PhD/PsyD EPPP Step 2

  • Thread starter Thread starter deleted343839
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    eppp
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
D

deleted343839

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I know this has come up before, but it looks like ASBPP is making it official and developing a two-part EPPP exam now. Does anyone have the lowdown?

I feel like I did back when they changed the GRE, just happy to have the thing way behind me.
 
I'd be happy if they made it something similar to medical students and the Step process. Change the exam to be clinically relevant (i.e., throw out the IO material) and test students/trainees at various levels along the way.
 
WisNeuro said:
Is this supposed to be like the USMLE Step 2 CS?
Click to expand...
The way I read it is that it is just an additional test for licensure. If step one was during school and prior to internship and this was for licensure, then that would make some sense, but what I foresee is each state board implementing or not implementing this in 50 different ways. Maybe shooter can add this to his or her agenda. 😉 I agree with @MamaPhD that it just makes me glad I'm past that.
 
smalltownpsych said:
The way I read it is that it is just an additional test for licensure. If step one was during school and prior to internship and this was for licensure, then that would make some sense, but what I foresee is each state board implementing or not implementing this in 50 different ways. Maybe shooter can add this to his or her agenda. 😉 I agree with @MamaPhD that it just makes me glad I'm past that.
Click to expand...

Well yeah, but I was more referring to the content of the Step 2, like a clinical practical exam. It's worded kind of vaguely, so it's hard to see what exactly this new step would entail.
 
I really wish DCTs at clinical PhD programs were consulted on these things and I didn't have to learn of them from message boards. In my opinion we have a significant problem with APPIC and ASPPB going and implementing change without consulting with the primary stakeholders in the process, and it is driving me nuts. I will continue to make this point when they ask me for feedback, but something tells me that feedback isn't being received.
 
irish80122 said:
I really wish DCTs at clinical PhD programs were consulted on these things and I didn't have to learn of them from message boards. In my opinion we have a significant problem with APPIC and ASPPB going and implementing change without consulting with the primary stakeholders in the process, and it is driving me nuts. I will continue to make this point when they ask me for feedback, but something tells me that feedback isn't being received.
Click to expand...
wow yeah, thats a problem!
 
WisNeuro said:
Well yeah, but I was more referring to the content of the Step 2, like a clinical practical exam. It's worded kind of vaguely, so it's hard to see what exactly this new step would entail.
Click to expand...
when I read the linked pdf I think it was alluded that the reg eppp would be called step 1 now, would test foundational knowledge and step 2 would test more clinical competency.
 
bmedclinic said:
when I read the linked pdf I think it was alluded that the reg eppp would be called step 1 now, would test foundational knowledge and step 2 would test more clinical competency.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that was my read as well, just wondering in what way they planned to measure clinical competency.
 
I saw a copy of the survey that ASBPP sent to state/provincial licensing board representatives last summer, and one of the questions was whether a board might replace all or part of an oral exam with the EPPP Step 2 "skills exam." It would have been an interesting question if anyone had a clue about what the exam would actually be like.
 
An accurate measure of clinical competency for this new second step:

"A patient presents with trouble sleeping, irritability, mood swings, and impulsivity. He has poor social relationships. Considering these factors, provide a written conceptualization of the client being sure to include how much of an additional dent in your wallet will this second step will make"
 
MamaPhD said:
I saw a copy of the survey that ASBPP sent to state/provincial licensing board representatives last summer, and one of the questions was whether a board might replace all or part of an oral exam with the EPPP Step 2 "skills exam." It would have been an interesting question if anyone had a clue about what the exam would actually be like.
Click to expand...

Increased consistency RE: state licensing board requirements in addition to a more directly-relevant measure of clinical practice/knowledge? Yeah, I'd be all for that.

If it involves more questions about I/O, though, I will not be happy.
 
Justanothergrad said:
An accurate measure of clinical competency for this new second step:

"A patient presents with trouble sleeping, irritability, mood swings, and impulsivity. He has poor social relationships. Considering these factors, provide a written conceptualization of the client being sure to include how much of an additional dent in your wallet will this second step will make"
Click to expand...
"Patient is obviously studying for the EPPP."
 
bmedclinic said:
-1 for use of term "obviously". It appears this applicant may not be using all of their clinical skill, brazenly using a term such as "obviously". 🙂
Click to expand...
You caught me. 😀 I was going all old school Freudian psychoanalytic where all good interpretations started with obviously. "Obviously, the patient has an oedipal fixation and is cheating on his wife because he hates his mother." With this EPPP step two, now I can't do that anymore, what is this world coming to? :arghh:
 
more $$ in their pockets
 
MamaPhD said:
I know this has come up before, but it looks like ASBPP is making it official and developing a two-part EPPP exam now. Does anyone have the lowdown?

I feel like I did back when they changed the GRE, just happy to have the thing way behind me.
Click to expand...

busted!
 
shooter said:
busted!
Click to expand...

Busted for what, exactly? The fact that your posts made me so curious about ASBPP that I visited their web site for the first time in several years? This isn't a secret, at least not any longer. It's right there under the "FAQs and Latest News" sidebar. Google didn't help much, except a few copies of that survey I mentioned are floating around the interwebs.

Seriously, man, the world is not out to get you. Grow up.

Disclaimer: I have no present or former affiliations with any state licensing boards (other than in my basic capacity as a licensee) or ASBPP.
 
MamaPhD said:
Busted for what, exactly? The fact that your posts made me so curious about ASBPP that I visited their web site for the first time in several years? This isn't a secret, at least not any longer. It's right there under the "FAQs and Latest News" sidebar. Google didn't help much, except a few copies of that survey I mentioned are floating around the interwebs.

Seriously, man, the world is not out to get you. Grow up.

Disclaimer: I have no present or former affiliations with any state licensing boards (other than in my basic capacity as a licensee) or ASBPP.
Click to expand...

Ok Mama, you broke my heart, sorry to scare you, that was supposed to be sarcasm about your comment "glad to have those tests behind you ..about the EPPP 2"...then somewhat in favor of the overregulation... you are not being accused of anything.🤔😉
 
Last edited:
MamaPhD said:
*sigh*

Would you maybe not give away my secret next time??! This is a conspiracy I'm running, after all.
Click to expand...
I'm just doing my part to expose the secret shadow government pulling the strings of psychologists worldwide! Viva la resistance!
 
shooter said:
Ok Mama, you broke my heart, sorry to scare you, that was supposed to be sarcasm about your comment "glad to have those tests behind you ..about the EPPP 2"...then somewhat in favor of the overregulation... you are not being accused of anything.
Click to expand...

Imagine a world in which you can simultaneously value a challenging experience and also be glad that it's over (see also: childbirth).
 
It's probably too early for anyone to know more than what's in the PDF, but will this be like the USMLE step 2 skills exam where it's like simulated scenarios with actors as patients? That would be really interesting to see in psychology I think. If they implement it on time in 2019, there should at least be a couple of years of data on it before I have to take it. I'm glad I won't be in the first group.
 
AcronymAllergy said:
Coincidentally, on one of my social media feeds today, I saw an article decrying USMLE step 2 and calling for its abolition.
Click to expand...

While I'm sure the USMLE Step 2 has its own flaws, like the EPPP, no matter what kind of licensure test we use, there will always be people who have a problem passing it, and subsequently call for its elimination. I'm in the camp of, if the EPPP and licensure process is too onerous for you, go be a life coach.
 
Braces yourselves everyone, the EPPP step II is set for 2019. The announcement is on the video below. What are your thoughts? After watching the video, I have a new dislike of sweater vests.

 
I'm actually for it, in theory at least. We'll see how it plays out in practice. It sounds like an exam that is fairly specific to clinical skills and integration of knowledge, sounds good to me. I'm sure the mills will get up in arms about another low bar that their students struggle to pass, though.
 
What is the reasoning for 2 tests? If anything, this EPPP2 makes sense as the only required test. And just because ASPPB create it doesn't mean all the states will be changing their laws to require it.

I am hoping that psychologist participate in writing the question items.
 
DynamicDidactic said:
What is the reasoning for 2 tests? If anything, this EPPP2 makes sense as the only required test. And just because ASPPB create it doesn't mean all the states will be changing their laws to require it.

I am hoping that psychologist participate in writing the question items.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing the idea is akin to steps 1 and 2 for med students--testing knowledge of fundamental theories and concepts for step 1, and testing application of said knowledge for step 2.

Would be great if we could take another page from said med student training book and have both steps available later in graduate school, thereby allowing folks to be license-eligible upon graduation (or soon thereafter). If we're going to require additional training/supervision after graduation, nationalize boarding reqs and make the later training akin to residency.
 
AcronymAllergy said:
I'm guessing the idea is akin to steps 1 and 2 for med students--testing knowledge of fundamental theories and concepts for step 1, and testing application of said knowledge for step 2.

Would be great if we could take another page from said med student training book and have both steps available later in graduate school, thereby allowing folks to be license-eligible upon graduation (or soon thereafter). If we're going to require additional training/supervision after graduation, nationalize boarding reqs and make the later training akin to residency.
Click to expand...
I would also be in favor of it if were implemented in this way. If it is just additive and not transformative and unifying then it will just add to the problems we already have as a field. Two of which were mentioned to by Wisneuro and DD and I think are somewhat connected - the proliferation of for-profit FSPSs and lack of standardization of state licensing regulations.
 
I follow an ECP who's involved in APA governance and he posted this poll to see how individuals feel about the EPPP step 2. Feel free to vote because I know that people are thinking about trying to get APAGS/ECP organizations involved in this.

http://www.poll-maker.com/poll681387xf0D54153-28
 
cara susanna said:
I follow an ECP who's involved in APA governance and he posted this poll to see how individuals feel about the EPPP step 2. Feel free to vote because I know that people are thinking about trying to get APAGS/ECP organizations involved in this.

http://www.poll-maker.com/poll681387xf0D54153-28
Click to expand...

While I understand and appreciate the sentiment, this is a terrible poll. It allows for zero context and no nuance in interpreting the results. It seems that this poll was created to validate an existing notion rather than exploring the issue more in depth.
 
irish80122 said:
I really wish DCTs at clinical PhD programs were consulted on these things and I didn't have to learn of them from message boards. In my opinion we have a significant problem with APPIC and ASPPB going and implementing change without consulting with the primary stakeholders in the process, and it is driving me nuts. I will continue to make this point when they ask me for feedback, but something tells me that feedback isn't being received.
Click to expand...

I completely agree!!!! I gave feedback last year and was basically told I should be more of a team player with such wonderful changes coming down the pipe and I'm just being oppositional.

APPIC and ASPPB love to implement changes that make something so cumbersome that it's worthless. A good example is the internship recommendation forms put into place this last cycle. This year over half of the interns that applied to my site had only a few lines of info written as supervisors just don't have time to fill out 5 page forms for everyone that asks. One supervisor/prof told me he had over 20 people ask because many were refusing to do the new forms.

What ASPPB is hoping for is to make $$$$ off of this. From discussion at state organization levels there is also a push by a number of psychologists to make this a requirement for anyone newly licensed in the state, not just those applying for the first time. The idea is to limit competition, even if it hurts the profession. That means portability across state lines will suffer, as older psychologists will struggle to go back and take another exam.

From my understanding there is a lawsuit against ASPPB from a psychologist on anti-free trade practices, so not sure how it will play into all of this.
 
DrMikeP said:
From my understanding there is a lawsuit against ASPPB from a psychologist on anti-free trade practices, so not sure how it will play into all of this.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure most of us would qualify said person as a psychologist.
 
WisNeuro said:
Not a licensed psychologist. Licensed at the masters level. He's lied about several things on here, so I'd take most things with a grain of salt and look for objective things rather than his report.
Click to expand...

Gotcha... thanks for the info. I figured it personally as just another day for the lawyers to make money off psychology, much like APA vs APAIT.
 
DrMikeP said:
Gotcha... thanks for the info. I figured it personally as just another day for the lawyers to make money off psychology, much like APA vs APAIT.
Click to expand...

It may very well be. I don't know enough about the EPPP2 personally to make a determination yet. I do think the current test is inadequate and would like to see a test that is a little more difficult, but more closely ties in with integration of clinical areas germane to practice.
 
DrMikeP said:
I completely agree!!!! I gave feedback last year and was basically told I should be more of a team player with such wonderful changes coming down the pipe and I'm just being oppositional.

APPIC and ASPPB love to implement changes that make something so cumbersome that it's worthless. A good example is the internship recommendation forms put into place this last cycle. This year over half of the interns that applied to my site had only a few lines of info written as supervisors just don't have time to fill out 5 page forms for everyone that asks. One supervisor/prof told me he had over 20 people ask because many were refusing to do the new forms.

What ASPPB is hoping for is to make $$$$ off of this. From discussion at state organization levels there is also a push by a number of psychologists to make this a requirement for anyone newly licensed in the state, not just those applying for the first time. The idea is to limit competition, even if it hurts the profession. That means portability across state lines will suffer, as older psychologists will struggle to go back and take another exam.

From my understanding there is a lawsuit against ASPPB from a psychologist on anti-free trade practices, so not sure how it will play into all of this.
Click to expand...

Not to completely sidetrack the thread, but the new recommendation forms are horrible. A perfect example of, "if it ain't broke..."

I suppose the idea was an attempt to standardize rec letters and make them easier for reviewers to read and compare. The end result was the exact opposite.
 
It's not the new EPPP, but it is related to training changes, so I think of it is somewhat topically related. I'm wondering what you guys think of the new COA standards for health psychology (aka, applied psychology)?

I'm a bit about the new COA standards that they are moving towards that allow for UG courses to cover core competencies previously required as graduate level learning (social, cog, etc.). I am all in favor of reducing courses in number when it doesn't compromise learning, but I can't think for a second that UG courses would allow a comparable set of learning. Personally, I don't want for a basis only what I got in UG. . I've also heard people talking about allowed the subject GRE as a way to waive those core areas (when it corrects that it does not report scores on different areas, something that APA is talking to ETS about evidently). I like the integrated requirement, although it seems to me that most special topics offerings/courses could easily be made to fit that (and probably already do to an extent).

https://www.apa.org/ed/accreditation/about/policies/standards-of-accreditation.pdf
 
DrMikeP said:
From discussion at state organization levels there is also a push by a number of psychologists to make this a requirement for anyone newly licensed in the state, not just those applying for the first time. The idea is to limit competition, even if it hurts the profession. That means portability across state lines will suffer, as older psychologists will struggle to go back and take another exam.
Click to expand...

I recognize that my post is completely selfish, but I gotta say this is unacceptable to me. I got licensed a year ago (almost to the date) and I am pretty much unwilling to go back, study for yet another test, show someone I'm competent just to continue forward. I jumped through all the stupid hoops- to now change the rules seems very unfair to me.
 
bmedclinic said:
I recognize that my post is completely selfish, but I gotta say this is unacceptable to me. I got licensed a year ago (almost to the date) and I am pretty much unwilling to go back, study for yet another test, show someone I'm competent just to continue forward. I jumped through all the stupid hoops- to now change the rules seems very unfair to me.
Click to expand...
My thoughts exactly so I am thinking it is not completely selfish. I have already been incredibly frustrated with the amount of time, red tape, and catch-22 types of situations when moving from one state to another and would hate to see one more added to the mix. Also, I believe that increasing our portability can increase our marketability and potential incomes. After all, the reason I moved to a different state was primarily financial.
 
bmedclinic said:
I recognize that my post is completely selfish, but I gotta say this is unacceptable to me. I got licensed a year ago (almost to the date) and I am pretty much unwilling to go back, study for yet another test, show someone I'm competent just to continue forward. I jumped through all the stupid hoops- to now change the rules seems very unfair to me.
Click to expand...
Odds are good you won't have to go back as long as you don't move, but I agree it is bs. I personally think they should just make the eppp itself more focused on practice, as it has a clinical section currently just expand it and reduce some other stuff for new grads. Academics/profs at many institutions don't even go for licensure so it's imo all about the money.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
 
Justanothergrad said:
It's not the new EPPP, but it is related to training changes, so I think of it is somewhat topically related. I'm wondering what you guys think of the new COA standards for health psychology (aka, applied psychology)?

I'm a bit about the new COA standards that they are moving towards that allow for UG courses to cover core competencies previously required as graduate level learning (social, cog, etc.). I am all in favor of reducing courses in number when it doesn't compromise learning, but I can't think for a second that UG courses would allow a comparable set of learning. Personally, I don't want for a basis only what I got in UG. . I've also heard people talking about allowed the subject GRE as a way to waive those core areas (when it corrects that it does not report scores on different areas, something that APA is talking to ETS about evidently). I like the integrated requirement, although it seems to me that most special topics offerings/courses could easily be made to fit that (and probably already do to an extent).

https://www.apa.org/ed/accreditation/about/policies/standards-of-accreditation.pdf
Click to expand...
That's a whole different discussion, but it seems like there are groups of Psychologists in charge of committees that feel an overwhelming need to make changes and fall prey to group think.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
 
@DrMikeP will you link or copy/paste the information/talk related to newly licensed psychologists potentially needing to take the EPPP2. Most of this board afaik is ECP and we should know who is pushing for us to take another test to prove to them we deserve to continue to be licensed.

I'm all for change. But let's change how we do grad school, make our eval process EPPP/EPPP2 earlier in the process, and make it harder for people with ethical sanctions to get licensed again, not people who are already doing everything they're supposed to do (this guy).
 
bmedclinic said:
@DrMikeP will you link or copy/paste the information/talk related to newly licensed psychologists potentially needing to take the EPPP2. Most of this board afaik is ECP and we should know who is pushing for us to take another test to prove to them we deserve to continue to be licensed.

I'm all for change. But let's change how we do grad school, make our eval process EPPP/EPPP2 earlier in the process, and make it harder for people with ethical sanctions to get licensed again, not people who are already doing everything they're supposed to do (this guy).
Click to expand...

What's this test gonna cost? I recently gave a didactic to our interns in which I suggested that they budget at least $1200 for the licensing process. And I had forgot, I didn't even include the cost of the license itself once you pass all the hoops.
 
smalltownpsych said:
My thoughts exactly so I am thinking it is not completely selfish. I have already been incredibly frustrated with the amount of time, red tape, and catch-22 types of situations when moving from one state to another and would hate to see one more added to the mix. Also, I believe that increasing our portability can increase our marketability and potential incomes. After all, the reason I moved to a different state was primarily financial.
Click to expand...

Same here. I'm not licensed yet but should be able to get licensed before this goes into effect. However, I'm not quite sure I want to continue living in the state in which I'll be licensed. The burden placed on psychologists who move across state lines is already a huge issue without adding this onto it. Ugh.

And, yeah, I agree that this is ASPPB wanting more money.
 
Here's the link to the ASPPB page on the EPPP-Step 2. Read the FAQ's as well and join the committee.

http://www.asppb.net/page/EPPPStep2

Lots of discussion is occurring on state psych association and APA division listservs, which I can't post here, so join your state psych association and APA divisions and rally fellow psychologists to oppose this particular change in this form.

Like I said, I'm all for change to improve quality but lets make it part of the EPPP now and then tighten APA accreditation requirements for programs. e.g. Before graduation a student must pass an objective written comp exam meeting national standards (research and such could be assessed there) and at least 1 real clinical comp exam with therapy and assessment skills, as well as have a course in the business of psychology.

I try to be a champion for the students and would put more effort into redirecting this imo misplaced effort but soon I'll have bigger fish to fry so this mostly will fall on you psychologists and students. For you all already licensed don't think that this won't come back and bite you as monkeying with state laws can have unintended undesirable consequences, so lets fix this in a more efficient manner.

Best of Luck!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
The "Reimagined EPPP" is the EPPP Part-2
Replies
16
Views
3K
oliversacks4thewin
oliversacks4thewin
9
EPPP Study Group (KCMO Area)
Replies
1
Views
844
Justanothergrad
J
D
Best Companies with EPPP Practice Tests?
Replies
5
Views
2K
WisNeuro
WisNeuro
D
PhD/PsyD Taking EPPP-PLEASE HELP!!!!
Replies
2
Views
1K
R. Matey
R. Matey
P
eppp tutors
Replies
5
Views
2K
PsyDuck90
P
Top Bottom