MA-level licensure

[Justanothergrad]

I'm curious what ya'll think of masters level licensure by the APA?

It's something that is going to happen. The writing is clearly on the wall with it and we've fallen behind several decades relative to other disciplines, with some making recent major pushes that really interject into training and licensure (*cough* CACREP *cough*). There are certainly some strengths to pushing the psychological sciences approach to mental health. My take is that the research literacy will help push evidence-based care (not necessarily ESTs, I note importantly) but my largest concern is with scopes of practice.

https://www.apaservices.org/practice/good-practice/accredit-masters-programs.pdf

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[psych.meout]

But will these master's programs seek APA accreditation if one of the focuses is on proper scopes of practice? I.e., if they perceive APA accreditation as limiting the scope of their graduates vs CACREP (or others) expanding it, would they still want APA? What would be the benefit to them?

 

[WisNeuro]

But will these master's programs seek APA accreditation if one of the focuses is on proper scopes of practice? I.e., if they perceive APA accreditation as limiting the scope of their graduates vs CACREP (or others) expanding it, would they still want APA? What would be the benefit to them?

APA would likely have better lobbying power.

 

[psych.meout]

APA would likely have better lobbying power.

Right, I understand why it's in the APA's interest to do this, but I just don't know how much incentive there is for master's programs to get in on this if they perceive it to be intended, at least partially, to discipline master's programs and rein in their scopes of practice from encroaching in on psychologists.

 

[WisNeuro]

Right, I understand why it's in the APA's interest to do this, but I just don't know how much incentive there is for master's programs to get in on this if they perceive it to be intended, at least partially, to discipline master's programs and rein in their scopes of practice from encroaching in on psychologists.

Because of the lobbying power. For example, certain midlevels cannot be reimbursed certain psychology codes by medicare/medicaid. If they fall under APAs umbrella, APA could lobby for their use of those codes, although probably at a reduced rate.

 

[R. Matey]

To second @WisNeuro's point, ACA's lobbying power is quite small compared with APA. There's a promise of Medicare billing and a sense of legitimacy by training master's levels in EPBs (instead of just saying they do without actually doing it).

I see this as a net positive if executed correctly. I would hope that undergraduate coursework in psychology would be required of applicants so the starting assumption of graduate training would be a scientific one.

 

[Justanothergrad]

APA would likely have better lobbying power.

Agreed.

PSA: Join APA now. This matters for this in the field. Regardless of concern, this is THE most important professional issue for the next 2 decades imho.

 

[futureapppsy2]

To second @WisNeuro's point, ACA's lobbying power is quite small compared with APA. There's a promise of Medicare billing and a sense of legitimacy by training master's levels in EPBs (instead of just saying they do without actually doing it).

I see this as a net positive if executed correctly. I would hope that undergraduate coursework in psychology would be required of applicants so the starting assumption of graduate training would be a scientific one.

Given that the APA has accredited extremely sketchy PhD/PsyD programs for decades, you have much more faith in APA's commitment to EBP in training than I do.

Also, this is an issue of state licensure laws as well, and those take forever to change and are highly political. Accreditation only matters when it matters to your licensing board (and/or [potential employer).

 

[R. Matey]

Given that the APA has accredited extremely sketchy PhD/PsyD programs for decades, you have much more faith in APA's commitment to EBP in training than I do.

Also, this is an issue of state licensure laws as well, and those take forever to change and are highly political. Accreditation only matters when it matters to your licensing board (and/or [potential employer).

That's a fair criticism, but the state of things in ACA is even worse. Most counselors I know don't know much beyond supportive interventions and a very cursory understanding of psychotherapeutic systems. The common factors people have a pretty strong grip on the mid-level professions so many counselors can practice a smattering of ACT/DBT-lite and think they are providing good therapy. I think we can go up from there.

As @DynamicDidacticpointed out to me on another thread a while ago, nearly every state has a path to licensure around CACREP for LPCs. I wonder if APA were to design their curriculum to meet those requirements. MPCAC is attempting something similar.

 

[chicandtoughness]

To be clear, would the accreditation of masters level programs be solely for masters-level license-eligible degrees, or would they also accredit programs that are more experimental/doctoral prep programs as well? I think that CACREP, COAMFTE, and CSWE have a strong enough hold on the masters level clinicians that adding get another one to the mix is going to get lost. However, there are certain states (hello Texas) that allows graduates from masters in psychology programs to pursue the LPA license. Would that be the eventual goal? Or is the goal to encroach on the LPC/LMFT arena?

Given that the APA has accredited extremely sketchy PhD/PsyD programs for decades, you have much more faith in APA's commitment to EBP in training than I do.

I think ultimately this says more about how horrible ACA/CACREP is

 

[Justanothergrad]

To be clear, would the accreditation of masters level programs be solely for masters-level license-eligible degrees, or would they also accredit programs that are more experimental/doctoral prep programs as well? I think that CACREP, COAMFTE, and CSWE have a strong enough hold on the masters level clinicians that adding get another one to the mix is going to get lost. However, there are certain states (hello Texas) that allows graduates from masters in psychology programs to pursue the LPA license. Would that be the eventual goal? Or is the goal to encroach on the LPC/LMFT arena?


I think ultimately this says more about how horrible ACA/CACREP is

My perception is the only reason the sway appears to favor ACA and others at the MA level is the lack of APA. The goal would be to offer a psychology principle based masters license training that is accredited, comparable to other programs with better evidence supported practice standards consistent with managed care and other emphasis.