NACIQI recommends suspending APA accreditation
Started by leylablue
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
Was just reading about it Accreditation Panel Recommends Suspending APA, Punts on ABA
why not do lcme for medical schools too? (Chiropractor schools are above board and there is no need to change anything there)
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I've been in the field of professional clinical psychology since entering grad school in 1994 (32 years ago). I have been amazed at the ever-increasing layers of bureaucracy, 'oversight' of the oversight of the overseers of the sub-overseer accrediting bodies...and so on ad infinitum and ad absurdum without end. The micromanagement, preaching, chiding, and ninnying and nannying from the top-down and from all sides. Now we have overseers 'disqualifying' overseers while, simultaneously, discussions about 'licensing' of AI 'therapists.' Cue the carnival music. From Joint Commission, to APA committee on accreditation, to VA policy/procedures, to--you name it--these days about 70-80% of our time and energy is soaked up by bull-^&(* with only about 20-30% (at best) left over to actually do clinically-meaningful assessment, case formulation, treatment planning, and intervention.
The net result of all this ostensible bureaucratic/oversight 'progress' has been--in my experience--a substantial deterioration of quality in professional practice across the board. There has been no 'improvement' in the quality of practice. There is only more bureaucracy. There is only 'nominal' 'progress' and self-congratulatory self-praise at the level of the profession while (in my experience) the 'quality' of the average psychotherapist/psychologist has gone down over time. A reliable empirical finding across studies of cognitive behavioral therapy for depression that people are trying to explain is the significant drop in efficacy of CBT therapists (in terms of results) from the 'old days' to more 'modern' times. This finding is not surprising to me...I have been in the field the whole time. Therapists almost never do individualized case formulation or thinking or hypothesis testing anymore. Most are taught that EBP is simply following a checklist and manual mechanically. No more emphasis on therapeutic relationships or individualized case formulations. Sure, you have to be technically proficient. Sure, it's a good idea to utilize worksheets/structure (though, 'in the old days,' we'd routinely craft individualized monitoring forms with/for clients based on individual case formulation). Sure, in general, you need to 'follow the manual.' But we used to prioritize (a) the therapeutic alliance/relationship and (b) individualized case formulation to a MUCH greater degree. We can throw around terms like 'flexibility within fidelity' as marketing / PR tactics but if this does not translate into actual sophisticated/flexible/individualized intervention, all the marketing is for naught.
But, long live the ever-expanding bureaucracy to meet the needs of the ever-expanding bureaucracy--all fueled by either Blue-colored Kool-Aid ideological fervor or Red-flavored Kool-Aid ideological fervor (they're both sides of the same coin).
The snake is eating its own tail and retirement can't come soon enough.
The net result of all this ostensible bureaucratic/oversight 'progress' has been--in my experience--a substantial deterioration of quality in professional practice across the board. There has been no 'improvement' in the quality of practice. There is only more bureaucracy. There is only 'nominal' 'progress' and self-congratulatory self-praise at the level of the profession while (in my experience) the 'quality' of the average psychotherapist/psychologist has gone down over time. A reliable empirical finding across studies of cognitive behavioral therapy for depression that people are trying to explain is the significant drop in efficacy of CBT therapists (in terms of results) from the 'old days' to more 'modern' times. This finding is not surprising to me...I have been in the field the whole time. Therapists almost never do individualized case formulation or thinking or hypothesis testing anymore. Most are taught that EBP is simply following a checklist and manual mechanically. No more emphasis on therapeutic relationships or individualized case formulations. Sure, you have to be technically proficient. Sure, it's a good idea to utilize worksheets/structure (though, 'in the old days,' we'd routinely craft individualized monitoring forms with/for clients based on individual case formulation). Sure, in general, you need to 'follow the manual.' But we used to prioritize (a) the therapeutic alliance/relationship and (b) individualized case formulation to a MUCH greater degree. We can throw around terms like 'flexibility within fidelity' as marketing / PR tactics but if this does not translate into actual sophisticated/flexible/individualized intervention, all the marketing is for naught.
But, long live the ever-expanding bureaucracy to meet the needs of the ever-expanding bureaucracy--all fueled by either Blue-colored Kool-Aid ideological fervor or Red-flavored Kool-Aid ideological fervor (they're both sides of the same coin).
The snake is eating its own tail and retirement can't come soon enough.
Last edited:
For now, it doesn’t seem like it will be a big difference practically, as APA is still recognized by CHEA, though obviously this is a horrible precedent in terms of politically motivated censorship.
I also think APA’s response to antisemitism has been an utter mess, in large part due to division in the Jewish community. I was on a couple of APA calls about antisemitism, and by the end of one call, people literally couldn’t agree if throwing things at a visibly Jewish person from a car would be antisemitic or not, because they didn’t know if the hypothetical person in question was a Zionist or anti-Zionist (or how either would be operationally defined). But I don’t think anything from this administration about antisemitism comes from a place of actually caring about actual antisemitism and usually makes things worse for Jews.
I also think APA’s response to antisemitism has been an utter mess, in large part due to division in the Jewish community. I was on a couple of APA calls about antisemitism, and by the end of one call, people literally couldn’t agree if throwing things at a visibly Jewish person from a car would be antisemitic or not, because they didn’t know if the hypothetical person in question was a Zionist or anti-Zionist (or how either would be operationally defined). But I don’t think anything from this administration about antisemitism comes from a place of actually caring about actual antisemitism and usually makes things worse for Jews.
Willfully agreeing to be pawns in a right wing culture war won't possibly come back to bite them in the ass...
Sanman
O.G.
This is why I had a problem with APA stances during the previous administration. Once you wade into culture wars nothing good happens. I am anti-violence and pro peace no matter the sides involved unless absolutely necessary. Who cares if throwing something at a Jewish person is antisemitic or not, it is simply wrong. Antisemitism is in the mind of the perpetrator only. APA needs to stick with its business. Accreditation, getting better reimbursement, and training. The Ed Sheeran debacle shows that even a neutral stance can be bungled with poor PR.
Last edited:
PCSAS looking more and more attractive nowadays 
Sanman
O.G.
PCSAS looking more and more attractive nowadays
I had thoughts about that. Not sure if rhey come out. Wtrer or it just splinters into so many groups that it is,irrelevant to state boards and such.
How established are they with state boards currently?PCSAS looking more and more attractive nowadays
They claim to be recognized by our state, but our statutes still list APA/CPA accreditation, but has the old verbiage that one can demonstrate equivalency as long as they prove they have met the requirements as set forth in the rules.
Similar threads
