SDN members see fewer ads and full resolution images. Join our non-profit community!

EPPP Step 2: $$$

Discussion in 'Psychology [Psy.D. / Ph.D.]' started by G Costanza, Jan 6, 2018.

  1. G Costanza

    G Costanza Psychologist - UCC 5+ Year Member

    514
    544
    Jun 23, 2011
    Here’s an interesting read about the company that is the driving force behind an EPPP Step 2.

    Spoiler: They suck.

    The American Psychologist Licensure 'Crisis' Explained - Modern Psychologist

    Allowing a company to double its influence as our field’s gatekeeper after already showing it cannot even create a test without spelling errors should be concerning. I feel terrible for those who will have to shell out another $600 just to jump through another arbitrary hoop.
     
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2018
  2. SDN Members don't see this ad. About the ads.
  3. psych.meout

    psych.meout 2+ Year Member

    939
    424
    Oct 5, 2015
    I would link to the original post instead of using that particular site. It's author was formerly a regular here and I think he was eventually banned. He was combative to say the least and perpetuated some weird ideas and arguments. It looks like he gave his website quite the facelift.
     
  4. G Costanza

    G Costanza Psychologist - UCC 5+ Year Member

    514
    544
    Jun 23, 2011
    Is that right? I’ve been around this site for some time but usually avoid the drama.
     
    calimich likes this.
  5. foreverbull

    foreverbull 2+ Year Member

    324
    226
    Sep 8, 2015
    The article's concerns are valid. There's no need for a second test, plain and simple. As the article mentions, disciplinary rates for psychologists are low. There are a few bad apples in every field who do slip through, but some folks will always slip through because they know the rules inside and out, but choose not to follow them. We can't predict that via tests outside of assessing knowledge unless we also administer personality tests!

    No one in the field wants to talk about what a cash cow these tests are for the ASPPB.

    I don't mind the idea of testing skill/practice competence, but context is everything with practice, so multiple choice may not capture any meaningful information about level of practice from a brief vignette. That's why we have 3-5 years of practicum, 1 year of internship, and 1-2 years of postdoc in which we are supervised closely! Supervisors and our graduate programs should be the gatekeepers prior to licensing.

    My thinking is that if a practice-related portion is added, halve the EPPP 1 questions and add 125 practice-related questions so that there is no additional test expense to graduate students. Stop forcing grad students to bear higher and higher costs for licensing tests!
     
  6. G Costanza

    G Costanza Psychologist - UCC 5+ Year Member

    514
    544
    Jun 23, 2011
    Exactly. On the surface, it appears to be a business monopoly that is free to raise prices for a consumer with almost no power. At the risk of being extreme, it has a flavor of extortion.
     
  7. WisNeuro

    WisNeuro Board Certified Neuropsychologist Psychologist 7+ Year Member

    7,294
    5,139
    Feb 15, 2009
    Somewhere
    You won't find much empathy from other disciplines on the cost issue. Our costs to licensure and boarding pale in comparison to many med specialties, even when you take into account differences in salary. As for testing itself, while I would be fine with another organization or the ASPBB to clean up its act somewhat, I actually believe in more rigorous testing procedures, in some form. Far too many incompetent providers out there are diploma mills flooding the markets with sub-par practitioners. Programs and supervisors should be the gatekeepers of the profession, but when you have incompetent/unscrupulous supervisors and or programs already, you just perpetuate the cycle of ****ty people getting into the field. I'm all for a better system, but I've never seen anyone propose anything new that actually speaks to tightening the competency restrictions. Most people just want to complain about cost and difficulty without much substance.
     
  8. MamaPhD

    MamaPhD Psychologist, Academic Medical Center Psychologist 7+ Year Member

    1,656
    1,447
    Aug 2, 2010
    Competency-based evaluation is here to stay. That said, there are several back-end quality control mechanisms that could be streamlined or eliminated if the profession got serious about quality control in doctoral training, committed to a national standard for licensure, and embraced board certification (ie, ABPP) more widely. Personally, I'd like to see the National Register become obsolete.

    And yes, Modern Psychologist appears to be run by a person(s) who have a special axe to grind when it comes to ASPPB. I don't think any organization is above scrutiny, but I'm not sympathetic to the idea that barriers to entry in the profession are too high, and that's what a lot of their crowing seems to boil down to.
     
    ellenew and WisNeuro like this.
  9. foreverbull

    foreverbull 2+ Year Member

    324
    226
    Sep 8, 2015
    Program oversight is what I believe needs to change, not testing at the very end after folks who shouldn't be practicing are pushed through. I believe APA should be at the helm of ensuring (tighter) competence, not ASPPB.

    I think part of the issue is we may have some programs in fear of retaliation from students (via suing, etc.) and loss of income to programs when you kick students out (at the masters level, I saw a student fail both practicum and multicultural issues and yet was allowed to repeat them both and graduate, which terrified me to think about this person out in the field), as well as supervisors fearing that students with poor practica performance will reflect negatively on them as professionals. Ultimately these and other factors need to be addressed by programs to ensure the highest standards of training in addition to more scrupulous oversight by APA, which would eliminate the need for changes in testing.

    Just because other fields also pay high licensing exam fees doesn't make it right, is my response. Across the board students are getting gouged when it comes to licensing exams. A portion of the fees are justified for operating costs/test development, but not all of it. Where are those leftover dollars going every year in a nonprofit?
     
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2018
  10. WisNeuro

    WisNeuro Board Certified Neuropsychologist Psychologist 7+ Year Member

    7,294
    5,139
    Feb 15, 2009
    Somewhere
    APA should be, yes. But, they've made it clear by loosening standards and allowing the proliferation of diploma mills for years now, that they are not interested in ensuring competence in the field. So, it comes down to licensing bodies. Some one needs to do it. As for the testing fees. Logistically, they are pretty low. I don't really buy the gouging argument when you look at the costs of organization, refinement, and implementation.
     
  11. Harry3990

    Harry3990 2+ Year Member

    97
    42
    Oct 8, 2014
  12. WisNeuro

    WisNeuro Board Certified Neuropsychologist Psychologist 7+ Year Member

    7,294
    5,139
    Feb 15, 2009
    Somewhere
    Let's be clear. This is a somewhat poorly written opinion piece, with not much substance. Some interesting ideas, maybe, but it'd be a huge stretch to call this thing an article.
     
  13. foreverbull

    foreverbull 2+ Year Member

    324
    226
    Sep 8, 2015
    I think information provided about a nonprofit that keeps its meetings closed and private (when deciding licensure level competence for an entire nation's psychologists to protect the public) and makes certain expenses vague, has a history of increasing exam prices, and doesn't provide any empirical support (just hearsay) for a new licensing test that they plan to push states to use is substantive, regardless of how it was written.

    If you look at ASPPB's own website and FAQs about the Step 2 exam, they don't offer any evidence that the test is needed; they simply discuss differences in training models, supervisor pressure to pass students (with no citation given), and a range of Eppp pass rates by program as suggesting need to create a second test (huh?). There's also no evidence that the new test will predict better outcomes than the current test.

    That in and of itself should be a huge red flag to all psychologists.
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2018
  14. WisNeuro

    WisNeuro Board Certified Neuropsychologist Psychologist 7+ Year Member

    7,294
    5,139
    Feb 15, 2009
    Somewhere
    As I said, interesting ideas, but lacking on any sort of intelligent follow through or commentary. Most organizations, state licensing bodies included, hold portions of meetings in private. It's not uncommon at all. Just how exactly do they keep expenses vague? I would like to see some actual justification for that.

    As for the need, it's a consensus issue here and going along with the rest of the medical field that some competence testing happen that focuses on identified areas of clinical competence. Of course, we could just eliminate the test entirely and let anyone who wants to practice. I have yet to hear any sort of coherent action plan besides foundationless griping. If people want to actually do something about it, maybe they should intelligently discuss an alternative instead of bitching about what is a pretty low cost and an easy test which offers little to no real barrier of entry into the field.
     
  15. boomshakalaka

    boomshakalaka 2+ Year Member

    59
    61
    Nov 7, 2014
    The current bar for entry into the profession is ridiculously low. Why do we need a step-2? Because of this drivel at the end of the page:

    "We thank all of you psychologists coming forward lately with these abuses and fighting against these cowards, And we encourage You to continue sending us Your stories and leaks. You can do so completely anonymously by sending your documents via www.sendspace.com, directly to our e-mail at [email protected], or any other PGP encrypted messaging that you may use. Together we will continue dismantling these cartel schemes, which are essentially harming the public.

    #TheNewAPA #APA2018"

    Everyone beware of the psychology illuminati.
     
  16. foreverbull

    foreverbull 2+ Year Member

    324
    226
    Sep 8, 2015
    Sometimes articles are written to draw attention to issues so that readers can discuss the concerns and come up with solutions. But that takes work from us readers. The subtext of the article is that there's no incompetence crisis going on in our field, so why fix what isn't broken?

    We already take comps, which IS competence testing. If it isn't mandatory, then programs and/or APA can make it so. As I said before, APA should step up here to take the lead on competence at the program/training level, and if they don't, then perhaps some folks in here who feel strongly about competence should work their way into evaluating training programs via APA and setting a higher baseline of competence rather than "griping" about diploma mills and the bar being set too low.
     
    Magick91683 and ellenew like this.
  17. WisNeuro

    WisNeuro Board Certified Neuropsychologist Psychologist 7+ Year Member

    7,294
    5,139
    Feb 15, 2009
    Somewhere
    I can't think of a single colleague who is doing clinical work who would agree with that.
     
    Therapist4Chnge likes this.
  18. foreverbull

    foreverbull 2+ Year Member

    324
    226
    Sep 8, 2015
    Hence the second part of my response for folks who want stricter standards.
     
  19. WisNeuro

    WisNeuro Board Certified Neuropsychologist Psychologist 7+ Year Member

    7,294
    5,139
    Feb 15, 2009
    Somewhere
    Already answered that one in response earlier. The APA has already decided it won't be that entity. I'm fine with ASPPB being a dedicated gatekeeper. I'm fine with that bar being higher.
     
  20. G Costanza

    G Costanza Psychologist - UCC 5+ Year Member

    514
    544
    Jun 23, 2011
    Has anyone ever seen a study showing the EPPP has any predictive validity? I’d appreciate a link or cite.
     
    PhDToBe likes this.
  21. psych.meout

    psych.meout 2+ Year Member

    939
    424
    Oct 5, 2015
    Aren't you one of the people on this forum who is always defending the people who went to unfunded programs?

    See, this is a valid question about the issue. Complaining about conspiracies, cartels, etc. isn't really a coherent argument.
     
  22. foreverbull

    foreverbull 2+ Year Member

    324
    226
    Sep 8, 2015
    Not sure how this relates to the topic at hand....would you like to clarify why you are asking?

    Not sure whom you're referring to here. I never asserted a conspiracy, and note that the original article was not from Modern Psychologist. The original article was from: http://thepsychologytimes.com/psyc-times-pdfs/The-Psychology-Times-Vol-8-No-12.pdf. I have no affiliation with folks on the Modern Psychology site.

    Any organization that introduces an entirely new (additional) test for licensing in our field should stand up to a little further scrutiny and provide a solid basis for the need for the additional test. Note that ASPPB didn't even use citations in their own argument for why the EPPP Step 2 is needed on their website/FAQs. I'd like to see some research support; that is a completely reasonable request from an organization that is setting some of the requirements for licensure.
     
  23. PBCocce

    PBCocce 2+ Year Member

    72
    23
    Aug 20, 2015
    EPPP "step 1" was already ridiculous enough.
     
    Magick91683 likes this.
  24. WisNeuro

    WisNeuro Board Certified Neuropsychologist Psychologist 7+ Year Member

    7,294
    5,139
    Feb 15, 2009
    Somewhere
    I agree, no reason for the bar to be so low.
     

Share This Page