- Joined
- Jan 24, 2012
- Messages
- 97
- Reaction score
- 59
From the ASPPB themselves:
Personally, I have mixed feelings. The "Enhanced EPPP" (aka EPPP Step 2) will be the only exam offered. This is great because it reduces costs and changes the burden on graduate students.
However, it's up to individual states on whether to adopt the new exam. This is quite problematic. License requirements already drastically vary between states, making reciprocity a headache for everyone. This is just furthering the divide between states. Are they going to mandate that people who took the EPPP in one state take the E-EPPP in another?
I also have a strong negative reaction to the language used in this line: "The adoption of the EPPP was a choice you each made over time and its universal use now allows for maximum mobility among practitioners."
I get that this is addressed to the members of the boards, but lets face it: the ASPPB has a monopoly on licensing psychologists as there are few other measures of knowledge with any form of validity. The EPPP, as we all know, is a poor exam that doesn't relate to the actual practice. To state that the Boards made this choice is the equivalent of gaslighting, "You never said no to the abuse, therefore you asked for it."
I don't believe that this is going to help the licensing situation at all. With the advent of telehealth, we need state boards to work in conjunction. The differences between state requirements is a relic of an old system, and the E-EPPP is further cementing that system rather than trying to reinvent it.
A Message from the Board of Directors to Member Jurisdictions of the
Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards
Earlier this summer, I reached out to all of you to let you know that we were commencing a listening campaign to more fully understand the conversation relating to implementation details announced last October for the Enhanced EPPP. Thank you for taking the time to explore implementation implications within your jurisdictions and share your ideas, concerns, and thoughts with us.
We heard strong support for competency testing as part of the EPPP – and we still believe in it – but we also heard many unresolved concerns about our implementation plan. Be assured, our priority is not in enforcing the plan; our priority is in developing and working toward adoption of the best possible resource for you to evaluate the preparedness of new practitioners in our field. Our unique position as an association is in the strong, trusting relationships we have built with you over the decades and our role as facilitator for you to learn, bond, and share across jurisdictions. We are here to support you in your responsibility of public protection, respecting your training and evaluative methods and your jurisdictional requirements. The adoption of the EPPP was a choice you each made over time and its universal use now allows for maximum mobility among practitioners. We are extremely proud of our role and these achievements and we will do everything we can to protect them while we improve our methods and find new ways to support you.
Based on your input this summer and our own priority-setting, the ASPPB Board of Directors on Sunday August 12, passed a motion to rescind our decision of August 2017 and announced to you in October that made the Enhanced EPPP (including both knowledge and skills portions) as the single licensure exam offered by the ASPPB. We will continue toward launch of the Enhanced EPPP in 2020 and make it
available to states and provinces interested in serving as early adopters. We are lifting the requirement for use of the Enhanced EPPP and are lifting the deadline for implementation.
We have heard the concerns you have raised about the cost of the examination and the early admittance option to take the knowledge portion of the test at the completion of academic coursework (excluding research, practicum or internship). We are looking forward to continued discussion with you about these aspects of the implementation of the Enhanced EPPP.
We are in a culture of competency and accreditation standards have changed already. We know that your jurisdictions have processes in place to assess competency and we are confident that unqualified people are not being awarded unearned credentials. As stated earlier, our goal is to provide the best possible resource to you to evaluate your candidates. All jurisdictions will continue to receive detailed information about the nature, content, validity, and utility of the Enhanced EPPP as that information becomes available during 2020 and
beyond.
We thank you for your candid and constructive responses this summer and we remain open to your ideas and concerns as we move forward to improve our testing resources. We welcome your feedback now, and we hope you will join us and continue this discussion in October when we gather in Salt Lake City at our Annual Meeting.
Sincerely,
Sharon Lightfoot, PhD
President, ASPPB Board of Directors
Personally, I have mixed feelings. The "Enhanced EPPP" (aka EPPP Step 2) will be the only exam offered. This is great because it reduces costs and changes the burden on graduate students.
However, it's up to individual states on whether to adopt the new exam. This is quite problematic. License requirements already drastically vary between states, making reciprocity a headache for everyone. This is just furthering the divide between states. Are they going to mandate that people who took the EPPP in one state take the E-EPPP in another?
I also have a strong negative reaction to the language used in this line: "The adoption of the EPPP was a choice you each made over time and its universal use now allows for maximum mobility among practitioners."
I get that this is addressed to the members of the boards, but lets face it: the ASPPB has a monopoly on licensing psychologists as there are few other measures of knowledge with any form of validity. The EPPP, as we all know, is a poor exam that doesn't relate to the actual practice. To state that the Boards made this choice is the equivalent of gaslighting, "You never said no to the abuse, therefore you asked for it."
I don't believe that this is going to help the licensing situation at all. With the advent of telehealth, we need state boards to work in conjunction. The differences between state requirements is a relic of an old system, and the E-EPPP is further cementing that system rather than trying to reinvent it.