APA Action Alert: Defend your PHD/PSYD

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.


Senior Member
10+ Year Member
Aug 27, 2004
Reaction score

Members don't see this ad.
Dear Colleague:
We have reached out to you on several occasions recently. We greatly appreciate the efforts of those psychologists who emailed and called their representatives. Regrettably, we need your help AGAIN.

The masters' level groups have told the legislature that they are functionally equivalent to doctoral level psychologists. They have stated that because they are licensed by the same board and because they take exams prior to licensure, they are indistinguishable from psychologists. They have told the legislature that the only distinction between a masters level clinician and a psychologist is that psychologists spend time in school learning to do research. In fact, they have indicated that masters' level clinicians obtain 2-year degrees, while doctoral level clinicians earn 3-year degrees. They have told legislators that on every indicator that counts for providing services to the public, they hold the same stature as a psychologist. We have tried to correct the misperceptions that have been circulated by the masters' level groups, but unfortunately it is difficult to alter a belief once it has been established.

The masters level groups attempted to revoke the vendorship of LPs and LSCSWs in 2007. They justified that action based on their claim that they needed to "level the playing field." After having failed to move their vendorship bill through committee with their unsupported testimony and fabrications in early 2008, they are now engaging in last minute political maneuvers. We cannot expect good outcomes from efforts that seek to circumvent a process that relies on reason, evidence, and collective wisdom.

We STRONGLY encourage you to email your State Senator immediately to urge them to vote against the HB2601. This bill will confer vendorship upon masters' level providers without meeting the requirement to prove their contention that it will provide services for rural residents of Kansas.

To e-mail your KS representatives: http://capwiz.com/apapractice/issues/alert/?alertid=11226831