1 23

������� ���� ������� ������������ ����� ��������������������� ����������� !��"�#"���$%"�&�"��"���'"'��

������� �������������� �� ������ ����������������������� ������������������� ��� ��������

�����$��� ����������$����� ��������� ���$������� ������� �!$"��#����

1 23

Your article is protected by copyright and allrights are held exclusively by Springer Science+Business Media New York. This e-offprint isfor personal use only and shall not be self-archived in electronic repositories. If you wishto self-archive your article, please use theaccepted manuscript version for posting onyour own website. You may further depositthe accepted manuscript version in anyrepository, provided it is only made publiclyavailable 12 months after official publicationor later and provided acknowledgement isgiven to the original source of publicationand a link is inserted to the published articleon Springer's website. The link must beaccompanied by the following text: "The finalpublication is available at link.springer.com”.

ORIGINAL PAPER

Perceptions of Program Enhancers and Stressors by Marriageand Family Therapy Students and Faculty

Brie A. Turns • David P. Nalbone •

Katherine M. Hertlein • Joseph L. Wetchler

! Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Abstract This study investigated the stressors andenhancers for students reported by students and faculty

who are enrolled or teach in accredited marriage and

family therapy programs. Results indicated that students(n = 112) and faculty members (n = 43) differ in their

perceptions of six out of thirteen different program char-

acteristics: information to prospective students, profes-sional development, career guidance and placement

services, mentoring, program climate, and feedback pro-

vided to students. Faculty perceived these program char-acteristics more enhancing than students. However,

students’ and faculty means were ranked similarly in

prioritization.

Keywords MFT training ! Student perceptions ! Faculty

perceptions ! MFT programs

Introduction

Attending graduate school can be a fulfilling but also

stressful experience in an individual’s life. Handling therequired class work while juggling clinical hours, a

possible teaching or research assistantship, a thesis ordissertation, and other personal obligations can leave

marriage and family therapy (MFT) graduate students

stressed, anxious, and exhausted (Barnes and Randall2012). While considering the various demands of training

programs, graduate students have begun to acknowledge

certain aspects of their programs as either more stressful orenhancing than others (Polson and Nida 1998; Polson and

Piercy 1993; Sori et al. 1996). Previous studies have

investigated training program enhancers and stressors formarried students and their spouses (Polson and Piercy

1993; Sori et al. 1996), trainees’ perceptions and adjust-

ment to training programs (Polson et al. 1996), and thefamily life of the marriage and family therapist (Wetchler

and Piercy 1986). However, research investigating MFT

students’ perceptions of their accredited programs is lim-ited and research analyzing faculty perceptions of training

programs is nonexistent.

This study examines the stressors and enhancers repor-ted by students and faculty who are enrolled or teach in

accredited MFT programs. This study begins to bridge thegap of communication between students and faculty in

hopes of strengthening MFT programs, assisting students in

coping with program demands, and ensuring that programsare complying with the American Association for Marriage

and Family Therapy (AAMFT) accreditation standards

from the Commission on Accreditation for Marriage andFamily Therapy Education (COAMFTE).

Faculty Perceptions of Graduate Program

Previous literature (Barnes and Randall 2012; Nyquist and

Woodford 2000) documented positive and negative con-sequences an individual may experience during this time.

However, a student attending graduate school in the

B. A. Turns (&) ! D. P. Nalbone ! J. L. WetchlerPurdue University Calumet, Hammond, IN, USAe-mail: baturns@yahoo.com

D. P. Nalbonee-mail: dnalbone@purduecal.edu

J. L. Wetchlere-mail: wetchler@purduecal.edu

K. M. HertleinUniversity of Nevada-Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV, USAe-mail: Katherine.hertlein@unlv.edu

123

Contemp Fam Ther

DOI 10.1007/s10591-014-9313-7

Author's personal copy

helping profession can experience additional stressors and

enhancers due to demands of treating clients, and theinevitability of personal and professional growth (Kaslow

and Rice 1985). Several studies have researched the life-of-

the-family therapist, stressors and enhancers for marriedtrainees and their spouses, and overall experiences of

trainees in MFT programs (Polson and Nida 1998; Polson

and Piercy 1993; Polson et al. 1996; Sori et al. 1996;Wetchler and Piercy 1986). Unfortunately, the views of

individuals responsible for creating a training program thatis supportive for students—faculty members—have not

been fully investigated.

Students’ Perceptions of Attending Graduate School

Between balancing the required coursework, seeing clients,maintaining assistantships, and conducting research, MFT

students are likely to experience dissatisfaction with their

graduate training in a number of areas. Yet at the sametime, this training may also provide students with benefits

such as learning new skills and notions, and personal and

professional growth and development (Farber 1983; Guy1987). Doctoral students, in general, have reported a lack

of quality mentoring and support from faculty, threats to

graduate funding, and unclear expectations for facultyacademic careers (Nyquist and Woodford 2000). Other

students reported desiring a comprehensive system that

taught them how to teach and obtain research funding(Golde and Dore 2001), desiring additional feedback and

mentoring (Nyquist et al. 1999), and greater flexibility in

the available courses. Students also claimed that they didnot have a clear understanding of advisors’ expectations or

time to degree completion (Golde and Dore 2001).

Marriage and Family Therapist Students’ Perspectives

MFT students’ view of graduate education have beenresearched but unfortunately to not to the same extent as

the views of the general graduate students’ population.

Polson and Nida (1998) found that 28 % of 329 partici-pants had considered dropping out of their program due to

the demands. Eleven percent stated that they dropped out

due to program demands (Polson and Nida 1998). However62 % of those respondents who dropped out returned to the

program within 6 months.

Students were also surveyed on the amount of stressthey believed faculty experienced. Respondents reported

that faculty had almost no stress (13 %), slightly less stress

than students (25 %), and the same stress as students(38 %) (Polson and Nida 1998). ‘‘It is not trivial, however,

if students remain reluctant to disclose distress to faculty

because they believe that faculty would not understand theimpact of program demands since faculty do not have to

cope with and cannot relate to the high levels of stress

experienced by their students’’ (Polson and Nida 1998,p. 106).

Polson and Nida (1998) discussed their concern for the

low number of minority students represented in theAAMFT population and explained that the representation

was much lower than in the overall U.S. population—

meaning that the MFT field needs to recruit more minoritystudents. Although their study was conducted more than a

decade ago, it appears that recruiting and respectingtrainees from diverse backgrounds may still be an area of

concern. Of 13 international MFT students enrolled in

doctoral programs, four students reported feeling mini-mized by faculty due to the latter’s perceived insensitivity

toward their culture (Mittal and Wieling 2006). Eight stu-

dents stated that faculty lacked initiative to ask them abouttheir needs as an international student. However, seven

students did report experiencing times when faculty

showed openness toward students (Mittal and Wieling2006).

Marriage and Family Therapists’ Spouses and FamiliesPerspectives

Trainees do not experience events in an isolated vacuum;rather, family members are also going to experience many

negative side effects of their spouse’s training program. Of

110 MFT professionals, 87 % rated the top enhancer to be‘‘acceptance of own part in marital/family problems.’’

Approximately 44 % of participants reported the top two

stressors to be ‘‘little time left for own marriage/family’’and ‘‘little energy left for own marriage/family’’ (Wetchler

and Piercy 1986). Although it is unknown whether any of

these participants were students, the results appeared toapply to graduate students when examining a follow-up

study (Sori et al. 1996). The top enhancers and stressors

mirrored Wetchler and Piercy’s (1986) study. Students alsoreported their training experience to be more enhancing

then stressful (Sori et al. 1996).

Program strengths previously identified by studentsincluded growth and learning opportunities, and feeling

supported by faculty (Polson and Piercy 1993). Some stu-

dents with children discussed the need to reduce programdemands that seemed to be unnecessary requirements, such

as publishing and presenting at conferences. ‘‘Most stu-

dents believed that the faculty sent messages, both directand indirect, about the degree of involvement they expec-

ted from the students and what they expected students to

accomplish during their time in the program’’ (p. 82).Financial strains were also identified as a stressor for stu-

dents and were enhanced with faculty’s expectations to

attend conferences. Students described their difficulty try-ing to sustain a quality family life with extremely

Contemp Fam Ther

123

Author's personal copy

competitive program demands. ‘‘If my family is such a

high priority for me, why is it getting no time?’’ (Polsonand Piercy 1993, p. 79). Students also reported that basic

program requirements were inflexible (Polson and Piercy

1993).

COAMFTE Accreditation Standards

The COAMFTE was created in order to ensure quality in

MFT programs. The COAMFTE strives to guarantee thatthere is a continual conversation among training pro-

grams, trainees, professionals, and accreditors and that all

parties are working together to achieve the best training,the most competent professionals, and the best service to

the public (AAMFT 2005). Standards were established for

programs that wish to obtain accreditation. ‘‘Accreditationis a voluntary process whose major purpose is to ensure

quality in a MFT program’’ (AAMFT 2005, p. 3). The

four standards in Version 11 were set in place to ensurethe above goals. While carefully reviewing each standard,

this study attempts to educate faculty and students about

the importance of open communication in order to remaincompliant with accreditation standards. It is crucial to

note that all previous research analyzing students’ per-

ceptions was conducted before COAMFTE version 11was published.

Part of standard I states: ‘‘Expected student learning

outcomes are congruent with the mission, philosophy,goals, and objectives of the program and the institution.

These student learning outcomes reflect MFT philosophy,

standards, and guidelines; consider the needs and expec-tations of the communities of interest; and recognize an

understanding and respect for cultural diversity’’ (AAMFT

2005, p. 6). Past research shows that students were unawareof advisors’ and faculty’s expectations while attending

programs (Golde and Dore 2001). The present study ana-

lyzes students’ perspectives on information provided toprospective students, which will assist in ensuring that

students are receiving correct information and that they

understand the various aspects of the program such asfinancial support, time to degree completion, and structure

of mentoring. If faculty do not consistently understand

students’ perspectives, and acknowledge the variousaspects that students perceive as stressful, educational

outcomes are likely to be lower than anticipated. It is vital

that students of diverse populations feel accepted and thatfaculty discuss topics in relation to diversity. If faculty

members are conveying negative messages to international

students, trainees may not respect or appreciate others fromdiverse backgrounds.

Standard II states: ‘‘The program ensures that high

levels of student achievement and student learning canbe sustained on a continual basis through appropriate

institutional organization, commitment, and resources.

The faculty serve as a resource of the program todevelop and enable the achievement of educational out-

comes of the program’’ (AAMFT 2005, p. 8), and further

explains in standard III: ‘‘The curriculum is developed inaccordance with clear statements of expected results

derived from the educational outcomes of the program

and the field of MFT with clear congruence between theteaching/learning experience and expected outcomes. The

environment for teaching, learning, and evaluation ofstudent performance fosters achievement of the expected

outcomes’’ (AAMFT 2005, p. 10). The present study

investigates how students perceive the program climate,curriculum breadth and flexibility, and mentoring pro-

vided by supervisors, and other faculty members. Stu-

dents have reported desires for greater flexibility incurriculum (Golde and Dore 2001) and additional men-

toring (Nyquist et al. 1999).

Standard IV states: ‘‘The program is effective inachieving its educational outcomes. Satisfactory student

performance and faculty accomplishments reflect

achievement of the stated educational outcomes. Programeffectiveness reflects an ongoing process of improve-

ment’’ (AAMFT 2005, p. 12). The present study is a step

to evaluating students’ perspectives in order for faculty toevaluate their effectiveness and begin to consider various

program improvements to remedy any identified defi-

ciencies. This study also aims to test whether faculty andstudent views of their program stressors and enhancers

align. If faculty members’ views align with students’,

faculty are likely to be able to empathize more ade-quately, add additional flexibility for students, and pro-

vide coping mechanisms for dealing with high-stress

aspects.

Consequences of Not Bridging the Gap

in Communication

Polson et al. (1996) explained that if faculty members do

not occasionally evaluate the demands of their program,they may not recognize the negative consequences that

the program and graduate student lifestyle have on stu-

dents and their loved ones. Students who are experi-encing an abundant amount of stress while at school may

have lower achievement outcomes than those required by

the training program. If stress persists without beingrecognized or adequately coped with, students’ dropout

and burnout rates may increase (Polson and Nida 1998).

Faculty may also miss learning about the real strengthsof their program perceived by the students and their

families. ‘‘A given stressor, when added to heavy work

demands, and the other academic and clinical trainingdemands of a program, may increase the strain of all

Contemp Fam Ther

123

Author's personal copy

program and non-program demands’’ (Polson and Nida

1998, p. 105).Over time, trainees may experience effects similar to

those of professionals in the field, such as burnout,

depression, and higher marital discord (Stevanovic andRupert 2009). Individuals coming from a diverse back-

ground may continue to experience discrimination and may

not feel welcome in the MFT field—a field that is knownfor accepting and encouraging cultural differences. Pro-

grams may also run the risk of not abiding by COAMFTEstandards.

Hypotheses

This research study investigated the following hypothesis:(1) What program factors are identified as the most

stressful and (2) enhancing for students attending a MFT

graduate training program? (3) What program factors areidentified by faculty as the most stressful and (4) enhancing

for students? (5) Students will report lower satisfaction

than faculty.

Methods

Participants and Procedure

The population used for this study included master’s and

doctoral level students and faculty currently enrolled or

working at an AAMFT-approved MFT training programin the US. The list of AAMFT-approved Master’s level

(N = 75) and Doctoral level (N = 23) programs was

obtained from the AAMFT website page ‘‘MFT Accred-ited Programs.’’ Program directors of MFT graduate

programs were emailed an overview of the study, asking

for their participation, and instructions for them to dis-tribute the email containing a link to the faculty members’

survey and to distribute a separate email containing a link

to the students’ survey. A follow-up email was sent10 days later. Due to the lack of faculty participants, the

researcher resent the faculty email 90 days after the fol-

low-up email to all faculty members teaching in MFTgraduate programs.

Measurements

Perceived Program Strengths

The National Doctoral Program Survey (NDPS) was uti-

lized to measure doctoral students’ satisfaction regarding

their graduate program (Barnes and Randall 2012). Thisstudy was administered to master’s and doctoral students

and faculty so slight modification to the wording occurred.The NDPS is a 48-item measure using a 4-point Likert

scale. Each question was scored numerically: 1 (strongly

disagree), 2 (disagree), 3 (agree), and 4 (strongly agree).‘‘Don’t know,’’ ‘‘Not applicable,’’ and no response were

not included when calculating the scores.

Additional questions were added to the survey toevaluate topics found in previous research to be a

stressor or enhancer. The present study added four sub-

scales to the original survey. The revised survey includedsubscales: information for prospective students, curricular

breadth and flexibility, teaching, professional develop-

ment, career guidance and placement services, time todegree completion, mentoring, program climate, diver-

sity, family time, financial support, feedback provided to

students, and overall satisfaction. Given the lack ofresearch investigating faculty perceptions of programs,

the NDPS survey was slightly altered to measure the

same subscales that were being asked of students.Table 1 provides the reliability, mean, and standard

deviation for each subscale.

Table 1 Means, standard deviations, and reliabilities for scales onthe faculty and student questionnaires

Scale M SD Combineda

Studentsa(n = 43)

Facultya(n = 112)

Information forprospectivestudentsa

3.02 .36 .87 .85 .89

Curricular breadth/flexibilitya

.29 .13 .76 .80 .60

Teachinga 2.52 .27 .74 .71 .77

Professionaldevelopmenta

3.11 .48 .56 .53 .46

Career guidance/placementservicesa

2.71 .11 .90 .92 .78

Time to degreecompletiona

3.09 .35 .69 .75 .42

Mentoringb 3.41 .17 .90 .90 .86

Program climatea 3.23 .38 .69 .70 .54

Diversityc 3.20 .47 .41 .43 .38

Family timec 2.52 .26 .78 .79 .71

Financial supportd 2.69 .82 – – –

Feedback providedto students

3.09 .18 .91 .92 .86

Overallsatisfactionb

3.33 .27 .85 .83 .89

a Original subscale in NDPSb Questions added to the existing subscale in NDPSc Entire subscale was added to the NDPSd Subscale consisted of only one item

Contemp Fam Ther

123

Author's personal copy

Results

Assumptions

Data were entered into and analyzed using SPSS. There werefour univariate outliers that were excluded from the analysis. A

total of 112 students and 43 faculty members answered the

surveys to completion and were included in the data analysis.SPSS frequencies and descriptives were run to analyze missing

data. The teaching subscale had 62 participants with missing

data. Participants frequently answered ‘‘Not applicable’’ tothose questions, perhaps because many master’s students do

not teach while enrolled in the graduate program. Univariate

normality of continuous variables was checked. Skewness andkurtosis were analyzed for significance. Significant skewness

occurred for subscales ‘‘Time to Degree Completion’’ (skew-

ness = -3.65), ‘‘Mentoring’’ (skewness = -3.66), and‘‘Program Climate’’ (skewness = -3.77). All transformations

attempted did not resolve the skewness.

Demographics

Faculty

Of the 66 faculty members who accessed the link, 43

faculty members completed the questionnaire and wereincluded in the analysis; 67 % of participants identified as

female and 33 % identified as male. Participants rangedbetween 23 and 62 years of age (M = 44.0, Mdn = 42,

SD = 9.2). The number of years participants have been

teaching in the MFT program ranged from 1 to 24 years(M = 8.7, Mdn = 7, SD = 7.0). Most (63 % of) partici-

pants reported teaching in a master’s level training pro-

gram, whereas 14 % of participants reported teaching in adoctoral level training program, and 21 % of participants

reported teaching in both master’s and doctoral level

training programs; 2 % did not answer this question.

Students

Of 173 students who accessed the link, 116 completed the

survey. Of these, 112 students were included in the ana-

lysis; 81 % of participants identified as female, 17 %identified as male, 1 % identified as transgender, and 1 %

did not answer. Participants ranged between 21 and

56 years of age (M = 29.4, Mdn = 27, SD = 7.7). Most(81 %) participants reported pursuing their master’s and

19 % of participants reported pursuing their doctorate.

Students’ and Faculty Perceptions of Program Aspects

The first and second research question asked which pro-gram factor would be identified as the most stressful and

most enhancing for students attending a MFT trainingprogram. The third and fourth research question asked

which program factor would be identified by faculty

members as the most stressful and most enhancing forstudents. The means are listed in Table 2 and a series of

paired sample t tests were utilized in order to compare each

pair of means. Table 2 indicates the order of subscalesfrom highest to lowest according to students’ responses

(the population who had the most participants). This

ranking of subscales displays an extensive view of whichsubscales were reported to be most enhancing to most

stressful. The mentoring subscale was placed at the top of

the list due to it being the highest rating for faculty out ofthe thirteen subscales, and the third highest rating for stu-

dents. Of the six significantly different subscales, students

rated this subscale the highest. Mentoring was also differ-ent from most of the other subscales. The subscales, career

guidance and placement services, financial support, teach-

ing, and family time were ranked in the lowest four spotsfor both faculty and students, indicating that these four

program aspects are most stressful for students attending

graduate school.A vital discovery when reviewing students’ and faculty

means was that the two sets of participants scored similarly in

prioritization of the scores. A Spearman rank order correla-tion was conducted in order to find the correlation between

the populations. The correlation between students and fac-

ulty (.895) indicates that faculty and student’s rankings arehighly correlated, which indicates a high degree of overlap in

terms of how they prioritized the scales.

Table 2 Ranking of student and faculty means

Subscale Student mean(n = 112)

Faculty mean(n = 43)

Mentoring 3.23a 3.56a

Curricular breadth andflexibility

3.26a 3.38ab

Overall satisfaction 3.24a 3.39ab

Diversity 3.21ab 3.20bc

Program climate 3.16a 3.36b

Professional development 3.06ac 3.38ab

Time to degree completion 3.04ad 3.19bc

Feedback 2.98bde 3.35abc

Information for prospectivestudents

2.95cdf 3.27bc

Career guidance andplacement services

2.67 g 3.06bc

Financial support 2.66efg 2.78 cd

Teaching 2.59efg 2.86bcd

Family time 2.52 g 2.50d

Means with different subscripts are significantly different at p \ .05from other means in the same column

Contemp Fam Ther

123

Author's personal copy

Evaluation of Hypothesis

The hypothesis that graduate students would report lower

satisfaction than faculty members was found to be partiallysupported. An independent t test indicated that students and

faculty members differed significantly on 6 of the 13

subscales: information for prospective students, profes-sional development, career guidance and placement ser-

vices, mentoring, program climate, and feedback provided

to students (see Table 3). In all six cases, students reportedlower satisfaction than faculty. Thus, the hypothesis was

partially supported.

Major Program Shifts

An additional question asked to faculty members: ‘‘Has the

program you teach in been through a major shift in the past

5 years? If yes, please explain.’’ Nine of the 24 facultymembers who taught in master’s programs and 8 of the 14

faculty members who taught in both training programs

reported that there was some form of faculty turnover. Nofaculty member teaching in the doctoral program reported a

shift in faculty. Seven of the master’s faculty stated that

there was a change in program directors. It should be notedthat because the survey did not ask faculty the name of the

university in which they taught—it is difficult to say how

many schools are impacted by shifts in faculty turnover.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to investigate students’ and

faculty perceptions of MFT training programs and to spe-cifically identify which aspects of the graduate programs

are seen as more stressful or enhancing for students. Whenanalyzing students’ and faculty perceptions separately to

identify the specific enhancers and stressors, the findings

showed that there was a large amount of overlap among thesubscales, especially among faculty. However, the indi-

vidual lists of faculty and students’ means for each sub-

scale showed participants similarity in prioritization, whichseems to indicate that students and faculty have similar

beliefs in which program aspects are more stressful or

enhancing than others. Students did report significantlylower satisfaction in six of the subscales: information for

prospective students, professional development, career

guidance and placement services, mentoring, program cli-mate, and feedback provided to students. The results thus

partially confirmed the hypothesis that students enrolled in

MFT graduate programs would report lower satisfactionthan faculty members.

Students’ and Faculty Perceptions of MFT TrainingPrograms

Mentoring

Previously students reported a desire for additional men-

toring from faculty (Nyquist et al. 1999). This subscalesurveyed participants’ perceptions of the amount and

quality of time students spend with advisors and program

supervisors, students’ comfort discussing careers in andoutside of academia, the support and respect offered in the

program, and students’ involvement in decisions relevant

to their education. Of the six significant subscales, facultyand students reported ‘‘mentoring’’ as the highest subscale.

These results indicate that students are more satisfied than

dissatisfied with the mentoring provided to them, however,faculty did report higher means than students.

There are several benefits to students and faculty being

satisfied with the mentoring that students are receiving.First, students who are entering academia should be well

equipped with how to professionally and appropriately

mentor future students. Secondly, students who are satis-fied with the amount and quality of time they spend with

their advisors and supervisors may be better equipped to

handle stressors (Nyquist et al. 1999), or at least to feelmore comfortable to disclose their stress towards faculty.

Table 3 Comparison of student and faculty means

Subscales Student mean(n = 112)

Faculty mean(n = 43)

ta

Information forprospective students

2.94 (.528) 3.27 (.519) -3.40*

Curriculum breath andflexibility

3.25 (.548) 3.37 (.462) -1.27

Teaching 2.55 (.788) 2.86 (.645) -1.55

Professionaldevelopment

3.06 (.564) 3.38 (.505) -3.27**

Career guidance andplacement servicesb

2.66 (.835) 3.05 (.583) -3.20**

Time to degreecompletion

3.03 (.733) 3.19 (.647) -1.17

Mentoringb 3.22 (.567) 3.56 (.331) -4.57***

Program climate 3.15 (.468) 3.36 (.381) -2.49*

Diversity 3.20 (.557) 3.19 (.498) 0.12

Family time 2.52 (.738) 2.50 (.583) 0.15

Financial support 2.66 (.860) 2.78 (.706) -0.80

Feedback provided tostudents

2.98 (.754) 3.35 (.579) -2.85**

Overall satisfaction 3.24 (.574) 3.39 (.495) -1.51

Standard deviations are provided in parentheses

* p \ .05; ** p \ .01; *** p \ .001a Degrees of freedom range from 62 to 153b Assumption of equal variances was not met

Contemp Fam Ther

123

Author's personal copy

Lastly, students who feel respected, supported, and

involved with decisions relevant to their education are aptto experience a decrease in stress, produce more qualitative

work (Hollingsworth and Fassinger 2002), and have an

overall more satisfying graduate training experience (Pol-son and Piercy 1993).

In order to continue to enhance the satisfaction of

mentoring between students and faculty, students need tocontinue communicating their contentment with the men-

toring process. Training programs are able to structure aform that is dedicated to helping students evaluate their

satisfaction with both the time and quality they spend with

their supervisors and advisors. During the end of thesemester, individual time should be spent in which students

are able to openly discuss their satisfaction with the men-

toring provided to them over the semester.

Program Climate

Although previous research (Mittal and Wieling 2006)

found that students from underrepresented groups felt

minimized by faculty, the current study showed that stu-dents believe their program provides an environment in

which underrepresented groups feel comfortable. This

subscale measured items such as students’ beliefs that theyhave diverse faculty, faculty are accepting of diverse

populations, programs recruit students from underrepre-

sented groups, students have the time and freedom topursue outside interests, and students receive sufficient

financial support to maintain an acceptable standard of

living.The present study demonstrated that students and faculty

members are above the theoretical mid-point for program

climate and was placed second of the six subscales inprioritization. However, caution should be taken when

interpreting these results because the demographics show

that the majority of participants indentified as heterosexual,female Caucasians; these results thus may not apply to

individuals from other backgrounds. It is understandable

that students need to feel that their training program isaccepting and openly recruiting individuals from diverse

backgrounds. By students feeling that their faculty are

accepting of others and that faculty members are diverse,students will likely have more opportunities to learn about

other cultures and be more accepting of clients from

diverse backgrounds.Students who believe that they have time to pursue

outside interests and receive sufficient financial support

will likely experience a reduction in stress. Students whopursue outside interests are likely to utilize this time for

self-care and to cope effectively with other stressors. Stu-

dents who report receiving sufficient financial support willnot likely seek additional employment while in their

program and will also not need to receive loans. It will be

difficult for faculty to assess these program characteristicsunless students candidly discuss their perceptions to fac-

ulty. Students should be given an opportunity each

semester to discuss their thoughts regarding diversity, timeto pursue outside interests, and financial support.

Professional Development

Previous research on professional development has beencontradictory. Some research (Golde and Dore 2001) has

found that students did not have a clear understanding on

how to obtain research funding, whereas other studies(Farber 1983; Guy 1987) have indicated that students

believed they were learning new skills and notions, and

were experiencing professional growth and development(Polson and Piercy 1993). This subscale measured partic-

ipants’ perceptions of students receiving sufficient resour-

ces, training in professional ethics and responsibilities, andprofessional skills such as public speaking, grant writing,

and working in teams. Professional development was

ranked the third highest by students and faculty.The present study found that faculty members rated

higher than students when analyzing the guidance students

receive in the area of professional development. Ade-quately preparing students in the area of professional ethics

and responsibilities should be one of the top priorities of

MFT training programs. Producing ethical clinicians is akey aspect of COAMFTE accreditation standards and if

training programs are to continue abiding by them, faculty

must ensure that programs are providing education thatproperly encompasses professional ethics. Learning ethical

behaviors, characteristics, and skills will also further

ensure the quality of treatment that is provided to clients.Students who believe they are being taught skills such as

grant writing, public speaking, and professional ethical

behaviors are likely to have more confidence in themselvesand the work they produce. An increase in work confidence

will likely increase students’ contributions to the MFT

field. Students who do not believe they are learning suchskills may not have the confidence or the ability to produce

as much work as students who carry these beliefs. To

enhance this aspect training programs are able to offer orencourage students to attend additional training seminars

focused on professional growth and development.

Feedback Provided to Students

Previous research (Nyquist et al. 1999) showed that stu-dents in graduate training programs desired additional

feedback from faculty members. This subscale measured

perceptions on students’ opportunities to provide feedbackwith regard to program improvements, and students’

Contemp Fam Ther

123

Author's personal copy

satisfaction with faculty feedback. Faculty and students

ranked the subscale fourth out of the six significant sub-scales. Both students and faculty ranked feedback provided

to students above the theoretical midpoint, however, fac-

ulty did report a higher mean than students.Students who are satisfied with the opportunities they

are given to provide feedback to faculty regarding program

improvements and with faculty responses to their feedbackwill likely experience a reduction of stress. Students who

experience stress should communicate with faculty mem-bers which program aspects are causing stress and what

they believe may enhance the program. Even if faculty are

unable to alter the program aspect that is causing studentsdifficulty, students may likely feel understood and

acknowledged by faculty (Polson and Nida 1998). To

enhance this program aspect, training programs are able toassign a student representative to gather students’ percep-

tions of the program. The student representative is then

able to provide the information to faculty in an anonymousmanner. Faculty are then able to meet and consider how

they would like to handle the students’ input.

Information for Prospective Students

Similar to previous research (Golde and Dore 2001), thepresent study showed that MFT graduate students reported

lower satisfaction than faculty for the subscale information

for prospective students. This subscale surveyed perceptionsregarding information provided to students regarding the

cost of the program, financial support provided to admitted

students, requirements and expectations of the program, andthe average time to degree completion. This subscale was

ranked fifth of the six significant subscales, but fifth from the

bottom of all the subscales. Being unaware of this informa-tion during the application process may create additional

stress for students during their graduate training experience.

Students who are well informed of the amount of timethey will spend pursuing their degree, the amount of money

that will be provided to them, and the requirements and

expectations that will be placed upon them should be betterequipped to handle these program aspects when they arise.

If students are unable to adequately prepare themselves in

advance for these aspects, they may experience additionalstress. It is difficult to say whether students are misinter-

preting the information that is provided to them during the

application process or if the information provided to themcould be explained more clearly for students. It is vital to

note that there is a lack of research investigating the

information that students retain about the program duringthe recruitment phase. During the application process, it is

possible that prospective students are more concerned with

being admitted into the program resulting in vital infor-mation not fully being understood.

It may be particularly beneficial to students for training

programs to assign currently enrolled student mentors toprospective students during the interview process. This

structure would allow current students to communicate

frankly to prospective students about every aspect of thetraining program. If current students are uncertain about

aspects of their training program, these students and faculty

should communicate about these aspects—further ensuringcurrent and prospective students’ knowledge of the

program.

Career Guidance and Placement Services

There is a lack of published literature investigating stu-

dents’ and faculty perceptions of effective career guidance

and job search support in training programs. This subscalemeasured participants’ perceptions regarding students

receiving effective career guidance and planning services,

and placement assistance and job search support for posi-tions in and outside of academia. The results showed that

of the six significantly different subscales, this subscale

contained the lowest mean for student and faculty partici-pants, indicating that both groups of participants perceive

that career guidance and placement services in training

programs are not as enhancing as other program aspects.Similar to the other subscales, faculty reported higher

satisfaction with these services than did students.

After experiencing a graduate training program, studentswill likely be looking forward to utilizing their newfound

knowledge by either assisting clients in a clinical setting or

teaching future MFT students in academia. Being unable tofind a job may be a large stressor for students who are

likely to be in debt and anxious to begin working in their

field of choice. Increasing job support and career guidanceservices may assist students in locating open positions,

creating an effective resume, and landing an employment

spot in the position of their choice. Providing a trainingseminar for students that discuss potential job opportunities

in and outside of academia may help alleviate students’

stress regarding career guidance.

Additional Subscales

Although the other seven subscales were not significant,

caution should be taken when analyzing these results. The

measures may not have been the most useful tools whensurveying these topics. Curriculum breadth and flexibility,

teaching, time to degree completion, diversity, family

time, financial support, and overall satisfaction were allreported in previous research (Golde and Dore 2001;

Mittal and Wieling 2006; Nyquist et al. 1999; Polson and

Piercy 1993) as being stressful for students. As all wereabove the theoretical midpoint, there appears to be a

Contemp Fam Ther

123

Author's personal copy

conflict in identifying if these aspects are stressors or

enhancers.

Similarity in Prioritization

After reviewing the results, it appears that faculty and

students are highly similar in their rankings of the thirteen

subscales. Thus, it appears as though faculty members andstudents are in close alignment while ranking the subscales.

The slight difference in the ranking of subscales is apositive component to the present study. The difference in

perceptions is what keeps programs consistently changing

and being re-evaluated. If there was no difference in per-ceptions, programs would remain dormant and would

likely not alter. Although faculty and students were similar

in alignment, faculty means were slightly higher than stu-dents’ means.

Implications for the Field of Marriage and FamilyTherapy

The results of this study have several implications for thefield of MFT. The present study has shown that students

and faculty are similar in priority when ranking each sub-

scale. Faculty means were higher for each of the six sig-nificant subscales when compared to students. As a result,

faculty appear to believe these program factors are more

satisfying than students. The results of the present studydemonstrate numerous aspects of general systems theory

and the importance these facets have on faculty-student

communication.General systems theory (von Bertalanffy 1968) focuses

on the relationship and interactions that exist between the

objects of a larger system. Cybernetics (Wiener 1954)states that humans are consistently attempting to control

dysfunction in systems through feedback that will impact

future performance. General systems theory was combinedwith cybernetic theory and applied to families by Gregory

Bateson (1972). One main component of systems theory is

the notion that patterns in a system are circular rather thanlinear. Circular causality is the notion that each compo-

nent’s actions in the system are caused by and causes the

other components’ actions. When analyzing the results ofthis study, it is crucial to recognize that faculty and stu-

dents’ perceptions of training programs, the structure of the

programs, and the clinical work trainees provide are allconsistently impacting one another. For example, the

structure that faculty implement may be based upon stu-

dents’ feedback regarding the program; the students’ per-ceptions of training programs are likely to impact their

clinical work.

Circular causality is a major benefit to the trainingprogram subsystem and the results to this study. It is

important that faculty and students in programs recognize

the impact of circular causality and how each member’sactions will impact another aspect. Training programs are

consistently being re-structured by faculty and students’

perceptions. In order to ensure that MFT programs arebeing re-structured in the most effective manner, it is

important that students’ and faculty are candidly discussing

their beliefs among others in the system.In addition to the concept of circular causality, it may

also be advantageous to note the potential relevance ofcontextual variables while interpreting these results. Con-

textual variables are a vital aspect of general systems

theory as they describe the system in which the program isembedded. Notions such as the program size, life cycle of

the program, length of accreditation, and the locality of the

training program will impact the program, students, andfaculty. Each of these variables give further detail regard-

ing the system that maintains the program.

In order to decrease negative consequences that mayresult from attending a graduate program in the helping

profession, such as burnout and dropout (Polson and Nida

1998), faculty need to ensure that communication betweenstudents and faculty is omnipresent. There is literature in

almost every professional field that discusses the positive

impact that effective communication can have on individ-uals and the systems in which they are involved (McKay

et al. 1995). Although it is beyond the scope of this paper to

discuss every positive aspect of communication, it shouldbe noted that an increase in communication enhances

problem solving skills, self-awareness, and intimacy in

relationships (Ellis and Beattie 1986). The present study isan additional step for the MFT field to evaluate and

enhance the communication that exists in training pro-

grams. When faculty members enhance their communica-tion with students, they will be able to evaluate and

possibly restructure program characteristics, and assist

students to identify and implement effective copingmechanisms to deal with the various stressors in the pro-

gram. Students who view their training programs as more

stressful than enhancing may experience more stress whencompared to students who have a more satisfying experi-

ence (Polson and Piercy 1993).

Students under more stress may begin to experiencedeclines in clinical work. Students who are unsatisfied with

the mentoring that is provided to them, the program cli-

mate, and their career guidance may find their clinicalexperiences less satisfying than students who view these

program aspects as enhancers. It is also vital that MFT

programs are producing the best clinicians possible in orderfor the program to stay in alignment with COAMFTE

standards. The system that exists in academia needs to

remain open to ensure that trainees are receiving the besteducation and guidance as possible—which will further

Contemp Fam Ther

123

Author's personal copy

ensure that the clinical work the trainee is providing is

ethical and most effective.

Limitations and Future Directions

This study experienced several limitations; the most glar-

ing would be the need of a larger sample for both students

and faculty. One reason for not being able to acquire alarger sample size was due to the restricted age range of

18–64 years. Many faculty members who are over the ageof 64 hold perceptions of training programs that may be

different from younger individuals. Several faculty mem-

bers over the limit wanted to complete the survey, but wererefused due to the researcher’s IRB policy of treating them

as a special population requiring full IRB review, which

was deemed likely to significantly delay completion of thisproject. This population will have likely taught in programs

longer and may have a better understanding of the effects

of programs for students than the individuals who havebeen teaching only a few years. The limited sample also

was not particularly diverse. Future research should be sure

to survey a larger representation of individuals of variousethnicities, sexual orientations, and genders.

An additional limitation of the present study included

the discrepancy of the subscales. Many of the subscalesfrom the NDPS received low reliability scores. Due to the

limited amount of research investigating students’ and

faculty views of graduate programs, the researchers hadlimited options for what to include in the surveys. The

researchers also needed to include questions that were

geared toward the MFT field. These questions may havelowered the reliability scores. It is likely that the

researchers were unable to create the best possible mea-

sures of investigating perceptions, and further research isneeded to develop and validate more reliable measures. In

relation to this topic, three of the subscales (time to degree

completion, mentoring, and program climate) reportedslightly significant skewness. Unfortunately, transforma-

tions were unable to resolves this problem so caution

should be taken when reviewing these subscales.Lastly, due to the scope of this study, the present

research was unable to examine program characteristics

that were identified as stressors in previous literature. Forexample, the present study was not able to measure the

amount of direct and indirect messages sent by faculty

regarding the degree of involvement they expected fromstudents and what they expected students to accomplish

during the program. The present study also did not ask

about additional burdens, such as publishing and presentingat or attending conferences.

Based upon the stated limitations, future research should

include individuals who are over 64 years of age. Thesample should also include more individuals from various

ethnicities, genders, and sexual orientations. Due to the

limited survey tools that investigate students’ perceptionsof graduate programs, future research should create a better

tool in order to ensure more accurate reliabilities and

subscales with no significant skewness. The future researchshould utilize a Likert scale beyond the 4-point method the

present study used in order to receive more accurate data.

Finally, future research should also continue to surveyenhancers and stressors that the present study was unable to

cover.

Conclusion

Attending a graduate training program can be one of the

most exciting, and yet stressful, times in an individual’slife. Additional stressors, such as clinical work, teaching or

research assistantships, and a thesis or dissertation, can

leave MFT graduate students overwhelmed. Previous lit-erature (Polson and Piercy 1993) has expressed the

importance of faculty knowing and understanding student’s

perceptions of their training programs. Past studies haveidentified several stressors and enhancers for MFT stu-

dents. However, there is limited research identifying fac-

ulty member’s perceptions of the programs in which theyteach, and no research comparing student and faculty

perceptions.

The present study demonstrated that students and fac-ulty members differ in their perceptions of six out of

thirteen different program characteristics: information to

prospective students, professional development, careerguidance and placement services, mentoring, program

climate, and feedback provided to students. Faculty per-

ceived the program characteristics more positively thanstudents, although, students’ and faculty means ranked

similarly in prioritization. Considering these results, it

appears that faculty members perceive these various pro-gram characteristics as more enhancing than students.

However, faculty and students do align similarly when

analyzing the ranks of subscales from most enhancing tomost stressful.

References

American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy (AAMFT).(2005). American Association for Marriage and Family Ther-apy: Accreditation standards (11th ed.). Alexandria, VA:Commission on Accreditation for Marriage and Family TherapyEducation (COAMFTE).

Barnes, B., & Randall, J. (2012). Doctoral student satisfaction: Anexamination of disciplinary, enrollment, and institutional differ-ences. Research in Higher Education, 53, 47–75. doi:10.1007/s11162-011-9225-4.

Contemp Fam Ther

123

Author's personal copy

Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of the mind. New York:Ballantine.

Ellis, A., & Beattie, G. (1986). The psychology of language andcommunication. New York: Guilford Press.

Farber, B. A. (1983). The effects of psychotherapeutic practice uponpsychotherapists. Psychotherapy: Theory Research and Practice,20, 174–182.

Golde, C., & Dore, T. (2001). At cross purposes: What theexperiences of doctoral students reveal about doctoral educa-tion. Philadelphia, PA: Pew Charitable Trusts.

Guy, J. (1987). The personal life of the psychotherapist. New York:Wiley.

Hollingsworth, M., & Fassinger, R. (2002). The role of facultymentors in the research training of counseling psychologydoctoral students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49,324–330.

Kaslow, F., & Rice, D. (1985). Developmental stresses of psychologyinternship training. Professional Psychology: Research andPractice, 16, 253–261.

McKay, M., Davis, M., & Fanning, P. (1995). How to communicate(Vol. 2). New York: MJF Books.

Mittal, M., & Wieling, E. (2006). Training experiences of interna-tional doctoral students in marriage and family therapy. Journalof Marital and Family Therapy, 32, 369–383. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.2006.tb01613.x.

Nyquist, J. D., Manning, L., Wulff, D. H., Austin, A. E., Sprague, J.,Fraser, P. K., et al. (1999). On the road to becoming a professor.Change, 31(3), 18–27.

Nyquist, J. & Woodford, B. (2000). Re-envisioning the Ph.D.: Whatconcerns do we have? http://www.grad.washington.edu/envision/project_rexources/concerns.html.

Polson, M., & Nida, R. (1998). Program and trainee lifestyle stress: Asurvey of AAMFT student members. Journal of Marital andFamily Therapy, 24, 95–112. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.1998.tb01065.x.

Polson, M., & Piercy, F. (1993). The impact of training stress onmarried family therapy trainees and their families: A focus groupstudy. Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 4, 69–92.

Polson, M., Piercy, F., & Nida, R. (1996). MFT trainee adjustment toprogram lifestyle stress: The TAPS scale. Contemporary FamilyTherapy, 18, 405–424.

Stevanovic, P., & Rupert, P. (2009). Work-family spillover and lifesatisfaction among professional psychologists. ProfessionalPsychology: Research and Practice, 40, 62–68. doi:10.1037/a0012527.

Sori, C., Wetchler, J., Ray, R., & Neidner, D. (1996). The impact ofmarriage and family therapy graduate training programs onmarried students and their families. American Journal of FamilyTherapy, 24, 259–268.

von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General systems theory: Foundations,development, applications. New York: George Braziller.

Wetchler, J., & Piercy, F. (1986). The marital/family life of the familytherapist: Stressors and enhancers. The American Journal ofFamily Therapy, 14, 99–108.

Wiener, N. (1954). The human use of human beings: Cybernetics andsociety. New York: Avon.

Contemp Fam Ther

123

Author's personal copy