Assessments LMHC are allowed to administer.

[GeorgeRamosJr]

Hello all I currently received a Masters Degree in Mental Health Counseling and have a Limited Permit for practice in the great state of New York City. When I am a licensed Mental Health Counselor I am wonder what assessments I would legally able to provide under the LMHC Credential.
*
*
Pearson Assessments has different levels of Qualifications based on the particular
*
http://psychcorp.pearsonassessments...uctsAndServices/HowToOrder/Qualifications.htm
*
I remember in my Measurement and Assessments Course our professor indicated to us that certain assessments we could no perform as LMHC. I am not sure the website states that LMHC cannot perform many different assessments as PhD or PsyD for that matter.
*
I am wondering if anyone knows of any post graduate Psychometric or assessment program that may make one qualified to administer assessments?
*
I spoke with Pearson and they told me if you have an LMHC and have experiences using the assessments you could be qualified as Qual B with the Q2 exception.
I was told that if I got a PhD in Counseling, even if I am licensed at the MA level I could qualify for the Qual C (which are assessments like the WAIS–IV). Wondering what could a LMHC in NY do to extensive training on these assessments? Is it ethical for a PhD who practice under a MA level to administer such assessments if they are trained?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[PsychBoxe]

As far as I know the issue will not be with administering assessments, but interpreting them (e.g. writing up a formal report). In my experience, a doctoral level psychologist is usually required to at least supervise the interpretation and formal diagnoses made by various assessments. However, I know of a masters level school psychologists who worked for a private elementary school that was able to both administer and interpret assessment batteries without any doctoral level supervision. This leads me to believe that there is flexibility depending on the setting. That said, I have been informed through my coursework that a doctoral level psychologist is usually required to formalize the interpretation and documentation of assessment results.

 

[GeorgeRamosJr]

I had similar feed back as of need a psychologist to assess..
Wondering if there are any post grad course that would ethically, legally and competiently allow one to administer and interpret with an LMHC.

 

[GeorgeRamosJr]

Interesting... Does this apply to the Beck Depression Inventroy as well? What assessment can an LHMc conduct and interpret?

 

[PsychBoxe]

I agree with psycscientist on this one. The BDI is very different from a complex assessment battery, which requires considerable time in scoring, interpreting, and making sense of the results considering other types of tests in the battery. Test like the BDI and MAQ simply require administration and simple scoring to glean results. They are not diagnostic tools, but simply small assessments that are better at informing, rather than creating a diagnostic foundation or treatment plan.

 

[GeorgeRamosJr]

That makes sense...

What about the MMPI? Would that suffice for a Master level clinical?
Additionally the BASC-2?

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Conducting and charging for assessment batteries is outside the scope for Master's level clinicians. Using self-report questionnaires to track symptoms and progress in therapy is perfectly acceptable, but does not seem to be the type of assessment you're trying to get people to tell you is ok for you to do. Personality measures like the MMPI are outside of the scope, as was already mentioned.

Also, you should probably remove your title of "Psychologist", as you are not licensed at the doctoral-level and this is a protected title.

Agreed. In-depth personality/psychopathology and cognitive/neuropsychological psychometric assessment is the purview of licensed psychologists.

Regarding obtaining a Ph.D. in counseling--assuming it's counseling psychology, this should allow you to be eligible for licensure as a psychologist, and therefore you should receive adequate training during that program to allow for competent administration and interpretation of these measures. If the doctoral program does not allow for licensure as an independently-practicing psychologist, then you would not be qualified.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I had similar feed back as of need a psychologist to assess..
Wondering if there are any post grad course that would ethically, legally and competiently allow one to administer and interpret with an LMHC.

No.

 

[Wyrmcrawler]

Your scope of practice, this includes the level of assessments you can give, are outlined in your states laws. LMHCs are able to administer what LCSWs can just about anywhere in the continental United States. As for the MMPI and other assessments, minus psychological batteries, LMHCs do have a huge amount of training in interpreting, administrating and writing reports for these.

I am really getting tired of other professionals on here telling other individuals what they "know" are the limitations or abilities of other professions. Counselors for a while have been a target of other professions, and a lot of these posts reflect the "old boys club" mentality of the mental health system. As an LMHC I have worked with P.h.D, M.D, and a whole host of other titles. In treatment and assessment I have never once had my education or credentials questioned.

NY Scope of practice for LMHCs states "Mental health counselors use assessment instruments, provide mental health counseling and psychotherapy, clinical assessment and evaluation, treatment planning and case management, prevention, discharge, and aftercare services."( Source: http://www.op.nysed.gov/prof/mhp/mhcbroch.htm)

Also, give me a flipping break a monkey can give the WISC, Woodcock-Johnson,MMPI, and most assessments. Hell, they even have automatic scoring and report write-ups now for a lot of these that are sold by the manufacture for ease of the professional. It is not jedi training to learn how to administer a test, to know the psychometric validity of the test, or what is being shown by the test.

 

[edieb]

This is a great, great teachable moment for anybody interested in pursuing a PhD in clinical psychology. The degree really sucks because anybody with almost no training can do exactly what you do even if they have almost no training. Even worse, most referral sources dont care if it's a PhD or LPC doing the assessment. DONT PURSUE CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY. It is a dying field. The field sucks, sucks, sucks.

 

[PsychBoxe]

Your scope of practice, this includes the level of assessments you can give, are outlined in your states laws. LMHCs are able to administer what LCSWs can just about anywhere in the continental United States. As for the MMPI and other assessments, minus psychological batteries, LMHCs do have a huge amount of training in interpreting, administrating and writing reports for these.

I am really getting tired of other professionals on here telling other individuals what they "know" are the limitations or abilities of other professions. Counselors for a while have been a target of other professions, and a lot of these posts reflect the "old boys club" mentality of the mental health system. As an LMHC I have worked with P.h.D, M.D, and a whole host of other titles. In treatment and assessment I have never once had my education or credentials questioned.

NY Scope of practice for LMHCs states "Mental health counselors use assessment instruments, provide mental health counseling and psychotherapy, clinical assessment and evaluation, treatment planning and case management, prevention, discharge, and aftercare services."( Source: http://www.op.nysed.gov/prof/mhp/mhcbroch.htm)

Also, give me a flipping break a monkey can give the WISC, Woodcock-Johnson,MMPI, and most assessments. Hell, they even have automatic scoring and report write-ups now for a lot of these that are sold by the manufacture for ease of the professional. It is not jedi training to learn how to administer a test, to know the psychometric validity of the test, or what is being shown by the test.

Once again, the issue here is not administration. The issue is interpretation and application of assessment results given the greater scope of the assessment battery. Many assessments (e.g. WJ-III, WISC) have automatic scoring and write-ups, but these are often useless if one does not have training in how to make sense of the results (e.g. CHC factors) in combination with other assessment measures. My intention was not to state the so called "limitations" of masters level clinicians, but simply offer what I know to be true given my training and exposure to assessment.

 

[Wyrmcrawler]

I would have to disagree with the thought that Clinical/Counseling psychology is dead. I feel that it is far from it. I really feel that everyone has things to bring to the table, just the elitism has to stop. As for CHC theory, it is only one theory of thought on intelligence. Though I do think that it is the closest working theory that we have with the idea of multiple intelligence within an individual. I agree that a PhD in Psychology will give you a wealth of knowledge in assessment. I think that a lot of the time Psychs come across as if they are having a pissing match and do not realize that we look up to you guys. I wish psychologists would take more of a mentor/administration role and less of the role of a older sibling with a bruised ego.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Also, give me a flipping break a monkey can give the WISC, Woodcock-Johnson,MMPI, and most assessments. Hell, they even have automatic scoring and report write-ups now for a lot of these that are sold by the manufacture for ease of the professional. It is not jedi training to learn how to administer a test, to know the psychometric validity of the test, or what is being shown by the test.

As mentioned in the post above, the issue isn't with administration, which is why trained psychometrists are able to give these measures. The issue is with valid interpretation, which does necessitate a solid and in-depth understanding of both psychpathology and psychometrics. It's somewhat akin to saying, "it isn't jedi training to learn how to administer and read an EEG to determine if someone has epilepsy."

No one is attempting to say that with adequate training, a master's-level practitioner cannot provide therapy or take a psychosocial history, for example. However, interpretation of psychometric measures should be the domain of licensed psychologists. Just as a psychologist would not purport to be able to adequately perform all of the duties of, say, a social worker. As you mentioned above, each profession brings a unique skillset and conceptualization of mental health and mental illness to the table.

 

[edieb]

As mentioned in the post above, the issue isn't with administration, which is why trained psychometrists are able to give these measures. The issue is with valid interpretation, which does necessitate a solid and in-depth understanding of both psychpathology and psychometrics. It's somewhat akin to saying, "it isn't jedi training to learn how to administer and read an EEG to determine if someone has epilepsy."

No one is attempting to say that with adequate training, a master's-level practitioner cannot provide therapy or take a psychosocial history, for example. However, interpretation of psychometric measures should be (and in most states is) the domain of licensed psychologists. Just as a psychologist would not purport to be able to adequately perform all of the duties of, say, a social worker. As you mentioned above, each profession brings a unique skillset and conceptualization of mental health and mental illness to the table.

Dont want to burst your bubble. but psych testing isn't a protected domain for psychologists anywhere but louisiana

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Dont want to burst your bubble. but psych testing isn't a protected domain for psychologists anywhere but louisiana

I certainly stand corrected on that, then.

 

[GeorgeRamosJr]

Deleted

 

[GeorgeRamosJr]

i hear you psycscientist. I am not only referring to this topic though, with respect to elitism.
I think psychs are protective as it looks like LCSW and LMHC are enchroaching in area that used to be psych dominated. Maybe this area is no more psych dominated. But I suspects SOME psychs are just trying to hang on to areas that were exclusively theirs.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I am really getting tired of other professionals on here telling other individuals what they "know" are the limitations or abilities of other professions.

In regard to psychological/neuropsychological assessment...they are almost all developed by psychologists. Given that they were created by psychologists for use by psychologists, I don't think it is a huge leap to believe that psychologists would be uniquely qualified to understand what is needed to use the assessments ethically.

Also, give me a flipping break a monkey can give the WISC, Woodcock-Johnson,MMPI, and most assessments...etc.

Administration and interpretation are two different issues, though both require training and expertise. Unfortunately many assessment measures are not very well understood by most clinicians (psychology or otherwise), though the most appropriate training and mentorship is provided at the doctoral and post-doctoral levels of training. The required knowledge ranges from psychometrics to differential diagnosis to neuroanatomy.

My view is admittedly conservative, but I think it is more than fair when you consider the impact these assessments can give can have on a person:
-Directly contributes to someone living/dying (e.g. current texas death row case),
-6 to 7+ figure compensation (e.g. any host of MVAs)
-A personal ability to be Independant (e.g. competent to make medical/financial decisions)

i hear you psycscientist. I am not only referring to this topic though, with respect to elitism.
I think psychs are protective as it looks like LCSW and LMHC are enchroaching in area that used to be psych dominated. Maybe this area is no more psych dominated. But I suspects SOME psychs are just trying to hang on to areas that were exclusively theirs.

While a portion of the pushback is related to turf issues, I think the more important issues are related to competence of the clinician and the protection of the general public as it relates to psychological assessment.

In regard to psychotherapy turf battles...I don't have a dog in the fight. However, I am supportive of interventions that have replicated and peer-reviewed support: e.g. Prolonged Exposure Therapy for treatment of PTSD, Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for treatment of various types of Depression, etc.

 

[GeorgeRamosJr]

I see. I suppose that there will be certain assesments that LMHC can't administer nor interpret. I find it strange there is no post grad certification or program that offers masters levels clinicians to administer and interpret more advanced assessments. I know some psych out there is thinking " well you should have been a PhD".

 

[GeorgeRamosJr]

Not really saying it is wrong at all. I realize , maybe justifiably, that is a sentiment amount PhD/PsyD.
I wonder if PsyD's face similar issues from there PhD counter parts at the inception of the degree.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Now it just seems like you are trolling....there are training standards and corresponding legislation for the practice of psychology for a reason. If a person wants to provide ethical and competent psychological assessment, they need to go through doctoral training and receive adequate supervision and mentorship to do so.

Assessment measures are tools. A person can be taught to use a psych assessment, but administration v. interpretation are akin to an EEG Tech and the Neurologist who interprets the EEG data. The incorporation of the data into the rest of the case is why psychologists invest thousands of hours of training instead of buying a book of canned interpretations.

 

[GeorgeRamosJr]

Deleted.

 

[GeorgeRamosJr]

Thanks everyone for a great dialogue. I learned a lot about not over stepping what LMHC can and cannot do. This has been insightful. Thanks all who contributed.

 

[anotherconstruc]

Although standards are more uniform now, it still depends on what state you are in. APA has been largely successful in obtaining single-level licensure. In Tennessee where I have practiced for 23 years with a Masters in clinical psychology, we agreed to eliminate licensure at the Masters level 12 years ago. In exchange, those of us with x number of supervised years were grandfathered into independent practice. We are known as Senior Psychological Examiners and our scope of practice mirrors a Clinical Psychologist with a couple of exceptions.

Performing competent psychological evaluations does require knowledge of psychometrics, validity, reliability and personality theory. This much is true. However, I've found that the most crucial skill is the ability to think critically, to resolve discrepancies and accumulate weight for conclusions. That takes a lot of experience.

Testing is 90% of what I've done and I have a pretty wide network of contacts among colleagues, both as practicioners and as managed care employees. Testing is dying as a profession to the overwhelming majority of us. Don't kid yourself...whether you be Doctorate or Masters prepared.

 

[GeorgeRamosJr]

Reviving the thread!
So counselors are doing psych testing in some states. The issue, this power port doesn’t talk about scoring or interpretation.
Does this PowerPoint assume counselors who are doing testing are also doing interpretation?


More on Counselors doing testing as per the

2016 APA Practice State Leadership Conference: “Who can conduct testing? What do state practice acts say?“




Can Licensed Mental Health Counselors Administer and Interpret Psychological Tests?
The National Board of Forensic Evlautators.

forum will not let me. Post links for some reason

 

[WisNeuro]

Things to consider
1.) Credentialing and reimbursement in healthcare systems. You cannot get credentialed, nor will insurance pay you in many systems to administer and interpret these tests without doctoral level education

2.) Liability. If you misuse these tests in a clinical context, or mis-interpret due to ignorance of the psychometrics, or the neuropathology that may be involved, you are now open to a lawsuit. If you interpreted tests outside of your scope, your liability insurance company will use that as an opportunity to remove themselves from the situation and leave you out to dry, as they rightfully should.

3.) Many of us see inappropriate testing done in the community all of the time. I have no problem throwing these people under the bus in my report and advising families that if they are displeased that they can contact the licensing authority with an ethical complaint based on inappropriate clinical care and scope of competence.

 

[GeorgeRamosJr]

Things to consider
1.) Credentialing and reimbursement in healthcare systems. You cannot get credentialed, nor will insurance pay you in many systems to administer and interpret these tests without doctoral level education

2.) Liability. If you misuse these tests in a clinical context, or mis-interpret due to ignorance of the psychometrics, or the neuropathology that may be involved, you are now open to a lawsuit. If you interpreted tests outside of your scope, your liability insurance company will use that as an opportunity to remove themselves from the situation and leave you out to dry, as they rightfully should.

3.) Many of us see inappropriate testing done in the community all of the time. I have no problem throwing these people under the bus in my report and advising families that if they are displeased that they can contact the licensing authority with an ethical complaint based on inappropriate clinical care and scope of competence.

Wise Nuero you’ve made some great points. However, if APA indicated counselors can perform these assessments and state licensure indicated LMHC can do these assessments AND the counselors has received adequate supervision and training, perhaps even apart of the National Board of Forensic Evaulators, where is the reasonable objection in that scenario? You are correct in tying liability and inexperience/poor training together.
*Please see attached images

 

[GeorgeRamosJr]

 

[WisNeuro]

If a state allows it, go nuts. I just have yet to see a competent assessment from a mid-level provider. Also, my healthcare system won't credential it, so I won't see it within the system any time soon.

 

[GeorgeRamosJr]

If a state allows it, go nuts. I just have yet to see a competent assessment from a mid-level provider. Also, my healthcare system won't credential it, so I won't see it within the system any time soon.

Hello Wise Nuero, would you ever be open to speaking on the phone or a video chat regarding this topic?
What did you think of the screen shots I attached in the 2 pervious posts?

I am considering joining the National Board of Forensic Evaluatiors.

 

[GeorgeRamosJr]

Although standards are more uniform now, it still depends on what state you are in. APA has been largely successful in obtaining single-level licensure. In Tennessee where I have practiced for 23 years with a Masters in clinical psychology, we agreed to eliminate licensure at the Masters level 12 years ago. In exchange, those of us with x number of supervised years were grandfathered into independent practice. We are known as Senior Psychological Examiners and our scope of practice mirrors a Clinical Psychologist with a couple of exceptions.

Performing competent psychological evaluations does require knowledge of psychometrics, validity, reliability and personality theory. This much is true. However, I've found that the most crucial skill is the ability to think critically, to resolve discrepancies and accumulate weight for conclusions. That takes a lot of experience.

Testing is 90% of what I've done and I have a pretty wide network of contacts among colleagues, both as practicioners and as managed care employees. Testing is dying as a profession to the overwhelming majority of us. Don't kid yourself...whether you be Doctorate or Masters prepared.

 

[GeorgeRamosJr]

Now it just seems like you are trolling....there are training standards and corresponding legislation for the practice of psychology for a reason. If a person wants to provide ethical and competent psychological assessment, they need to go through doctoral training and receive adequate supervision and mentorship to do so.

Assessment measures are tools. A person can be taught to use a psych assessment, but administration v. interpretation are akin to an EEG Tech and the Neurologist who interprets the EEG data. The incorporation of the data into the rest of the case is why psychologists invest thousands of hours of training instead of buying a book of canned interpretations.

 

[singasongofjoy]

Regardless of credentials, a poorly interpreted test and/or incomplete battery can and DOES cause real and sometimes lasting, significant harm to clients. I have seen it on multiple occasions and I imagine many others on this board have as well. That is why people get "protective" or whatever term you want to use regarding this issue - because administration tends to be followed by interpretation and if you care about the field and your clients the frustration from having seen poorly administered and/or interpreted evals is very real. Poor interpretations lead to wrong or missed diagnoses, can strongly impact a person's sense of identity, make them ineligible for various needed services or prohibit them from certain opportunities, and lead to wrong, ineffective, and expensive treatment. It matters a LOT.

 

[erg923]

View attachment 225622 View attachment 225621

I think im a bit lost, especially i regards to the last paragraph. in the slides Who, exactly, says or claims this?

Mid level practitioners (who hold a license) obviously can and do diagnose mental health disorders and are free to monitor the progress of treatment with variety of industry standard measures (PHQ, Beck, OQ-45, etc.). I see this happen everyday. And this is not "psychological testing."

I really dont understand the push for this? Actual psychological testing is generally poorly reimbursed given the labor, risk and cost of materials, has a high utilization review rates, and generally does not alter treatment substantially in most cases. What exactly is the appeal here?

 

[MAClinician]

National board of forensic evaluators is a joke. And I say this as a masters level clinician myself. Crock of s**t. Not nearly the same training and supervision required as APPB(?) certification in forensic psychology. If I was a parent needing a child custody evaluation I'm going for the psychologist hands down.

National Board of Forensic Evaluators, Inc. - Home

George, stay in your scope of practice. Or be ready to lose your license and livelihood if you get nailed for doing something incompetent or dangerous towards clients. Like "evaluating" when you have limited experience doing so. JMO.

 

[psych.meout]

Wise Nuero you’ve made some great points. However, if APA indicated counselors can perform these assessments and state licensure indicated LMHC can do these assessments AND the counselors has received adequate supervision and training, perhaps even apart of the National Board of Forensic Evaulators, where is the reasonable objection in that scenario? You are correct in tying liability and inexperience/poor training together.
*Please see attached images

The reasonable objection is that master's level counselors don't receive adequate supervision and training and trying to cobble together post-grad training is insufficient and dangerous.

It's not simply about being taught individual measures and some basic psychometric and assessment principles. Doctoral programs have assessment and more fundamental scientific concepts (e.g. actuarial principles vs. clinical judgment/intuition) infused throughout every aspect of training, from didactic coursework to clinical practica to research productivity. This isn't something you can replicate through a couple of courses or clinical training experiences. The amount of training required to make you fully competent would be on the order of completing a doctoral program, which means that the model for which you are advocating is fundamentally flawed.

Ask yourself, would you choose get a tumor removed by a surgeon or a nurse practitioner who took a couple of extra courses and had some hands-on experience in surgery?

I think im a bit lost, especially i regards to the last paragraph. in the slides Who, exactly, says or claims this?

It's a false equivalency. Physicians explicitly receive training in cardiovascular disease, including its assessment and treatment. Master's-level counselors don't receive training in psychometrics, psychological testing, etc. And for physicians, anything that is outside of their scope or specialty gets referred out to those providers who are trained in those areas. This would be akin to referring t psychologists for testing and interpretation.

A more apt analogy would be that it's illogical to deny nurses the opportunity to perform surgery, because they make up a larger part of the healthcare system than physicians. They wouldn't use accurate analogies like these, because it would reveal the absurdity of their claims.

Mid level practitioners (who hold a license) obviously can and do diagnose mental health disorders and are free to monitor the progress of treatment with variety of industry standard measures (PHQ, Beck, OQ-45, etc.). I see this happen everyday. And this is not "psychological testing."

I really dont understand the push for this? Actual psychological testing is generally poorly reimbursed given the labor, risk and cost of materials, has a high utilization review rates, and generally does not alter treatment substantially in most cases. What exactly is the appeal here?

The push is that they want to be able to do more and charge for more without getting the requisite education and training, i.e. completing doctoral programs.

 

[deleted106747]

Your scope of practice, this includes the level of assessments you can give, are outlined in your states laws. LMHCs are able to administer what LCSWs can just about anywhere in the continental United States. As for the MMPI and other assessments, minus psychological batteries, LMHCs do have a huge amount of training in interpreting, administrating and writing reports for these.

I am really getting tired of other professionals on here telling other individuals what they "know" are the limitations or abilities of other professions. Counselors for a while have been a target of other professions, and a lot of these posts reflect the "old boys club" mentality of the mental health system. As an LMHC I have worked with P.h.D, M.D, and a whole host of other titles. In treatment and assessment I have never once had my education or credentials questioned.

NY Scope of practice for LMHCs states "Mental health counselors use assessment instruments, provide mental health counseling and psychotherapy, clinical assessment and evaluation, treatment planning and case management, prevention, discharge, and aftercare services."( Source: NYS Mental Health Counselors:Consumer Information)

Also, give me a flipping break a monkey can give the WISC, Woodcock-Johnson,MMPI, and most assessments. Hell, they even have automatic scoring and report write-ups now for a lot of these that are sold by the manufacture for ease of the professional. It is not jedi training to learn how to administer a test, to know the psychometric validity of the test, or what is being shown by the test.

and with those sentences right there, you demonstrate why Master's level practitioners are not qualified to interpret these tests without supervision.

 

[psych.meout]

and with those sentences right there, you demonstrate why Master's level practitioners are not qualified to interpret these tests without supervision.

The worst things are overconfidence and not knowing what you don't know.

 

[singasongofjoy]

.

 

[GeorgeRamosJr]

National board of forensic evaluators is a joke. And I say this as a masters level clinician myself. Crock of s**t. Not nearly the same training and supervision required as APPB(?) certification in forensic psychology. If I was a parent needing a child custody evaluation I'm going for the psychologist hands down.

George, stay in your scope of practice. Or be ready to lose your license and livelihood if you get nailed for doing something incompetent or dangerous towards clients. Like "evaluating" when you have limited experience doing so. JMO.

As per my state, this doesn’t seem to be out of the scope of my practice. Even the APA agrees

 

[GeorgeRamosJr]

The reasonable objection is that master's level counselors don't receive adequate supervision and training and trying to cobble together post-grad training is insufficient and dangerous.

It's not simply about being taught individual measures and some basic psychometric and assessment principles. Doctoral programs have assessment and more fundamental scientific concepts (e.g. actuarial principles vs. clinical judgment/intuition) infused throughout every aspect of training, from didactic coursework to clinical practica to research productivity. This isn't something you can replicate through a couple of courses or clinical training experiences. The amount of training required to make you fully competent would be on the order of completing a doctoral program, which means that the model for which you are advocating is fundamentally flawed.

Ask yourself, would you choose get a tumor removed by a surgeon or a nurse practitioner who took a couple of extra courses and had some hands-on experience in surgery?



It's a false equivalency. Physicians explicitly receive training in cardiovascular disease, including its assessment and treatment. Master's-level counselors don't receive training in psychometrics, psychological testing, etc. And for physicians, anything that is outside of their scope or specialty gets referred out to those providers who are trained in those areas. This would be akin to referring t psychologists for testing and interpretation.

A more apt analogy would be that it's illogical to deny nurses the opportunity to perform surgery, because they make up a larger part of the healthcare system than physicians. They wouldn't use accurate analogies like these, because it would reveal the absurdity of their claims.


The push is that they want to be able to do more and charge for more without getting the requisite education and training, i.e. completing doctoral programs.

The reasonable objection is that master's level counselors don't receive adequate supervision and training and trying to cobble together post-grad training is insufficient and dangerous.

It's not simply about being taught individual measures and some basic psychometric and assessment principles. Doctoral programs have assessment and more fundamental scientific concepts (e.g. actuarial principles vs. clinical judgment/intuition) infused throughout every aspect of training, from didactic coursework to clinical practica to research productivity. This isn't something you can replicate through a couple of courses or clinical training experiences. The amount of training required to make you fully competent would be on the order of completing a doctoral program, which means that the model for which you are advocating is fundamentally flawed.

Ask yourself, would you choose get a tumor removed by a surgeon or a nurse practitioner who took a couple of extra courses and had some hands-on experience in surgery?



It's a false equivalency. Physicians explicitly receive training in cardiovascular disease, including its assessment and treatment. Master's-level counselors don't receive training in psychometrics, psychological testing, etc. And for physicians, anything that is outside of their scope or specialty gets referred out to those providers who are trained in those areas. This would be akin to referring t psychologists for testing and interpretation.

A more apt analogy would be that it's illogical to deny nurses the opportunity to perform surgery, because they make up a larger part of the healthcare system than physicians. They wouldn't use accurate analogies like these, because it would reveal the absurdity of their claims.


The push is that they want to be able to do more and charge for more without getting the requisite education and training, i.e. completing doctoral programs.

I think you’re off comparing nurses to doctors in relation to psychologist and masters levels counselor.
Often, nurse practitioners see patients in clinical settings and even prescribe meds.


I think you all have valid concerns, just not valid points to restrict counselors for doing assessments.

As I stated state law and APA as of 2016 do not seem to have any objection.

 

[GeorgeRamosJr]

.

Higher level of discourse.

 

[GeorgeRamosJr]

Counselors and the Right to Test: Working Toward Professional Parity
Joshua C. Watson and Carl J. Sheperis

“Unfortunately, many counselors have been affected by policies or legislated acts that have unfair requirements for test administration. In many cases, these policies have been enacted in opposition to the guidelines for education, training, and experience that have been established by test publishers. According to the ACA ethical code (ACA, 2005), counselors are responsible for self-evaluation of their competency to administer and interpret assessment instruments.

The International Test Commission’s guidelines (ITC, 2001) identify this practice of self-evaluation as competency-based assessment.

In other words, those professionals who conduct assessment practices are responsible for self-evaluation of their competency. The restrictions that have been imposed by psychology licensure boards have been related to title only and have not considered competency as a factor.

In an effort to guide the practitioner in competency-based assessment, many professional associations, regulatory boards, or credentialing agencies have established training, practice, and ethical standards dealing specifically with professional competence in the use of assessments.

However, psychology licensure boards have consistently sought to restrict how other helping professionals determine competency.”

 

[WisNeuro]

Nope, I'm good. Everything I have to say has already been said in the thread for the most part.

 

[psych.meout]

I think you’re off comparing nurses to doctors in relation to psychologist and masters levels counselor.
Often, nurse practitioners see patients in clinical settings and even prescribe meds.


I think you all have valid concerns, just not valid points to restrict counselors for doing assessments.

As I stated state law and APA as of 2016 do not seem to have any objection.

Whoosh!

 

[GeorgeRamosJr]

Nope, I'm good. Everything I have to say has already been said in the thread for the most part.

Thank you for the input. I really appreciate the rich discussion.

 

[psych.meout]

Counselors and the Right to Test: Working Toward Professional Parity
Joshua C. Watson and Carl J. Sheperis

“Unfortunately, many counselors have been affected by policies or legislated acts that have unfair requirements for test administration. In many cases, these policies have been enacted in opposition to the guidelines for education, training, and experience that have been established by test publishers. According to the ACA ethical code (ACA, 2005), counselors are responsible for self-evaluation of their competency to administer and interpret assessment instruments.

The International Test Commission’s guidelines (ITC, 2001) identify this practice of self-evaluation as competency-based assessment.

In other words, those professionals who conduct assessment practices are responsible for self-evaluation of their competency. The restrictions that have been imposed by psychology licensure boards have been related to title only and have not considered competency as a factor.

In an effort to guide the practitioner in competency-based assessment, many professional associations, regulatory boards, or credentialing agencies have established training, practice, and ethical standards dealing specifically with professional competence in the use of assessments.

However, psychology licensure boards have consistently sought to restrict how other helping professionals determine competency.”

Oh, gee, I wonder what determinations you and other master's level counselors will make about your own competencies to conduct assessments will be?

There certainly isn't a catch-22 where you don't have enough knowledge and training to know and self-assess that you don't have enough knowledge and training to conduct assessments.

 

[GeorgeRamosJr]

Whoosh!

Unsure if that a good response or not.‍♂️

 

[GeorgeRamosJr]

Oh, gee, I wonder what determinations you and other master's level counselors will make about your own competencies to conduct assessments will be?

There certainly isn't a catch-22 where you don't have enough knowledge and training to know and self-assess that you don't have enough knowledge and training to conduct assessments.

How would you , or anyone, determine they aren’t qualified ?

 

[psych.meout]

How would you , or anyone, determine they aren’t qualified ?

Doctorate in clinical or counseling psychology and licensure as a bare minimum? Possibly an additional board certification from a reputable organization like ABPP?