Assessments LMHC are allowed to administer.

[psych.meout]

Unsure if that a good response or not.‍♂️

Scope of practice creep is also a problem in medicine.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

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

Given that the vast majority of assessments used to assess psychological and cognitive functioning were developed and validated by doctoral providers (almost exclusively psychologists), it makes sense that those people evaluate who is and who is not capable of properly utilizing these assessments.

 

[GeorgeRamosJr]

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

Just as someone said before, if counselors are qualifying themselves, what type of certainty is there?

If

Given that the vast majority of assessments used to assess psychological and cognitive functioning were developed and validated by doctoral providers (almost exclusively psychologists), it makes sense that those people evaluate who is and who is not capable of properly utilizing these assessments.

i think you make a good point. However, here is something no one here has a been able to provide , a statue, law or anything written from APA or other body prohibiting counseling a from doing the MMPI.

However, my state law and the APA seem to suggest we can do testing as long as we are trained.

So what do we have?
Some conjecture but not much opposing evidence.
It seems there is more evidence and writing to suggest counselors can do this than not.

Can anyone point anything that prohibits counselors with clinical and relevant experience other wise? Outside of their own opinion?

 

[psych.meout]

View attachment 225642
View attachment 225643
Just as someone said before, if counselors are qualifying themselves, what type of certainty is there?

If

i think you make a good point. However, here is something no one here has a been able to provide , a statue, law or anything written from APA or other body prohibiting counseling a from doing the MMPI.

However, my state law and the APA seem to suggest we can do testing as long as we are trained.

So what do we have?
Some conjecture but not much opposing evidence.
It seems there is more evidence and writing to suggest counselors can do this than not.

Can anyone point anything that prohibits counselors with clinical and relevant experience other wise? Outside of their own opinion?
View attachment 225644

So, you've not actually come here for conversation or debate. You just want to hear affirmation of what you've already decided is the case, that there is nothing wrong with you, as a master's level counselor, conducting psychological testing.

 

[GeorgeRamosJr]

So, you've not actually come here for conversation or debate. You just want to hear affirmation of what you've already decided is the case, that there is nothing wrong with you, as a master's level counselor, conducting psychological testing.

Not at all! I think you’ve all made some great points.

What I haven’t seen is anything in writing to support these positions.

Your reply is appreciated but inadequate regarding any prohibitation in writing.

I’ve have appreciated your thoughts, replies and ideas.

Like any good discussion, I’m looking for supporting docs for your position.

Do you have any?
(My tone is as respectful as possible and I thank you for your engagement).

 

[GeorgeRamosJr]

Mental Health Counseling Scope

The scope says:
"Definition of the practice of mental health counseling. The practice of the profession of mental health counseling is defined as:
the evaluation, assessment, amelioration, treatment, modification, or adjustment to a disability, problem, or disorder of behavior, character, development, emotion, personality or relationships by the use of verbal or behavioral methods with individuals, couples, families or groups in private practice, group, or organized settings; and
the use of assessment instruments and mental health counseling and psychotherapy to identify, evaluate and treat dysfunctions and disorders for purposes of providing appropriate mental health counseling services."

Administering the MMPI-2 is an assessment instrument. So with supervision or training, yes, it could fall in the scope.

 

[GeorgeRamosJr]

From the University of Minnesota. The developer and holders of the test.

 

[psych.meout]

You know what isn't a strong basis for ethical science and clinical practice? Looking for legal loopholes and bending legalese in your favor. That's a fast track to harming your patients and getting sued.

You need to establish how and why your mid-level training are equivalent to the training offered by 4+ years of a doctoral program, 1 year internship, and 1+ years of post doctoral training. You need to objectively and empirically establish how you are assessing your own competency and scope beyond self-serving self-assessments. You need to be approaching these things from the most skeptical and tentative perspectives as possible, even if it leads to conclusions that limit you.

Honestly, you should be more skeptical of any document that is advocating for a master's degree and "at least a weekend workshop on neuropsychological assessment" as making you qualified to do psychological testing and assessment.

 

[MAClinician]

Double post.

 

[MAClinician]

Not at all! I think you’ve all made some great points.

What I haven’t seen is anything in writing to support these positions.


Like any good discussion, I’m looking for supporting docs for your position.

Do you have any?
(My tone is as respectful as possible and I thank you for your engagement).

I'm not a lawyer and I don't practice in NY state. My Interpretation may be incorrect. But section 8401 Exemptions #1 says "Nothing contained in this article shall be construed to:Apply to the practice, conduct, activities, services or use of any title by any person licensed or otherwise authorized to practice medicine within the state pursuant to article one hundred thirty-one of this title or by any person registered to perform services as a physician assistant within the state pursuant to article one hundred thirty-one-B of this title or by any person licensed or otherwise authorized to practice psychology within this state pursuant to article one hundred fifty-three of this title... "

Article 153 defines psychology as "the practice includes, but is not limited to psychological (including neuropsychological) testing and counseling; psychoanalysis; psychotherapy; the diagnosis and treatment of mental, nervous, emotional, cognitive or behavioral disorders, disabilities, ailments or illnesses, alcoholism, substance abuse, disorders of habit or conduct, the psychological aspects of physical illness, accident, injury or disability, psychological aspects of learning (including learning disorders); and the use of accepted classification systems."

Assessment and evaluation are not clearly defined in the LMHC section of the law. Psych testing appears to be defined by the psychology section of the law. However, maybe someone who knows this subject more in depth in NYS will have an answer.
Title VIII

 

[GeorgeRamosJr]

I'm not a lawyer and I don't practice in NY state. My Interpretation may be incorrect. But section 8401 Exemptions #1 says "Nothing contained in this article shall be construed to:Apply to the practice, conduct, activities, services or use of any title by any person licensed or otherwise authorized to practice medicine within the state pursuant to article one hundred thirty-one of this title or by any person registered to perform services as a physician assistant within the state pursuant to article one hundred thirty-one-B of this title or by any person licensed or otherwise authorized to practice psychology within this state pursuant to article one hundred fifty-three of this title... "

Article 153 defines psychology as "the practice includes, but is not limited to psychological (including neuropsychological) testing and counseling; psychoanalysis; psychotherapy; the diagnosis and treatment of mental, nervous, emotional, cognitive or behavioral disorders, disabilities, ailments or illnesses, alcoholism, substance abuse, disorders of habit or conduct, the psychological aspects of physical illness, accident, injury or disability, psychological aspects of learning (including learning disorders); and the use of accepted classification systems."

Assessment and evaluation are not clearly defined in the LMHC section of the law. Psych testing appears to be defined by the psychology section of the law. However, maybe someone who knows this subject more in depth in NYS will have an answer.
/QUOTE]
Great research! I think the issue is if the MMPI is an instrument used for assessment, how is that not allowed by a WELL trained licensed counselor.
Still not seeing a prohibitation here.

Great find tho!

 

[GeorgeRamosJr]

You know what isn't a strong basis for ethical science and clinical practice? Looking for legal loopholes and bending legalese in your favor. That's a fast track to harming your patients and getting sued.

You need to establish how and why your mid-level training are equivalent to the training offered by 4+ years of a doctoral program, 1 year internship, and 1+ years of post doctoral training. You need to objectively and empirically establish how you are assessing your own competency and scope beyond self-serving self-assessments. You need to be approaching these things from the most skeptical and tentative perspectives as possible, even if it leads to conclusions that limit you.

Honestly, you should be more skeptical of any document that is advocating for a master's degree and "at least a weekend workshop on neuropsychological assessment" as making you qualified to do psychological testing and assessment.

I think that make sense. If someone is merely taking a weekend training and supplementing gaps with YouTube videos, I don’t think that properly trained. (See we can agree)

Let me throw this on your play Pysch.Edmeout

What if a masters level therapist trained under a psychologist for 6 months and was able to interpret and explain result to that psychologist satisfaction.
And that person state allows counselors to do testing. Would that suffice?

Also these aren’t legal loop hole,
This is evidence from :
NY State Law
ACA
APA
Pearsons
University of Minnesota
Board of Forensic Evaluators.

All of them do not prohibit and actually state: “ just be sure your adequately trained”

Still no one has produced one single document to say this test is only for psychologist. That’s not interpretation, that’s the facts.

 

[GeorgeRamosJr]

“Assessment instruments” would the MMPi be considered an assessment instrument.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Speaking of legal....I don’t see how a mid-level would meet Daubert standards.

Nothing in those descriptions mentions psychometric testing, neuropsychological assessment, or similar. I can’t see the court ignoring that lack of specification combined with Frye or Daubert standards. Just my 2 cents.

@PSYDR, thoughts?

 

[Justanothergrad]

Not to say I don't appreciate the images, but they really don't sell the complexity of the case. Its troublesome to allow people with less training (i.e., MA/MS) to use complex assessments as though they are on equal footing in terms of training and experience with doctoral level providers. It seems foolish to me to think that the reason someone should be granted/denied access to a set of instruments is because of an exclusionary criteria. It should not be 'why not', but 'why'. This is how competence should work. I should not be granted access to do brain surgery as a psychologist without reason. I need a reason to- not a reason not to. Other approaches encourage creep of competence. Take yourself out of the equation and ask "what skills and training does someone conducting sensitive/high risk assessments need to have before they are able to do so' or 'what level of training/knowledge/skills would I want someone to have who was testing me'.

Defining competence is difficult, but 6 months won't have you prepared to interpret the MMPI. It just won't. People leave doctoral programs and they are not trained sufficiently. I doubt the answer is to train less. This is why board certification is growing. Assessment needs improved standardization. The link below is a great article (part of a whole special issue on the topic actually):

http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2014-32671-008



This is the same thing that Therapist4Chnge is saying in that the descriptions don't specify what 'assessment means'. Part of the reason for this is that the the term "psychological assessment" does not mean a single type of instruments, like those people are advocating access to use. It's not just things like the WAIS,MMPI, etc. If you doubt this, look at the flagship assessment journals (Psychological Assessment by APA would be a great one to start with). They publish on assessment as a process - coping inventory, Triarchic personality measure, student support,behavioral screener for executive function in children, etc. (those are from the sample articles listed on their site- Psychological Assessment: Sample Articles). Assessment means testing, but it doesn't mean neuropsych, personality, intelligence, etc exclusively. The terms get conflated, but assessment doesn't equal assessment.


In short, how would you define competence in assessment? What should the bar be (not conceptually- I mean what concrete things should be required)? Why is that level predictive of the best outcomes for clients- why should what you advocate be considered 'a best practice' for the clients (not you, not other providers, but the clients)?

 

[psych.meout]

I think that make sense. If someone is merely taking a weekend training and supplementing gaps with YouTube videos, I don’t think that properly trained. (See we can agree)

Let me throw this on your play Pysch.Edmeout

What if a masters level therapist trained under a psychologist for 6 months and was able to interpret and explain result to that psychologist satisfaction.
And that person state allows counselors to do testing. Would that suffice?

You're still not getting it. The point is not to figure out what the bare minimum is for you to claim you are competently doing psychological or neuropsychological testing. This is a race to the bottom. Consider whose needs are being met in this situation, yours in expanding your scope or your patients in receiving the best, most appropriate testing they may need.

Justanothergrad makes a very good point about the difference between "why not" vs. "why." Why should you be doing this testing, not why should you not be allowed to do it. Why is it that your training (a 2-year master's degree and some cobbled together continuing education) is equivalent to the level of the graduate of a doctoral program (i.e. 4+ years in school, 1 year internship, and 1+ years of post doc training)?

Also these aren’t legal loop hole,
This is evidence from :
NY State Law
ACA
APA
Pearsons
University of Minnesota
Board of Forensic Evaluators.

All of them do not prohibit and actually state: “ just be sure your adequately trained”

Still no one has produced one single document to say this test is only for psychologist. That’s not interpretation, that’s the facts.

How about the parts you posted where they talk about the leeway for master's level providers to do testing because the laws are "broad" and "vague."

Regardless, you're still not understanding what we're talking about here. This is not about "why not," it's about "why." Why do you need to do this testing to do your job? Why can't you refer out to another provider with actual training in testing if your patient needs testing? Why is your cobbled together training, which is significantly less than that of psychologists, equivalent? Why shouldn't you be doing this testing? Why and how might your patients be harmed by your testing since you have significantly less training than a psychologist?

Again, it's obvious that you came here with your mind decided about this issue and are only looking for affirmation.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

It’s worth noting that many/most psychologists who do assessment do it as their focus and they dedicated time during their pre-internship training, internship, and often also on post-doc AND then do continuing education seminars after that. Taking a weekend course isn’t their only exposure, as they have had hundreds/thousands of hours of supervised training and experience honing their craft. Assessment training occurred across classes too, as it isn’t done in a vacuum. Assessment training occurs in Ethics, Adult Psychopathology, various stats classes, etc.

I take exception to clinicians who “dabble” in assessment bc it can take quite a bit of time to stay up to date with the literature and associated assessments. It’s a disservice to the patient in the best of circumstances and malpractice in the more serious cases.

 

[WisNeuro]

I take exception to clinicians who “dabble” in assessment bc it can take quite a bit of time to stay up to date with the literature and associated assessments. It’s a disservice to the patient in the best of circumstances and malpractice in the more serious cases.

On a positive note. It's easy fodder if you are an opposing expert witness.

 

[psych.meout]

On a positive note. It's easy fodder if you are an opposing expert witness.

When I was doing psychometry works with just a bachelor's degree before grad school, even I knew that it was foolish and highly inappropriate for me or any master's level person to be interpreting assessments.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

On a positive note. It's easy fodder if you are an opposing expert witness.

Indeed. Getting paid to pick apart sub-standard reports is great for me, but those reports are a disservice to the patient and can often be harmful to them.

 

[WisNeuro]

Indeed. Getting paid to pick apart sub-standard reports is great for me, but those reports are a disservice to the patient and can often be harmful to them.

Well, yeah, but that's like 10-20% of healthcare. Look at all of those Fibro/PNEE diagnosed as epilepsy/CTE/multi-chemical sensitivity diagnoses out there in people who are better explained by somatoform diagnoses. We'd have a lot less business if we didn't have all that business cleaning up messes from *****s in the healthcare industry.

 

[Lurking Oracle]

On a positive note. It's easy fodder if you are an opposing expert witness.

So true! It really is like fish in a barrel. I sometimes almost feel sorry for the unqualified types that crumble under the cross examination of the attorneys that I have advised. But, that is the price one pays for having the audacity to practice beyond one's scope. Unfortunately, that means that patients have already been harmed by the incompetent, all in service to the ego (and wallet) of the unqualified evaluator.