Major news regarding EPPP Step 2

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

Groupthink

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2012
Messages
97
Reaction score
59
From the ASPPB themselves:

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.

Members don't see this ad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I love this line

"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"

What a load of bull. I can provide them with a dozen examples from community providers that I've run across in the last few months alone that refutes that claim.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Members don't see this ad :)
It’s all about the money and the illusion of quality control.
I don't think it's all about the money, honestly. Similar types of exams (written plus practical) are part of pretty much every other doctoral level profession. This concept is something that should have been implemented a long time ago. The barriers to entry in our profession are laughably low at the moment. I don't know if this is the answer, but it's at least a step in the right direction.
 
My main complaint about the EPPP Step 2 was the cost burden of 2 separate tests....so this is a vast improvement over their original EPPP 2 plan, as long as they don't double the price of the E-EPPP. I'm assuming most, if not all states, will probably require it after some time after its release.

A practice-based component could be interesting. When folks get practice materials, I hope they are able to share some of the practice-based study questions/vignettes here! I'm personally fascinated by their attempt to assess skill in a very standardized way, so I'd love to see some examples.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I don't think it's all about the money, honestly. Similar types of exams (written plus practical) are part of pretty much every other doctoral level profession. This concept is something that should have been implemented a long time ago. The barriers to entry in our profession are laughably low at the moment. I don't know if this is the answer, but it's at least a step in the right direction.

Agreed. I support changes to the EPPP content. Implementation is another matter and I expect the key players to do it poorly. I wish board certification would become the norm in the field, but that seems extraordinarily unlikely.
 
I'm a bit confused. The statement above from ASPPB was back in August 2018? I have been following information about the EPPP Part 2 and never came across the Enhanced EPPP announcement. What is the current plan?
 
I think this is a well-written summary of the same concerns that I’ve had when considering the fast push for the use of this test without independent review and more solid justification research-wise. I had no idea that the EPPP-2 didn’t even conduct factor analyses as part of the test construction process as a test created for psychologists! That’s suspicious to me.

The fact that ASPPB has tried to get this implemented so quickly and without appropriate research basis and independent experts weighing in on the test has also made me suspicious that financial gain may be one of the main pushes for the test rather than assessing competence to practice. As I’ve always said, if this isn’t an attempt to make more money, ASPPB would take more time to have sound justification for the new test (ipredictive validity, etc.).

Our field is uniquely poised to asses the validity of a test like this and yet we haven’t done so. Why? I think we need to keep asking ourselves why ASPPB would roll out a test without even conducting a simple CFA to determine its structure and make sure the items loaded onto the appropriate constructs, let alone having independent review and providing clear and consistent reasoning for implementing it.

Edit: fixed part relating to split test based on letter from ASPPB with plan to release “Enhanced EPPP” that replaces the current test.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Members don't see this ad :)
I sometimes wonder if "they" are trying to water down psychology as a whole. Obviously the goal is financial, but the additional barriers would likely decrease the number of psychologists licensed each year. We need quality control for sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if in 50 years evidenced-based treatment is provided by computers.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I sometimes wonder if "they" are trying to water down psychology as a whole. Obviously the goal is financial, but the additional barriers would likely decrease the number of psychologists licensed each year. We need quality control for sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if in 50 years evidenced-based treatment is provided by computers.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

I know some people at ASPPB through my work on state association stuff. Goal is not financial, rather to align with other healthcare providers. Additionally, the black helicopter "deep state" Qanon "they" stuff is absurd. Leave conspiracy theories to Trumpists
 
I know some people at ASPPB through my work on state association stuff. Goal is not financial, rather to align with other healthcare providers. Additionally, the black helicopter "deep state" Qanon "they" stuff is absurd. Leave conspiracy theories to Trumpists
It was tongue in cheek. Although I do think there is a push to fall in line and conform, thereby stifling creativity. Cest la vie

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
 
Goal is not financial, rather to align with other healthcare providers.
I'd rather them start by changing the regular EPPP. I do not remember that exam testing anything related to efficacy or effectiveness of treatments. Furthermore, it was full of questions that seemed to be unrelated to the science or practice of mental health treatment. Is there any evidence that the EPPP predicts anything? I'm not against a test but a valid one would be preferred.
 
This test is assessing practical application, yet it hasn't been validated. It depends how they are defining competent-based practice. Hopefully it isn't too narrow of a scope.
I'm still not sure how validation links into the worry about stifled creativity here.
 
I'd rather them start by changing the regular EPPP. I do not remember that exam testing anything related to efficacy or effectiveness of treatments. Furthermore, it was full of questions that seemed to be unrelated to the science or practice of mental health treatment. A

Oh, I wholeheartedly agree that the original EPPP needs a change. Perhaps a blending of the two approaches. And, they need to do something about the ease of the exams. Many of the questions are easy enough that they can easily be answered without a lot of knowledge on the topic at hand.
 
that's probably why I (barely) passed ;)

Lol. I'm sure you did just fine. But, look at the old posted numbers. Many schools with a 100% pass rate. Even diploma mills can scrounge up pass rates of 70%ish, and most of those people can barely put words together, as evidenced by the quality of reports I review from them regularly.

Bottom line, I simply do not buy any argument that the barrier of entry into the field is "too high" based on licensing standards. Following that, even if there was anything to the argument that the cost would push people out of the field (it won't, as it is relatively low compared to other professions), not sure that'd be a bad thing if it led to closing of more diploma mills, or a decrease in oversaturated markets.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Lol. I'm sure you did just fine. But, look at the old posted numbers. Many schools with a 100% pass rate. Even diploma mills can scrounge up pass rates of 70%ish, and most of those people can barely put words together, as evidenced by the quality of reports I review from them regularly.

Bottom line, I simply do not buy any argument that the barrier of entry into the field is "too high" based on licensing standards. Following that, even if there was anything to the argument that the cost would push people out of the field (it won't, as it is relatively low compared to other professions), not sure that'd be a bad thing if it led to closing of more diploma mills, or a decrease in oversaturated markets.

Supply side restrictions is about the dumbest possible idea to try to change income. It doesn’t even make sense. Insurance determines rates.

Supply side restrictions will do nothing to increase incomes.
 
Supply side restrictions is about the dumbest possible idea to try to change income. It doesn’t even make sense. Insurance determines rates.

Supply side restrictions will do nothing to increase incomes.

I'm not even talking about rising incomes, I'm talking about not having wade through at least dozens of garbage applications for every position posted for a psychologist.
 
Lol. I'm sure you did just fine. But, look at the old posted numbers. Many schools with a 100% pass rate. Even diploma mills can scrounge up pass rates of 70%ish, and most of those people can barely put words together, as evidenced by the quality of reports I review from them regularly.

Bottom line, I simply do not buy any argument that the barrier of entry into the field is "too high" based on licensing standards. Following that, even if there was anything to the argument that the cost would push people out of the field (it won't, as it is relatively low compared to other professions), not sure that'd be a bad thing if it led to closing of more diploma mills, or a decrease in oversaturated markets.

One of the things that concerns me the most about this is *who* it will prevent from entering the field.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I'd rather them start by changing the regular EPPP. I do not remember that exam testing anything related to efficacy or effectiveness of treatments. Furthermore, it was full of questions that seemed to be unrelated to the science or practice of mental health treatment. Is there any evidence that the EPPP predicts anything? I'm not against a test but a valid one would be preferred.

In rereading the earlier part of this thread (and the letter from ASPPB), I realize that ASPPB was considering making the EPPP2 the ONLY test and interest in dropping the knowledge-based portion we take now (part 1). If that is the case, then they still need appropriate justification/support for doing so (as you also discussed) and some independent oversight or review and additional research. I would also hope that this did not mean a higher fee for the test itself if they drop part 1. Either way, there should be far more efforts to make sure this “new” test is valid, sound, and necessary, which they haven’t done an adequate job of showing yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
One of the things that concerns me the most about this is *who* it will prevent from entering the field.
Honestly, no one. The hand waving about cost holds no real water. 1) The relative costs of our licensing exam are pretty low comparative to other fields. 2) The people who do not do well on this test (diploma mill grads) give absolutely no pause to taking out 6 figure+ loans for their fake degrees, how exactly would several hundred dollars in a test fee suddenly stop them?
 
Honestly, no one. The hand waving about cost holds no real water. 1) The relative costs of our licensing exam are pretty low comparative to other fields. 2) The people who do not do well on this test (diploma mill grads) give absolutely no pause to taking out 6 figure+ loans for their fake degrees, how exactly would several hundred dollars in a test fee suddenly stop them?

I would imagine not being able to get student loans after training has something to do with the belly aching....
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Honestly, no one. The hand waving about cost holds no real water. 1) The relative costs of our licensing exam are pretty low comparative to other fields. 2) The people who do not do well on this test (diploma mill grads) give absolutely no pause to taking out 6 figure+ loans for their fake degrees, how exactly would several hundred dollars in a test fee suddenly stop them?

Another fee is relatively meaningless to that group, but this additional barrier is potentially a bigger issue for a more economically disadvantaged student. It's not insurmountable with advanced knowledge and planning, but may further influence those folks to pursue a different degree or type of work which means psychology as a whole loses out on that diversity. That's in addition to the fact that there's unresolved diversity issues with the test itself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
The people who do not do well on this test (diploma mill grads) give absolutely no pause to taking out 6 figure+ loans for their fake degrees...

I feel this was an unnecessary comment to make.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I would imagine not being able to get student loans after training has something to do with the belly aching....

It's all about budgeting. Plus, it's tax deductible, at that stage, lot's of things you can write off. I still don't have a huge amount of empathy for cost of the test. It costs money to keep up to date and administer. And, it's a known quantity.

Another fee is relatively meaningless to that group, but this additional barrier is potentially a bigger issue for a more economically disadvantaged student. It's not insurmountable with advanced knowledge and planning, but may further influence those folks to pursue a different degree or type of work which means psychology as a whole loses out on that diversity. That's in addition to the fact that there's unresolved diversity issues with the test itself.

Such as?

I feel this was an unnecessary comment to make.

Not from my years of experience. If you read the clinical product that these people put out on a regular basis, you'd know what I'm talking about. Some of these people are fine, but on average, these people do not have what it takes to work as a doctoral level provider.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Another fee is relatively meaningless to that group, but this additional barrier is potentially a bigger issue for a more economically disadvantaged student. It's not insurmountable with advanced knowledge and planning, but may further influence those folks to pursue a different degree or type of work which means psychology as a whole loses out on that diversity. That's in addition to the fact that there's unresolved diversity issues with the test itself.

Thank you for sharing these concerns. Financial barriers in our field our often dismissed by individuals that I suspect have never experienced a closed door due to their racial/economic/gender, etc. I don’t think psychology should get a pass at these issues just because other professional areas have similar problems. I see a similar attitude on the internship application threads.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Ah, always good to see people making false assumptions to fit their preconceived narratives. I'm sure that's great for the field as well.

I'm curious if people have a way to adequately maintain a licensure procedure that protects public interests, can be delivered and administrated nationally, for a great deal less money? People see to be blindingly ignorant of how things actually work. Please, I urge you all to join your state associations, run for the board, get involved legislatively. One, you'll have a chance to impact the things you are worried about in some way and 2) you'll actually see how things work in a more macro sense.
 
I think it’s problematic to insist a solution be identified prior to voicing concerns that a problem exists.

I don’t think it’s an assumption.... posters regularly advise potential students, students, interns, etc. to go on all the face to face interviews, submit applications, etc., while ignoring the privilege of this advice. Not all potential students/students have the financial resources to follow the advice given.

Personally, I’ve been involved at the state legislative level for a decade. It’s good advice to be aware of how decisions are made for our field. The fee schedule for licensure varies greatly for state to state. Many states have adjusted their fee schedules to encourage ecp’s to be in their region (among other reasons).
 
It is an assumption when you falsely ascribe a certain history to posters to fit your narrative. I'm glad to hear that some people are also getting involved in legislative affairs. Far too many like to sit on the sidelines and moan about issues, while doing nothing to lift a finger or financially support the organizations that work every day for their welfare.

Back to the EPPP, I'd love to see viable plans of actions that balance the need to administer a licensing exam with cost to examinees. Particularly given the relative low cost we incur with it.
 
I think it’s problematic to insist a solution be identified prior to voicing concerns that a problem exists.

I don’t think it’s an assumption.... posters regularly advise potential students, students, interns, etc. to go on all the face to face interviews, submit applications, etc., while ignoring the privilege of this advice. Not all potential students/students have the financial resources to follow the advice given.

Personally, I’ve been involved at the state legislative level for a decade. It’s good advice to be aware of how decisions are made for our field. The fee schedule for licensure varies greatly for state to state. Many states have adjusted their fee schedules to encourage ecp’s to be in their region (among other reasons).

Of course it is filled with privilege, but the truth is that the field is filled with privilege from the get go. If you can't make it to all the interviews, who is providing the car that you need to drive to placements, or the moving costs needed to relocate multiple times? This is a field that generally requires a benefactor with the exception of a few people. Once you get out, the field often expects you to be of a certain socioeconomic status. Hell, the entire profession doesn't even kick in until you have met the bottom two levels of Maslow's hierachy of needs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
It is an assumption when you falsely ascribe a certain history to posters to fit your narrative. I'm glad to hear that some people are also getting involved in legislative affairs. Far too many like to sit on the sidelines and moan about issues, while doing nothing to lift a finger or financially support the organizations that work every day for their welfare.

Back to the EPPP, I'd love to see viable plans of actions that balance the need to administer a licensing exam with cost to examinees. Particularly given the relative low cost we incur with it.

What are your thoughts on having a limit on the number of times a person can take the exam? I believe there may be limits as far as the number of times per year, but I may be wrong. I don’t know if this will assist in protecting the public, and it may just result in temporary protection. The cost doesn’t seem to be a deterrent, as I have heard of people taking the EPPP 4+ times.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
What are your thoughts on having a limit on the number of times a person can take the exam? I believe there may be limits as far as the number of times per year, but I may be wrong. I don’t know if this will assist in protecting the public, and it may just result in temporary protection. The cost doesn’t seem to be a deterrent, as I have heard of people taking the EPPP 4+ times.
It depends on the state. Many states do have a limit per year or require a certain amount of time to pass between examinations

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
What are your thoughts on having a limit on the number of times a person can take the exam? I believe there may be limits as far as the number of times per year, but I may be wrong. I don’t know if this will assist in protecting the public, and it may just result in temporary protection. The cost doesn’t seem to be a deterrent, as I have heard of people taking the EPPP 4+ times.

That one is complicated. Unfortunately, the real solution would need to be on the supply side, that is, the diploma mills, where most of these cases reside. If that were fixed, the need for that many retakes would be greatly diminished. You can see this by simply looking at the pass rates by program for the most part.
 
any updates/new news here? I am giving a didactic to interns on this soon. TIA
 
Top