Problematic Methods in the Assessment of Scholarly Productivity in Clinical PhD Programs

We review the methods in the ranking of clinical psychology doctoral programs provided by Stewart, Roberts, and Roy (2007). Using our own program as an example, we identify several areas of concern (e.g., authorship credits, criteria applied, faculty attrition). The inaccuracies identified for our program ranking, in combination with methodological concerns highlighted by previous commentaries, suggest that the validity of the rankings can be called into question.