Abstract
This commentary, in response to Dixon et al. (Behavior Analysis in Practice, 8, 7–15, 2015), describes difficulties in defining metrics of quality in graduate training for different audiences (types of applicants). Outcome measures are preferred whenever possible, supplemented by subjective but frequently used opinion surveys.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Buchmeuller, T. C., Dominitz, J., & Hansen, W. L. (1999). Graduate training and the early career productivity of Ph.D. economists. Economics of Education Review, 18, 65–77.
Clemente, F., & Sturgis, R. (1974). Quality of departments of doctoral training and research productivity. Sociology of Education, 47, 287–299.
Dixon, M. R., Reed, D. D., Smith, T., Belisle, J., & Jackson, R. E. (2015). Research rankings of behavior analysis graduate programs and their faculty. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 8, 7–15.
Hogan, T. D. (1981). Faculty research activity and the quality of graduate training. Journal of Human Resources, 3, 400–415.
Maher, B. (1999). Changing trends in doctoral training programs in psychology: a comparative analysis of research-oriented versus professional-applied programs. Psychological Science, 10, 475–481.
Ostriker, J. P., Holland, P. W., Kuh, C. V., & Voytuk, J. A. (Eds.). (2011). A data-based assessment of research-doctorate programs in the United States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Brian Iwata is a distinguished professor at the University of Florida, where he serves as coordinator of the behavior analysis training program.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Iwata, B.A. Metrics of Quality in Graduate Training. Behav Analysis Practice 8, 136–137 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-015-0076-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-015-0076-x