EPPP Part 2 Implementation Pause

[WisNeuro]

Right, so EPPP step 1 is fine, but I'm referring to this idea that we need a step 2.

If anything, Step-2 is answering calls for the EPPP to more accurately measure clinical skills, in addition to more closely aligning with other doctoral level disciplines. I'm a proponent of both sections, though I do think they could be rolled into one exam as opposed to separate evaluations.

 

[Shiori]

We can encourage grad schools to take a more active role in prepping students by having them pay for testing after the first or second failure.

 

[oliversacks4thewin]

If anything, Step-2 is answering calls for the EPPP to more accurately measure clinical skills, in addition to more closely aligning with other doctoral level disciplines. I'm a proponent of both sections, though I do think they could be rolled into one exam as opposed to separate evaluations.

I could be misremembering this information, but I have a vague recall of attending a formal ASPPB panel where the suggestion was to align these separate "parts" to a similar pattern of the "step" measures in medicine. Essentially, utilizing these two separate tests at various stages of the training to ensure that 1) an individual has adequate foundational knowledge and is appropriate for internship enrollment, and 2) is able to demonstrate appropriate clinical skill prior to licensure. I similarly support the use of the two measure. However, I wonder, if the above described intent is accurate, if it is more appropriate to leave the two tests separated in order to better assess the two distinct areas of focus. While I appreciate this is a nuisance, I feel like most programs are already structured for success at completing a part 1 pass, and this would likely replace internalized programmatic assessments, as I recall my program had an assessment in place, prior to being eligible to even apply for internship.

 

[The Cinnabon]

Maybe I'm crazy or am radically missing something, but I personally would much rather see the Step 2 just take over Step 1.

If I have to learn anymore about Adlerian Psych (among other niche historical theories), not that I've been forced to learn much at all, I may just lose it.

 

[WisNeuro]

Maybe I'm crazy or am radically missing something, but I personally would much rather see the Step 2 just take over Step 1.

If I have to learn anymore about Adlerian Psych (among other niche historical theories), not that I've been forced to learn much at all, I may just lose it.

I'd maintain that the knowledge base, including things like statistics and assessment methods and psychometrics, is vitally important. We're measuring a foundational knowledge base of what make sit important to be a psychologist, not merely a competent therapist. If one merely wants to be a therapist, they can do so at the midlevel.

 

[The Cinnabon]

I'd maintain that the knowledge base, including things like statistics and assessment methods and psychometrics, is vitally important. We're measuring a foundational knowledge base of what make sit important to be a psychologist, not merely a competent therapist. If one merely wants to be a therapist, they can do so at the midlevel.

Ahh that's fair

I prematurely presumed that Step 2 would also include quantitative foundations and the like (I couldn't tell you why I presumed like an idiot, seeing as how it's already been tested on step 1).

 

[AcronymAllergy]

If they have a new version of Step 2, or integrate something like a skills check into the "regular" EPPP, a big part of me feels like it should involve critical interpretation of a scientific article. That, to me, feels like a necessary skill for psychologists.

 

[R. Matey]

Any revision to the EPPP should include an attempt to establish predictive validity of doctoral-level competencies (e.g., research, assessment, case conceptualization, consultation, supervision, EBPs in psychotherapy) because gatekeeping needs to backed up by actual evidence. And measuring those competencies is a solvable problem.

 

[smalltownpsych]

I don’t think a standardized test is going to be able to measure competency. From what I remember of I/O psych from studying for the EPPP 😉, the best predictor of job performance is the task itself. I am on the side of the test assessing what it is good at which would be foundational knowledge and experiential learning in APA accredited programs have the evaluations of competence along the way. I think that is how it is supposed to be now. I get that there are problems and we want improvement in the process, but a corollary of Murphys law is that the only thing worse than the problem is the solution.

 

[WisNeuro]

Regardless of the arguments for or against relationship of the test for licensure and clinical competence, I really don't think we want to deviate further from other doctoral level positions. We're already ceding political power and reimbursements to these positions, and certain deviations will likely be used to continue to advocate for the further decline. Remember that in some arenas, we are playing a zero sum game.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

I don’t think a standardized test is going to be able to measure competency. From what I remember of I/O psych from studying for the EPPP 😉, the best predictor of job performance is the task itself. I am on the side of the test assessing what it is good at which would be foundational knowledge and experiential learning in APA accredited programs have the evaluations of competence along the way. I think that is how it is supposed to be now. I get that there are problems and we want improvement in the process, but a corollary of Murphys law is that the only thing worse than the problem is the solution.

Good point. There are ubiquitous 'experts without caseloads' at some of the upper levels of academia/ the gentry. Also, although I generally did okay with 'contrived' scenarios where people faked being patients with fake problems...there's something tremendously different (and loads easier) when attempting psychological assessment/treatment with actual patients vs. in role plays.

 

[smalltownpsych]

Regardless of the arguments for or against relationship of the test for licensure and clinical competence, I really don't think we want to deviate further from other doctoral level positions. We're already ceding political power and reimbursements to these positions, and certain deviations will likely be used to continue to advocate for the further decline. Remember that in some arenas, we are playing a zero sum game.

Concur that testing needs to be rigorous to maintain our high standards. Maybe we should have an admissions test similar to MCAT and LSAT. It seems that he field is moving in the other direction though of wanting to eliminate standardized testing to be more inclusive.

 

[R. Matey]

Concur that testing needs to be rigorous to maintain our high standards. Maybe we should have an admissions test similar to MCAT and LSAT. It seems that he field is moving in the other direction though of wanting to eliminate standardized testing to be more inclusive.

I think if the EPPP was structured more like one of these tests, rather than rote memorization of obscure facts, it would be for the better (e.g., reading a technical results section and then answering questions, looking at test data and then answering questions).

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

I think if the EPPP was structured more like one of these tests, rather than rote memorization of obscure facts, it would be for the better (e.g., reading a technical results section and then answering questions, looking at test data and then answering questions).

Agreed and this is where I think that the comparison between us and medicine breaks down a bit. I think that most of the corpus of medical knowledge resides in significantly closer proximity to the 'bedrock' of the natural sciences (around which there is near universal consensus in medicine) and, thus, may be more reliably assessed (even at higher levels of complexity and specificity). The "convergent" nature of the process of demonstrating adequate understanding of the Krebs Cycle on a multiple-choice item, for example, is different than the 'divergent/creative' and highly context-dependent nature of demonstrating masterful application (in context of practice) of agreed-upon (roughly) theories in clinical psychology. Not saying it's impossible...but it will be challenging.

 

[R. Matey]

Agreed and this is where I think that the comparison between us and medicine breaks down a bit. I think that most of the corpus of medical knowledge resides in significantly closer proximity to the 'bedrock' of the natural sciences (around which there is near universal consensus in medicine) and, thus, may be more reliably assessed (even at higher levels of complexity and specificity). The "convergent" nature of the process of demonstrating adequate understanding of the Krebs Cycle on a multiple-choice item, for example, is different than the 'divergent/creative' and highly context-dependent nature of demonstrating masterful application (in context of practice) of agreed-upon (roughly) theories in clinical psychology. Not saying it's impossible...but it will be challenging.

Definitely. And in fairness to ASPPB, I think logic of knowledge -> circumstance is the spirit behind Step 2. But, I do think we have a bedrock in reliable theoretical framing and application, methodology (broadly defined), neuroscience, and empiricism. That said, I do imagine that given the current zeitgeist, item writing to capture those competencies would no doubt be tricky and is likely on the business end of the risk-reward equation, which is probably why it isn't done.