Examination

Confirmation of PhD registration

To confirm PhD registration, trainees must submit a confirmation portfolio. The confirmation portfolio consists of two parts:

1.    A confirmation interim thesis document:

2.    A confirmation interim Portfolio of Competence comprising:

  • full documentation demonstrating completion of one core set of units of competence (i.e. psychological interventions, research, teaching or consultancy)
  • a full Supervision Plan detailing how and when they will complete all the remaining competences, with a description of those that have already been completed.

Prior to submission, the confirmation portfolio must be signed off as being of a sufficient standard to be submitted for confirmation by the Programme Director.

Trainees should inform their supervisory team of the academic date of the handbook they have used for their competencies (N.B. trainees cannot be examined against competencies predating their registration on the programme).

Trainees wishing to confirm their PhD registration should upload the above documents to PGR Tracker , and also follow the requirements and time frames for confirmation set out on PGR Tracker.

The confirmation assessment panel should include a HCPC registered Health Psychologist who is also BPS Chartered Psychologists to examine the Portfolio of Competence.

During the confirmation examination meeting you will explain and defend the research and competences you have completed and your plans for completing your PhD thesis and Portfolio of Competence.

The Outcome of the Confirmation Examination

The possible outcomes of the confirmation examination (second review) are as specified by the doctoral college guidance on progress monitoring and Faculty and School specific requirements:

If the examiners consider that the research work is of PhD standard but that the Stage 2 competences in health psychology have not been demonstrated, then the trainee may be offered the opportunity to exit to an alternative award to the PhD in Health Psychology Research and Professional Practice (such as a PhD in Psychology), without the need for a further confirmation examination. Alternatively, the examiners may advise the trainee to submit for an MPhil (without Stage 2 portfolio) in Psychology.  However, please note that these alternative awards do not lead to eligibility to apply to the HCPC for registration as a Health Psychologist or eligibility to apply to the BPS for registration as a Chartered Psychologist and full member of the Division of Health Psychology.

If the recommendation is for a re-submission, examiners must be critically aware of the timescales involved.

Trainees wishing to raise a complaint or academic appeal are encouraged to refer to the student complaints and academic appeals policies described in the code of practice: https://www.southampton.ac.uk/~assets/doc/calendar/CodeofPracticeResearchCandidatureandSupervisionFinal.pdf   and regulations governing student complaints:  https://www.southampton.ac.uk/~assets/doc/calendar/Regulations%20Governing%20Student%20Complaints.pdf

 

Examination of the Thesis and Portfolio of Competence for PhD in Health Psychology Research and Professional Practice

Notification of Intention to Submit

Candidates must inform the Graduate School via PGR Tracker of their intention to submit (which should include the full title of their thesis) and the academic date of the handbook they have used for their competencies at least two months prior to the date of submission in order to allow adequate time for examination arrangements to be made (N.B. trainees cannot be examined against competencies predating their registration on the programme). If submitting for a PhD (rather than an MPhil), a trainee must also have successfully confirmed their PhD.

Prior to submission, the Portfolio of Competence must be signed off as being of a sufficient standard to be submitted for viva by the Programme Director.

Viva Arrangements

The viva requirements and arrangements are set out in the Faculty Graduate School website: https://www.southampton.ac.uk/quality/pgr/higherdoctorates.page and code of practice for research degree candidature and superivsion: https://www.southampton.ac.uk/~assets/doc/calendar/CodeofPracticeResearchCandidatureandSupervisionFinal.pdf

For each individual student, normally one internal and one external examiner will be appointed to examine the thesis. An additional requirement for this programme is that the examiners will normally be HCPC registered Health Psychologists who are also BPS Chartered Psychologists. If this is not possible, then two external examiners must be appointed; a suitable examiner for the PhD thesis (who does not need to be a HCPC registered Health Psychologist or BPS Chartered Psychologist) , and a HCPC registered Health Psychologist who is also BPS Chartered Psychologists to examine only the Portfolio of Competence.

The thesis and portfolio of competence must then be submitted to the Graduate School at least one month prior to the date of the viva examination:

Regulations governing examination of the PhD are given in the University Calendar, and the BPS Guidelines for Assessment of the PhD in Psychology and Related Disciplines (see the “University Regulations, Policies and Facilities” section in this handbook for the relevant website addresses).

The Role of the Supervisor in the Viva

The supervisor may attend the viva as an observer at the request of the trainee. The supervisor will not, however, be appointed as an examiner nor take part in the judgement of your thesis when under consideration.

If you would like your supervisor to conduct a mock viva in preparation of your viva you will need to speak to your supervisor to arrange this.

The Outcome of the Examination

You must satisfy the examiners with regard to the thesis, the portfolio of competence, and the viva. You may fail the thesis, the Portfolio of Competence, or the viva and the examiners may recommend re-examination only in that part in which you failed. This may not apply if additional work required substantially modifies the submission; on the other hand, where a thesis and/or a portfolio of competence has demonstrated adequate practical work but insufficient theoretical knowledge, then oral re-examination (the viva) only may be required. If required to make minor or modest corrections or resubmit then you will be given a clear and prompt statement by the examiners of what is required, and by what date.

Trainees wishing to raise a complaint or academic appeal should refer to the student complaints and academic appeals policies described in the code of practice: https://www.southampton.ac.uk/~assets/doc/calendar/CodeofPracticeResearchCandidatureandSupervisionFinal.pdf   and regulations governing student complaints:  https://www.southampton.ac.uk/~assets/doc/calendar/Regulations%20Governing%20Student%20Complaints.pdf

PhD thesis examination

The criteria and outomes for the PhD examination are set out in the university doctoral college regulations.  The external and internal examiners will prepare independent written reports on the thesis and Portfolio of Competence prior to the viva examination. After the viva a joint report will be prepared, including, where appropriate, an agreed recommendation.  In cases where the examiners are unable to reach agreement, a further external examiner will be appointed to assess the thesis and the other examiners’ reports.

Portfolio of Competence examination

In some cases a trainee’s Portfolio of Competence may, in the opinion of the examiners, fail to demonstrate fulfilment of the competences to an acceptable standard. The examiners may seek additional clarification through the viva.

Deficiencies might occur in:

  • quantity or its demonstration (e.g., major omissions of work, a lack of detail and explicitness in the Practice Diary and/or in the Supervision Log, or insufficient presentation of Supporting Evidence);
  • apparent quality of practice (as indicated by the Practice Diary, Supervision Log, Record of Completion forms, the Supporting Evidence which has been supplied, or by the quality of understanding of other aspects of performance evident during the viva).

If the examiners are not satisfied that all requirements have been met, the candidate may be required to provide additional supporting evidence or to repeat work or undertake new areas of work. Detailed feedback highlighting weaknesses which must be addressed should be sent to the trainee (copied to the supervisor). A copy of this and the original Plan should be retained by the examiners. If work must be repeated or new work undertaken the candidate must submit an Extension of Supervision Plan, and must subsequently resubmit a Portfolio of Competence.

Where deficiencies are identified at the first submission, an appropriate course of action might involve one or more of the following:

  • Extensive or major omissions could result in the requirement of completion of additional areas of work to achieve coverage of relevant units.
  • Where there is a record of appropriate work in the Practice Diary or Supervision Log but insufficient presentation of Supporting Evidence has taken place, the trainee will be required to supply additional material to demonstrate coverage of relevant units.
  • Where shortcomings have been identified in the quality of the trainee’s practice, the trainee will be required to repeat or find new areas of work to cover the relevant units.
  • If the examiners consider that the research work is of PhD standard but that the Stage 2 competences in health psychology have not been demonstrated the trainee may be offered the opportunity to submit their work for award of an PhD in Psychology, and will not be required to undergo a further viva. However, please note that alternative awards do not lead to eligibility to apply to the HCPC for registration as a Health Psychologist or eligibility to apply to the BPS for registration as a Chartered Psychologist and full member of the Division of Health Psychology.

No allowances can be made for factors offered in mitigation (the trainee has either demonstrated competence or not) unless the trainee has been denied the opportunity to practice (through, for example, serious illness or a major change in circumstances of employment); here, the examiners may recommend an extension of the period of additional practice. Aegrotat awards are not conferred for this programme, as they would not provide eligibility to apply to the HCPC for registration as a Health Psychologist.

Where major deficiencies are identified at re-submission, the trainee will be deemed to have failed the period of supervised practice. No further applications will be permitted. This result will be communicated, in writing, by the Academic Unit within three months of resubmission. The examiners are, however, in cases of doubt empowered to require a second viva or to recommend an extension of the period of supervised practice in the event of demonstrable limitations as to opportunities to practice (see above).

Consideration of Examiners’ Recommendations

The reports of the examiners and their recommendations will be scrutinised and approved within the Graduate School. The outcome of each examination will be formally reported to the PhD Health Psychology Programme Board, the Faculty Graduate School Advisory Group and the Faculty Programmes Committee who have delegated authority in this respect. Under the exceptional circumstances that the appointed examiners are unable to reach agreement, the examiners shall submit independent reports, and the Programme Board shall recommend to the Faculty the appointment of an additional external examiner. The additional examiner shall be provided by the Graduate School with a copy of the thesis/dissertation and the separate reports of the two original examiners, and shall be permitted to interview you before submitting a final report and recommendation to the Graduate School. The Director of the Graduate School shall consider all three reports before reporting back to the Faculty Programmes Committee.

Corrections

Provided the examiner’s recommendation is that the degree be awarded, subject usually to minor corrections, it is the job of the internal examiner, and not the supervisor, to check, approve and discuss these corrections with the trainee.   In the case of modest corrections, it is the job of the internal and external examiners to check, approve and discuss the corrections with the trainee.  This should be done in a timely manner as any delays can mean that the trainee could miss their graduation slot for that year.

Comments are closed.