Report on the Survey of Graduate Programs in Industrial/Organizational
Psychology and Organizational Behavior/Human Resources
Joan R. Rentsch |
Geula Lowenberg |
Wright State University |
University of Wisconsin-Parkside |
Janet Barnes-Farrell |
Darcy Menard |
University of Connecticut |
Wright State University |
Using a systems model, input, throughput, and outcome variables were
examined for differences related to degree type and to graduate program type.
Specifically, systems model components of Ph.D. programs in Indus-trial/Organizational
Psychology (I/O) were compared to those of Ph.D. programs in Organizational Behavior/Human
Resources (OB/HR). Masters and Ph.D. degree programs in I/O were compared similarly.
Program and degree type produced significant differences in all three systems components.
For example, GRE requirements, work history (inputs), number of full-time faculty
(throughput), number of degrees awarded, and job placements (outcomes) differed based on
degree type and program type.
How do I/O programs located in psychology departments differ from their
counterparts located in business schools and management departments? In what ways do
masters level programs differ from doctoral programs in I/O? Students who plan to pursue
graduate work in our field commonly ask these questions. Some of the answers are fairly
straightforward; others are less obvious. In this article, we have tried to summarize some
of the salient distinctions that emerged when we examined the self-described
characteristics of graduate programs included in the most recent edition of Graduate
Training Programs in Industrial/Organizational Psychology and Related Fields, a SIOP
publication that students, faculty, and guidance counselors use frequently as a source of
information about graduate training programs in the field of I/O psychology.
Background
In 1995, the Education and Training Committee of SIOP conducted a
survey of graduate program characteristics, admission standards, and program
requirements/features. All known doctoral and masters degree programs in I/O psychology
were invited to complete the survey; programs were identified from previous editions of
the guide to I/O graduate training programs published by SIOP, journal articles describing
graduate training in industrial psychology, and direct solicitation through notices placed
in professional society newsletters. The survey was distributed to a total of 175
programs; completed surveys returned were by 143 programs. Responses were used to prepare
the 1995 edition of Graduate Training Programs in Industrial/Organizational Psychology
and Related Fields, which is available from the SIOP Administrative Office.
Method
Data obtained from the 1995 survey of graduate programs in I/O
psychology and OB/HR were analyzed to assess differences: (a) between I/O doctoral
programs (n = 48) and OB/HR doctoral programs (n = 29); and (b) between I/O
doctoral programs (n = 48) and I/O master’s programs (n = 45). Eleven
programs had both terminal masters degrees and doctoral degrees. We conducted the analyses
including and excluding these 11 cases. Because the results were very similar, we have
included them in the reported results.
Using a systems model, we identified the survey items that assessed
program inputs, throughputs, and outcomes. Input variables included: program admission
requirements and characteristics of students admitted to the program. Throughput variables
contained: the characteristics of the faculty and students and program requirements.
Output variables incorporated: the numbers of graduates, time to complete the program, job
placement information, and professional organizational memberships. Items that asked about
licensing issues and plans for future program development were also analyzed. The input,
throughput, and outcome variables served as dependent variables.
For the continuous dependent variables, analyses were conducted using
one-way ANOVAS, except when tests for homogeneity of variance were significant. In these
cases, t-tests were conducted. All significance levels were set at .05. Categorical
variables were analyzed using chi square tests.
Significant differences between means for OB Ph.D., I/O Ph.D., and I/O
masters degree programs for the input, throughput, and outcome variables are presented in
Tables 1 and 2. A summary of the results is presented in the Appendix.
I/O Versus OB Ph.D. Programs
Input Variables: Program Admission Requirements and Student
Characteristics
Program admission requirements and characteristics of students admitted
to the program were the primary input variables. I/O and OB programs differed with respect
to both types of inputs.
Program admission requirements. More I/O programs required the GRE
verbal and quantitative scores (92% and 94%, respectively) than I/O pro-
grams that did not require them (8% and 10%, respectively). Forty-nine
percent of OB programs required the GRE verbal and 41% required the GRE quantitative
scores. The percentages of OB programs requiring the GRE verbal and quantitative scores
were 55 and 59, respectively. More OB programs did not require the GRE analytical score
(72%) than those that did (28%). Approximately equal numbers of I/O programs required the
analytical scores (54%) as those that did not require (46%) them.
GRE verbal minimum scores were significantly higher for OB programs
than for I/O programs. In addition, the GRE total, calculated by summing the GRE
quantitative and verbal minimum scores, was significantly higher for OB than for I/O. No
other differences were found between GRE average or minimum quantitative, verbal, or
analytical scores. GMAT scores and average GPA were not analyzed due to insufficient data.
No significant differences between program type were obtained regarding
factors on which admissions committees place particular emphasis. However, after reviewing
the frequencies, it appears that most programs do place particular emphasis on
quantitative courses, research experience, and the personal statement when making
admission decisions. It also appears that most programs do not put emphasis on
science courses, work experience, extra-curricular activities, interpersonal skills, or a
personal interview.
There were no significant differences in the number of letters of
recommendation required. Most programs required approximately three letters.
Student characteristics. I/O and OB programs differed significantly
in terms of the numbers of students who were offered admission to the programs (based on
data for the 1993-94 and 1994-95 academic years). I/O programs made more offers than OB
programs. No significant differences were detected for the number of applicants or the
number of students enrolled.
Programs differed significantly in terms of the preparation of their
students. The percentage of students currently enrolled who completed their undergraduate
degrees in psychology was significantly higher for I/O programs than for OB programs. As
might be expected OB programs had more enrolled students who had earned undergraduate
degrees in business, in majors other than psychology and business, and who earned a
graduate degree in another program than I/O programs. See Figure 1.
Program type also had a main effect on students’ working history prior to graduate
school (e.g., the percentage of students entering the program who came straight from an
undergraduate program, the percentage of students who came from another graduate program,
the percentage of students who had been working in a related field, and the percentage of
students who had been working in another profession). I/O programs had significantly fewer
students entering who came from work, other graduate programs, and significantly more
students who came straight from undergraduate programs than did OB programs. See Figures
2a and 2b.
The nature of the students who applied to, who were admitted to, and who enrolled in
programs also differed significantly by program type. I/O programs had fewer international
applicants than OB programs. No significant differences were obtained for national,
regional, or local applicants, but the grand means indicated that most applicants were
national, followed by regional, then local (grand mean = 36, 15, 6, respectively).
Enrollment in I/O programs tended to have higher percentages of
national students than OB programs. The grand means indicated a trend for most enrolled
students to be national, followed by regional, international, and then local (grand mean =
44, 15, 8, 6, respectively).
No significant differences in percentages of male, female, ethnic
majority, or ethnic minority applicants were found between program types. However, there
was a main effect for program type on the percentage of females accepted and enrolled. I/O
programs offered admission to and enrolled more females during this time than OB programs,
and made more offers to ethnic majority students. These results are reported in Figures 3
and 4.
Throughput Variables: Program Characteristics and Requirements
Throughput variables included program characteristics and degree
require-ments. Program characteristics referred to the nature of the faculty, the enrolled
students, and student funding.
Program characteristics. OB programs had more full-time faculty,
and more full-time faculty with a primary appointment in the department/unit offering the
program than I/O programs. OB programs had more full-time male faculty, and more female
faculty than I/O programs. Furthermore, OB programs reported having more ethnic majority
full-time faculty than I/O programs. There were no other significant differences in the
faculty makeup.
Although OB programs had more faculty than I/O programs, I/O programs
had more full-time students than OB programs, and I/O programs had more full-time female
students than OB programs. A significantly higher percentage of I/O students worked
part-time while completing their degrees than of OB students.
Degree requirements. Thesis and dissertation requirements differed significantly
between I/O and OB programs. Seventy-nine percent of the I/O programs required a
master’s thesis before continuing to the Ph.D., and only 10% of the OB programs
required it. Eight percent of the I/O and zero percent of the OB programs had both a
thesis and a non-thesis option. All I/O programs required a doctoral dissertation and 86%
of the OB programs required a dissertation.
Each program was asked to consider a list of topics and to indicate
whether a course that includes this topic is required, optional, or not offered by the
program. Significant c 2
s were obtained for comparisons between I/O and OB programs for these course requirements:
biological bases of behavior, a general graduate-level I/O course, ethical and
professional standards, personnel selection, organizational theory, job analysis, and
consumer behavior. Forty percent of the I/O programs required biological bases of
behavior, but only 3% of the OB programs required it. Thirty-three percent of the I/O and
28% of the OB programs listed it as optional. A general graduate level I/O course was
listed as required by 71% of the I/O and 34% of the OB programs, and as optional by 2% and
21% of the programs, respectively. Eight percent of I/O and 10% of OB programs did not
offer this course.
Sixty percent of the I/O programs and only 21% of OB programs re-quired
an ethics course. Thirteen percent of the I/O and 31% of the OB programs had it as
optional, and 8% and 14%, respectively, did not offer it.
Personnel selection was required by 67% of the I/O programs, 13% made
it optional, and only 2% did not offer it. Seven percent of the OB programs did not offer
it, 34% listed it as optional, and only 28% required it.
Organizational theory was not required by any OB program and was
required only by 8% of the I/O programs. Surprisingly, 44% of the I/O programs did not
offer an organizational theory course! Only 14% of the OB programs did not offer it. The
two program types differed on the number of programs listing it as optional (27% of I/O,
58% OB).
Job analysis was required by 54% of the I/O programs, made optional by
21%, and not offered by 4%. It was required by 21% of the OB programs, optional by 34%,
and not offered by 7%.
Forty-eight percent of the I/O programs did not offer consumer
behavior, but only 14% of the OB programs did not offer it. Twenty-seven percent of the
I/O and 45% of the OB programs listed it as optional. Only 4% of the I/O and 3% of the OB
program required it.
No significant differences were revealed for several courses. It
appears that most programs require methods/statistics, leadership, and work motivation.
Most programs listed social bases of behavior, organizational development, training and
development, group dynamics, and human factors as optional or not offered. Interestingly,
training and development was not required except by one OB program. Most programs did not
require a foreign language.
One conclusion might be that I/O programs seem to have a more
agreed-upon curriculum than OB program. An alternative explanation is that the courses
listed on the survey reflected I/O curricula better than OB curricula. Outcome Variables:
Degrees Granted, Job Placements, Professional Affiliations and Credentials
Degrees granted. OB programs reported shorter time periods for
quickest completion to degree and on the average, fewer years to achieve the degree than
I/O programs. Although there was no significant difference in the number of students
earning nonterminal masters degrees, I/O programs produced more doctoral degrees. The
average number of doctoral degrees earned per year in I/O programs (based on academic
years 1992-93 and 1993-94) was 4.1 compared to OB programs’ average of 2.6. There
were no significant differences between programs in terms of students graduating on
schedule or dropping out.
Job Placements. Percentages of degree recipients (again based on
1992-93 and 1993-94 academic years) who took jobs in different settings varied by degree
program. A significantly larger percentage of I/O graduates took teaching/research
positions in psychology departments than OB students; conversely, a higher percentage of
OB graduates took teaching/research positions in business/management schools than I/O
graduates. An interesting observation was that higher percentages of I/O graduates had
taken jobs in the private sector (e.g., corporate positions), public sector jobs (e.g.,
government agency), and applied positions with consulting firms than OB graduates (see
Figures 5a, 5b, and 5c).
Using a 4-point rating scale where 1 is very bad and 4 is very
good, the applied job market was characterized more favorably by I/O programs than by
OB programs. There was no significant difference in the favorability of the academic
market due to program type.
Professional affiliations. Joining specific professional
affiliations and the support provided by faculty to students for enrolling in these
associations was different for I/O and OB programs. In particular, differences were found
for membership in APS. Most OB students do not become members of APS and most faculty tend
not to supply applications to OB programs. No significant chi squares were found for other
professional affiliation variables. However, most programs reported that students joined
SIOP, APA, and the Academy of Management, and that students did not join the Human Factors
and Ergonomics Society, ASTD, or SHRM.
Professional credentials. Considerable uncertainty regarding state
licensing processes was evident among both I/O and OB program respondents. When asked if
graduates qualify to be licensed for independent practice in the state, 0% OB and 38% of
I/O programs responded "yes," about an even number of each reported
"no," and about an even number responded "uncertain."
In answer to the question, "Does a supervised pre-doctoral
internship qualify as part of your state licensure board’s requirements?"
Twenty-five percent of I/O and 28% of OB programs responded "no," 29% of I/O and
45% of OB programs responded "yes," and 19% of I/O and 7% of OB programs
responded "uncertain."
I/O Ph.D. Programs Versus Masters Programs
Input Variables: Program Admission Requirements and Student
Characteristics
Program admission requirements. As might be expected, in general,
GRE scores were higher for Ph.D. programs than for masters programs. These results hold
for GRE verbal minimum and average, quantitative minimum and average, GRE analytical
average, and the GRE totals. Most programs required the GRE verbal and quantitative
scores. GRE analytical scores were required by about 50% of the programs.
Research experience was the only significant factor on which admissions
committees place different emphasis in considering applicants to Ph.D. and to masters
programs. No significant results were obtained for science courses, quantitative courses,
work experience, extracurricular activities, computer/statistical skills, writing skills,
interpersonal skills, personal statement, or personal interview, nor was there a
significant difference in the number of letters of recommendation required.
Student characteristics. Masters programs had significantly fewer
applicants, but more offers of admission than Ph.D. programs.
No significant differences were found in the percentage of students
currently enrolled who completed their undergraduate degrees in psychology, business,
other majors, or other graduate programs. However, as might be expected, Ph.D. programs
had significantly more students who came from other graduate programs than did masters
programs. (See Figure 1.) No other significant differences regarding experience prior to
graduate school were found.
Locality of student was different for the two types of degrees: Masters
programs had higher percentages of local applicants and enrollees than Ph.D. programs.
They also had lower percentages of national students enrolled in the program. No other
significant differences were found between degree programs regarding the place from which
students originate (which holds for students that applied, were admitted, and enrolled in
programs). See Figures 3 and 4.
No significant differences were revealed for percentage of male,
female, or ethnic majority applicant students or accepted students. However, Ph.D.
programs accepted and enrolled higher percentages of ethnic minorities than master’s
programs did. The reason for this finding may be that masters programs take in more local
students.
Throughput Variables: Program Characteristics and Requirements
Program characteristics. Ph.D. programs had more full-time faculty,
full-time faculty with primary appointments in the degree-granting department, and faculty
with primary appointments in other departments than masters programs, but also more ethnic
majority full-time faculty (M = 4.1) than masters programs (M = 3.0).
Ph.D. programs surpassed masters programs in having: more full-time
male faculty, and more full-time faculty identified as an ethnic minority. Ph.D. programs
also had more male and more ethnic majority faculty from other departments.
Students’ characteristics also differed between Ph.D. and masters
programs: Ph.D. programs had lower percentages of part-time students, part-time male
students, and part-time female students. Ph.D. programs had a lower average percentage of
part-time ethnic minority students than masters programs.
It is interesting to note that, although a higher percentage of Ph.D.
students were supported by assistantships, a significantly higher percentage of masters
students worked in a different profession while completing their degrees.
Degree requirements. The only course offerings for which there were
differences between Ph.D. and masters programs were biological bases of behavior, work
motivation, and organizational development: Biological bases of behavior was required by
40% of the Ph.D. programs and by 16% of the masters programs, not offered by 6% of the
Ph.D. programs and 18% of the masters programs, and listed as optional by 33% of the Ph.D.
and 66% of the masters programs. Work motivation was required by many programs (52% of
Ph.D. and 49% of masters degree programs). It was listed as optional by 18% of the masters
and 35% of the Ph.D. programs. Organizational development was required by more masters
programs (49%) than Ph.D. programs (21%), and was listed as optional by 50% of the Ph.D.
programs and by 27% of the masters programs. Only 4% and 8% of the masters and Ph.D.
programs, respectively, did not offer the course.
Nonsignificant chi squares were obtained for many courses. It appeared
that most I/O programs required methods/statistics, a general graduate I/O course, ethical
and professional standards, personnel selection, performance appraisal, leadership, and
job analysis.
Most programs listed social bases of behavior, organizational theory,
training and development (not listed by any program as required), human factors, and
consumer behavior as optional or not offered.
Thesis requirements proved to be another important factor
differentiating between Ph.D. and masters programs. Fifty-one percent of the masters
programs and 79% of the Ph.D. programs required a master’s thesis. Thirty-six
percent of the masters and 8% of the Ph.D. programs had both a thesis
and a nonthesis option. Only 11% of the masters and 13% of the Ph.D. programs did not
require a thesis.
A practicum was required by only 4% of the masters programs. Forty
percent of the masters programs recommended it to students, and 42% of programs did not
encourage taking it. Seventeen percent of the Ph.D. programs required a practicum; 19%
encouraged students to take it; and 46% did not advocate practicums.
It is interesting to note that despite the concern in I/O Psychology
regarding the "blending of science and practice" (Dunnette, 1990, p.1), most
programs did not encourage fieldwork or supervised internships. However, programs kept up
to date with technology: most programs had PCs, mainframe computers, and internet access
available to all graduate students most of the time.
Outcome Variables: Degrees Granted, Job Placements, Professional Affiliations, Plans
for Program Development
Degrees granted. As would be expected, masters programs reported
fewer average years to complete the degree than Ph.D. programs (2.5 year versus 5.3
years).
A higher percentage of masters students was reported to have graduated
on schedule and to have dropped out or disappeared than Ph.D. students.
Job placements. Percentages of degree recipients who took jobs in
different settings varied by degree program. A significantly larger percentage of Ph.D.
graduates took teaching/research positions in psychology departments than masters
graduates, and a higher percentage of Ph.D. graduates took teaching/research positions in
business/management schools than masters graduates. Although more masters graduates chose
applied jobs in the private sector (e.g., corporate positions), a higher percentage of
Ph.D. students accepted applied positions with consulting firms. In general, more masters
graduates than Ph.D. graduates took other types of positions. See Figure 5. Interestingly,
there was no significant difference in the favorability ratings of the job market.
Professional affiliations. Differences were found regarding the
professional organizations students join. Most masters programs reported that students did
not join the Academy of Management or SHRM. Most Ph.D. programs indicated that students
did join the Academy of Management and SHRM. Most programs reported that students joined
SIOP and APA, and did not join the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society and ASTD.
In answer to the questions regarding licensure, certification or
credentials for independent practice at the master’s level in one’s state, most
programs responded "no." This pattern of responses was similar for Ph.D.
programs.
Plans for program development. Results of the survey indicated that
in general, programs did not aim towards changes: Eighty-seven percent of the masters
programs reported not planning or not wanting to expand to a doctoral program and 13%
indicated that expansion was planned or desirable. Eighty-five percent of the Ph.D.
programs indicated that they were not planning or desiring expanding the program into
master’s level training. Fifteen percent reported that they were planning or
considered desirable expansion into master’s level training.
References
Dunnette, M. D. (1990). Blending the science and practice of industrial and
organizational psychology: Where are we and where are we going? In M. D. Dunnette, &
L. M. Hough, (Eds.). Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 1,
pp. 1-27). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.