APA and Masters accred.

[Justanothergrad]

"On Friday, March 9 (this Friday), the APA Council of Representatives will be voting on whether APA should provide training guidelines and possibly accredit MA programs in Psychology" but, as I understand it, only for those located in departments of psychology.
- Snipped from a COGDOP email

I have a number of thoughts about this:
- this is a way to pushback against CACREP
- this is a somewhat effective way to help standardize MA training
- It could result in better MA providers and in a greater capacity to utilize MA training in making decisions for doctoral admissions (and weed out junk training).
- This is an ineffective way to pushback against CACREP since it excludes APA doctoral programs in counseling housed in schools of education (most of them) that may also have masters programs


What are your thoughts?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[WisNeuro]

I like the aspect of at least a bar for training guidelines. The MA level folks I've worked with run the gamut of " I will never refer a person to you" to "does exceptional work."

 

[Justanothergrad]

I like the aspect of at least a bar for training guidelines. The MA level folks I've worked with run the gamut of " I will never refer a person to you" to "does exceptional work."

The tough part is (1) what should be standard learning for a MA and (2) why is a majority of division 17 excluded since departments of psych are pretty much just division 12

 

[WisNeuro]

Good question, I have no knowledge of most division activity these days. I'm pretty much only involved with INS and AACN.

 

[NeuroLady]

I like this idea, but, and I ask this in earnest, does it pull the APA's attention away from us? Would they then have competing interests?

 

[deleted343839]

I like this idea, but, and I ask this in earnest, does it pull the APA's attention away from us? Would they then have competing interests?

This is a fair point. I would like to see higher and more consistent standards for masters level education, but I think this pulls focus from other priorities and could undermine APA’s stance on the doctoral degree as the entry level standard for the profession.

 

[WisNeuro]

This is a fair point. I would like to see higher and more consistent standards for masters level education, but I think this pulls focus from other priorities and could undermine APA’s stance on the doctoral degree as the entry level standard for the profession.

I wholeheartedly agree, but the master's levels doing therapy ship has sailed long ago. We have entire healthcare systems in my metro area that only hire masters level people for therapy positions. Heck, even my current system, we can only get doctoral level people for specialty type clinics (e.g., neuro, pain, rehab. gero).

 

[Justanothergrad]

This is a fair point. I would like to see higher and more consistent standards for masters level education, but I think this pulls focus from other priorities and could undermine APA’s stance on the doctoral degree as the entry level standard for the profession.

Agreed that it will detract from the 'entry level standard position' but like it or not- this is not what the reality of MH work is and its not a realistic position for mental health more broadly. There simply are not/will not be enough doctoral providers to treat mental health. This isn't even the reality on the ground with psychology licenses. The questions, to me, are 'does psychology provide a training model which can be adapted to a MA level which offers to provide good/needed care to patients' and 'does accreditation help to promote this'

 

[deleted343839]

Agreed that it will detract from the 'entry level standard position' but like it or not- this is not what the reality of MH work is and its not a realistic position for mental health more broadly. There simply are not/will not be enough doctoral providers to treat mental health. This isn't even the reality on the ground with psychology licenses. The questions, to me, are 'does psychology provide a training model which can be adapted to a MA level which offers to provide good/needed care to patients' and 'does accreditation help to promote this'

I agree that the ship has sailed. But reconfiguring master’s level training is typical 20-years-late thinking from APA. “Mental health work” is now a big tent. And of course not everyone needs a doctoral level provider.

Master’s level clinicians have a big role to play in mental health services, similar to midlevel roles in medicine. But those professions already exist and I see little point in replicating them. As in medicine, psychologists seem to be shifting more to specialized and (sadly to a lesser degree) admin/leadership positions. Under current constraints (static reimbursements, the lack of Medicare physician status), I still think that’s the preferable outcome for the profession.

And as we have already seen in saturated markets, pumping more “psychologists” into the system will not address any of the other structural causes of mental health access problems.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

This needs to happen soon and fast. Otherwise, psychology will be pushed out of masters-level training.

 

[Justanothergrad]

I agree that the ship has sailed. But reconfiguring master’s level training is typical 20-years-late thinking from APA. “Mental health work” is now a big tent. And of course not everyone needs a doctoral level provider.

Master’s level clinicians have a big role to play in mental health services, similar to midlevel roles in medicine. But those professions already exist and I see little point in replicating them. As in medicine, psychologists seem to be shifting more to specialized and (sadly to a lesser degree) admin/leadership positions. Under current constraints (static reimbursements, the lack of Medicare physician status), I still think that’s the preferable outcome for the profession.

And as we have already seen in saturated markets, pumping more “psychologists” into the system will not address any of the other structural causes of mental health access problems.

Agreed. Leave it to APA to have poor planning on matters of policy. I bet Vegas wouldn't even take that bet.

However, as far as I see it, this is not an issue of replacing providers out there in the field because we are not adding anything new. We already have MA level clinicians and MA programs with a great deal of frequency. They are already licensed and doing work. Accreditation doesn't change the output. That is already there. As far as I see it, there are two options: (a) psychology programs (clinical MA and counseling MA) stop being produced across the nation so as to focus on the realities you mention (static reimbursement, etc.) or (b) make sure that the master levels providers being trained in psychology are getting a bar minimum level of training to help ensure what is occurring at a basic level. If we remove this from our scope of training (something APA has to admit is part of our training scope given the fact that it, quite literally, is how the education and licensure world is) we give up seats at the table about mental health treatment. That doesn't advance psychological practice in my mind, and I think we offer important perspectives for better client care.

 

[smalltownpsych]

My first thought was, “oh hell no!”, but after reading through some of the posts here I am thinking it might make sense. Many MA clinicians appreciate what psychology brings and enjoy the knowledge that we can impart. Having them working under our umbrella to an extent would probably benefit both levels of education. I would hate to see the title of psychologist get watered down though and that could be an outcome as mamaphd inferred.

 

[Justanothergrad]

My first thought was, “oh hell no!”, but after reading through some of the posts here I am thinking it might make sense. Many MA clinicians appreciate what psychology brings and enjoy the knowledge that we can impart. Having them working under our umbrella to an extent would probably benefit both levels of education. I would hate to see the title of psychologist get watered down though and that could be an outcome as mamaphd inferred.

I agree about the title. I'm skeptical that is up for consideration and have not heard anything that would suggest it is (I certainly hope it isn't). It might be worthwhile for psychology to brand a term for that level of trainee to create/solidify a seat at the table for them in mental health discussions/politics.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

Purely anecdotal, but it seems that science-to-practice gap is even greater among our allied professions.

 

[bcliff]

APA accreditation for MA/MS programs may also provide a framework for the development of “new” doctoral programs -- Programs could first gain MA/MS accreditation, then expand to doctoral accreditation. It could help curtail the proliferation of FSPS programs, but, given what we’ve seen with accreditation for doctoral training (ahem.. Fielding, Argosy, etc.), I can’t imagine that requirements for accreditation at the midlevel will be any more rigorous.

 

[deleted343839]

Purely anecdotal, but it seems that science-to-practice gap is even greater among our allied professions.

This is one argument I can think of in favor of adding master’s level psychologists to the pool of mental health providers. Scientific training differentiates us from other mental health professions and I think that programs could preserve this focus with a behavioral/empirical emphasis.

 

[WisNeuro]

This is one argument I can think of in favor of adding master’s level psychologists to the pool of mental health providers. Scientific training differentiates us from other mental health professions and I think that programs could preserve this focus with a behavioral/empirical emphasis.

I am for that, not a fan of calling them psychologists, though. I think that should connote a certain level of training in research and clinical work and be a protected term. Although, we've already lost that battle in several states.

 

[deleted343839]

I am for that, not a fan of calling them psychologists, though. I think that should connote a certain level of training in research and clinical work and be a protected term. Although, we've already lost that battle in several states.

Agreed. I used the term loosely, albeit in keeping with the "that ship has sailed" theme of this thread.

 

[futureapppsy2]

This is one argument I can think of in favor of adding master’s level psychologists to the pool of mental health providers. Scientific training differentiates us from other mental health professions and I think that programs could preserve this focus with a behavioral/empirical emphasis.

Not necessarily. The scientific training in psychology comes through the doctoral level training, and even then, I wouldn't argue that it's universal--there's plenty of PsyD programs that allow students to graduate without conducting a true empirical research study for their dissertation. I teach masters counseling students now, and they get what I think is pretty standard masters-level training--research methods, stats, an optional thesis, a general cross-course focus on EBP, etc. I imagine many masters-level programs in psych, if they were meant to license some flavor of masters-level clinicians, because most folks who want to be clinicians don't want to be researchers. Heck, even some doctoral students deliberately pick less research-heavy programs.

 

[deleted343839]

Not necessarily. The scientific training in psychology comes through the doctoral level training, and even then, I wouldn't argue that it's universal--there's plenty of PsyD programs that allow students to graduate without conducting a true empirical research study for their dissertation. I teach masters counseling students now, and they get what I think is pretty standard masters-level training--research methods, stats, an optional thesis, a general cross-course focus on EBP, etc. I imagine many masters-level programs in psych, if they were meant to license some flavor of masters-level clinicians, because most folks who want to be clinicians don't want to be researchers. Heck, even some doctoral students deliberately pick less research-heavy programs.

It's a matter of emphasis, of course. No one is going to expect doctoral-level work from master's students, but surely there is room to improve the way that empiricism is incorporated into both didactics and clinical training. Or is there something else that you would expect to differentiate psychology from counseling and social work?

 

[futureapppsy2]

It's a matter of emphasis, of course. No one is going to expect doctoral-level work from master's students, but surely there is room to improve the way that empiricism is incorporated into both didactics and clinical training. Or is there something else that you would expect to differentiate psychology from counseling and social work?

I think the issue is that counseling is already doing masters-level clinical therapy practice. I can't see how masters-level psych practice could be distinguishably different, unless doctoral psychs gave up assessment as their unique domain or we were training MA-level psych students to be psychometricians. It seems like this is either going to decrease the value of psych doctoral degrees and associated licenses and scope of practice or just essentially replicate counseling masters degrees, licenses, and scope of practice.

 

[Justanothergrad]

Council approved APA pursuing the accreditation of master’s level programs in psychology in areas in which APA already accreditsprograms (92% approval!). At this time how accreditation will be done is wide open. APA will reach out to other organizations (e.g., MPCAC) and existing resources (e.g., master’s competency benchmarks) and see how the pursuit of accreditation can be accomplished. All options are on the table.

From the div17 listserv on what next steps are for accred.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

or just essentially replicate counseling masters degrees, licenses, and scope of practice.

I think this is the goal.

At the moment, CACREP is kicking psychology out of masters-level training. APA has a vested interest in making sure psychologists have jobs in masters programs. Its a turf issue at the end. I am also sure that APA will make sure to distinguish doctoral training as a wholly separate and distinct area of practice/accreditation.

I think APA should just join with MPCAC, which is the alternative accrediting body for programs typically found in psychology departments.