EPPP Pass Rates Study

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

DynamicDidactic

Still Kickin'
10+ Year Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2010
Messages
1,814
Reaction score
1,525
I have attached the study. Nothing surprising.

15 programs account for nearly 39% of all candidates who fail the EPPP.

In analyzing the programs with the students who had the lowest average pass rates on the EPPP, we chose as a cut-off a 60% pass rate. That is a largely arbitrary cut-off point, chosen because a relatively small number of programs fell below that point (37 out of 466), with a strikingly disproportionate percentage of the total failures on the examination (47%). Additional discussion in the field of what an acceptable pass rate for an accredited program might be seems warranted.
Click to expand...

students from PhD programs as compared with PsyD and EdD programs were 106% more likely to pass the EPPP. However, there was more variability among the pass rates in PsyD programs as compared to PhD programs, as evidenced by the fact that the largest contributors to the failure rates were 13 PsyD programs. Thus, a relatively small number of PsyD programs are disproportionately contributing to the variability between PhD and PsyD outcomes. Third, students who had an accredited internship were 43% more likely to pass the EPPP.
Click to expand...
Members don't see this ad.
 

Attachments

  • tep_6_1_1.pdf
    198.4 KB · Views: 572
bump.

I am surprised no one was more interested in these findings.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
MCParent said:
Well, I'm interested :p I mentioned that study a few times in the Occupy FB group. The 15 line up with my 15 btw. No, I'm not bitter I wasn't cited by them. Not bitter at all.
Click to expand...
I was surprised as well. Maybe someone else is working on publication that will site both of you :)

I miss out on so much without Facebook.
 
I have already passed the EPPP and it was a waste of time and energy. It is a meaningless test that has no bearing on being a competent psychologist. It is merely a tool to make it more difficult to be a psychologist. The test should be burned as it is not necessary for someone who has already completed a doctoral degree, year long internship and years of training to be evaluated by a 200 multiple choice test. Get rid of the EPPP but emphasize oral exams and case forumulation to be the necessary requirements for a doctoral level psychologists.
 
4410 said:
I have already passed the EPPP and it was a waste of time and energy. It is a meaningless test that has no bearing on being a competent psychologist. It is merely a tool to make it more difficult to be a psychologist. The test should be burned as it is not necessary for someone who has already completed a doctoral degree, year long internship and years of training to be evaluated by a 200 multiple choice test. Get rid of the EPPP but emphasize oral exams and case forumulation to be the necessary requirements for a doctoral level psychologists.
Click to expand...

...didn't you say elsewhere (such as, here http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=894848) that you just got into an internship this year?

One of the requirements to sit for the EPPP is that you've already applied for licensure as a psychologist. http://www.asppb.net/files/public/IFC.pdf page 6.

........
 
4410 said:
I have already passed the EPPP and it was a waste of time and energy. It is a meaningless test that has no bearing on being a competent psychologist. It is merely a tool to make it more difficult to be a psychologist. The test should be burned as it is not necessary for someone who has already completed a doctoral degree, year long internship and years of training to be evaluated by a 200 multiple choice test. Get rid of the EPPP but emphasize oral exams and case forumulation to be the necessary requirements for a doctoral level psychologists.
Click to expand...

While I agree that oral exams and case conceptualizations/formulations/fact-finding are crucial components of assessing competence, I feel that a standardized exam of factual knowledge of basic psychological principles is equally-important. This is particularly the case in psychology, where the standard of training isn't very well-defined, and there exists a significant variety amongst programs in the quality of instruction provided.
 
MCParent said:
...didn't you say elsewhere (such as, here http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=894848) that you just got into an internship this year?

One of the requirements to sit for the EPPP is that you've already applied for licensure as a psychologist. http://www.asppb.net/files/public/IFC.pdf page 6.

........
Click to expand...

Oh....:) you believe you caught me in a lie!!! In Texas, our program emphasizes applying for LPA after finishing up your masters on the way to the doctorate program. I passed the EPPP in 2010 and I am a licensed Psychological Associate. Most states with masters level licensure require the EPPP. Most of the EPPP is over general psychology courses so it is much better to take it early rather than later as you have to relearn this information or take a weeklong refresher course and self-study for three to six months. Why would you wait to take the EPPP when you can get it out of the way earlier? You are going to have to eventually take it, so even if you do not pass it the first time it will help you prepare for passing it later.
 
They should have named the 15 schools, so people know which programs to stay away from. Actually, I took the liberty of looking at ASPBB's data from 2005-2009. You can visually pick out most the worst offenders. Some of these weren't below 60%, but the sheer number of graduates taking the exam adds up to 30+ people failing.

Alliant/CSPP
Agrosy
Azuza Pacific U.
Pacific Grad School of Psych/SUMSC
The Fielding Institute
The Wright Institute
JFK
Carlos Albizu U./ Miami
Adler
Illinois School of Professional Psychology
Mass. School of Professional Psychology
Forest Institute of Professional Psychology
Adelphi U
Nova Southeastern U.

"In addition, 15 programs with pass rates below 60% (13 PsyD, two PhD) accounted for 535 of the 1,379 EPPP failures (38.8%), while accounting for 1,074 of the total number of candidates taking the examination (16.5%). Of these 15 programs, all accredited separately, four were from one educational institution and three from one other educational insti- tution. (AHEM Alliant and Agrosy)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
positivepsych said:
They should have named the 15 schools, so people know which programs to stay away from. Actually, I took the liberty of looking at ASPBB's data from 2005-2009. You can visually pick out most the worst offenders. Some of these weren't below 60%, but the sheer number of graduates taking the exam adds up to 30+ people failing.

Alliant/CSPP
Agrosy
Azuza Pacific U.
Pacific Grad School of Psych/SUMSC
The Fielding Institute
The Wright Institute
JFK
Carlos Albizu U./ Miami
Adler
Illinois School of Professional Psychology
Mass. School of Professional Psychology
Forest Institute of Professional Psychology
Adelphi U
Nova Southeastern U.

"In addition, 15 programs with pass rates below 60% (13 PsyD, two PhD) accounted for 535 of the 1,379 EPPP failures (38.8%), while accounting for 1,074 of the total number of candidates taking the examination (16.5%). Of these 15 programs, all accredited separately, four were from one educational institution and three from one other educational insti- tution. (AHEM Alliant and Agrosy)
Click to expand...

TEPP didn't want us to name the schools in our study. I think part of it is the method Williamson and I, and these folks, used to calculate the outliers relies on both large cohort and bad rates (match or EPPP pass). So, there are lots of poor schools that just don't take many students (or even, just miss whatever arbitrary statistical cutoff we use) that then wouldn't get flagged, which isn't a fair representation. When undergrads or instructors email me asking for the 15 programs, I direct them to the APPIC data set and program C-20 data.
 
DynamicDidactic said:
I have attached the study. Nothing surprising.

15 programs account for nearly 39% of all candidates who fail the EPPP.
Click to expand...


I wish that the researchers divided the PsyD data into professional school PsyD (Argosy, Alliant), private university PsyD (e.g. Xavier, Pepperdine) and public university PsyD (e.g. IUP, Wright State, Baylor, Rutgers, Marshall, Indiana State) to see what type of PsyD programs are the culprit. Looking at that data may show that it is a small number of PsyD programs that are not passing and which tpye of PsyD programs those are, so university based PsyD programs are not associated with the lower EPPP pass rates of PsyD gradautes.
 
positivepsych said:
They should have named the 15 schools, so people know which programs to stay away from. Actually, I took the liberty of looking at ASPBB's data from 2005-2009. You can visually pick out most the worst offenders. Some of these weren't below 60%, but the sheer number of graduates taking the exam adds up to 30+ people failing.

Alliant/CSPP
Agrosy
Azuza Pacific U.
Pacific Grad School of Psych/SUMSC
The Fielding Institute
The Wright Institute
JFK
Carlos Albizu U./ Miami
Adler

Nevermind the previous post. The worst offendenders were just as I suspected
Illinois School of Professional Psychology
Mass. School of Professional Psychology
Forest Institute of Professional Psychology
Adelphi U
Nova Southeastern U.

"In addition, 15 programs with pass rates below 60% (13 PsyD, two PhD) accounted for 535 of the 1,379 EPPP failures (38.8%), while accounting for 1,074 of the total number of candidates taking the examination (16.5%). Of these 15 programs, all accredited separately, four were from one educational institution and three from one other educational insti- tution. (AHEM Alliant and Agrosy)
Click to expand...

Nevermind the previous post. The worst offenders were as I suspected
 
Members don't see this ad :)
PsyDLICSW said:
I wish that the researchers divided the PsyD data into professional school PsyD (Argosy, Alliant), private university PsyD (e.g. Xavier, Pepperdine) and public university PsyD (e.g. IUP, Wright State, Baylor, Rutgers, Marshall, Indiana State) to see what type of PsyD programs are the culprit. Looking at that data may show that it is a small number of PsyD programs that are not passing and which tpye of PsyD programs those are, so university based PsyD programs are not associated with the lower EPPP pass rates of PsyD gradautes.
Click to expand...
they make a point to state that there is greater variability among PsyD programs and that 15 schools are the major culprit.
 
positivepsych said:
They should have named the 15 schools, so people know which programs to stay away from. Actually, I took the liberty of looking at ASPBB's data from 2005-2009. You can visually pick out most the worst offenders. Some of these weren't below 60%, but the sheer number of graduates taking the exam adds up to 30+ people failing.

Alliant/CSPP
Agrosy
Azuza Pacific U.
Pacific Grad School of Psych/SUMSC
The Fielding Institute
The Wright Institute
JFK
Carlos Albizu U./ Miami
Adler
Illinois School of Professional Psychology
Mass. School of Professional Psychology
Forest Institute of Professional Psychology
Adelphi U
Nova Southeastern U.

"In addition, 15 programs with pass rates below 60% (13 PsyD, two PhD) accounted for 535 of the 1,379 EPPP failures (38.8%), while accounting for 1,074 of the total number of candidates taking the examination (16.5%). Of these 15 programs, all accredited separately, four were from one educational institution and three from one other educational insti- tution. (AHEM Alliant and Agrosy)
Click to expand...

Not surprised by this list. The usual suspects.
 
Interesting, but I am also not surprised by the list of offenders.

Anyway, the fact that someone on the EPPP yahoo group sent a message earlier today about how "this stats stuff is so hard" and that she has finally taught herself the difference between an IV and a DV makes me weep a bit for the future of our profession. :(
 
My buddy joined that list last year when he was studying, and he said there are/were people on there who have failed the EPPP 3+ times. I am not a great test taker...but come on, there is something wrong with that.
 
Good thinking..
g.gif
 
O Gurl said:
Interesting, but I am also not surprised by the list of offenders.

Anyway, the fact that someone on the EPPP yahoo group sent a message earlier today about how "this stats stuff is so hard" and that she has finally taught herself the difference between an IV and a DV makes me weep a bit for the future of our profession. :(
Click to expand...

Yikes. :scared:

How do these people make it this far again? :(
 
Ouch, I actually really loved one of the schools on the list when visiting/talking to students/interviewing there...
 
futureapppsy2 said:
I'm a bit surprised to see Nova and Adelphi on there, tbh. Nova a little less so simply because of the huge cohort issue.
Click to expand...

The sheer number of students at Nova raises serious questions about their admissions practices and consistency of training. I've met a few really great psychologists from there but I have also come across several who seem to have had very shallow training. Which I guess is not hard when you are having to compete with 60+ people in a cohort for practica and mentorship.
 
O Gurl said:
Interesting, but I am also not surprised by the list of offenders.

Anyway, the fact that someone on the EPPP yahoo group sent a message earlier today about how "this stats stuff is so hard" and that she has finally taught herself the difference between an IV and a DV makes me weep a bit for the future of our profession. :(
Click to expand...

Ugh. I am on that listserve as well and am so tempted to reply to some of the messages, like:

"I just failed my 5th attempt. Any suggestions on what to do?"

By saying: Yeah. Go back and complete a real program.
 
Last edited:
O Gurl said:
Interesting, but I am also not surprised by the list of offenders.

Anyway, the fact that someone on the EPPP yahoo group sent a message earlier today about how "this stats stuff is so hard" and that she has finally taught herself the difference between an IV and a DV makes me weep a bit for the future of our profession. :(
Click to expand...

:eek::confused::wow:
 
KayJay85 said:
The sheer number of students at Nova raises serious questions about their admissions practices and consistency of training. I've met a few really great psychologists from there but I have also come across several who seem to have had very shallow training. Which I guess is not hard when you are having to compete with 60+ people in a cohort for practica and mentorship.
Click to expand...

That has been the problem ever since they let the class size get out of control. I know people who trained there 15-20 years ago, and the training programs were much better controlled and monitored. Now both the Ph.D. & Psy.D. students have to fight for the good opportunities and the rest just....get by. I'd say the top 10-20% are able to secure solid mentors and research training, and then there is a dropoff in the quality of student. The internship, post-doc, and job placements all speak to a pretty distinct bimodal split in training. The top students get all of the 'good' APA sites, which is what is mentioned when talking to prospective students, but the rest of the students fight to get matched. It really is a disservice to prospective students because yes...students land plum positions at Brown, Mass Gen, U of Ok (and whatever non-neuro sites are good), but then a lot of students match to much lesser sites and/or don't match. I hear the match process is getting worse and worse each year, as more and more good candidates are getting shafted on internship. It is no wonder the EPPP pass rate is declining. Again..when I looked there, the EPPP rate was above the national average. I believe the match has fallen to about average, but the cohort size makes it a malignant program in regard to failed attempts.

When I interviewed there (9 years ago), they said that they were going to shrink the classes sizes...and then nothing. The Ph.D. cohort size "shrank", but those slots basically got bumped over to the Psy.D. program, so you still have the same problems of access and mentorship. The tuition cost has gone up 50%+ in that time, and the class sizes aren't any smaller. The training is definitely hit and miss. There are some great mentors there (Golden, Mittenberg, the Sobels, Walker, etc)...but it is a fight for time. If you are neuropsych you need to get in Charlie Golden's or Wiley Mittenberg's lab, and even then you will fight for time/research/mentorship. The same can be said for the health and forensic mentors. I don't really know anyone else, but that is how it has been there for a long time.
 
Last edited:
This is an interesting article and certainly an important discussion. Thanks to all who have commented so far. I am currently a third year student in the PGSP-Stanford Psy.D. Consortium and would like to offer a different perspective on some of the conclusions that have been drawn so far.

One problem with interpreting this data is that the pass rates for the PGSP-Stanford Psy.D. Consortium and the Palo Alto University Ph.D. program are lumped together on the ASPPB website. This is confusing because we are two distinct programs, with different classes, faculty, and training experiences. At this time, seperate data for the programs is not available.

To my knowledge, our program doesn't collect information about the EPPP pass rates, but they do collect information about the licensure status of all graduates. Since passing the EPPP is required for licensure, I hope this information will clear up the misconception that our graduates do not pass the EPPP. We have had 5 graduating cohorts, and 3 of those cohorts are fully eligible for licensure at this point (have completed postdoc). 100% (52/52) of those graduates are licensed and working. Clearly all of those graduates passed the EPPP, which is why I don't agree with the conclusion that PGSP-Stanford Psy.D. Consortium graduates are contributing to low pass rates on this exam.

Feel free to post or PM me with additional questions about the Consortium or about this topic.

positivepsych said:
They should have named the 15 schools, so people know which programs to stay away from. Actually, I took the liberty of looking at ASPBB's data from 2005-2009. You can visually pick out most the worst offenders. Some of these weren't below 60%, but the sheer number of graduates taking the exam adds up to 30+ people failing.

Alliant/CSPP
Agrosy
Azuza Pacific U.
Pacific Grad School of Psych/SUMSC
The Fielding Institute
The Wright Institute
JFK
Carlos Albizu U./ Miami
Adler
Illinois School of Professional Psychology
Mass. School of Professional Psychology
Forest Institute of Professional Psychology
Adelphi U
Nova Southeastern U.

"In addition, 15 programs with pass rates below 60% (13 PsyD, two PhD) accounted for 535 of the 1,379 EPPP failures (38.8%), while accounting for 1,074 of the total number of candidates taking the examination (16.5%). Of these 15 programs, all accredited separately, four were from one educational institution and three from one other educational insti- tution. (AHEM Alliant and Agrosy)
Click to expand...
 
Old thread, but I would like to point out that it matters less on the program and more on the individual. If you're not prepared to teach yourself you dont belong in any post bach program.;)
 
pdubkmk said:
Old thread, but I would like to point out that it matters less on the program and more on the individual. If you're not prepared to teach yourself you dont belong in any post bach program.;)
Click to expand...

The work of the individual does matter, but they need to have a solid foundational knowledge base on which to layer the information they gain from studying (as arbitrary and inane as much of it is). As has been mentioned, it's very alarming that nearly 39% of the graduates/trainees failing the EPPP came from 3% of the examined programs.
 
pdubkmk said:
Old thread, but I would like to point out that it matters less on the program and more on the individual. If you're not prepared to teach yourself you dont belong in any post bach program.;)
Click to expand...

Um, that's actually the opposite of what the data says. The type of program you attend appears to have a stronger effect on EPPP match rates than study time.
 
Jon Snow said:
It may still reflect the individual efforts/abilities. I.e., If you took the clinical psych cohort from Wisconsin-Madison and transplanted them from year one into Alliant-SF, they'd probably pass at 90%+ clip. Garbage in = garbage out.
Click to expand...

Agree with this as well. I was going to include a portion in my post discussing the possible reasons for the high failure rate (e.g., average quality of students, quality of instruction and training, etc.), but ultimately left it out.
 
Unfortunately, we only have correlational data on this topic. We cannot know for sure what portion of student success (or at least success as measured by the EPPP) is due to training or student quality. My guess is student quality explains most of the variability but there is probably a significant interaction effect as well.

Why did this thread come back from the dead? I appreciate it but surprised.
 
pdubkmk said:
Old thread, but I would like to point out that it matters less on the program and more on the individual. If you're not prepared to teach yourself you dont belong in any post bach program.;)
Click to expand...

Whenever people spell it this way, I always think:

bach.jpg
 
KayJay85 said:
Ugh. I am on that listserve as well and am so tempted to reply to some of the messages, like:

"I just failed my 5th attempt. Any suggestions on what to do?"

By saying: Yeah. Go back and complete a real program.
Click to expand...

Wow, I know this chain is old but some of you need to assess your capacity to consider all the factors in why some people have a hard time passing this exam (other than the fact that the exam itself is ineffective for the reason it's designed), so while you're trash talking specific programs, or students who struggle with the exam you might consider checking your privilege since a good number of the students who struggle with the exam are those with LD's or ESL issues. So before making blanket discriminatory statements consider why you're in this field and how you would respond to your patient if they came in to session telling you that someone said that to them?... Just say'n not cool.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I have no problem trash talking the programs themselves. It's warranted. These programs are also those with terrible match rates, predatory recruiting practices, and generally terrible reputations for training people. They are a blight on our profession.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Kdiddle said:
so while you're trash talking specific programs, or students who struggle with the exam you might consider checking your privilege since a good number of the students who struggle with the exam are those with LD's or ESL issues.
Click to expand...

I privilege data. Where are yours?

You might be surprised to learn that reputable, high-caliber programs train many people who have disabilities and whose primary language is not English. The superstar of my graduate school cohort (ie, the one who landed a plum TT faculty job directly after internship) was an English language learner and moved to the US a month before starting grad school. So please, don't hang low EPPP pass rates on those groups of people.
 
MamaPhD said:
So please, don't hang low EPPP pass rates on those groups of people.
Click to expand...

At ;east when I was there, my program had several students in the the ADHD/ESL category. We maintained our 100% pass rate. I'm willing to accept that a minority group of students may need some accommodations to succeed on the EPPP, but I think the data we do have points to certain programs not adequately selecting students for the rigors of doctoral training, and then subsequently not adequately training them in it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I'm jumping on this bandwagon to request that we stop saying "check your privilege." It's a useless buzzword...phrase...buzzphrase, yeah.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
UnknownPsych said:
I'm jumping on this bandwagon to request that we stop saying "check your privilege." It's a useless buzzword...phrase...buzzphrase, yeah.
Click to expand...

When it comes from the mouth of a college freshman, it's kind of cute. Like when a puppy growls at you. Otherwise, I agree.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
How many people actually read this article?

We don't know specifically what's going on at each institution that has a high failing rate because that data wasn't provided. There are a lot of generalizations being made. Sometimes threads like this encourage elitism inadvertently. One rotten Psy.D. program doesn't need to spoil the bunch, so to speak (or a few bad Psy.D. programs). To quote the authors of the article "the variability among programs may result in a small number of programs, in particular a subset of PsyD programs, unfairly clouding the reputation of all PsyD programs." Especially because the rate of passing for Psy.D. programs is still pretty high, even if not quite as high as Ph.D. programs.
For those of us who are convinced that lower class size = higher quality, the relationship between cohort size and pass rate was significant, but weak. Other factors were more predictive of passing than cohort size. Quality of training isn't necessarily based on having small cohorts, as they noted in the article.

I thought this was interesting from the article (length of time since graduation was inversely correlated with passing):
"It should be noted that some jurisdictions allow candidates to take the EPPP upon completion of degree, while other jurisdictions allow candidates to take the EPPP only upon completion of all supervised experience hours. This administrative decision could have an impact on the pass rates of the candidates in those jurisdictions." I think this factor is an important one to consider just as much as type of program. Just my two cents!

For those of us who want to know, I found the specific pass rates for all academic programs, a few years old, but still relevant, I'd imagine:

http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.asppb.net/resource/resmgr/EPPP_/2012_ASPPB_Exam_Scores_by_Do.pdf
 
When looking at all available data from institutions (accredited internship match rate, EPPP pass rate, debt load) I think we can make some fairly good assertions when we recommend courses of action for our advisees. Combine that with many of us reviewing dozens of applications for internship and postdoc every year, so we actually see what applicants from many programs around the country look like.

People in this thread pointed out that there are a handful of reputable PsyD sites out there, I didn't see any blanket statements about that particularly. I will always advise those who ask my advice that they should not settle for a program with an accredited match rate under 80% and an EPPP pass rate under 85%, or anything that will give them more than 20-40k in debt.
 
It's pretty shocking that a doctorate program Ina field that relies heavily on the ability to communicate effectively would matriculate a student whose language skills are poor. That's not privilege. That's common sense. Ask Gallaudet.
 
PSYDR said:
It's pretty shocking that a doctorate program Ina field that relies heavily on the ability to communicate effectively would matriculate a student whose language skills are poor. That's not privilege. That's common sense. Ask Gallaudet.
Click to expand...
Idgi? Gallaudet trains students who are fluent in ASL and/or English (I believe most are bilingual). That's what the program and university are specifically designated to do.
 
futureapppsy2 said:
Idgi? Gallaudet trains students who are fluent in ASL and/or English (I believe most are bilingual). That's what the program and university are specifically designated to do.
Click to expand...

It was my reaction to Unknown Psych's "check your privilege" statement which he/she began because he/she believes that pass rates are substantially influenced by students who are ESL or have various LDs. My point was that professional psychology requires an excellent command of the language in which the provider works. This has nothing to do with privilege and everything to do with patients' right to effective providers. It makes no sense to graduate students who cannot perform the relevant professional functions, because "privilege".

I mention Gallaudet because they have a good program and require students to know the language relevant to their patient population.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

The Cinnabon
Counseling Psychology EPPP rates
Replies
42
Views
2K
WisNeuro
WisNeuro
LadyHalcyon
EPPP Pass Rates By Doctoral Program
2
Replies
69
Views
9K
PsychNLife
P
N
EPPP Study Programs
Replies
3
Views
980
mypointlesspov
mypointlesspov
BFA222
EPPP Passing Score Maryland
Replies
4
Views
704
BFA222
BFA222
josephsands
Thoughts on EPPP Study Material
Replies
2
Views
1K
josephsands
josephsands
Top