PhD/PsyD EPPP Step 2

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
What's this test gonna cost? I recently gave a didactic to our interns in which I suggested that they budget at least $1200 for the licensing process. And I had forgot, I didn't even include the cost of the license itself once you pass all the hoops.

I've heard from colleagues an additional $500 to $1000 is the range being considered (including ASPPB and testing center costs), but then I think that was more of an off the cuff statement and not sure anyone knows yet. Not sure if the states will add more to the cost of licensure itself, as they now have to change websites and databases to track one more thing.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Here's the link to the ASPPB page on the EPPP-Step 2. Read the FAQ's as well and join the committee.

http://www.asppb.net/page/EPPPStep2

Lots of discussion is occurring on state psych association and APA division listservs, which I can't post here, so join your state psych association and APA divisions and rally fellow psychologists to oppose this particular change in this form.

Like I said, I'm all for change to improve quality but lets make it part of the EPPP now and then tighten APA accreditation requirements for programs. e.g. Before graduation a student must pass an objective written comp exam meeting national standards (research and such could be assessed there) and at least 1 real clinical comp exam with therapy and assessment skills, as well as have a course in the business of psychology.

I try to be a champion for the students and would put more effort into redirecting this imo misplaced effort but soon I'll have bigger fish to fry so this mostly will fall on you psychologists and students. For you all already licensed don't think that this won't come back and bite you as monkeying with state laws can have unintended undesirable consequences, so lets fix this in a more efficient manner.

Best of Luck!
thanks, went ahead and signed up. I really really think asppb is off the mark in this endeavor and I want my voice heard. Also realized from your post that I wasnt on the ECP listserv, so thanks for that too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
thanks, went ahead and signed up. I really really think asppb is off the mark in this endeavor and I want my voice heard. Also realized from your post that I wasnt on the ECP listserv, so thanks for that too.

How do you get on the ECP listserve?
 
How do you get on the ECP listserve?
so in my case, im not an APA member, but I am a div38 member. With that fancy $50 I paid, I have an apa login. So then its a matter of going to listserv.apa.org and searching for the listserv you want to be on. Once you indicate that you want to be on that listerv, it emails whoever is in charge of it and a few hours later it confirms you and you start getting the emails.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
so in my case, im not an APA member, but I am a div38 member. With that fancy $50 I paid, I have an apa login. So then its a matter of going to listserv.apa.org and searching for the listserv you want to be on. Once you indicate that you want to be on that listerv, it emails whoever is in charge of it and a few hours later it confirms you and you start getting the emails.

Ugh. More emails. Really? Do you think its worth it/beneficial. Keep in mind I'm already working in my desired setting/job...and I get about 50 emails a day easily.
 
Ugh. More emails. Really? Do you think its worth it/beneficial. Keep in mind I'm already working in my desired setting/job...and I get about 50 emails a day easily.
Most Psychologists feel that way so don't get involved. That leaves decisions up to a few who even though well intentioned may not always act in a manner that best benefits the majority of the profession.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
 
I'm just doing my part to expose the secret shadow government pulling the strings of psychologists worldwide! Viva la resistance!
sucker fanboy until others disagree lol
 
Last edited:
I know this has come up before, but it looks like ASBPP is making it official and developing a two-part EPPP exam now. Does anyone have the lowdown?

I feel like I did back when they changed the GRE, just happy to have the thing way behind me.
its garbage,,,they'll get u at renewal
 
Braces yourselves everyone, the EPPP step II is set for 2019. The announcement is on the video below. What are your thoughts? After watching the video, I have a new dislike of sweater vests.


puppet demers
 
I'm not sure most of us would qualify said person as a psychologist.

peanutbutter n jealus a
Not a licensed psychologist. Licensed at the masters level. He's lied about several things on here, so I'd take most things with a grain of salt and look for objective things rather than his report.

#fanswallow boy @WisNeuro still butt hurt after getting his lil credibility destroyed online by a '"rookie" LMAO... if you have time to waste...checkout how the fruitcake's got punked and unsuccessfully tried to block us by asking for clemency... #nobackbone.........get some popcorn and get back with me. @DrMikeP at :
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/thr...nd-accreditation.1028098/page-4#post-17588106
 
peanutbutter n jealus a


#fanswallow boy @WisNeuro still butt hurt after getting his lil credibility destroyed online by a '"rookie" LMAO... if you have time to waste...checkout how the fruitcake's got punked and unsuccessfully tried to block us by asking for clemency... #nobackbone.........get some popcorn and get back with me. @DrMikeP at :
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/thr...nd-accreditation.1028098/page-4#post-17588106

Did you get licensed yet?

Do you post similar cool comments on your practice website?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Ugh. More emails. Really? Do you think its worth it/beneficial. Keep in mind I'm already working in my desired setting/job...and I get about 50 emails a day easily.
Erg, clearly our situations are a little different. But for me, it's a tremendous resource, and I find the Div 38 part very resourceful. Additionally, I have zero trust for APA / APAPO / ASPPB and want to use email as a way to advocate and have my voice heard. So in that sense, it is very worthwhile. I'm typically disappointed by psychologists inability to advocate for themselves/our field as a whole, so I've chosen to be more vocal in my advocacy. I'm only on the Div38 & ECP listservs.
 
One should imo not be so much invested in anything online to feel "butt hurt." Not much online worth that.



Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
Who is butthurt? Me? Erg?
I think Erg and I both pretty well fit into the category of sarcastic/grouchy rather than butt hurt, fwiw.
 
Who is butthurt? Me? Erg?
I think Erg and I both pretty well fit into the category of sarcastic/grouchy rather than butt hurt, fwiw.

I think he may be referring to the shooter character.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Who is butthurt? Me? Erg?
I think Erg and I both pretty well fit into the category of sarcastic/grouchy rather than butt hurt, fwiw.
Just replying to a comment, about someone supposedly being such, in a way to stay out of the whatever. I have no clue and don't invest enough emotional energy into message boards to need one.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

PS I have no problem with sarcasm, being grouchy, or even if people just plain hate stupid people (I feel that way on a regular basis). :) Life is way too short.
 
Last edited:
From the ACCTA listserv and I'm sure many others as well - a post from Alex Siegel, ASPPB Director of Professional Affairs:

Dear Robin, Kathleen and Shanda and the ECP Community:

Thanks for inviting me to respond to your concerns about the EPPP Step 2 expressed over the past few days. While I am not directly involved in development of this exam, I do have the ability to pass along your concerns to the ASPPB Board of Directors and those who are working to develop the EPPP Step 2. They asked me to share the following information to address the some of the issues and concerns you have raised about EPPP Step 2.

First, let me say, I have been sending the postings from the ECP list serve to the CEO of ASPPB, Steve DeMers, and others involved and they have been keeping the ASPPB Board of Directors informed about the issues you have raised. They hear you and they want you to know there is plenty of time and “room” for exploration of options and approaches that could hopefully reduce the pain points of implementing such a significant change in the psychology licensing examination process.

Second, ASPPB began to explore the possibility of an assessment of professional skills as part of the licensing process based on the calls for psychology to move to a “culture of competence” in both the training and credentialing of psychologists. These calls started following the APPIC sponsored Competencies Conference in 2002 and is well documented through subsequent articles appearing in APA journals such as Professional Psychology: Research and Practice and Training and Education in Professional Psychology since that conference. Please see the attached document that summarizes briefly the competency assessment movement in psychology.

Third, the APA Commission on Accreditation recently adopted new Standards of Accreditation that move to a focus on demonstration of acquired competencies rather than completion of a list of courses. And the APA Education Directorate issued the Blueprint for Health Service Psychology Training and Education which also directs the training and credentialing community in psychology to focus on acquisition and assessment of competencies. The literature is clear that education and credentialing communities must move forward together to accomplish this shift in focus to include assessment of competencies. It appeared to ASPPB that the psychology education and training community had embraced assessment of competencies and we were seeking to do our part. The financial impact of such a shift in licensing exams has been a concern from the outset of our exploration. And after visiting and evaluating other profession’s use of standardized patients and similar in vivo assessment approaches, we abandoned those formats as unacceptably expensive and moreover unnecessary to accomplish the goal.

Fourth, ASPPB has had a series of conversations and surveys of its member licensing boards throughout the US and Canada that encouraged us to pursue an assessment of skills exam. All current definitions and models of competency include the assessment of knowledge, skills and abilities. The EPPP Step 1 remains a valid and reliable assessment of the knowledge part of that equation. What has been missing is the standardized assessment of the skills and abilities similar to the standardized assessment of the knowledge assessed by the EPPP. So Step 2 does not replace Step 1, they are essential elements of the whole package. Psychology has been lagging behind other health professions that have already moved to assessment of all aspects of professional competence in both their education and credentialing procedures.

So ASPPB has been exploring the feasibility of an assessment of professional skills in a standardized way that was cost efficient and effective. The ASPPB task force doing this work recently reported to the ASPPB Board of Directors and the membership that such an exam was feasible and could be done with a computer based examination using innovative item formats like responding to taped simulations, interpretation of assessment data, ethical decision making, etc. The recent announcement about EPPP Step 2 was ASPPB’s effort to go beyond talking only with our member licensing boards and to keep the whole psychology community aware of these developments and plans. Your feedback and concerns raised in response to this announcement have been instructive and helpful. ASPPB is certainly aware of and sympathetic to the financial burdens faced by graduate students and early career psychologists. These will be carefully considered as we move forward and we will explore mechanisms to reduce the financial impact of this second exam before it is implemented. There may be a way to stagger or ramp up the fee associated with taking Step 2 over a multi year phase-in process. There are already discussions happening about recommendations that the current EPPP (Step 1) be offered at the end of coursework (before internship training) and EPPP Step 2 be administered after completion of all required supervised experience. Thus, Step 1 and Step 2 would not occur at the same time but be separated by at least the one or two year period of required supervised experience depending on the licensing requirements in each jurisdiction.

ASPPB would welcome a continued dialogue with the ECP community including the APA Committee on Early Career Psychologists, APAGS, the APA Board of Educational Affairs and Commission on Accreditation, and representatives from state and provincial psychological associations. If the psychology training and practice communities believe that psychology is not yet ready to move to the assessment of professional skills as part of the licensure process, ASPPB would certainly have to weigh such feedback heavily. That is not the message we have been receiving from these communities so far. Ultimately, ASPPB develops programs and services that its member licensing boards request from us. And despite what ASPPB does or recommends, nothing changes unless it is adopted and implemented by its member licensing boards. Those licensing boards must be responsive to state legislatures, patient advocacy groups, regulatory oversight groups and the public in general when contemplating changes in licensing requirements for psychologists.

Again, thanks for the feedback and opportunity to respond. Please let me know how I can effectively carry your concerns forward in a productive dialogue on this issue. There is much more information about the rationale for the EPPP Step 2 on our website at http://www.asppb.net/page/EPPPStep2, We would welcome your input and your help in maintaining the validity and credibility of the psychology licensure examination process while also minimizing the financial impact on those entering the profession of psychology.

Thanks,
ALEX SIEGEL, PHD, JD
ASPPB Director of Professional Affairs
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Thanks for posting that message in here.
I sure would love to hear what jurisdictions are asking for this, and I'd like us (as psychologists) to be able to have a conversation with each of our state boards in the interim to express our concerns.

That seems a lot more beneficial to me than ASPPB saying "ya know, people wanted it, so we're doing it [don't shoot the messenger]." I want to know if my state board asked for it, and I want to have a conversation with them about my competence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
My understanding is that normally content from listervs is not re-posted. However, I feel this is an exception to the rule. Because of the understandable backlash, ASPPB's CEO has responded to FAQ's from ECP's. I consider many of these to still be unsatisfactory, fwiw. Copied below. Still looks to be a cluster for our trainees, though.

------------------------

Frequently Asked Questions by ECPs about EPPP Step 2



Why can’t the EPPP Step 2 be incorporated into the EPPP and still have just one examination?


The EPPP assesses the knowledge base necessary for competent professional practice and the EPPP Step 2 will focus on assessment of the professional skills that are also part of competence. While these two aspects of competence are related, they are not redundant but rather sequential; that is, one needs the knowledge before one can apply the skills. While we have considered combining the two tests, given the breadth and complexity of both psychology’s knowledge base and functional skills, it was hard to imagine that one exam could adequately assess such breadth of content without the length of the resulting examination being prohibitively long and expensive.



Since accredited graduate programs and internships assess competency, why is there a need for another licensure exam that assesses competency?


Professional licensure is different from graduate education and training. While both want to ensure that psychologists are properly trained and competent to provide services to the public, the single mandate of all psychology licensing boards is public protection. That takes precedence over everything else. This mandate is two-fold. In order to protect the public, licensing boards must ensure the competence of those entering the profession, and then must monitor the ongoing professional conduct of licensees. The EPPP Step 2 will be another standardized tool for licensing boards to use to accomplish the first task, ensuring the competence of those they license. Currently much less than half of psychology licensing boards require that applicants come from accredited programs. Accrediting bodies accredit psychology programs, but do not necessarily ensure that each student from those programs has acquired the competencies necessary for independent practice. The licensing boards are the ones tasked with ensuring that each applicant is competent to practice independently.



What will EPPP Step 2 cost and where does the money go?


The cost of EPPP Step 2 has not been determined at this time. ASPPB is concerned about the financial burdens on those entering the profession and is committed to keeping costs as low as possible. If adopted by states, EPPP Step 2 will be a required step in the licensure process and thus by definition a high stakes exam. Developing a high stakes exam particularly one that will use computer based simulations and taped scenarios and vignettes and possibly even avatars will require considerable up front costs. ASPPB is prepared to absorb those start-up costs and operate the program in a cost efficient manner that will maintain the program in the years ahead.


Will ASPPB explore the possibility of changing the timing of licensure exams; that is, have it such that one takes the EPPP prior to internship and the EPPP Step 2 after the doctoral degree is awarded?


The issue of the timing of the exams is one that ASPPB is interested in and quite willing to discuss with relevant stakeholders such as APA, CPA, students, early career psychologists, training associations, and our member licensing boards. If the EPPP Step 1 is offered at the end of coursework and before internship as several groups have suggested, and the EPPP Step 2 is offered after award of the doctoral degree then licensure examination fees will be spread over a 2 to 3 year period. Furthermore, if the EPPP Step 1 occurs earlier in the sequence of training, we feel the common belief that one must purchase expensive test prep materials will be greatly diminished thereby reducing the costs of obtaining the initial license.


Is the EPPP Step 2 going to be used for already licensed psychologists when they renew their licenses?


No, the EPPP Step 2 is being developed for entry-level licensure and is not intended to be used to assess maintenance of competence for already licensed psychologists when they renew their license in their own jurisdictions.



ASPPB has just announced that they will be developing a new exam for licensure. Why haven’t I heard about this before?


ASPPB has been working on the development of this exam for the last eight years and, because ASPPB values openness and transparency, has regularly presented updates on it at the ASPPB membership meetings since 2010. Traditionally, there have been representatives from many of the major psychology organizations attending these membership meetings (e.g., APA Practice and Education Directorates, Canadian Psychological Association, APA Board of Educational Affairs and Board of Professional Affairs, American Psychological Association Graduate Students, Committee on Early Career Psychologists, Association of Psychology Postdoctoral and Internship Centers, American Board of Professional Psychology, Council of Chairs of Training Councils and a variety of individual training councils including CUDCP, NCSPP and CDSPP). Likewise, ASPPB has included sections on competency assessment and the development of competency assessment mechanisms in its liaison reports to other groups for many of those eight years. In 2014, ASPPB made formal presentations about competency assessment and the development of a new exam at both APA and APPIC conferences.
 
Is the EPPP Step 2 going to be used for already licensed psychologists when they renew their licenses?


No, the EPPP Step 2 is being developed for entry-level licensure and is not intended to be used to assess maintenance of competence for already licensed psychologists when they renew their license in their own jurisdictions.
so then, it seems the answer is yes. I'm not planning to limit my career to the one state I am currently licensed in. Perhaps I should just get licensed in every state I want to potentially live in by 2019?

Isn't licensure mobility much more important than implementation of YET another barrier. Like many of the answers above, this **** is just all sorts of unsatisfactory to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Isn't licensure mobility much more important than implementation of YET another barrier. Like many of the answers above, this **** is just all sorts of unsatisfactory to me.

Many states have a "if licensed for x number of years without incidence in another state" provision where you do not need to jump through all of the hoops of new or newer licesnsees. I'd be surprised if this were not the case here.
 
Many states have a "if licensed for x number of years without incidence in another state" provision where you do not need to jump through all of the hoops of new or newer licesnsees. I'd be surprised if this were not the case here.
and though I'm aware of that, I'm rather concerned due to the wording of the announcement above, that will change.
 
and though I'm aware of that, I'm rather concerned due to the wording of the announcement above, that will change.

Sadly so few psychologists get involved with state associations or anything politically that it only takes a handful to sway things in a negative direction. This is one thing that we should get our state associations and divisions speaking out against. There is no reason they can wrap this into the EPPP, which already has a large clinical section.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Sadly so few psychologists get involved with state associations or anything politically that it only takes a handful to sway things in a negative direction. This is one thing that we should get our state associations and divisions speaking out against. There is no reason they can wrap this into the EPPP, which already has a large clinical section.
To be honest, this is probably my impetus to being involved in the state org. I've pondered it a few times, already.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I'm undecided, leaning towards a Machiavellian stance on this one. I see it as maybe a means to an end of keeping the diploma mills lower tier students from practicing. There is 0 push and/or impetus in tightening up the standards of accreditation at the graduate/professional school level. Maybe this could spur some of that. Essentially, it's like picking the least crappy of several crappy choices in my book.
 
I'm undecided, leaning towards a Machiavellian stance on this one. I see it as maybe a means to an end of keeping the diploma mills lower tier students from practicing. There is 0 push and/or impetus in tightening up the standards of accreditation at the graduate/professional school level. Maybe this could spur some of that. Essentially, it's like picking the least crappy of several crappy choices in my book.

Diploma mill schools I don't think will care. Once they graduate a student they've made their $250K so the student getting licensed or not is often irrelevant. Many are even now establishing their own protected internships paying almost nothing just to keep their percentages high enough for placement. The CCE process should catch those who are incompetent. I had an intern tell me he passed a CCE by going hmmm, ummm hmmm a lot and calling it humanistic therapy and some universities don't require more than a BAI/BDI for demonstrating assessment competency. That's a university level problem in standards that the APA is allowing.

I personally think this should be handled at the APA level and if a school isn't meeting standards boot them from accreditation vs adding a new barrier that might just bite us as we move across state lines, but understand your point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I personally think this should be handled at the APA level and if a school isn't meeting standards boot them from accreditation vs adding a new barrier that might just bite us as we move across state lines, but understand your point.

I think it should be handled at the APA level too. But, for whatever financial interests/apathy/general incompetence reason, they have not, and I don't think they will change course any time soon.
 
I think it should be handled at the APA level too. But, for whatever financial interests/apathy/general incompetence reason, they have not, and I don't think they will change course any time soon.

Unfortunately, I agree. Maybe if more internship supervisors bit the bullet and failed students it would help, but most don't want to risk lawsuits or poor evaluations from interns either.
 
Unfortunately, I agree. Maybe if more internship supervisors bit the bullet and failed students it would help, but most don't want to risk lawsuits or poor evaluations from interns either.
I dont think it even needs to be handled that way. Internships could remain the same (albeit I'd prefer they increase their quality as well) if the APA simply took a harder stance on qualifications for doctoral training. Just change that one thing and we'd be set. Change it so diploma mills essentially cannot exist. List cohort size to 15 / year. Pretty hard to have the same current problem that way.

Note, I'm not advocating for limiting cohort size, as much as I'm putting forth that a very straightforward "solution" such as that would at least take care of the biggest problem, FSPS.... And that would be much "easier" per se, than making everyone entering the field take yet another dumb test that will accomplish nothing. For as simple of a solution as limiting cohort size would be, I think that alone would drive up the quality of training indirectly.
 
Internships could remain the same (albeit I'd prefer they increase their quality as well) if the APA simply took a harder stance on qualifications for doctoral training.

It's easier to take the money than give a firm "no" and face a ton of pushback.

Sounds familiar.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I dont think it even needs to be handled that way. Internships could remain the same (albeit I'd prefer they increase their quality as well) if the APA simply took a harder stance on qualifications for doctoral training. Just change that one thing and we'd be set. Change it so diploma mills essentially cannot exist. List cohort size to 15 / year. Pretty hard to have the same current problem that way.
That would mean the APA would knowingly do something that might cost it money. Just as well wish for a flying car, sadly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I dont think it even needs to be handled that way. Internships could remain the same (albeit I'd prefer they increase their quality as well) if the APA simply took a harder stance on qualifications for doctoral training. Just change that one thing and we'd be set. Change it so diploma mills essentially cannot exist. List cohort size to 15 / year. Pretty hard to have the same current problem that way.

Note, I'm not advocating for limiting cohort size, as much as I'm putting forth that a very straightforward "solution" such as that would at least take care of the biggest problem, FSPS.... And that would be much "easier" per se, than making everyone entering the field take yet another dumb test that will accomplish nothing. For as simple of a solution as limiting cohort size would be, I think that alone would drive up the quality of training indirectly.
Some of the quality issues aren't just at the diploma mills. My wife works at a major university and one of her many duties is managing part of their medical clinical training sites. This year one of the practicum students decided she didn't want to work hard. She whined so the psychology dept during the first week and they allowed her to switch to an "easier" site with less client hours. Seeing 6-8 patients a week was just too much work load and the student wanted a site that only made them do 3-4 like her first year. It wasn't a medical issue, it was the student was lazy and didn't want to work or attend supervision.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
 
I slept on this thread.

Who are these "modern psychologists" in the videos, I would hope they could present their credentials for transparency.

Additionally, the "too expensive" argument is unlikely to hold much sway with the public. Effective and safe clinical care is the goal and saying a new test is too expensive isn't going to convince the decision makers. Demonstrating that the EPPP2 does nothing to improve clinical care is more likely to succeed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Additionally, the "too expensive" argument is unlikely to hold much sway with the public. Effective and safe clinical care is the goal and saying a new test is too expensive isn't going to convince the decision makers. Demonstrating that the EPPP2 does nothing to improve clinical care is more likely to succeed.

Don't disagree with you, but how can they show it does nothing to improve clinical care at this stage? Healthcare in general does a poor job at measuring outcomes. There are plenty of us who have anecdotes about terrible community clinicians from diploma mills gumming up the works (doing subpar neuro evals in my world), but there is no systematic research for this. I'm all for outcomes research tied to clinical training, but that's a monstrous undertaking. Additionally, it seems like a research area that would be fraught with individuals or institutions setting up experiments to bolster their argument, rather than objectively looking at the situation.
 
I slept on this thread.

Who are these "modern psychologists" in the videos, I would hope they could present their credentials for transparency.

Additionally, the "too expensive" argument is unlikely to hold much sway with the public. Effective and safe clinical care is the goal and saying a new test is too expensive isn't going to convince the decision makers. Demonstrating that the EPPP2 does nothing to improve clinical care is more likely to succeed.

From being involved in politics/advocacy for our profession what has sway is donations to politicians and public sentiment. For many states the requirements for licensure are established by legislative/law activity and not just implemented by the board. So this effort for or against will be decided by lobbying.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
so then, it seems the answer is yes. I'm not planning to limit my career to the one state I am currently licensed in. Perhaps I should just get licensed in every state I want to potentially live in by 2019?

Isn't licensure mobility much more important than implementation of YET another barrier. Like many of the answers above, this **** is just all sorts of unsatisfactory to me.

Someone asked this on the early career listserv, and here's the response:

ASPPB will be recommending to its member jurisdictions that Step 2 not be required of already licensed individuals seeking another license in a new jurisdiction. While ASPPB’s recommendations typically carry much weight with our members, each jurisdiction is free to set its own requirements. Until all jurisdictions adopt Step 2, there will likely be the possibility that a person licensed without having taken Step 2 will be required to complete this exam if applying in some jurisdictions that have adopted Step 2. I think this is most likely the closer the dates the two licenses are acquired. For example, if someone gets licensed in January 2020 in State A without having to take Step 2 and then applies for a license within the next 6 months in State B that requires Step 2 I think there is a chance the new jurisdiction may require Step 2 to block people who seem to be trying to avoid Step 2. If the person was licensed one or more years before seeking the new license then I believe the chances of being asked to complete Step 2 are greatly diminished. But again, it will be up to each jurisdiction to set its own rules although ASPPB will be encouraging them to adopt a consistent policy on this until all jurisdictions are using the same exam requirements.
 
Someone asked this on the early career listserv, and here's the response:

ASPPB will be recommending to its member jurisdictions that Step 2 not be required of already licensed individuals seeking another license in a new jurisdiction. While ASPPB’s recommendations typically carry much weight with our members, each jurisdiction is free to set its own requirements. Until all jurisdictions adopt Step 2, there will likely be the possibility that a person licensed without having taken Step 2 will be required to complete this exam if applying in some jurisdictions that have adopted Step 2. I think this is most likely the closer the dates the two licenses are acquired. For example, if someone gets licensed in January 2020 in State A without having to take Step 2 and then applies for a license within the next 6 months in State B that requires Step 2 I think there is a chance the new jurisdiction may require Step 2 to block people who seem to be trying to avoid Step 2. If the person was licensed one or more years before seeking the new license then I believe the chances of being asked to complete Step 2 are greatly diminished. But again, it will be up to each jurisdiction to set its own rules although ASPPB will be encouraging them to adopt a consistent policy on this until all jurisdictions are using the same exam requirements.
thanks cara, I saw that someone asked that a day or two later on the listserv and waited with baited breath for the response. I wasnt too displeased with the response from asppb, but I do still feel its the opposite direction that we need to go (licensure mobility, anyone????) as a field.


what a cluster psychology org is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
CONFIRMED LIST= Verified by Public Records, As Public Officials, The Following Psychologists Were Also Compensated by the ASPPB: ‪#‎NoEPPP2‬ ‪#‎APA2016‬

Dr. Carol Webb, Georgia's Psychology Board
Dr. Don Meck, Georgia's Psychology Board.
Dr. Jacqueline Horn, California’s Psychology Board
Dr. Fred Millán, New York’s Psychology Board
Dr. Sharon Lightfoot, Missouri’s Psychology Board
Dr. Emil Rodolfa, California's Psychology Board (2009)
Dr. Steve Lewis, Vermont Board Of Psychology Examiners (2011)

The UNCONFIRMED List Is Much Longer. We are Currently Requesting/Reviewing Public Records to CONFIRM Them.

We'll Update This List Accordingly.

Letters to Attorney Generals Offices and DOJ Will Go Out This Week For Further Investigation.
9cKS5r3tfW4
 
CONFIRMED LIST= Verified by Public Records, As Public Officials, The Following Psychologists Were Also Compensated by the ASPPB: ‪#‎NoEPPP2‬ ‪#‎APA2016‬

Dr. Carol Webb, Georgia's Psychology Board
Dr. Don Meck, Georgia's Psychology Board.
Dr. Jacqueline Horn, California’s Psychology Board
Dr. Fred Millán, New York’s Psychology Board
Dr. Sharon Lightfoot, Missouri’s Psychology Board
Dr. Emil Rodolfa, California's Psychology Board (2009)
Dr. Steve Lewis, Vermont Board Of Psychology Examiners (2011)

The UNCONFIRMED List Is Much Longer. We are Currently Requesting/Reviewing Public Records to CONFIRM Them.

We'll Update This List Accordingly.

Letters to Attorney Generals Offices and DOJ Will Go Out This Week For Further Investigation.

I'm not sure I'm seeing your objection here.
Why would it be bad to have psychology board members consulted with about the EPPP2, if the goal is to coordinate it as part of the licensing process.

Also, I'm not seeing how you can argue 'practicum evaluations' are a standardized bar across the country that provide sufficient evaluation since they differ at sites in terms of not just how they are conducted but also the standard at which competency is rated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I'm not sure I'm seeing your objection here.
Why would it be bad to have psychology board members consulted with about the EPPP2, if the goal is to coordinate it as part of the licensing process.

Also, I'm not seeing how you can argue 'practicum evaluations' are a standardized bar across the country that provide sufficient evaluation since they differ at sites in terms of not just how they are conducted but also the standard at which competency is rated.
I think the objection is that they were compensated not consulted. So if the licensing board members get money from ASPPB, then they would be more likely to institute policies that benefit ASPPB as opposed to focusing on upholding the standards of the profession and protecting the public.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I think the objection is that they were compensated not consulted. So if the licensing board members get money from ASPPB, then they would be more likely to institute policies that benefit ASPPB as opposed to focusing on upholding the standards of the profession and protecting the public.
I agree that COULD be a problem, but depending on the amount of time requested of them... It's also understandable. We have all sorts of similar conflicts all the time in this field (I mean, how many researchers support instruments they make money off.. how often do professors require books they wrote for class reading, etc.). I would be more concerned if state boards weren't consulted (or weren't consulted in great depth) if, indeed, the point is to make a test that is targeted at creating stronger licensing standards. This just doesn't smack of "call the department of justice" reactions. One interpretation is the 'this is a giant conspiracy' approach Shooter seems to take but the other is that is a prudent course.

Time is money. What is the alternative- expect free work? Psychologists are bad at business but I'm not sure there are a lot that are that bad we would want to be part of consulting on this.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I agree that COULD be a problem, but depending on the amount of time requested of them... It's also understandable. We have all sorts of similar conflicts all the time in this field (I mean, how many researchers support instruments they make money off.. how often do professors require books they wrote for class reading, etc.). I would be more concerned if state boards weren't consulted (or weren't consulted in great depth) if, indeed, the point is to make a test that is targeted at creating stronger licensing standards. This just doesn't smack of "call the department of justice" reactions. One interpretation is the 'this is a giant conspiracy' approach Shooter seems to take but the other is that is a prudent course.

Time is money. What is the alternative- expect free work? Psychologists are bad at business but I'm not sure there are a lot that are that bad we would want to be part of consulting on this.
Shooter does seem a bit over the top with some of his presentation, but maybe that is needed. We psychologists do tend to be a reasonable and agreeable bunch which could be a disadvantage when we need to advocate more for ourselves. I also agree that we need to get paid and paid well. It does become a problem if the only ones being consulted and thus compensated are the folks responsible for the decision. Don't know if that is the case, but a poster here who is a training director said that was a complaint they had regarding this proposed change. I wonder how much they will have to give to APA to get them on board.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Shooter does seem a bit over the top with some of his presentation, but maybe that is needed. We psychologists do tend to be a reasonable and agreeable bunch which could be a disadvantage when we need to advocate more for ourselves. I also agree that we need to get paid and paid well. It does become a problem if the only ones being consulted and thus compensated are the folks responsible for the decision. Don't know if that is the case, but a poster here who is a training director said that was a complaint they had regarding this proposed change. I wonder how much they will have to give to APA to get them on board.
Oh I agree. I don't have an issue if they're being consulted but do if this isn't part of a broader field push. I wish there was broad involvement for the creation of a stronger licensing standard that would be more portable. I'm all on board for that. I'm not sold on the EPPP2 as doing that, but alas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Top