2002 survey of play therapy around the world

8/12/2019 2002 Survey of Play Therapy Around the World

1/31

International JournalofPlay Therapy, 11(2), pp.11-41 Copyright2002,APT, Inc.

W H O ARE WE? EXA M INING THERESULTS OF THE AS SO CIA TIO N FORPLAY THERAPY ME M BER SHIP SURVEY

Scott D. RyanTomi GomoryJeffrey R. LacasseFlorida State University

Abstract: This article exploresthevarious characteristicsandattributes ofasampleof play therapists (N=891). Thedata were collected using multiplemethods, including a web-based survey, to collect information from themembershipofthe Association for Play Therapy (APT). The survey instrumentcollected information on various issues such as members' educationalbackground, continuing education experiencesandneeds, methods of obtainingsupervision, w ork settings, and distribution of play therapy as a portionoftheiroverall workload. Descriptiveandinferential statistics (including t-tests,Chi-squares, and ANOVA 's where appropriate) were conducted to highlightsignificant differences in the sample across specific variables (genderandacademic discipline). Thefindings are discussed, with recommendationsprovided to assist APT in planning strategies to best meet theneedsof itsmembers.

The present article is the first in a series providing the most up-to-date and comprehensive data on the state of play therapy and itspractice. It is based on the largest survey instrument (90-items) everadministered to play therapists, and was distinctively offered throughweb-based technology to all members of the Association For PlayTherapy (APT). This approach offered us the unique opportunity ofsurveying the largest sample ever of a priori identified play therapists.Previous recent surveys either used small samples of APT membersCorrespondence regarding this article should beaddressed toScottD.Ryan, SchoolofSocial Work, Florida State U niversity, Tallahassee, FL 32306-2570, phoneat850-644-9747 orfaxat850-644-2750.


2/31

12 Ryan, Gomory,&Lacasse

(Kranz, Kottman & Lund, 1998, N=81) or used a mixed sample of APTmembers and members of related professional bodies (Phillips &Landreth,1995;Phillips&Landreth, 1998, N=1166).The instrument utilized in this study was conducted as aconfidential survey, but was not anonymous. The research collectedclear identifiers of the individuals participating in order to guaranteethat our research data is unduplicated. All previous play therapy surveyresearch, to the best of the present researchers' knowledge, wasanonymous. That is, no identifying personal information (i.e. socialsecurity number, date of birth or name) was collected to assure againstduplication.The present survey further sought to incorporate the bestelements of prior survey research on play therapy while addinginformation that had not been previously addressed. The surveyresearch preceding Phillips and Landreth (1995; 1998) had manylimitations. These included limited descriptive data (Filmer-Bennett &Hillson, 1959; Koocher & Pedulla, 1977; Peck & Stewart, 1964; Phillips,1957) most involving clinical play therapy concerns, some studiesfocused on treatment facilities as their data source (Boutte,1971;Peck &Stewart, 1964; Phillips, 1957) thereby confounding da ta acrossdifferences in indiv iduals or staffing pa tterns (Phillips & Landreth,1995, p. 2), and other studies used small sample sizes (Boutte, 1971) ortargeted specific helping professionals like psychologists andpsychiatrists (Phillips, 1957).

Phillips and Landreth's (1995) survey research effort attemptedto address several of these issues: first - to update information fromprevious surveys that had become dated; second - to collect new data;third - to correct weaknesses in the methods of earlier research throughimprovements in the questions asked and the responses solicited; and,fourth - to create a database from which to generate testable hypothesesthat could form the foundation for empirical work on play therapy.Some of Phillips and Landreth's (1995) findings included themajor differences between female and male play therapists. They foundmore than three times as many female therapists as male therapists,which was in striking contrast to who was receiving play therapy (maleclients were in the majority at almost the same rate). They also foundthat female therapists differed in all the major 'demo/biographic'


3/31

Examining the Results of the APT Mem bership Survey 13

categories except for age from male therapists (i.e. highest academicdegree, males=61% had Ph.D. vs. females=27%; job title, males=58%psychologist vs. females=22%; job setting, males=14% in hospitals vs.females=8%; years experience in child mental health, males=22% had 21years or more vs. females=10% and theoretical orientation, males=10%had a cognitive-behavioral orientation vs. females=2%).The present research, following the spirit of Phillips &Landreth's (1995, 1998) pioneering, and to date, most rigorous andcomprehensive research effort and Kranz et al.'s (1998) smallerconvenience sampled study, examines such items as play therapist's sex,age, degree, job, job setting, experience, theoretical orientation, training,supervision, child development training, characteristics of practice,characteristics of child ren treated , and clinical issues observed. Thepresent investigation also adds several categories incompletely or not atall addressed in either of the previous studies, such as the extent validmeasures are used to demonstrate progress, information on multiplework settings, salaries, cost of the rap y/su pervis ion , ethnic breakdown ofclients, and DSM-IV[TR] specific disorders treated.It is believed that this research is timely and necessary at thistime because it has been approx imately 10 years (1991) since Phillips andLandreth (1995, 1998) surveyed the profession, and 5 years (1996) sinceKranz et al. (1998) collected their respective da ta. This study willexamine how the mem bership, their needs, and the clients have changedover this continuing 5-year cycle. The Association for Play Therapy(APT) has grown from 1136 members in 1991 to over 4000 members in2001. The descriptive record of the profession's expansion anddevelopment is beneficial in providing an accurate historical record andcan suggest areas for further professional attention (i.e. the need forfurther institutionalization of play therapy courses at the graduate level).Along with this, there is the increasing impact of managed care.For example, the enrollment in specialty behavioral health programsgrew from 78.1 million in 1992 to 149 million individuals in 1997(Scheffler, 1999). This changing picture of the financing of mental healthservices combined with the recent development by the medical scientificresearch com munity of evidence-based practice (Guyatt & Rennie,2002), and the movement toward evidence-based practice'sinstitutionalized implementation in mental health practice (Torrey et al.,


4/31

14 Ryan, Gomory,& Lacasse

2001) places strong pressure on the helping professions to demons trate efficacy. Consequently, preliminary information as tohow the field of play therapy stands in relation to such practices shouldbe explored.M E T H O D O L O G Y

The survey instrum ent w as deve loped by building on the earlierworks of Phillips and Landreth (1995), and K ranz et al. (1998). Our 90-item instrument included clinician demographics such as age, race, sex,professional identification, licensure and sa lary. The survey also askedparticipants about practice-related issues such as theoretical orientation,practice setting, the use of psychiatric diagnoses, supervision, training,research, education, as well as suggested topics for future APTworkshops. Although the focus of this article is on the clinician data,data were also collected on the characteristics of clients receiving playtherapy services. In addition to the many new areas in which data wascollected, there was also a series of open-ended qualitative questions ofPT's perceptions on practice issues, which will be analyzed through concep t-mapping and presented in subsequent publications.The APT membership survey was posted on the World WideWeb through the use of a comm ercial vendor, www.formsite.com. AllAPT members with an e-mail address were sent a monthly e-mailmessage from June to September of 2001 (four messages) requestingtheir participation along with directions to the survey website. Of the2126 APT members with valid e-mail addresses contacted, a total of 745usable responses were received. Assuming that each of these surveyswas filled out in response to the e-mail requests (which may or may notbe the case, some may have responded to an APT newsletter solicitation)then the response rate wou ld be 35%. This response rate is consistentwith prior rates reported in the literature for Internet surveys withsimilar methodology. Sills and Song (2002), for exam ple, report a 22%response rate for an instrum ent with 114 items.One potential disadvantage to conducting an on-line survey isthat a proportion of the sample may lack Internet access and/or thecom puter skills necessary to complete it. Even those with somecomputer literacy may not be able to view the survey online as intended


5/31


because of various problems such as misaligned text due to differingoperating systems, monitor resolutions, and web-browsing software(Dillman, 2000).In order to address possible limited Internet access, postcardswere sent to those 1778 APT members for whom no valid e-mail addresswas available. Two mon ths after the postcard m ailing, only 44 surveyrespondents were identified as postcard recipien ts. If each had acted inresponse to the postcards, the response rate would be a low 2.47%.Following the postcard outreach, each member without an e-mailaddress was mailed a hard copy of the survey (N=1383) and the surveywas also distributed to members attending the annual APT conference inOctober 2001 (N=1006). From this com bined effort, an additional 126surveys were received; an exact response rate cannot be calculated dueto overlap between the grou ps.At the conclusion of data collection, there were 891 usableresponses, a response rate of 25% based on the original member list of3557 members. During the data collection period, the mem bership ofAPT grew to 4338. The 781 members w ho joined during this time werenot consistently subject to our outreach efforts. Depending on whenthey joined, they may have received all, some, or none of our attemptedcontacts. These various efforts provided an aggregate response rate of20.5%. While this moderately low response rate limits generalizability,the data collected offers an extensive and rich database of informationabout play therapists and their practice.

FINDINGSWithin the following sections, the general demographiccharacteristics of the respondent members are explored, as well as theireducational background, continuing education experiences and needs,methods of obtaining supervision, work settings, and distribution ofplay therapy as a portion of their overall workload. In add ition to

descriptive statistics, inferential statistics (including Mests, Chi-squares,and ANOVA's where appropriate) were conducted to highlightsignificant changes in the sample across specific variables.


6/31

16 Ryan, Gomory,&Lacasse

Member Demographics and Association StatusTo be responsive to the stakeholders, it is imperative for anyorganization to possess a basic understanding of their members'demographic characteristics so that they can best tailor recruitment,retention and other efforts w here it is most needed . In addition, suchdata will begin to illuminate areas of need and future opportunity forgrowth and outreach. To that end, the researchers describe below theAPT sam ple's dem ographic characteristics.Respondents represented 48 states (excluding New Hampshireand Verm ont), the District of Columbia, and other US Territories. Due tothe large size of the sample and their broad geographic representation,their specific places of residence (states and other locations) or theirfrequency are not listed. However, a clear patte rn of mem bershiprepresentation emerged (see Table 1) with 5 States represented mostfrequently (Texas; California; Florida; Georgia; and Pennsylvania), andall other States and locations falling below 3.5% (with a mean frequency

of1.44 ,and SDof1.00 ).As can be seen, Texas has almost twice therespondent members as the next closest jurisdiction, with all othershaving less than 10% of the mem ber resp ondents. Although these 5States closely mirror the general population distribution (US Census,2002), it is hypothesized that this distribution, if representative of APToverall, may also be partially explained by factors such as the historicalroots of APT (which include Texas, California, and Pennsylvania), thecurrent location of APT (California), and the location of severalprominent play therapy training centers (Texas, California, Georgia andPennsylvania).In addition to member respondents from the US and itsterritories, thirty-two participan ts reside internationally. The majority ofinternational respondents live in Canada (59.4%), with 6.3% residing inJapan and South Korea, respectively. Other countries representedinclude China, Germany, Ireland, Paraguay, Singapore, South Africa,Taiwan, the United Kingdom, and Uruguay (each with one respondent).Although the sample members from each country are few, it is clear thatAPT has stakeholders across the globe.Data on the gender of 880 mem bers was also collected. Forthose members identifying their gender, it was found that 10.3% ofrespondents are male, 89.7% are female, and the remainder (n=ll) were


7/31


8/31

18 Ryan, Gom ory,&Lacasse

membership level. Respondents had been members of APT for anaverage of 4.30 years (SD 3.27 years), and at their current level for amean of 3.48 years (SD2.82 years). No significant differences on eitherquestion were discovered due to educational discipline; nor was asignificant difference found on length of membership or currentmembership level for gender.Educational Background

Although specific educational criteria for membership withinany category are not listed in the APT Bylaws (APT, 2002a), to becomean RPT or RPT-S, one must possess at least a Master's degree in amedical or mental health discipline, as well as meet other stringenttrain ing and experien tial benchm arks (APT, 2002b; APT, 2002c). Inorder to better understand the educational background of the members,several areas were explored including highest degree earned, member'sacademic discipline, as well as specific information on the depth andbreadth of play therapy exposure during their graduate education.The vast majority of respondent members have a Master'sdegree (76.9%), with a small portion having earned a Doctorate (18.8%)and the balance represented by 'Other' degrees (see Table2). Utilizing aChi-square test, there were significant differences found betweengenders (y}(2,N= 874) = 15.99, p


9/31


Respondent members were fairly split across three academicdisciplines, with counseling the most often identified (38.5%), followedby social work (30.0%) and psychology (20.5%). There were nosignificant differences across the disciplines in regard to gender,although there was an almost equal percentage distribution for genderamong counseling majors, with more males than females in psychology(27.8%vs. 19.8%) and fewer males than females in social work (25.6% vs.30.4%).Questions were posed to respondent members regarding thereceipt of coursework containing play therapy content; whether apracticum (i.e., clinical internship) was offered as a part of theireducational program; and, if yes, was play therapy training includedwithin the practicum ? As can be seen in Table 2, slightly more than40%of respondent members had received coursework containing playtherapy content; which is almost identical to the figures reported byPhillips and Landreth (1995). No significant differences were noted for

gender; however, significant differences were found (F (3, 872) = 7.85,p


10/31

20 Ryan, Gom ory, & Lacasse

half (53.5%) were found to have had some university-based training inplay therapy prior to gradua tion. There were no significant differencesfor any of these variables based on either gender or academic discipline.For the respondent members receiving some exposure to playtherapy in their graduate work (53.5%), a variety of play therapytheories and models were taught - including Sandtray, Ecosystemic,Filial Therapy, Child-Centered, Eclectic, Jungian, Adlerian, andCognitive-Behavioral, as well as 'Othe rs'. The two most frequentlytaught were Child-Centered (56.0%) and Cognitive-Behavioral (42.0%).There were some significant differences between males/females, as wellas across academic disciplines. Three theo ry/m odels were cited as beingmore frequently experienced by females than males; although theLevene's test for equality of variances showed a significant difference foreach of the three theory/models at the p


11/31


frequency of exposure to specific theoretical models across disciplinesfound for six of the models. Counseling majors were exposed to theSandtray model at a significantly (F (3, 878) = 3.913,p


12/31


authors (n=18) were identified as having had a significant effect on thefield through their wr itings - with the top five most frequently identifiedas Garry Landreth, Virginia Axline, Eliana Gil, Heidi Kaduson, andViolet Oaklander. These findings are consistent with those reported byKranz et al. (1998), and, with the exception of the recent emergence ofKaduson, four of the authors listed above are listed as their top four aswell. Member respondents varied widely on the number of playtherapy workshop hours they have attended, with no significantdifference found for gender or discipline. However, there weresignificant correlations found between the number of workshop hourstaken and both registration status (r(856) =.51,p


13/31

ExaminingtheResultsof theAPT Mem bership Survey 23

supervision. Thus, of the 385 respon den ts answering this question, 299utilize individual, with 206 using a group format - which indicates that,taking the most conservative estimate, at least 199 utilize both forms.The vast majority of respondents utilizing either form do so for anaverage of one hour per week, with a small minority (23.8% and 14.4%)using group and individual formats two or more hours per week,respectively.The majority of respondents (60.7%) obtaining play therapyspecific supervision do so from an RPT-S (with no significant differencesfound for gender or discipline); however, this means that fully 4 out of10 APT member respondents receive play therapy supervision fromindividuals not meeting the basic criteria established through theregistration process - despite the reduced supervisory hour incentiveprov ided. The reasons for this are unclear, and, unfortunately, furtherdata were not collected on this important variable.Only 71 respondents answered how much they pay for groupsupervision, and 133 responded to the cost of individual supervision.Additionally 19 respondents do not pay for group supervision, and 26responden ts do not pay for individua l play therapy supervision. Forthose respondent members paying for play therapy supervision, theaverage cost of group supervision is $42.42 (SD 28.65) and individualsupervision is $76.94 (SD 23.97), with no significant differences notedbased on gender or academic discipline - which is in some contrast toPhillips and Landreth (1995) who reported that fewer psychologistsreceived clinical supervision for their PT when compared to non-psychologists (p. 10). The most frequently noted range (as seen inTable 4) was $21-$40 per hour of group supervision, and $41-$60 perhour for individual supervision.Work SettingThe majority of respondents (78.9%) hold licensure, whenavailable, in their respective discipline/jurisd iction. As listed in Table 5,the average respondent has been practicing in the mental health field for2.25 years (SD 1.29 years); and providing play therapy services for 1.79years SD1.05 years), with no significant differences noted for gender foreither variable. However, significant differences were noted betweenacademic disciplines. Counseling majors had less experience than


14/31

24 Ryan, Gom ory,& Lacasse

psychology and 'Other' majors (F (3, 859) = 6.339, p


15/31


work (i.e., social work degree = social work identity); however, this isnot always the case - as no discipline had an overwhelming majority(counseling majors were the highest with 62.2% of them identifyingthemselves as counselors [psychologists = 47.1%; social workers =59.8%]). The percentages for identification as a play therap ist wasbetween 11.2% ('Other') to (counselors) 14.0%, with therapist rangingfrom 8.8% (counselors) to 21.3% ('Other'), and 'Other' spanning from5.2% (social work) to 27.0% ('Other').Respondents were also asked to identify the various tasks thatthey complete within their primary employment setting. This wascategorized into five areas - direct practice, administration, training,research, and 'oth er'. The direct provision of services was identified asthe most commonly undertaken task, with 91.2% of respondentsprov iding it. Far fewer, slightly over half of, respondents conducttraining, with 40.4% also com pleting administrative tasks. Clearly,responden ts take on multiple roles in their primary settings. In addition,

significantly more (t (844) =-2.973, p


16/31

26 Ryan, Gomory, & Lacasse

one-fourth (27.7%)of allrespondents workatleast some timeinanotheremployment setting (i.e., second job). There were no significantdifferences found between secondary employment and gender ordiscipline.Work DistributionWhen examining thenumber of hours worked at respondents'primary employment setting,it wasfound that over one-third (34.2%)ofindividuals work 40+ hours per week, with another 34.6 workingbetween 31-40 hou rsperweek. There were significant differences foundfor gender(x2(4,N=834) =34.58,p


17/31


DISCUSSIONAs with any study, this one contains various factors which limitits generalizability such as the utilization of a non-random conveniencesample. How ever, the study contains num erou s strengths which help tosupport the findings presented - including the multiple methodsemployed to ensure that all members were given ample opportunity torespond if desired, which resulted in a relatively large sample of play

therapists. Additionally, the length of membersh ip and overallexperience of respondents is relatively brief. As such, with amembership mean of 4.30 years (SD 3.27) there is an almost 95%probability that this sample is unique and non-duplicative of the earlierPhillips and Landreth (1995) sam ple. As such, the consistency ofvariables such as demographics, disciplines, experiences, and otherfactors lend credibility to the findings. To that end, the findingspresented from the sample can be helpful to APT as the organizationplans strategies to best meet the needs of its members now and in thefuture. One consideration shared by respondents was the desire toobtain additional skill development; however, as with any intervention,the skills taught must be empirically well-tested and its guidingtheoretical framework transparently available for critical scrutiny. Assuch, these should not be distinct categories, but rather integrated topicareas - which, unfortunately, are often difficult to address within thestandard formats of many continuing education offerings. Nevertheless,with slightly less than half of the member respondents being trainedexclusively through post-graduate workshops, it is imperative that thesetheory-skill-research connections are fostered through all educationalmedia. A possible solution to the theory-skill-research conundrum maybe to build partnerships between researchers and practitioners tofacilitate this process. A relatively sm all number of individuals (9.7%)identified research as one of their job responsibilities. How ever, in anever increasing atmosphere of accountability and the need todemonstrate outcomes, more documentation of the efficacy of playtherapy interventions are needed . The potential for practice-researchpartnerships is greatly encouraged by the 88.5% of respondents


18/31

28 Ryan,Gomory, & Lacasse

signifying that they would be willing to participate in future research.Such collaborations should be fostered by APT's research and otherrelevant com mittees.An additional area of focus to strengthen the association isincreasing opportunities for training for new and existing members. Asnoted previously, approximately 40% of respondents had received somecontent on play therapy through their graduate coursework, with only1/3 having exposure through their practicum. It is imperative that APTwork with members, especially those who are university-based, toadvocate for the recognition and offering of such coursework. Currentmembers must also be supported in their professional development.APT has taken several affirmative steps since the survey'sadministration to offer CEU's through the International Journal for PlayTherapy , as well as on-line. This will help to increase theprofessionalization of the membership, as well as boost the amount ofRPT/RPT-S's available to provide supervision.

The association has several areas with strong geographicrepresentation. It is suggested that the organization strengthen itsmembership base within these existing areas, as well as conductoutreach into new territories nationally and internationally. It isimperative that if APT is to continue its dramatic growth it must recruita critical mass of new members in geographic areas with lessrepresentation; especially those with high concentrations of counselors,social workers and psychologists.Lastly, based on the data collected from this sample, the averageplay therapist is a White/Non-Hispanic, female, in her mid-40's,utilizing a Child-Centered approach, earning approximately $35,000annually in a private practice setting. Since services are prov ided to awide array of racial/ethnically diverse clients, it is important tochallenge the organ ization to expand this therap ist profile. As theorganization plans for the future, it must contend with the consistentfinding also noted from the sample collected by Kranz et al. (1998),

which is that the respondent m embers are overwhelmingly W hite / Non-Hispanic. The consistency of this finding across studies lends support toits accuracy, yet raises concerns regarding the diversity and culturalaccessibility/sensitivity of APT and play therapy services in general.


19/31


Significant outreach efforts should be undertaken to increaseracial/ethnic diversity am ong the mem bership.The Association for Play Therapy is currently celebrating its20thanniversary. As it continues to grow as a professional organization, itmust strive to become more diverse, advocate for wider acceptance ofdevelopmentally appropriate/sensitive interventions, continue tosupport research to demonstra te the efficacy of play therapy, and to offerprofessional growth opportunities through the support of excellence incontinuing education. Through these efforts, APT will continue itsjourney to be a leader in supporting professional mental health servicesto children and families as it begins its next 20 years.


20/31


REFERENCESAssociation for Play Therapy. (2002a).Bylaws.Retrieved October 4, 2002,fromhttp:/ / ww w. a4pt.org/ ab ou tus / by laws .htmlAssociation for Play Therapy. (2002b).Registered playtherapist. RetrievedOctober 4, 2002, from http ://w w w .a4 pt.o rg/r eg istra tion /playtherapist.htmlAssociation for Play Therapy. (2002c).Registered play therapistsupervisor.

Retrieved October 4, 2002, from http ://w w w .a4 pt.o rg/r eg istra tion /rptsupervisor. htmlBoutte, M. (1971). Play therapy practices in approved counselingagencies.Journal of Clinical Psychology, 27,150-152.Dillman, D. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: T he tailored designmethod.New York: John W iley and Sons, Inc.Filmer-Bennett, G., & Hillson, J. (1959). Some child therapy practices.Journalof Clinical Psychology, 20,105-106.

Guyatt, G., & Rennie, D. (Eds.) (2002). Users1 guides to the medicalliterature: A manual for evidence-based clinical practice. Chicago, 111:AMA Press.Koocher, G., & Pedulla, B. (1977). Current practices in childpsychotherapy .ProfessionalPsychology, 8,275-287.Kranz, P., Kottman, T., & Lund, N. (1998). Play therapists' opinionsconcerning the education, training, and practice of play therapists.InternationalJournalof Play Therapy, 7(1), 73-87 .

Peck, M., & Stewart, R. (1964). Current practices in selection criteria forgroup play therapy. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 20,146.Phillips, E. (1957). Some features of child guidance clinical practices inthe U.S.A.Journal o f Clinical Psychology, 13,42-44.Phillips, R., & Landreth, G. (1998). Play therapists on play therapy: II.Clinical issues in play therapy. International Journal ofPlay Therapy,6(2),1-24.Phillips, R., & Landreth, G. (1995). Play therapists on play therapy: I. Areport of methods, demographics and professional practices.InternationalJournalof Play Therapy, 4(1), 1-26.Scheffler, R. (1999). Managed behavioral health care and supply-sideeconomics .Journal of Men tal Health Po licy andEconom ics, 2,21-28.


21/31


Sills S., & Song, C. (2002). Innovations in survey research - Anapplication of Web-based surveys.Social Science Computer Review 20(1),22-30.Torrey, W., Drake, R., Dixon, L., Burns, B., Flynn, L., Rush, A., Clark, R.,& Klatzker, D. (2001). Implementing evidence-based practices forpersons with severe mental illnesses.Psychiatric Services, 52(1), 45-50.US Census. (2002). States Ranked by Estimated July 1, 2001 Population.Retrieved October 4, 2002,from http:/ /e ire .ce nsus .go v/p op es t/data/states/tables/ST-EST2001-04.php


22/31

Ryan, Gomory,&Lacasse

TableMemberDemographics & Association Status

Qu est ion Total Female Male(n=Total [891]/Female [789]/Male [91])

State of Residence - Top 5 (844/754/86)Tex as 13.5% 13.1% 17.4%Ca liforn ia 7.1% 7.4% 4.7%Flor ida 6.5% 6.9% 3.5%G eo rgia 4.1 % 4.5% 1.2%Pe nn sy lv an ia 3.9% 3.6% 7.0%

Internat ional - Top 3 (32/26/3)C an ad a 59.4% 69.2% 0.0%Japan 6.3% 7.7 0.0%So uth Ko rea 6.3% 3.8% 0.0%

A ge (8 76/7 89 /8 9) 44.85(10.51) 44.93(10.49) 44.54(10.55)Race Ethnicity - W hite/N on- H ispan ic 92.1 92.7% 89.0%(875/780/91)Membersh ip S ta tus (884/785/90)

St ud en t 3.3% 3.2% 4.4%Re gu lar 67.6% 98.0% 62.2%RPT 12.7% 12.9% 12.2%RPT-S 16.4% 15.9% 21.1%How many years have you been a member?(8 65 /7 70/ 89 ) 4.30(3.27) 4.29(3.22) 4.49(3.79)H ow ma ny years have you been a me mb er a t yourcu rrn et stat us? (8 49 /7 55 /8 8) 3.48(2.82) 3.46(2.77) 3.80(3.21)Note:Mean(SD);%=Valid Percent


23/31

Examining the Results of the APT M embership Survey

Table 2Educational BackgroundQuestion Total Female Male(n=Total [891]/Female [789]/Male [91])Highest Degree Earned (883/783/91)

M aster's 76.9% 78.8% 17.4%Doctorate 18.8% 17.4% 4.7%Other 4.3% 3.8% 8.8%Discipline (882/783/90)Counseling 38.5% 39.1% 35.6%Psychology 20.5% 19.8% 27.8%Social Work 30.0% 30.4% 25.6%

Other 10.9% 10.7% 11.0%While in school, did you receive courseworkthat included specific training on play therapy?Yes (881/781/91) 41.2% 41.4% 40.7%While in school, did you have a practicum?Yes (884/785/90) 98.1% 98.3% 96.7%If you had a practicum, d id it includespecific training in play therapy?Yes (881/782/90) 38.4% 38.5% 38.9%Did you have play therapy training in eitheryour coursework or practicum?Yes (886/786/91) 53.5% 53.8% 51.6%


24/31


25/31

Examining the Results of the APT Membership Survey 5

Table 3Continuing Education

Question Total Female Male(n=Total [891]/Female [789]/Male [91])How often do you read/co nsu lt playtherapy journals? (867/776/91)Weekly 12.1% 11.7% 15.4%Monthly 45.0% 44.7% 46.2%Every 3 months 26.3% 26.5% 24.2%Every 6 months or less 16.6% 17.1% 14.3%Play therapy authors whom you have foundto be the most significant to your practice - Top 5

Landreth 23.8%Axline 18.1%Gil 13.6%Kaduson 8.4%Oaklander 5.6%Others 30.5%Number of play therapy workshophours attended (861/763/89)0-25 19.4% 19.4% 18.0%26-50 14.3% 15.1% 7.9%51-75 12.5% 11.8% 20.2%76-100 12.0% 12.1% 10.1%101-125 8.2% 8.0% 9.0%126-150 5.1% 5.0% 6.7%150+ 28.5% 28.7% 28.1%


26/31


Which areas would you l ike to see addressedin future play therap y wo rksh ops ? (860 /764/88 )The oretical m od els 40.7% 39.9% 47.7%Re search 42.1% 41.4% 45.5%Skills de ve lo pm en t 76.2% 75.8% 79.5%Special top ics /p op ula tio ns 66.2% 67.1% 55.7%O the r 20.7% 22.1% 8.0%Note:%=Valid Percent. Dashes indicate data were not analyzed by gender


27/31

ExaminingtheResultsofthe APT Membership Survey 7

TableSupervision

Question Total Female Male(n=Total [891]/Female [789]/Male [91])Is PT supervision provided at your work?Yes (852/755/88) 20.7 21.2 17.0What form of supervision do you use?(385/345/35) [check all that apply]

Group 53.5 53.0 60.0Individual 77.5 78.0 74.3Other 9.1 9.0 11.4

How many hours per week?Group (164/142/22)

1 76.2 76.1 77.32 16.5 16.2 18.23 or more 7.3 7.7 4.5

Individual (234/206/27)1 85.5 84.0 96.32 12.0 13.1 3.73 or more 2.4 2.9 0.0

Supervision by an RPT-S - Yes 60.7 59.6 68.6(377/337/35)


28/31


Hourly cost for supervision?Group (71 /61 /8 )$1-20 15.5% 18.0% 0.0%21-40 46.5% 41.0% 75.0%41-60 25.4% 27.9% 12.5%61+ 12.7% 13.1% 12.5%Indiv idual (133/119/13)

$1-20 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%21-40 9.8% 10 .1% 7.741-60 41.4% 41.2% 38.5%61-80 23.3% 22.7% 30.8%81-100 18.8% 19.3% 15.4%101+ 6.8% 6.7% 7.7Note: %= Valid P ercent


29/31

Examining the Results of the APT M embership Survey 39

Table 5Work Setting

Q ues tion Total Fem ale Male(n=Total [891]/Female [789]/Male [91])Do you currently hold a l icense in yourshate/ jur isdict ion? (878/780/89)N ot A va ilab le 4.4% 4.2% 6.7%N o 16.6% 16.7% 16.9%Yes 78.9% 79.1 % 76.4%Number of years of post -graduate mentalH ea lth ex pe rien ce (8 68 /7 69 /9 0) 2.25(1.29) 2.24(1.28) 2.42(1.37)Number of years of post -graduate play therapyexperience (874/777/88) 1.79(1.05) 1.77(1.03) 1.97(1.23)W hat is yo ur current salary? (771 /688/7 6)$1-19,999 10.5% 10.9% 7.9%20,000-39,999 49.4% 50.9% 32.9%40,000-59,999 30.7% 29.7% 42 .1%60,000+ 9.3% 8.6% 17.1%Type of agency you practice in? (863/765/89)

Pr iva te prac tice 34.0% 34.1% 33.7%Schoo l 17.8% 18.2% 15.7%C M H C 13.2% 13.6% 7.9%Pr iva te/N on -pr ofi t 14.5% 14.8% 13.5%O the r 20.5% 19.3% 29.2%


30/31


Professional identification? (842/744/89)Play th er ap ist 12.9% 14.0% 4.5%Psy ch olo gist 10.7% 9.5% 20.2%Social w o rk er 19.0% 18.4% 21.3%C ou ns elo r 34.4% 35.2% 29.2%Th era pist 11.5% 11.8% 10.1%O th er ' 11.4% 11.0% 14.6%What type of work do you do? (855/759/87) [check al l that apply]Direc t pra ctice 91.2% 92.2% 82.8%A dm inis tra tion 40.4% 39.7% 46.0%Tr ain ing 50.3% 49.9% 54.0%Re sear ch 9.7% 9.0% 16.1%O th er 14.7% 15.3% 11.5%What areas does your practice focus on? (793/709/76)[check all that apply]A lc oh ol /D ru g abu se 17.2% 16.5% 22.4%D ev elo pm en tal de lay s 36.4% 36.4% 35.5%

Fam ily issu es 88.5% 88.6% 88.2%Gr ief/B erea vem ent 56.6% 57.8% 46.1%H ea lth 16.5% 16.4% 18.4%V iole nc e/V ictim services 54.8% 55.6% 46.1%Beh avioral pro ble m s 84.5% 84.1% 88.2%O th er 31.4% 32.0% 27.6%

Employees in more than one sett ing - Yes(81 3/7 24 /82 ) 27.7% 27.1% 31.7%Note:Mean(SD);%=Valid Percent


31/31

Examining the Results of the APT Membership Survey 41

Table 6Work Distribution

Qu est ion Total Female Male(n=Total [891]/Female [789]/Male [91])How may hours per week do you workat your pr imary set t ing? (843/746/88)0-10 5.3% 5.8% 1.1%11-20 11.2% 12.2% 3.4%21-30 14.7% 15.3% 9.1%31-40 34.6% 35.8% 25.0%40+ 34.2% 31.0% 61.4%How many hours per week do your providegeneral (non-play) therapy at your pr imaryset t ing (835/742/84)0-5 , 33.2% 32.9% 33.3%6-10 26.8% 27.5% 20.2%11-15 15 .1% 15.4% 14.3%16-20 12.6% 12.4% 15.5%20+ 12.3% 11.9% 16.7%How many hours per week do you provideplay therapy at your pr imary set t ing (835/743/83)0-5 37.4% 26.2% 38.6%6-10 30 .1% 31.0% 20.5%

11-15 15.6% 16.4% 8.4%16-20 13.4% 13.5% 12.0%20+ 13.5% 12.9% 20.5%Note:%=Valid Percent

2002 survey of play therapy around the world

Documents