Impact of Research Training Environment and Holland Personality Type: A 15-Year Follow-Up of Research Productivity.

Ratings of the research training environment (RTE) and Holland personality type from 325 counseling psychology students who participated in G. M. Royalty, C. J. Gelso, B. Mallinckrodt, and K. Garrett’s (1986) study were examined as predictors of the students’ research productivity 15 years later. Graduates’ research productivity was determined by a search of the PsycLIT database. Results indicated that 2 specific RTE elements were related to productivity for men (faculty modeling and science as a partly social experience) together with the Interpersonal cluster of elements and the total RTE. Only 1 RTE element was related to productivity for women (untying statistics from research). Investigative Holland type was related to productivity for the combined sample of men and women. At a program level, Interpersonal and Instructional RTE ingredients distinguished programs whose graduates had sustained low, moderate, or high levels of research productivity. An important goal of psychology programs that ascribe to the scientist–practitioner training model is to produce doctoral graduates who are interested in research as well as practice and who are able to integrate science and practice into a body of skills, knowledge, and professional attitudes that is greater than the sum of these two parts (Belar, 2000). Gelso and Fretz (2001) suggested that successful scientist–practitioner training is manifested at three ordinal levels: (a) the ability to critically review research produced by others; (b) the ability to apply the rigorous logic of the scientific method to practice activities such as diagnosis, treatment planning, and evaluating the effectiveness of one’s work; and (c) at the highest level, the ability to actually produce scholarly work. Thus, whether the outcome of training is defined in the most demanding terms of producing original scholarship or less rigorously in terms of critical thinking skills, all three levels involve an interest in research and positive attitude toward scholarly activity.

[1]  Charles J. Gelso,et al.  On the making of a scientist-practioner: A theory of research training in professional psychology. , 1993 .

[2]  C. Gelso.  The 1995 Leona Tyler Address: , 1997 .

[3]  C. Gelso.  Research Training in Counseling Psychology: Some Preliminary Data. , 1983 .

[4]  K. Bieschke,et al.  Applying social cognitive theory to interest in research among counseling psychology doctoral students: A path analysis. , 1998 .

[5]  C. Gelso.  Research in Counseling: Methodological and Professional Issues , 1979 .

[6]  Duane Brown.  Career Choice and Development , 1984 .

[7]  Jeffrey H. Kahn,et al.  Factor Structure of the Research Training Environment Scale-Revised: , 1997 .

[8]  C. Gelso,et al.  The Environment and the Student in Counseling Psychology , 1986 .

[9]  B. Tabachnick,et al.  Using Multivariate Statistics , 1983 .

[10]  J. L. Holland,et al.  Making vocational choices : a theory of vocational personalities and work environments , 1984 .

[11]  M. MacLean,et al.  Counseling psychology (2nd ed.). , 1955 .

[12]  C. Gelso,et al.  Impact of the research training environment and counseling psychology students' Holland personality type on interest in research. , 1990 .

[13]  J. Galassi,et al.  Research Training Environments and Student Productivity , 1986 .

[14]  R. Iman,et al.  Rank Transformations as a Bridge between Parametric and Nonparametric Statistics , 1981 .

[15]  Steven D. Brown,et al.  Self-Efficacy as an Intervening Mechanism between Research Training Environments and Scholarly Productivity , 1996 .

[16]  Julia C. Phillips,et al.  Research Self-Efficacy, the Research Training Environment, and Research Productivity among Graduate Students in Counseling Psychology , 1994 .

[17]  Robert W. Lent,et al.  Handbook of Counseling Psychology , 1984 .

[18]  H. E. Tinsley,et al.  Prediction of scientist-practitioner behavior using personality scores obtained during graduate school , 1993 .

[19]  C. Gelso,et al.  Research Training Environment, Attitudes toward Research, and Research Self-Efficacy , 1996 .

[20]  C. Belar.  Scientist-practitioner ≠ science + practice: Boulder is bolder. , 2000 .

[21]  R. Lent,et al.  Scientific training and scholarly productivity: The person, the training environment, and their interaction. , 2000 .

[22]  James W. Smither,et al.  Relationship of vocational personality and research training environment to the research productivity of counseling psychologists , 1991 .

[23]  Nancy E. Betz,et al.  What stops women and minorities from choosing and completing majors in science and engineering , 1997 .