APAGS Diversity Survey Results

The American Psychological Association of Graduate Students (APAGS) recently finalized a mixed-methods study that explored the impact of diversity on the program and training experiences of APAGS members. Graduate students from programs across the United States, shared their perspectives on diversity and inclusion issues in their clinical and research training, courses, mentorship and everyday interactions in their programs. If you are interested in seeing a snapshot of our findings, and learning about resources for supporting diversity in your program, take a look at our infographic on the gradPSYCH Blog. Below is a more thorough explanation of our quantitative and qualitative findings. For more information on the study or its results, please contact J. L. Stewart.

* Editor’s Note: This infographic was developed by the following APAGS members (listed alphabetically): Klaus Eickhoff Cavalhier; Lincoln Hill; Kiet Huynh; J. L. Stewart; Joelle Taknint; and Maria D. Vazquez.

by Kiet Huynh and Klaus Cavalhieri

Sample

Our sample included 147 psychology graduate students across the United States. The sample had a mean age of 28.30 (SD = 3.06) and consisted of participants who self-identified as cisgender male (27 percent), cisgender female (50 percent) and other (2 percent). Participant race and ethnicity consisted of 41 percent White, 20 percent Asian, 14 percent Hispanic Latino, 14 percent Black, and 11 percent multi-racial. In regards to sexual orientation, 58 percent identified as straight, 7 percent as bisexual, 4 percent as gay or lesbian, and 3 percent as other. Participant religion consisted of 29 percent Christian, 15 percent agnostic, 10 percent atheist, 3 percent Jewish, 3 percent Muslim, 3 percent Buddhist, and 11 percent other. When asked about average household income, 15 percent indicated making less than $15,000, 20 percent had incomes between $15,000 and $29,000, 12 percent had salaries between $29,000 and $50,000, 12 percent had salaries between $50,00 and $83,000, and 13 percent had incomes above $83,000. In regards to health status, 9 percent of participants said they have a mental illness, 3 percent a physical disability, and 2 percent a cognitive or learning disability. See Table 1 for additional information on participants’ sociodemographic information and Table 2 for characteristics of respondents’ psychology graduate programs.

Table 1

Note: Percentages may not add to 100 percent due to missing information from skipped questions.

Table 2

Note: Percentages may not add to 100 percent due to missing information from skipped questions.

Participant's relationship status varied, with 25 percent in a relationship, 21 percent married, 20 percent single and 4 percent were in a domestic partnership. About 46 percent of participants were pursuing a PhD, followed by 16 percent pursuing a PsyD, and 11 percent seeking their Master’s degree. Among the graduate programs included in this study, 32 percent were fully funded, 21 percent received no funding, and 16 percent received partial funding. A small percentage (8 percent) of students also indicated they were international students. Across all students, 35 percent indicated that they belong to a state, local, or territorial psychological association.

Subgroup Analysis

Tests of subgroup comparisons were made on selected outcome variables. The following subgroups comparisons were tested:

• Race Ethnicity: European American (n = 60) and Racial/Ethnic Minority (n = 87).
• Sexual Orientation: Heterosexual (n = 86) and LGB (n = 20).
• Gender: Men (n = 29), Women (n = 72), and Transgender/Gender-Queer (n = 2).
• Degree Type: PhD (n = 68) and PsyD (n = 23).
• Major. Health Services (n = 79) and Research oriented (n = 28) program. Health service psychology programopens in new window (PDF, 1MB) includes clinical psychology, counseling psychology and school psychology.
• Disability Status: With mental or physical disability and Non-disabled. There were insufficient students in the disability group to for pairwise comparison.

Descriptive Statistics and Analysis of variance (ANOVA)

Academic climate. About 83 percent of students reported that faculty in their academic program have an active and dynamic relationship with their students. Roughly 70 percent stated that their program’s administrators were responsive to student concerns. There were some students who reported feeling isolated (23 percent), unsafe (12 percent), and disconnected (10 percent-15 percent) in their program. Subgroup analysis demonstrated similar results across groups.

Education and training. We assessed for students’ satisfaction with several components of their academic program, which are presented in Table 3. Examined components included practica or fieldwork, experimental work, trainings or workshops, publishing, grant writing, clinical internships and career guidance. Students reported being most satisfied with opportunities in practica/field work (82 percent) and internship (73 percent) and least satisfied with opportunities for grant writing (27 percent), publications (54 percent), and career guidance (56 percent). About 76 percent of respondents reported that their program provided opportunities to work with target population of their interest via work with clients, organizations, research participants and/or archival data.

Most respondents agreed that the courses in their programs are relevant and applicable to their future career (85 percent), that their programs are effectively preparing them to become professionals in psychology (86 percent), and that their programs are helping them develop their identity as a psychologist (78 percent).

Students were more satisfied with quantity (70 percent) and quality (74 percent) of faculty advising than with quantity (56 percent) and quality (62 percent) of faculty mentorship. Faculty advising was defined in the survey as “aid in reaching program milestones, assessing successful progress toward degree, etc.” whereas faculty mentoring referred to “an inherently positive and engaged personal relationship in which protégés learn professional skills from a more seasoned person.”

ANOVA was performed to determine between group differences based on race/ethnicity (White European or racial/ethnic minority), sexual orientation (heterosexual or LGB), gender (men or women), degree type (PhD or PsyD) and major (health services or research focused programs). Subgroup analysis indicated that PsyD, compared to PhD, students were less satisfied with the quantity of faculty mentorship in their program, F(1, 89) = 5.59, p = .02, Mdiff = .73). PsyD students also reported being less satisfied than PhD students with opportunities offered for publication (F(1, 88) = 15.14, p < .001, Mdiff = 1.03) and grant writing (F(1, 87) = 12.91, p = .001, Mdiff= 1.03) in their program. Male students indicated they were more satisfied with their grant writing training compared to female students (F(1, 96) = 5.20, p = .03, Mdiff = .61).

There was no significant difference between PhD and PsyD students with their rating of quality of faculty mentorship (p = .16). There was no significant difference between research oriented psychology programs (e.g., developmental, social, health) and health service psychology programs (e.g., clinical, counseling and school) on opportunities for grant writing (p = .06).

Table 3

Note: Response options were as follow: 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Undecided/Unsure; 4 = Agree; 5 = Strongly Agree; 6 = Not applicable. Responses were condensed to 1 = Disagree, 2 = Undecided/Unsure, 3 = Agree, for table presentation.

Diversity. We also assessed for students’ satisfaction with the extent their program incorporates diversity topics into coursework, training/practica and research as presented in Table 4. Regarding coursework, students were most satisfied with the coverage of race/ethnicity (81 percent), sexual orientation (74 percent), and socioeconomic status (72 percent), and least satisfied with the coverage of religion (36 percent), marital status (41 percent) and ability status (52 percent). Concerning training and practica, students reported being most satisfied with the inclusion of race/ethnicity (69 percent), socioeconomic status (67 percent), and sexual orientation (66 percent) and least satisfied with religion (37 percent), marital status (38 percent) and geographical location (44 percent).In regards to research, students reported being most satisfied with the inclusion of race/ethnicity (69 percent), socioeconomic status (66 percent) and sexual orientation (58 percent), and least satisfied with religion (26 percent), marital status (38 percent) and geographical location (41 percent).

Subgroup analysis revealed that men were more satisfied with the level of faculty diversity compared to women (F(1, 96) = 5.20, p = .03, Mdiff = .61). Subgroup analysis was not performed based on students’ satisfaction with diversity topic provided in coursework, training/pratica and research.

Table 4

Note: Response options were as follow: 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Undecided/Unsure; 4 = Agree; and 5 = Strongly Agree. Responses were condensed to 1 = Disagree, 2 = Undecided/Unsure, 3 = Agree, for table presentation.

Regression and Mediation Analysis

Regressions. Quality of faculty advising and feeling valued for one's intersecting identities were significant predictors of how safe and isolated students felt in their programs. Quality of faculty advising (R2 change = .194) and being valued for intersecting identities (R2 change = .188) accounted for 19.4 percent and 18.8 percent respectively of variance in feeling safe in one's program. Additionally, quality of faculty advising (R2 change = .141) and being valued for intersecting identities (R2 change = .134) accounted for 14.1 percent and 13.4 percent respectively of variance in feeling isolated in one's program.

It is also notable that programs incorporating more diversity content (i.e., race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, ability status, etc.) did not significantly predict feelings of safety and isolation. It is also noteworthy that diversity in faculty and students did not predict students' feelings of safety and isolation.

Mediation. Students’ perception of faculty diversity significantly predicted students’ feeling of isolation, 95 percent CI (-.5954, -.1265) such that less faculty diversity was associated with greater feelings of isolation in students. This relationship was found to be nonsignificant when quality of academic advising was added to the model, indicating that faculty diversity indirectly influenced students’ feeling of isolation through quality of academic advising, 95 percent CI (-.2804, -.0265). This finding suggests that less perceived faculty diversity was associated with decreased quality in academic advising, which in turn, was linked to greater feelings of isolation in students.

In addition, the relationship between diversity training (e.g., race and ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, SES) and feeling isolated and feeling safe in one’s program, was significantly mediated by quality of advising.

• Diversity of faculty significantly predicted students' feeling of safety, 95 percent CI (.0444, .2804), and this effect was mediated by quality of academic advising, 95 percent CI (.0213, .2216).
• Diversity regarding race included in training predicted feeling safe, 95 percent CI (.0007, .0160), and the effect was further mediated by quality of advising (.0038, .0151). Quality of advising also mediated the relationship between diversity training regarding race and feeling isolated in the program, 95 percent CI (-.0162, -.0035).
• The relationship between diversity training regarding sexual orientation and feeling isolated was significantly mediated by quality of advising, 95 percent CI (-.0129, -.0011). The same was the case with feeling safe as the dependent variable, 95 percent CI (.0009, .0123).
• The relationship between diversity training regarding gender and feeling isolated was significantly mediated by quality of advising, 95 percent CI (.0025, .0153). The same was the case with feeling safe as a DV, 95 percent CI (-.0158, -.0027).
• The relationship between SES training and feeling isolated was significantly mediated by quality of advising, 95 percent CI (-.0157, -.0029). The same was the case for feeling safe as the DV, 95 percent CI (.0028, .0140).

(Lincoln Hill, J. L. Stewart, and Maria D. Vazquez)

Qualitative data was analyzed using the in-text responses from 110 participants. Utilizing a modified version of Consensual Qualitative Research (CQR-M: Spangler, Liu, & Hill, 2012), three researchers found a total of 48 themes classified into 13 larger categories based on participant responses. The five most frequently cited themes were improve recruitment and embracement of minority groups, better quality teaching/curriculum/program outlines, expanding multicultural training and content, desire for more opportunities, and unhelpful/unwelcoming/unsupportive faculty, respectively. The three most common broad categories consisted of negative faculty interactions, negative program experiences and diversity listed in descending order. Our analysis indicates that participants reported more negative than positive experiences and interactions within their programs of study.

Below, you will find tables illustrating the most frequently cited responses as well as corresponding narrative examples.

Table 1: Five of the most frequent themes from participant narratives

Categories:

• Diversity
• Multicultural and diversity training
• Negative faculty interactions
• Positive faculty interactions
• Mentorship
• Training
• Safety and Support
• Negative program experiences
• Financial concerns
• Self-care and mental health
• Positive experiences-general
• Coping
• Other

Table 2: List of the categories from participant narratives with accompanying frequencies and examples