EPPP purgatory

[NP112]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I will be finishing internship in summer 2025. I want to take the EPPP part 1 in the fall of 2025 and hopefully become licensed before part 2 becomes standardized Jan 1, 2026. Knowing how state boards can be, however, I am worried I won't be fully licensed by the time EPPP part 2 becomes the standard. If I have taken and passed the EPPP part 1 but am just waiting to hear back from the board by 1/1/26, will I then be required to take part 2?

 

[psych.meout]

This is going to be highly state-specific.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

What are the data that support use of a 2nd part of the exam? I remember this coming up a couple/few years ago, but I didn't follow it closely bc it didn't impact me.

 

[R. Matey]

What are the data that support use of a 2nd part of the exam? I remember this coming up a couple/few years ago, but I didn't follow it closely bc it didn't impact me.

Callahan, J. L., Bell, D. J., Davila, J., Johnson, S. L., Strauman, T. J., & Yee, C. M. (2020). The enhanced examination for professional practice in psychology: A viable approach? American Psychologist, 75(1), 52–65. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000586

 

[WisNeuro]

Callahan, J. L., Bell, D. J., Davila, J., Johnson, S. L., Strauman, T. J., & Yee, C. M. (2020). The enhanced examination for professional practice in psychology: A viable approach? American Psychologist, 75(1), 52–65. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000586

While I admit some issues with EPPP, these people completely lose me when touting those terrible Sharpless studies and raising the strawman on whether or not the EPPP would meet Daubert standards.

 

[jdawg2017]

This is going to be highly state-specific.

Echoing this. I think IIRC that most states require a certain number of post-doc hours (ranging from 1000-2000ish) to be licensed, on top of passing the EPPP, so even if you pass EPPP1 early after internship, it would be highly state specific if you could be licensed before the planned EPPP2 launch. You should examine the board websites or contact the boards in the states in which you might want to live/be licensed, but I would imagine even if you pass EPPP1 you’ll likely need to take part 2 if implementation occurs as planned.

 

[R. Matey]

While I admit some issues with EPPP, these people completely lose me when touting those terrible Sharpless studies and raising the strawman on whether or not the EPPP would meet Daubert standards.

I'll take your word for it on the Sharpless studies, but the test is high stakes and expensive so it's not wrong to demand a high bar for its validity, imho.

 

[WisNeuro]

I'll take your word for it on the Sharpless studies, but the test is high stakes and expensive so it's not wrong to demand a high bar for its validity, imho.

Don't just take my word for it, read them, and ask yourself which analysis was conspicuously left out. Then read some of MCPs stuff and draw the clear line on what explains the results. As for validity, depends on what we find important. I could care less about "does it predict of someone is good at delivering therapy" crowd. If that's what was important, there would be no need for doctoral level education in general in psych.

 

[MCParent]

Don't just take my word for it, read them, and ask yourself which analysis was conspicuously left out. Then read some of MCPs stuff and draw the clear line on what explains the results. As for validity, depends on what we find important. I could care less about "does it predict of someone is good at delivering therapy" crowd. If that's what was important, there would be no need for doctoral level education in general in psych.

I don’t think it’s impossible that they did the analysis and AP told them to remove it. I had something not dissimilar happen with the first journal I tried to publish one of my training papers in.

 

[WisNeuro]

I don’t think it’s impossible that they did the analysis and AP told them to remove it. I had something not dissimilar happen with the first journal I tried to publish one of my training papers in.

Yeah, I'm fairly convinced that there were some analyses that were left out of that paper very intentionally. An unfortunate issue where pushing a narrative outweighs good science.

 

[WisNeuro]

I don’t think it’s impossible that they did the analysis and AP told them to remove it. I had something not dissimilar happen with the first journal I tried to publish one of my training papers in.

Coming back to this, was any sort of empirical reason offered, or was it a vague comment that made it pretty clear that they didn't want that analysis from a ideological standpoint?

 

[MCParent]

Coming back to this, was any sort of empirical reason offered, or was it a vague comment that made it pretty clear that they didn't want that analysis from an ideological standpoint?

It was the qualitative analysis of the internship feedback paper. The initial journal reviewers had a fit and said that I needed to say that the students were wrong in not being aware of all apa does to benefit them and that I needed to praise apa for all its efforts to improve internship. Not at J clin psych where it got published, those reviewers were great*. At the first journal we tried.
*the editors sent it to SIX reviewers at once though. That was rough.