Structure of the Intern Selection Committee by 6IrEI1

VIEWS: 2 PAGES: 4

									                     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
    consideration.

    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
    interviewee.

    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
    interview.
   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
    RANK LIST.
      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

								
To top