New Msc SEQ - Forensic Psychology

New MSc SEQ - Forensic Psychology

NEW MASTERS PROGRAMME: APPLICATION
Self-evaluation questionnaire for new stage one Masters programmes /

You should complete this questionnaire if you are proposing a new Masters programme in Forensic Psychology for accreditation against stage one of the requirements for Chartered Membership of the Society, and full membership of the Division of Forensic Psychology. A separate self-evaluation questionnaire should be completed for international provision.

The questionnaire is split into two sections:

· Section A asks for key information about the award you are submitting for accreditation, including details of who we should contact if we have queries about your application.

· Section B invites you to self-evaluate your programme against each of our eight programme standards.

You should read this questionnaire alongside our relevant handbooks Accreditation of new UK programmes: a guide to our application process or Accreditation through Partnership: Seeking accreditation for programmes delivered outside the UK, and alongside our accreditation standards.

You should provide your completed submission in three hard copies and on three USB sticks. Please post them to:

Partnership & Accreditation Team

The British Psychological Society

St Andrews House, 48 Princess Road East

Leicester LE1 7DR

If you have any queries in relation to your submission, please contact

Section A: about your provision

1. The programme(s)

If your submission covers more than one programme, please add further rows to this table as required.

Full name of programme as it appears on award certificate / Mode of study (tick all that apply) / Is the award validated? / Student numbers (FTE) / Date of first intake / Intake from which accreditation sought
Full-time / Part-time / Blended learning / Distance learning / Yes / No* / Current
(if the programme is already running) / Projected
(if the programme is brand new)

* Note: If your programme has not yet been validated, please indicate the date on which the validation event (or equivalent) is planned to take place.

2. The education provider

Name of awarding institution:
Academic unit(s) in which the provision is based:
Full address (to assist us in relation to future visit planning, where required):
Name of Programme Director(s): / You should tell us the name of the staff member(s) with overall academic responsibility for the provision and its delivery and development.
Franchising / International delivery arrangements: / Is the provision franchised for delivery by a partner institution? Yes / No
If yes, please state the name of the partner institution.

3. The application

Who should we approach with any queries about this application? / You should tell us the name and role of who we should approach with any queries about your application, and provide us with an email address and telephone number for them.
Senior management sign off: / We require the Head of the academic unit in which the provision is based to confirm the accuracy of the information contained within this application, and the provision of the additional evidence outlined below.
Signature (electronic):
Name and role:
Date of submission:

4. The checklist

The sources of evidence to be supplied alongside this self-evaluation questionnaire are outlined below. This list should be considered alongside our handbook, Accreditation through Partnership: Preparing for a partnership visit.

Programme standard / Required evidence source (or equivalent alternative source if appropriate) / Enclosed?
Y/N
Programme standard 1: Programme Design / Programme specification.
Programme standard 2: Programme Content (learning, research and practice) / Module outlines.
Programme handbook.
Curriculum, research, placement (if appropriate) and/or other handbooks if applicable.
Programme standard 3: Working ethically and legally / There are no additional evidence requirements for this standard. / N/A
Programme standard 4: Selection and admissions / Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Policy. / Please provide a link
Recognition of Prior Learning Policy (if applicable). / Please provide a link
Programme standard 5: Student development and professional membership / There are no additional evidence requirements for this standard. / N/A
Programme standard 6: Academic leadership and programme delivery / CV’s / brief biographies for all staff listed in item 6.2.
Programme standard 7: Discipline specific resources / There are no additional evidence requirements for this standard. / N/A
Programme standard 8: Quality management and governance / An overview of any feedback collected by the programme in relation to quality matters (e.g. internal programme review/validation/approval document).
(International/franchised provision only) Detailed business case supporting collaborative delivery of the programme by external partners.

Please note that our reviewers may request clarification or ask for further information in addition to the event that the evidence sources outlined above do not adequately demonstrate fulfillment of the accreditation standards.

Section B: self-evaluation against our standards

In this part of our questionnaire, we ask you to tell us about the context in which your provision is delivered and the rationale for its development. We invite you to self-evaluate your provision against our eight programme standards.

When you complete this part of the questionnaire you must refer to the relevant accreditation standards and the associated process handbook

(www.bps.org.uk/accreditationdownloads).

Context and rationale

Information required / Commentary
Why has this new programme been developed?
Please briefly outline the rationale for the development of this new programme, and describe how the programme contributes to the strategic aims of your institution.
What are the distinctive features of this provision?
Please briefly outline what you feel to be the distinctive features or strengths of this provision, using bullet points. These may relate to staff expertise the provision, the academic unit in which it is based, or the education provider more generally.

Programme Standard 1: Programme Design

1.1 Please list below each of the modules of which the accredited award is comprised (note: please add rows as required):

Module code / Module title / Credits / Assessment task(s) / Mandatory/ optional / Name of module leader

Assessment

Information required / Commentary
1.2 Please confirm that the pass mark for each of the above modules is 50% / Yes / No (delete as appropriate)
1.3 Is any compensation permissible across the above modules? / Yes / No (delete as appropriate)
1.4 Is there any specific good practice you wish to highlight in relation to this standard?
For any good practice highlighted, please describe the impact of that good practice on the quality of the overall student experience, or on other aspects of delivery.
Evidence Requirements
For this programme standard we expect you to submit the following evidence sources:
· Programme Specification
Please indicate in the evidence checklist at the front of this document which evidence sources you have provided.

Reviewers’ Comments

Standard met in full / Yes / No
Good Practice
Further information or areas for clarification / Please indicate the specific standard(s) to which your comments relate
Areas of concern (standard not met) / Please indicate the specific standard(s) you are concerned may not be met

Programme Standard 2: Programme Content (learning, research and practice)

Curriculum

2.1 Accredited programmes are expected to address the full range of core curriculum areas, as outlined below, and in full in our accreditation standards. Programmes are encouraged to develop specific emphasis and focus on some areas in more depth than others, to reflect the areas of strength of the staff team delivering the programme, or to promote a distinctive identity for the programme as a whole. You should highlight any particular strengths or emphases of your programme in the table below.
Please indicate in which module(s) each area of the required curriculum is taught and assessed:
Curriculum area / Module code / Module title
Research and research methods, including at least one empirical study.
You are encouraged to review your research methods content against the Society’s Supplementary guidance on research and research methods on Society-accredited postgraduate programmes (2017).
The legal and criminal justice context for forensic psychology, including critical understanding of the psychological theories and evidence of relevance to processes in the justice system.
Assessment and formulation, including familiarization with assessment tools/processes, assessing to determine appropriate intervention.
Interventions, including e.g. investigative interviewing; offender programmes; one-to-one work; organisational/policy developments.
Client Groups, including: different types of offenders, patients and at risk individuals; victims / survivors; individuals across the lifespan (including children and young people in conflict with the law); males and females; professionals, groups and organisation.
Settings, including: prisons; secure units; hospitals; mental health; police; courts (including criminal, family and civil); community settings; charities and social enterprise.
Development and training (self and others)
Advice and consultancy (working with organisations)

Core skills

Information required / Commentary
2.2 How are students engaged in critically evaluating the current knowledge, theory and evidence base relevant to the discipline and in understanding that this is an important first step for all work and activities?
2.3 How are students supported in using a range of techniques and research methods applicable to psychological enquiry?
2.4 Have you reviewed your research and research methods provision against the Society’s Supplementary Guidance for research and research methods on Society accredited postgraduate programmes? / Yes / No (delete as appropriate)
2.5 How do students develop the ability to communicate effectively (verbally and non-verbally) with colleagues, research supervisors and a wider audience?
2.6 How do students disseminate their work?
This may include a range of written (e.g. professional reports, journal papers, conference posters) and oral (e.g. presentations, one-to-one feedback) formats.
2.7 Is there any specific good practice you wish to highlight in relation to this standard?
For any good practice highlighted, please describe the impact of that good practice on the quality of the overall student experience, or on other aspects of delivery.
Evidence Requirements
For this programme standard we expect you to submit the following evidence sources:
· Module outlines: we expect to see evidence that provides an overview of what is taught in each module. If that level of detail is not included in the module descriptor please provide the module handbook.
· Programme handbook.
· Curriculum, research, placement (if appropriate) and/or other handbooks, if applicable.
Please indicate in the evidence checklist at the front of this document which evidence sources you have provided.

Reviewers’ Comments

Programme Standard 3: Working ethically and legally

Information required / Commentary
3.1 Please provide a brief overview of how you introduce students to ethics and ethical practice.
You should indicate teaching of ethics in relation to the submission of ethics applications for research projects and beyond.
3.2 How is students’ understanding of ethics evaluated?
You should indicate assessment of ethics in relation to the submission of ethics applications for research projects and beyond.
3.3 What procedures are in place for gaining ethical approval for students’ research?
3.4 How do students develop skills in applying relevant ethical, legal and professional practice frameworks, as appropriate to their level of study?
3.5 How do you ensure that students are aware of the legal and statutory obligations and restrictions on psychological practice in the UK?
3.6 Have you reviewed your provision against the Society’s Guidance on teaching and assessment of ethical competence in psychology education? / Yes / No (delete as appropriate)
3.7 Is there any specific good practice you wish to highlight in relation to this standard?
For any good practice highlighted, please describe the impact of that good practice on the quality of the overall student experience, or on other aspects of delivery.
Evidence Requirements
There are no additional evidence requirements for this programme standard. However, we will expect the evidence provided in relation to Programme standard 2 to demonstrate appropriate coverage of ethics within programme content.

Reviewers’ Comments

Programme Standard 4: Selection and admission

Information required / Commentary
4.1 Please provide a brief overview of any specific actions you take to encourage equality, diversity and inclusion through recruitment and selection to the programme that go beyond the education provider’s overall policy for widening access.
4.2 Please outline any equality charter marks currently held or being applied for by your department, and at what level (e.g. Athena SWAN).
4.3 Do you offer Recognition of Prior Learning?
If yes, please outline how you consider such applications or refer us to the relevant policy/procedural document. / Yes / No (delete as appropriate)
4.4 Do you accept applicants who are not eligible for the Graduate Basis for Chartered Membership (GBC)?
If yes, please provide details of any specific additional support that is in place for these students. / Yes / No (delete as appropriate)
4.5 Is there any specific good practice you wish to highlight in relation to this standard?
For any good practice highlighted, please describe the impact of that good practice on the quality of the overall student experience, or on other aspects of delivery.
Evidence Requirements
For this programme standard we expect you to submit the following evidence sources:
· A link to the education providers Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Policy
· A link to the education providers Recognition of Prior Learning Policy (if applicable)
Please indicate in the evidence checklist at the front of this document which evidence sources you have provided.

Reviewers’ Comments

Standard met in full / Yes / No
Good Practice
Further information or areas for clarification / Please indicate the specific standard(s) to which your comments relate
Areas of concern (standard not met) / Please indicate the specific standard(s) you are concerned may not be met

Programme Standard 5: Student development and professional membership