My take:
1) There are areas where board certs are likely to continue in the near to middle term future, either from need or tradition (e.g., psychoanalysis, neuro, forensic, etc).
2) Technological advances, which will continue to advance according to moore's law, will have substantial impacts on many of the diagnostic fields. Many are stupidly unconcerned about technological advancement. It sounds like futuristic stuff, but it is fast approaching. For example, law firms are now using AI legal research services which has already affected paralegals. For neuro, machine learning is a huge problem, especially since the sign based approach was rejected. It's only a matter of time before imaging creates better diagnostic approaches that are cheaper and easier. And Pearson is clearly moving towards on screen, group administration of tests by para-professionals. For treating stuff, this is less important which is why I have started to encourage people to look into rehab psych.
3) ABPP shows a history of increasing the number of boards, and number boarded. This fractures the field, which is a significant problem.
A. For example, police psychology is now accepted as a separate specialty. In a lawsuit which involves a police shooting: is a forensic psychologist more appropriate or is a police psychologist more appropriate? What are the chances that a police psychologist would be financially motivated to go towards this work? Will a juror understand the difference?
B. Absent a few boards, board cert does not significantly increase earnings as far as I know.
C. If the number of boards continue, the potential number of patients will become extremely limited. This is not the case for other mental health professionals. IMO, it is only a matter of time before there is a Women's Psychology board. Does that mean you cannot treat half the population unless you are boarded? What if your female patient has a brain injury? Would you need a rehab board and a woman psych board? What if there is a lawsuit? Do you need three boards? Where does that end?
4) At some point, the potential number of patients/referrals do not support a specialization either due to patient prevalence or funding.
5) Increased training requirements starts to say something about the rigor of doctoral training. I see no point in someone graduating from an APA clinical program getting ABPP'ed in clinical psych. It's circular argument. All of your professors said you were competent, your internship said you're competent, your post doc said you're competent, your state said you competent.... that's a lot of peers. So now you need another set of peers saying you're competent?
6) If psychology continues to demand increasing levels of sub-specialization, AND other mental health fields do not AND insurance will not pay for increased training..... we'll write ourselves out of a job. How easy is it for insurance to say, "we only pay for psychologist boarded in X?" while not having those requirements for social work? Even if the ethical standards and law do not support this degree of sub-specialization. Keep in mind that the people who are creating these increased standards are the ones who will not be around deal with the outcomes of this.
7) Finally, this only works if psychologist buy into this.
I am board certified in a field other than Neuro. Because the field in general is small, and the specialties can be tiny, I'm not going to say which one for fear of outing my identity on this board. There's a few reasons I chose to go this route. I quoted your post because I'd like to respond to your points specifically.
1. Agreed
2. Semi-agreed. I don't think diagnosis of a lot of conditions can be broken down into corresponding neuroimaging, because it's not a clear relationship, e.g. problems in this area equal this condition. I do think the para-professional thing is a huge issue, particularly as other professions just write assessment into their licensing description (looking at you, LPCs) and nothing seems to be in the way of that.
3. I think it depends on how far this goes. I would like to know whether there was an evidence-based reason for police psychology to be fragmented from forensic. Looking at the list of specialty boards now, those two appear to be the only ones that seem to possibly be conflated.
4. In my area, I think the number of patients is huge, so that is not concerning personally.
5. The issue in this regard, for me, is the number of substandard training programs.
6. Agreed; this is a source of concern and frustration. I have heard social workers voice that they practice my specialization.
7. Agreed, but a lot of things, including money, fall under this.
My VA gave me a step increase. I have found that the certification has offered some intangible benefit within the medical center and university associated with my position. I have also registered a lot of confusion from people in other professions who don't seem to know what it means. I do think psychology needs to be on par with medicine, and board certification in medicine is often an expectation - and they also are getting their fields watered down by para-professionals or midlevel replacements.
The process was personally satisfying to me. Of course, I had funding for it so I may have felt differently if I was coughing up. But it made my identity more concrete within my specialty, in my own conceptualization of it.
As I move toward opening my own business and consultation service in my area of specialty, I can see the benefit in terms of how I market my skill set to my target population and referral base. I also see the huge benefit in telehealth as well as state-line issues, although license mobility with ABPP is not in place for all 50 states.
