Impact of Research Training Environment and Holland Personality Type: A 15-Year Follow-Up of Research Productivity Brent Mallinckrodt University of Missouri—Columbia Charles J. Gelso University of Maryland, College Park Ratings of the research training environment (RTE) and Holland personality type from 325 counseling psychology students who participated in G. M. Royalty, C. J. Gelso, B. Mallinckrodt, and K. Garrett’s (1986) study were examined as predictors of the students’ research productivity 15 years later. Graduates’ research productivity was determined by a search of the PsycLIT database. Results indicated that 2 specific RTE elements were related to productivity for men (faculty modeling and science as a partly social experience) together with the Interpersonal cluster of elements and the total RTE. Only 1 RTE element was related to productivity for women (untying statistics from research). Investigative Holland type was related to productivity for the combined sample of men and women. At a program level, Interpersonal and Instructional RTE ingredients distinguished programs whose graduates had sustained low, moderate, or high levels of research productivity. An important goal of psychology programs that ascribe to the scientist–practitioner training model is to produce doctoral gradu- ates who are interested in research as well as practice and who are able to integrate science and practice into a body of skills, knowl- edge, and professional attitudes that is greater than the sum of these two parts (Belar, 2000). Gelso and Fretz (2001) suggested that successful scientist–practitioner training is manifested at three ordinal levels: (a) the ability to critically review research produced by others; (b) the ability to apply the rigorous logic of the scientific method to practice activities such as diagnosis, treatment planning, and evaluating the effectiveness of one’s work; and (c) at the highest level, the ability to actually produce scholarly work. Thus, whether the outcome of training is defined in the most demanding terms of producing original scholarship or less rigorously in terms of critical thinking skills, all three levels involve an interest in research and positive attitude toward scholarly activity. Gelso (1979) identified ingredients of the research training environment (RTE) that he believed could be manipulated to enhance graduate students’ interest in and positive attitudes toward research and also their eventual research productivity. Systematic investigation of the RTE was facilitated by development of the Research Training Environment Scale (RTES; Royalty, Gelso, Mallinckrodt, & Garrett, 1986) and its subsequent revision, the RTES–R (Gelso, Mallinckrodt, & Judge, 1996). In the 22 years since his original recommendations, several of Gelso’s proposed ingredients have received empirical support. Summarizing the extant research, Gelso (1993) concluded that there was moderate to strong support for six of the ingredients he had originally pro- posed, namely: (a) Faculty provide appropriate models of scientific behavior and attitudes; (b) students’ scientific activities are posi- tively reinforced, both formally and informally; (c) students are involved in research early in their training in a minimally threat- ening way; (d) students are taught that all research studies are limited in one way or another; (e) training programs value and teach varied approaches to research; and (f) students are shown how science and practice can be “wedded” in mutually enhancing ways. Two additional ingredients had received only mixed support. Gelso (1993, 1997) concluded that they may be facilitative only for selected groups of graduate students. These two ingredients are (g) teaching students to “look inward” to their own experience and curiosity as a source for research ideas, and (h) teaching that science can be a partly social experience. A ninth ingredient of the RTE proposed by Gelso (1979) was that students’ favorable atti- tude toward research could be promoted by separating the teaching of research design and the logic of science from a technical knowledge of quantitative methods. No empirical support had been reported for facilitative effects of this aspect of the RTE. However, Gelso et al. (1996) reformulated this concept as “teaching relevant statistics and the logic of design” and incorporated a subscale in the RTES–R to tap this redefined conception of how teaching research design and quantitative methods might promote research interests. The reformulated dimension was significantly associated with research self-efficacy and positive attitudes toward research (Gelso et al., 1996). Since 1993, subsequent research with the original RTES has provided additional empirical support for Gelso’s model. Phillips and Russell (1994) found that research self-efficacy was positively correlated with total RTES scores. For graduate students relatively Brent Mallinckrodt, Department of Educational and Counseling Psy- chology, University of Missouri—Columbia; Charles J. Gelso, Counseling Psychology Program, University of Maryland, College Park. We gratefully thank Michael Ward and Mark Dillon for their help with follow-up data collection, Georgia Royalty and Kimberly Garrett for their contributions to our original project, and Bob Lent and Bruce Wampold for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this article. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Brent Mallinckrodt, 16 Hill Hall, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri 65211. E-mail: MallinckrodtB@missouri.edu Journal of Counseling Psychology Copyright 2002 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 2002, Vol. 49, No. 1, 60 –70 0022-0167/02/$5.00 DOI: 10.1037//0022-0167.49.1.60 60