveness of Diversity Training by Sample
Explicitly General Sample
My training institution has equipped Christian (Vogel et al.,
doctoral students with knowledge of and Programs 2013)
skills for issues related to... (N = 348) (n = 129)
religious/spiritual diversity 4.06 3.26
ethnic and racial diversity 3.99 4.32
gender diversity 3.67 * 3.73
socioeconomic diversity 3.66 4.03
sexual orientation diversity 3.45 * 3.66
age diversity 3.25 * 3.32
diversity pertaining to disabilities 3.13 * 3.36
My training institution has equipped
doctoral students with knowledge of and Group
skills for issues related to... Differences (a)
religious/spiritual diversity t = 7.81, p < .001
d = 0.81
ethnic and racial diversity t = 4.16, p < .001
d = 0.45
gender diversity No differences
socioeconomic diversity t = 3.94, p < .001
d = 0.41
sexual orientation diversity No differences
age diversity No differences
diversity pertaining to disabilities No differences
Note. Possible scale responses for each item range from 1 to 5, with
1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree, and 5 =
Strongly Agree. Items arranged in descending order based on ratings
of students in explicitly Christian programs.
(a) Compares students from explicitly Christian programs with
students from the general sample using an independent samples t-
test. Both the within-group and between-groups tests were conducted
with a conservative alpha of 0.01 to control for Type I error.
* p < .01. Item rating is significantly lower than the preceding
item, using a paired-samples t-test.
TABLE 2
Advanced Competencies in Religious/Spiritual Diversity
My training institution has Explicitly General
equipped doctoral students with Christian Sample (Vogel
knowledge of and skills for issues Programs et al., 2013)
related to... (N = 348) (n = 129)
ethical guidelines and professional 4.15 3.05
standards for religion.
case conceptualization in light of 4.02 * 3.24
clients' religious values.
considering religion when determining 3.87 * 3.69
if behavior is abnormal.
countertransference issues with 3.75 2.48
religiously committed clients.
self-reflective practices during work 3.73 2.72
with religious clients.
assessment methods that consider 3.66 2.68
religion in clients' lives.
implementing religious interventions 3.59 2.24
in clinical work.
conducting research that is sensitive 3.56 2.94
to religious diversity.
views of personhood from the 3.38 * 2.74
perspectives of major religions.
consultation skills related to 3.30 2.56
religious diversity.
interdisciplinary collaboration with 3.02 2.18
religious leaders.
understanding the major world 2.98 2.43
religions.
My training institution has
equipped doctoral students with Group
knowledge of and skills for issues Differences
related to ... (a)
ethical guidelines and professional t = 12.60, p < .001
standards for religion. d = 1.18
case conceptualization in light of t = 8.63, p < .001
clients' religious values. d = 0.85
considering religion when determining No differences
if behavior is abnormal.
countertransference issues with t = 12.98, p < .001
religiously committed clients. d = 1.30
self-reflective practices during work t = 10.65, p < .001
with religious clients. d = 1.06
assessment methods that consider t = 9.60, p < .001
religion in clients' lives. d = 1.01
implementing religious interventions t = 13.24, p < .001
in clinical work. d = 1.36
conducting research that is sensitive t = 5.96, p < .001
to religious diversity. d = 0.59
views of personhood from the t = 6.12, p < .001
perspectives of major religions. d = 0.63
consultation skills related to t = 7.45, p < .001
religious diversity. d = 0.77
interdisciplinary collaboration with t = 8.25, p < .001
religious leaders. d = 0.86
understanding the major world t = 5.38, p < .001
religions. d = 0.56
Note. Possible scale responses for each item range from 1 to 5, with
1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree, and 5 =
Strongly Agree. Items arranged in descending order based on ratings
of students in explicitly Christian programs.
(a) Compares students from explicitly Christian programs with
students from the general sample using an independent samples t-
test. Both the within-group and between-groups tests were conducted
with a conservative alpha of 0.01 to control for Type I error.
* p < .01. Item rating is significantly lower than the preceding
item, using a paired-samples t-test.
TABLE 3
Methods of Training in Religious/Spiritual Diversity
At your training institution, please
indicate how frequently you believe the
following sources of learning are used Explicitly General Sample
to prepare doctoral students for Christian (Vogel et al.,
professional work with respect to Programs 2013)
religious/spiritual diversity (N= 348) (n = 129)
Coursework (e.g., assigned readings, 3.98 2.73
class projects)
Advisers and Mentors 3.79 * 2.78
Peer Interaction (e.g., student-led 3.72 3.00
dialogue, peer feedback)
Practicum Experiences (e.g., 3.49 * 3.17
supervision, client contact)
Didactics, Seminars, and/or Grand 3.44 2.48
Rounds
Extracurricular Pursuits (e.g., 3.40 2.81
conferences, voluntary readings)
Personal Therapy 3.34 2.04
Research (e.g., peer-reviewed articles) 3.32 2.81
At your training institution, please
indicate how frequently you believe the
following sources of learning are used
to prepare doctoral students for
professional work with respect to Group
religious/spiritual diversity Differences (a)
Coursework (e.g., assigned readings, t = 13.56, p < .001
class projects) d = 1.30
Advisers and Mentors t = 10.03, p < .001
d = 1.01
Peer Interaction (e.g., student-led r = 7.80, p < .001
dialogue, peer feedback) d = 0.75
Practicum Experiences (e.g., t = 2.94, p = .003
supervision, client contact) d = 0.30
Didactics, Seminars, and/or Grand t = 9.89, p < .001
Rounds d = 1.05
Extracurricular Pursuits (e.g., t = 5.97, p < .001
conferences, voluntary readings) d = 0.59
Personal Therapy t = 10.36, p < .001
d = 1.16
Research (e.g., peer-reviewed articles) t = 5.38, p < .001
d = 0.55
Note. Possible scale responses for each item range from 1 to 5, with
1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Agree, and 5 =
Strongly Agree. Items arranged in descending order based on ratings
of students in explicitly Christian programs.
(a) Compares students from explicitly Christian programs with
students from the general sample using an independent samples t-
test. Both the within-group and between-groups tests were conducted
with a conservative alpha of 0.01 to control for Type I error.
* p < .01. Item rating is significantly lower than the preceding
item, using a paired-samples t-test.
