Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Examination for Professional Practice in Psychology (EPPP) taken by professional (Vail Model) graduates had a failure rate of 30.82% in contrast to 7.60% for EPPP licensing exams taken by traditional (Boulder Model) graduates of clinical psychology programs. Thus, exams taken by professional graduates were 4.06 more likely to result in failure. It was acknowledged that it is not known whether EPPP performance is related to psychotherapy outcome.

Keywords

licensing exam professional schools clinical psychology psychology social sciences examination for professional practice in psychology examination failure rate

It has now been more than a decade since the correlates of performance on the national licensing exam, the Examination for Professional Practice in Psychology (EPPP) of clinical psychology graduates was reported (Templer & Tomeo, 1998b; Yu et al., 1997). In that research with 45 professional school (Vail Model) programs and 83 traditional (Boulder Model) programs, EPPP scores correlated .78 with 1988-1995 median Verbal + Quantitative + Analytical Graduate Record Examination (GRE) scores, .65 with minimum Verbal + Quantitative + Analytical GRE, .56 with American Psychological Association approval, −.49 with ratio of full-time students to core faculty, −.46 with number of doctorates awarded, .46 with minimum Analytical GRE, and −.44 with number of full-time students enrolled. The findings that were most controversial and most professionally relevant involved the high EPPP scores of the traditional program graduates, which were especially obvious at both ends of the distribution. The top of the distribution was dominated by traditional programs and the bottom of the distribution was dominated by professional programs. The traditional programs were superior not only on the EPPP total score and the Research subtests but also on the Diagnostic, Intervention, and Professional/Ethics subtests (Templer & Tomeo, 2000). Subsequent research demonstrated that a salient difference still existed for EPPP scores 1997-2005 (Templer, Stroup, Mancuso, & Tangen, 2008).

The findings are especially noteworthy to professional schools because they purport to produce a superior professional product. Independent professional practice is not possible without passing the EPPP. Unfortunately for the image of professional schools, their graduates tend not to do well on other indicators of professional functioning. They are less likely to be a diplomate in the American Board of Professional Psychology (ABPP), less likely to be president of state psychological associations, and less likely to be directors of the Association of Psychology Postdoctoral and Internship Centers (APPIC; Templer et al., 2000). The generally less satisfactory performance of professional school graduates has led to the inference that there are two tiers of clinical training in the United States (Templer, 2005b).

The present study went beyond the previous EPPP research comparing professional (Vail Model) and traditional (Boulder Model) clinical psychology graduates in two ways. (a) The Educational and Reporting Service had reported mean EPPP scores of programs and such was used in the previous research. The Educational and Reporting Service currently provides number and percentage of exams taken and passed for each program. Kenkel, DeLeon, Albino, and Porter (2003) suggested that pass rate may be more important than mean score. This appears to be a reasonable perspective. The psychologist with a perfect EPPP score receives the same license as the one who barely passes. (b) The previous research on the EPPP compared mean scores of professional and traditional graduates has actually attenuated the true differences because professional school means are based on a much larger N. The larger N is a function of both professional schools graduating more students per program and because of having to take the EPPP again. In the present study, we not only report pass/fail mean program rates but also consider the number of exam taken and passed/failed by the composite of professional programs and traditional programs.

Method

The EPPP pass rate information was obtained from the Association of State and Professional Provincial Boards (ASPPB; 2010) for 2005-2009 for 217 clinical psychology programs: 154 traditional programs (140 American and 14 Canadian) and 63 professional (all American) programs. ASPPB only included programs that had three or more exams. An additional caveat is that pass is based on a score of 500, which is the passing score of the preponderance of states and provinces. If one wishes to determine the exact pass rate of a jurisdiction, one should communicate with that jurisdiction. It should be borne in mind that N pertains to number of exams taken and not necessarily the number of different graduates having taken the exam. That is, the number of exams taken includes an unknown number of retakes. The Alliant/California School of Professional Psychology (CSPP)–Berkeley 11 exams were combined with the 268 Alliant/CSPP-Alameda graduates because there was a change in location but not program. Only straight clinical psychology programs were included. Clinical-neuropsychology, clinical-health, clinical-ethnic minority, clinical-family child, clinical psychodynamic, combined clinical/counseling/school, clinical-community, child-clinical, clinical school, combined professional scientific, clinical psychology-health and medical, clinical psychology-law, physiological-developmental clinical, and adult-clinical were excluded. There were 31 programs excluded due to being combined with other areas in contrast to 217 solely clinical programs whose data were analyzed. It should be further noted that the American Psychological Association accredits not only clinical psychology programs but also counseling and school programs. The latter two categories were not used because virtually all of the professional schools have clinical psychology programs, although some may have counseling and school elements.

Results

The readers should bear I mind that the past pass/failure rates pertain to the exams taken and not number of graduates. It is not known whether a failure is for the 1st time the graduate took the test or the 20th time. It is conceivable that a small percentage of professional graduates experience multiple failures but the overwhelming preponderance of professional graduates pass the EPPP on the first attempt.

Table 1 contains the number of exams taken and pass rates for the 63 professional (Vail Model) and 154 traditional (Boulder Model) programs. Tied programs are listed in alphabetical order. Professional programs have a “P” in front of them and are capitalized. Traditional programs have a “T” in front of them.

Table 1.

Number and Pass Rates of All 217 Clinical Psychology Programs on EPPP.

Schools	Professional or traditional	No. of exams taken	No. of exams passed	Pass rate (%)
Allegheny University of the Health Sciences (formerly Hahnemann University)	T	4	4	100.0
American University	T	23	23	100.0
Arizona State University	T	13	13	100.0
Catholic University	T	29	29	100.0
Case Western Reserve University	T	19	19	100.0
Clark University	T	15	15	100.0
George Mason University	T	34	34	100.0
George Peabody College of Vanderbilt University	T	7	7	100.0
Idaho State University	T	21	21	100.0
Indiana University	T	7	7	100.0
INDIANA UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA	P	20	20	100.0
INSTITUTE FOR THE PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCES	P	3	3	100.0
Marquette University	T	17	17	100.0
McGill University	T	15	15	100.0
Northwestern University–Psychology Department	T	10	10	100.0
Ohio State University	T	23	23	100.0
Ohio University	T	22	22	100.0
Pennsylvania State University	T	33	33	100.0
Purdue University	T	9	9	100.0
Queens University	T	12	12	100.0
Simon Fraser University	T	10	10	100.0
State University of New York at Binghamton	T	25	25	100.0
Syracuse University	T	7	7	100.0
Temple University	T	28	28	100.0
Texas A&M University	T	26	26	100.0
Texas Tech University	T	13	13	100.0
Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences	T	7	7	100.0
University of British Columbia	T	18	18	100.0
University of California–Berkeley	T	17	17	100.0
University of Connecticut	T	28	28	100.0
University of Delaware	T	11	11	100.0
University of Maine	T	10	10	100.0
University of Miami	T	42	42	100.0
University of Georgia	T	25	25	100.0
University of Houston–University Park	T	24	24	100.0
University of Kansas	T	26	26	100.0
University of Missouri–Columbia	T	7	7	100.0
University of Missouri–St. Louis	T	22	22	100.0
University of New Brunswick	T	8	8	100.0
University of New Mexico	T	13	13	100.0
University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill	T	21	21	100.0
University of North Carolina–Greensboro	T	26	26	100.0
University of Pennsylvania	T	8	8	100.0
University of Pittsburgh	T	13	13	100.0
University of Rochester	T	10	10	100.0
University of Tulsa	T	17	17	100.0
University of Waterloo	T	9	9	100.0
University of Wisconsin–Madison	T	10	10	100.0
University of Wyoming	T	10	10	100.0
Wayne State University	T	32	32	100.0
Yale University	T	6	6	100.0
BAYLOR UNIVERSITY	P	38	37	97.4
Kent State University	T	35	34	97.1
University of South Carolina	T	33	32	97.0
Michigan State University	T	32	31	96.9
Louisiana State University	T	31	30	96.8
University of Texas–Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas–Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences	T	31	30	96.8
Central Michigan University	T	30	29	96.7
University of Tennessee	T	28	27	96.4
INDIANA STATE UNIVERSITY	P	26	25	96.2
University of North Texas	T	25	24	96.0
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University	T	25	24	96.0
RUTGERS UNIVERSITY–NEW BRUNSWICK	P	48	46	95.8
University of Florida	T	47	45	95.7
Virginia Commonwealth University	T	23	22	95.7
Northwestern University–Medical School	T	22	21	95.5
Rutgers University–New Brunswick	T	22	21	95.5
University of Toledo	T	22	21	95.5
University of Arkansas	T	21	20	95.2
University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign	T	21	20	95.2
University of South Florida	T	21	20	95.2
St. Louis University	T	20	19	95.0
University of Maryland–College Park	T	20	19	95.0
University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee	T	20	19	95.0
Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science	T	38	36	94.7
Washington State University	T	19	18	94.7
UNIVERSITY OF INDIANAPOLIS	P	37	35	94.6
Bowling Green State University	T	36	34	94.4
Western Michigan University	T	18	17	94.4
Brigham Young University	T	35	33	94.3
Loyola University of Chicago	T	17	16	94.1
University of Southern California	T	17	16	94.1
Vanderbilt University	T	17	16	94.1
Miami University	T	16	15	93.8
Northern Illinois University	T	16	15	93.8
Sam Houston State University	T	16	15	93.8
University of Maryland–Baltimore County	T	16	15	93.8
University of Virginia–Psychology Department	T	16	15	93.8
University of Alabama	T	31	29	93.5
University of Vermont	T	31	29	93.5
St. John’s University	T	60	56	93.3
State University of New York at Albany	T	30	28	93.3
University of Illinois–Chicago	T	15	14	93.3
University of Minnesota	T	15	14	93.3
University of Montana	T	15	14	93.3
University of Washington	T	15	14	93.3
University of Windsor	T	43	40	93.0
Fordham University	T	56	52	92.9
University of Hawaii	T	14	13	92.9
University of Michigan	T	28	26	92.9
Illinois Institute of Technology	T	41	38	92.7
University of Nevada–Reno	T	27	25	92.6
Oklahoma State University	T	26	24	92.3
San Diego State University	T	39	36	92.3
University of Mississippi	T	25	23	92.0
Duke University	T	12	11	91.7
University of Colorado	T	12	11	91.7
University of Iowa	T	12	11	91.7
University of Oregon	T	12	11	91.7
University of Arizona	T	23	21	91.3
Auburn University	T	33	30	90.9
Concordia University	T	11	10	90.9
Florida State University	T	22	20	90.9
University of Memphis (formerly Memphis State University	T	22	20	90.9
University of Virginia–Curry School of Education	T	33	30	90.9
University of Louisville	T	21	19	90.5
University of Saskatchewan	T	21	19	90.5
University of Texas–Austin	T	21	19	90.5
George Washington University	T	31	28	90.3
Boston University	T	30	27	90.0
State University of New York at Buffalo	T	10	9	90.0
University of Alabama at Birmingham	T	10	9	90.0
University of Cincinnati	T	30	27	90.0
WIDENER UNIVERSITY	P	98	88	89.8
Long Island University–Brooklyn Campus	T	38	34	89.5
State University of New York at Stony Brook	T	19	17	89.5
Columbia University Teachers College	T	37	33	89.2
Georgia State University	T	37	33	89.2
Dalhousie University	T	18	16	88.9
Washington University	T	9	8	88.9
Fairleigh Dickinson University, Teaneck–Hackensack	T	62	55	88.7
LOYOLA COLLEGE IN MARYLAND	P	44	39	88.6
University of Nebraska–Lincoln	T	35	31	88.6
University of Massachusetts–Amherst at Boston	T	60	53	88.3
University of Southern Mississippi	T	17	15	88.2
Roosevelt University	T	16	14	87.5
LOMA LINDA UNIVERSITY	P	60	52	86.7
The New School	T	45	39	86.7
University of California–Los Angeles	T	29	25	86.2
VIRGINIA CONSORTIUM PROGRAM IN CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY	P	29	25	86.2
CUNY–City College	T	14	12	85.7
LONG ISLAND UNIVERSITY–C. W. POST CAMPUS	P	48	41	85.4
CUNY Graduate School and University Center	T	27	23	85.2
XAVIER UNIVERSITY	P	70	59	84.3
Southern Illinois University–Carbondale	T	25	21	84.0
DePaul University	T	31	26	83.9
Drexel University	T	56	47	83.9
LA SALLE UNIVERSITY	P	37	31	83.8
CHICAGO SCHOOL OF PROFESSIONAL PSYCHOLOGY	P	6	5	83.3
MARYWOOD UNIVERSITY	P	6	5	83.3
University of South Dakota	T	24	20	83.3
ADELPHI UNIVERSITY	P	110	91	82.7
ARGOSY UNIVERSITY–ATLANTA CAMPUS	P	156	129	82.7
UNIVERSITY OF DENVER	P	150	124	82.7
BIOLA UNIVERSITY	P	86	71	82.6
FULLER THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY	P	115	95	82.6
PACIFIC UNIVERSITY	P	102	84	82.4
University of Regina	T	11	9	81.8
University of Western Ontario	T	11	9	81.8
YESHIVA UNIVERSITY	P	103	84	81.6
PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY	P	91	74	81.3
ARGOSY UNIVERSITY–TAMPA CAMPUS	P	65	52	80.0
University of Central Florida	T	10	8	80.0
Gallaudet University	T	19	15	78.9
GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY	P	169	133	78.7
University of Kentucky	T	14	11	78.6
University of Ottawa	T	28	22	78.6
NOVA SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY	P	328	257	78.4
WRIGHT STATE UNIVERSITY	P	101	79	78.2
WISCONSIN SCHOOL OF PROFESSIONAL PSYCHOLOGY	P	18	14	77.8
MASSACHUSETTS SCHOOL OF PROFESSIONAL PSYCHOLOGY	P	134	104	77.6
IMMACULATA COLLEGE	P	52	40	76.9
University of Rhode Island	T	26	20	76.9
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF INTEGRAL STUDIES	P	71	54	76.1
ARGOSY UNIVERSITY/TWIN CITIES [Minnesota School of Professional Psychology (MSPP)]	P	167	126	75.4
CHESTNUT HILL COLLEGE	P	65	49	75.4
University of Manitoba	T	16	12	75.0
WHEATON COLLEGE	P	62	46	74.2
PACIFIC GRAD SCHOOL OF PSYCHOLOGY/Stanford University Medical School (SUMSC)	P	201	149	74.1
FLORIDA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY	P	97	71	73.2
GEORGE FOX COLLEGE	P	70	51	72.9
New York University	T	11	8	72.7
ANTIOCH/NEW ENGLAND GRADUATE SCHOOL	P	98	71	72.4
Emory University	T	14	10	71.4
University of Calgary	T	21	15	71.4
ALLIANT INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY/CSPP–ALAMEDA/BERKELEY	P	279	198	71.0
UNIVERSITY OF HARTFORD	P	129	91	70.5
ARGOSY UNIVERSITY–CHICAGO CAMPUS	P	269	189	70.3
University of North Dakota	T	23	16	69.6
ARGOSY UNIVERSITY/SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA	P	75	52	69.3
ILLINOIS SCHOOL OF PROFESSIONAL PSYCHOLOGY–CHICAGO CAMPUS	P	334	230	68.9
ARGOSY UNIVERSITY/WASHINGTON, D.C.	P	203	137	67.5
THE FIELDING INSTITUTE	P	137	91	66.4
Jackson State University	T	20	13	65.0
SETON HALL UNIVERSITY	P	14	9	64.3
ALLIANT INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY/CSPP–SAN DIEGO	P	324	208	64.2
REGENT UNIVERSITY	P	75	48	64.0
SEATTLE PACIFIC UNIVERSITY	P	47	30	63.8
UNIVERSITY OF DETROIT MERCY	P	30	19	63.3
THE WRIGHT INSTITUTE	P	208	130	62.5
AZUSA PACIFIC UNIVERSITY	P	38	23	60.5
SPALDING UNIVERSITY	P	93	56	60.2
MARSHALL UNIVERSITY	P	5	3	60.0
PONCE SCHOOL OF MEDICINE	P	14	8	57.1
ARGOSY UNIVERSITY/HAWAII	P	132	75	56.8
ARGOSY UNIVERSITY/PHOENIX	P	140	79	56.4
ALLIANT INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY/CSPP–LOS ANGELES	P	472	263	55.7
ADLER SCHOOL OF PROFESSIONAL PSYCHOLOGY	P	126	70	55.6
ILLINOIS SCHOOL OF PROFESSIONAL PSYCHOLOGY–CHICAGO NORTHWEST CAMPUS	P	107	59	55.1
University of Nevada–Las Vegas	T	13	7	53.8
Howard University	T	30	16	53.3
JOHN F. KENNEDY UNIVERSITY	P	73	37	50.7
FOREST INSTITUTE OF PROFESSIONAL PSYCHOLOGY	P	272	132	48.5
ALLIANT INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY/CSPP–FRESNO	P	302	143	47.4
CARLOS ALBIZU UNIVERSITY/MIAMI	P	119	55	46.2
CARLOS ALBIZU UNIVERSITY/SAN JUAN	P	39	13	33.3

Note. EPPP = Examination for Professional Practice in Psychology; CUNY = City University of New York; CSPP = California School of Professional Psychology.

Nine (14.30%) of the 63 professional programs and 128 (83.02%) of the 154 traditional programs had mean pass rates higher than the overall mean pass rate of 86.97%, χ²(1, N = 217) = 163.42, p < .001. The 63 professional schools had a mean pass rate of 73.41% (SD = 14.02) and the traditional programs had a mean pass rate of 92.77 (SD = 8.49), t(df = 84.77) = 10.35, p < .001. As stated above, however, such analyses mask the true differences between professional and traditional clinical psychology programs because most professional schools have many more EPPP exams taken and because these data include retakes. In the present study, in one state, there were six professional programs that each had more than 200 exams taken for a total of 1,775 exams, and 690 exams failed. This is over twice that of the 154 traditional programs combined.

Of the 3,447 EPPP exams taken by traditional clinical psychology graduates, 3,185 (92.20%) were passed and of the 7,202 exams taken by professional clinical psychology graduates, 4,946 (69.20%) were passed, χ²(1, df = 10,647) = 5,321.53, p < .001. Failure rate on the EPPP of 30.82% was 4.06 greater than that of the traditional graduates’ failure rate of 7.60%.

Discussion

The vastly superior quality of the students of the traditional programs must certainly contribute to the higher EPPP pass rate of the traditional programs. Traditional programs accept 10% and professional schools 44% of applicants (Templer, 2005a, 2005b; Templer & Bedi, 2003). The mean grade point average of traditional programs is two standard deviations higher (Templer, 2005b). Their mean GRE scores are more than two standard deviations higher (Templer & Arikawa, 2004). The GRE difference may be especially important because it correlated substantially with Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised IQ (Carvajal & Pauls, 1995). This is especially unfortunate in view of the current demand for evidence-based assessment and treatment (e.g., Levant, 2004). Less talented people are less capable of examining scientific evidence.

It should be noted that not all professional schools have high failure rates. Five professional programs have a pass rate of more than 95%. For example, the Rutgers professional program mean pass rate of 95.80% is almost identical to that of the Rutgers traditional program rate of 95.50%. The Rutgers professional school mean pass rate of 95.80% is almost identical to that of the Rutgers traditional program rate of 95.50%. The Rutgers professional program acceptance rate of 6% compares most favorably with the general professional school rate of 44% and is even lower than the traditional acceptance rate of 10%. Templer and Tomeo (1998a) warned Canadian psychologists, “Don’t let it happen in Canada.” They said that if Canada starts professional schools, they should “be located in very strong universities and they should have the most elite admission standards possible” (p. 4). Rutgers appears to fit such a description better than most professional schools. Unfortunately, most professional programs are free-standing or in smaller universities. They must accept less than optimal applicants for financial survival. Forty-five percent (N = 1,009) of the total of 2,220 professional schools’ failed exams can be accounted for by 8 of the 65 professional programs.

A fundamental problem, in view of the huge differences in selection ratio and GRE score, is that there is simply insufficient, very high-level talent to go around. It would appear to be difficult to find creative solutions for this deficiency without reducing the number of students admitted or the phasing out of some of the weaker programs.

A troubling situation is that the National Council of Schools of Professional Psychology (NCSPP) lists 19 associate members who do not meet the criteria for full membership. The EPPP information on these programs is not provided by the ASPPB and therefore is not contained in Table 1. The NCSPP also lists four programs that are in the process of developing doctoral programs in clinical psychology. All 23 of these programs appear to be free-standing or in nonprominent universities. The prognosis for psychology’s professional school problem does not appear to be remarkably good.

A final caveat is that the EPPP assesses mastery of academic knowledge but may or may not be related to the very important therapeutic ingredient of client–clinician relationship. An even more fundamental gap in our knowledge is that we do not know if there is a relationship between EPPP performance and client outcome. Research on this issue is recommended.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.

Author Biographies

Donald I. Templer received his PhD in clinical psychology from the University of Kentucky. He is a retired professor of psychology at California School of Professional Psychology/Alliant International University-Fresno. He has over 250 publications and more than 3,500 citations. He is best known for his death anxiety research with his Death Anxiety Scale having been translated into more than 20 different languages.

Kimberly Tangen received her PhD in clinical psychology from California School of Professional Psychology at Alliant International University–Fresno. She has published on attitude toward animals and on professional issues.

References

Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards. (2010). 2010 Psychology licensing exam scores by doctoral program. Montgomery, AL: Author.

Carvajal

Pauls

K. K.

(1995). Relationships among graduate record examination scores, Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Revised IQs and undergraduate grade point average. College Student Journal, 29, 414-416.

Kenkel

M. B.

DeLeon

P. H.

Albino

J. E. N.

Porter

(2003). Challenges to professional psychology education in the 21st century. American Psychologist, 58, 801-805.

Levant

R. F.

(2004). The empirically validated treatments movement: A practitioner’s perspective. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 11, 219-224.

Templer

D. I.

(2005a). Addendum to concerns about professional schools. Psychological Reports, 97, 117-118.

Templer

D. I.

(2005b, May). Student and graduate norms for professional and traditional clinical psychology programs: Two tiers of clinical psychology training. Paper presented at the American Psychological Society Convention, Los Angeles, CA.

Templer

D. I.

Arikawa

(2004). Concerns about professional schools. American Psychologist, 59, 246-247.

Templer

D. I.

Bedi

(2003, September). Acceptance rates for clinical psychology programs in the United States and Canada. Poster session presented at the Research Conference of Fresno Area Psychological Association, Fresno, CA.

Templer

D. I.

Stroup

Mancuso

L. J.

Tangen

(2008). Comparative decline of professional school graduates’ performance on the examination for professional practice in psychology. Psychological Reports, 102, 551-560.

10.

Templer

D. I.

Tomeo

M. E.

(1998a, Fall). Don’t let it happen in Canada. Synopsis: Canada’s Psychology Newsletter, p. 4.

11.

Templer

D. I.

Tomeo

M. E.

(1998b). Examination for professional practice in psychology. Clerical errors corrected but inferences unchanged. Psychological Science, 9, 83-84.

12.

Templer

D. I.

Tomeo

M. E.

(2000). Examination for professional practice in psychology subtest scores of professional and traditional clinical psychology program graduates. Journal of Psychology, 134, 140-142.

13.

Templer

D. I.

Tomeo

M. E.

Pointkowski

S. R.

Mitroff

Neiderhauser

R. N.

Siscoe

(2000). Psychology of the scientist: LXXXI. Professional school and traditional program graduates: Comparison on measures of achievement in clinical psychology. Psychology Reports, 86, 951-956.

14.

L. M.

Rinaldi

S. A.

Templer

D. I.

Colbert

Siscoe

Van Patten

(1997). EPPP score as a function of clinical psychology graduate program. Psychological Science, 8, 347-350.