Structure of the Intern Selection Committee
How do you structure your intern selection committee (e.g., 3 groups of 2 staff
members each read 1/3 of the applications and all participate in interviews; the training
committee is divided into 2 groups with 1 group reading applications and determining
who will be interviewed and the 2nd group interviewing and determining the rank list;
the Training Director reads all applications and 2 groups of 3 staff members each read
half of the applications, etc.)?
Readers are everyone I can get. Two readers on each file: one experienced and one new
(i.e. trainee). Interview team is a separate team and open to those that want to spend the
time interviewing. It’s becoming a harder sell.
TRAINING DIRECTOR READS ALL APPLICATIONS AND DOES FIRST SCREENING.
COMMITTEE OF 3 OTHERS (TWO STAFF MEMBERS AND ONE INTERN) READS
AND RANKS THE REST. NUMBERS ARE ENTERED INTO COMPUTER AND
DETERMINATION IS MADE FROM THAT WHO TO INVITE TO INTERVIEW. ENTIRE
TRAINING COMMITTEE (4 PSYCHOLOGISTS, 1 INTERN AND A CAREER STAFF
MEMBER) DOES THE INTERVIEWS
At our counseling center, the applications are divided up and read separately among the
senior staff. All the senior staff members interview the candidates. Because it is a
captive internship, current interns are not allowed to be part of the formal interview or
ranking process, but they do meet informally with the candidates to let them know what it
is really like at the site.
Staff and interns volunteer to serve on the selection committee. All committee
members read and rate applications. Application are assigned randomly, so that
each is read and rated by three committee members, including the TD. In the
past, I have read all applications. This year, I read half.
TD checks to make sure applicants are from programs that are psychological in nature
and that courses/experience prepare applicant for psychology licensure; if not, another
member of the Selection Committee reviews; if both believe the program does not
prepare the applicant for licensure as a psychologist, the applicant is omitted from further
The Selection Committee is 6 people, 3 senior staff and 3 interns, plus the TD. Senior
staff and interns are paired together to review in depth 1/3 of the files. A meeting of all
committee pairs and TD is held to determine strongest applicants and who will be
interviewed. If any applications are judged to not be competitive, then applicants may be
omitted from further consideration at this point.
All Selection Committee members and TD read all files of applicants who are being
interviewed on the telephone. A senior staff member and an intern conduct a semi-
structured telephone interview with applicants; each interviewer pair interviews 1/3 of the
interview pool. The TD follows-up with a half hour telephone contact with each
Selection Committee members and TD rank order interviewees. Ranks are put in a
spreadsheet to display ranking of each selection committee member and mean rank is
calculated for each interviewee. Selection Committee meets to discuss ranks and to
reach consensus on rankings.
3 groups of 2 senior staff members, including the TD, each read
1/3 of the applications and then another sub-group consisting of
the TD, the intern on the Training Committee and one senior staff
member conducts the interviews - all by telephone.
I (and our asst. TD) review all of the files and do an initial screen based on our
“minimum criteria”. Then we assign the files that pass the initial screen to pairs of
reviewers from our committee of 2-3 staff and 2-3 interns. That committee meets
for many hours after the review to determine which candidates we will interview.
Everyone on the training committee (5 members including myself) is also on the selection
committee. I also ask (sometimes with desperation) for anyone and everyone else on
senior staff to be on the committee. I do the first (paper) review of applicants. This allows
me to take detailed notes on each so I can respond to any questions about why we didn’t
pursue the individual and also for later use in my follow-up interviews. Following the
paper review, dyads from the selection committee conduct 45 minute structured
interviews. We mix up the dyads and pair people based on scheduling availability. When
these interviews are all completed, we meet as a committee to decide groupings – top,
middle, bottom and out. I conduct brief, unstructured follow-up interview with everyone
still in the pool. Following that, the committee meets to rank candidates.
I do the initial screening for all of the files. Then the files are divided up
between 4 teams (two staff and a psych intern).
TD reads all applications. The applications are divided amongst all the staff for a
2nd read. We meet as a group to determine the rank list after I compile the
feedback from all
I ask for volunteers to help with selection. I ask for at least three to help
with file reading and two for interviewing. We have 4 interns. I pair an
intern with one of the three staff who are readers and myself. Each pair
reviews 1/4 of the applications (about 15-17 each). I also read every
application and hold the big view of the pool. For interviews I have two
staff members who do about 1/2 of the interviews each. Interns rotate
through the interview times with them. So, I participate in all the
interviews and one staff member and one intern is also part of each
TD does an initial basic screen of all applications. Applications are then divided into 4
groups of 2 training committee members to read ¼ of the applications. The intern on the
committee joins the TD’s team (so there are 3 readers for that stack--TD, TC member,
and the intern). All training committee members get together to decide on the interview
list (20 interviews granted).
3 groups of 2 staff and 1 intern review 1/3 of the applications.
Each of the 3 teams recommends 7 for on-site interview invitation
along with an alternate. The interviews consist of 3 teams: 2
Teams have staff (all psychologists and any other professional
staff who can be present for each interview); and one team made
up of our current-year interns. We bring 3 intern applicants to
each interview time-block and rotate them among the 3 groups.
We have a 3-person selection committee (myself, a staff member, and an intern). We
each pair up w/another staff person for an initial reading of 1/3 of the folders and try to
weed out as many as we can. Then the selection committee reads all remaining folders.
The selection committee meets and decides whom to interview.
TD SCREENS ALL APLLICATIONS TO INSURE THEY MEET THE MINIMUM
REQUIREMENTS. THOSE THAT DO ARE DIVIDED INTO THREE GROUPS AND
GIVEN TO TWO MEMBERS OF THE TC TO REVIEW. WE USE A STANDARD
REVIEW FORM WITH LIKERT SCALES. SCORE FOR EACH CANDIDATE ARE
ADDED AND CANDIDATES ARE THEN RANKED BY SCORES. TC MEETS TO
DETERMINECUT OFF FOR THOSE TO BE INTERVIEWED AND TO MAKE ANY
NEEDED CHANGES IN THE RANKING. (SOME MEMBERS TEND TO ROUTINELY
RATE LOWER SO THEIR RATINGS ARE ADJUSTED.) THIS IS ALSO THE TIME
TO EXCLUDE ANYONE THAT A COMMITTEE MEMBER WANTS ELIMINATED - THIS
IS RARE BUT IS HONORED BY OTHER COMMITTEE MEMBERS AS IT MAY
INVOLVE FORMER CLIENTS OR COMMITTEE MEMBER KNOWNING SOMETHING
NEGATIVE ABOUT THE CANDIDATE FROM ANOTHER SOURCE. THIS HAS ONLY
HAPPENED TWICE IN 10 YEARS SINCE I HAVE BEEN HERE BUT IS ALLOWED
IN OUR PROCESS. PETTY THINGS ARE CHALLANGED BUT THE TC MEMBER
DOES NOT HAVE TO REVEAL THEIR EXACT REASON - ONLY THAT THEY WOULD
BE UNCOMFORTABLE TRAINING THE PERSON. ALL TC DOES INTERVIEWING
AND USES ANOTHER LIKERT SCALED FORM TO RATE EACH CANDIDATE.
All staff and interns serve on our Selection Committee - we do
have a smaller staff - 8 Senior Staff and 4 doc interns. We
divide our paper applications among 4 teams of 3 and use a
criteria based rating scale (i.e. so many points for different
things - goals/experiences/quality of references, etc).
Following this initial numerical rating and some discussion, we
decide upon how many applicants we will interview. We then all
participate in doing phone interviews - one senior staff and one
intern per interview - again utilizing a set structure of
questions and rating scale. We meet all together weekly to go
over applicant responses to the phone interviews and report their
interview rating. At our final ranking meeting, we have the
separate scores and averaged overall score. We then review the
order, and by consensus decide upon final order (as often some of
the scores are equal or .25 apart). This last meeting can be a
challenge to facilitate - could use a large gavel :-) The
numerical ratings help, as well as having all the people involved
in the rating present - but it makes for great staff ownership of
our intern rankings, incoming interns, and program. And we
consistently get positive feedback from interns getting to
participate in this process.
The TD (me) reads all the folders and checks for meeting criteria and makes a first
cut and arranges the folders to be read into 3 approximately even groups. The
entire staff and intern group form 3 committees and each reads 1/3 of the folders.
They rank order their applicants and since we interview usually no more than 27-we
have a discussion, decide on cuts and select the 27—usually 9 from each group but it
may vary depending on the reported strengths of candidates in any particular group
Each application is read by three people. The TD reads all the applications,
and other members of the training divide them up. (This may change after
we are accredited and will receive many more applications)
The Center Director and the Training Director (me) read all the applications individually
and divide them into yes, no, maybe. We then compare our ratings and if we disagree we
give that application to another Sr. staff to review. Once that piece is completed, we
select 30 candidates to interview.
OUR COMMITTEE IS MADE UP OF 3-4 SENIOR STAFF (INCLUDING MYSELF) AND
OUR 2 POSTDOCS. I DO AN INITIAL SCREENING OF ALL APPLICATIONS TO MAKE
SURE THEY MEET MINIMUM CRITERIA (THIS USUALLY ELIMINATES UP TO 20
APPLICATIONS). COMMITTEE MEMBERS READ 1/3 OF THE APPLICATIONS, AND I
STILL READ THEM ALL. ALL COMMITTEE MEMBERS PARTICIPATE IN PHONE
INTERVIEWS, USUALLY 2 COMMITTEE MEMBERS PLUS MYSELF PER
INTERVIEW. THE ENTIRE COMMITTEE PARTICIPATES IN DETERMINING THE
I try to do an initial screen and pull out any applications that don't meet our
minimum requirements. All staff (10) and interns (4) participate in reviewing
intern folders. We require 3 readers per folder, so depending on the number of
applicants in a given year, each reader ends up reading 16 folders on average. It's
a lot, so my Director and I often read more folders than do other staff. Some staff
who like this task also volunteer to read extra folders.
OUR INTERN SELECTION COMMITTEE IS COMPRISED ENTIRELY OF
OUR TRAINING COMMITTEE. THIS INCLUDES 4 SENIOR STAFF
(INCLUDING THE TD) AND ONE INTERN. I GENERALLY REVIEW ALL
OF THE APPLICATIONS TO MAKE THE FIRST CUT; ELIMINATING
THOSE WHO DO NOT MEET BASIC CRITERIA (NOT APA APPROVED;
NO COUNSELING CENTER EXPERIENCE/EXPERIENCE WORKING WITH
STUDENTS/ADULTS, ETC.). A LIST OF THESE CANDIDATES ARE
PROVIDED TO COMMITTEE MEMBERS FOR THEIR REVIEW AND
APPROVAL. THE REMAINING APPLICATIONS ARE REVIEWED AND
RATED BY ALL COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
We have a selection committee of 5 psychologists and 1 intern (we
only have one intern at our site). The applications are divided
amongst the committee with each application having 2 staff
members reviewing the application. We come together and then talk
about the applicants and make invites based on this meeting.
Then, 3 psychologists (one of which is me) and the intern
interview the applicants.
Training coordinator/director reviews all apps rates and ranks them. Each staff
psychologist reviews 1/3 of applications, rates and ranks them, with notes about
strengths/weaknesses, unique contributions, etc. Entire psych staff meets to
review and resolve disagreements in rankings, to select the interview pool
ALL 3 INTERNS, MYSELF, AND 2-3 SENIOR STAFF MEMBERS READ THE
APPLICATIONS. EACH FILE IS READ BY ONE INTERN AND TWO SENIOR
STAFF MEMBERS. WHO READS WHICH FILE IS RANDOMIZED AS MUCH AS
POSSIBLE SO THAT THERE IS ALWAYS ONE OR TWO PEOPLE WHO ARE ABLE
TO COMPARE DIFFERENT APPLICANTS. ANOTHER COMMITTEE CONDUCTS
INTERVIEWS WHICH MAY INCLUDE PEOPLE WHO HAVE DONE THE ORIGINAL
READING. TWO SENIOR STAFF MEMBERS AND ONE INTERN AND THE TD
INTERVIEW EACH PERSON.
The Selection Committee consists of all staff/interns. Each application is read by 3 people
- I read all the applications, and staff and interns read as many as they can to complete
the task. Interviews are conducted by all, two staff or a staff member and an intern,
followed up by a briefer conversation with me.
*Survey Compiled 2/06