New APA guidelines/reform regarding licensure and accreditation

[deleted343839]

Preview info: bit.ly/1q4Cl2H

Sorry, you lost me at "improvements in the profession."

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[WisNeuro]

Sorry, you lost me at "improvements in the profession."

Are they selling "Make Psychology Great Again!" hats?

 

[LETSGONYR]

Preview info: bit.ly/1q4Cl2H

I was morbidly curious, so I clicked. I will say...
"Sounds fair, but have you ever wondered why you have to jump through so many hurdles to become a psychologist? With free-labor practicum (1-2 years), one-year of underpaid internship, then you graduate with a doctorate degree, but still have to work another year, underpaid work, just to get licensed? This is the only profession that does this…it tortures its own… reinforces masochism, and fosters learned hopelessness."

This is incorrect; we are not the only profession that does that. For example, I have a few close friends who are audiologists, and they had to complete a year-long externship (the equivalent of our internship; they had part-time 'internships,' similar to our externships. confusing, i know), of which the majority were unpaid.

I'm not saying that I think postdoc salaries shouldn't be increased, but (a) the information is factually incorrect, (b) current NIH guidelines for postdocs are not "underpaid" if you look at most common metrics, like 50% above poverty level, etc., and (c) I think the board has a duty to the people of the state to ensure provider competence, so I am fine with them requiring supervised training. All other applied professions (medicine, SLP, OT, SW, counseling, AuD, etc.) require the same. And they should.

 

[bmedclinic]

Shooter, first off, are you licensed?
Second, I clicked your linkbait and skimmed. I'm not sure I get your plight. Yes, we all went through it and I think psychology's training model and expectations should be updated, but do you think calling ASBPP an antitrust and "investigating" them is the best approach? I feel like you made this overly adversarial rather than using skills of communication and collaboration to work with Wisconsin's state board in particular, and advocating for change on a national level, which I agree needs to happen.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

1. Internship is important for training.
2. Post-doc (any speciality, including research heavy/only) are a vital part of training.
3. Reducing training bc there aren't enough spots is a fight tobthe bottom. The field needs MORE standards and MORE thinning of the herd, not less.

Pay should be more, but eliminating those training opportunities...that'd be disastrous. I know, some states don't req. post-doc hours, but those ppl aren't qualified for boards and I'd argue are not equivalent in training.

Pay at the internship level is poor, though it is primarily the result of having the degree granted AFTERWARDS bc the laws are such that training sites can't charge for services.

Pay at the post-doc level is fine for legit post-docs (typically at least NIH standards). Sites that don't pay or pay very little are predatory...not the general training experience.

 

[WisNeuro]

I was morbidly curious, so I clicked. I will say...
"Sounds fair, but have you ever wondered why you have to jump through so many hurdles to become a psychologist? With free-labor practicum (1-2 years), one-year of underpaid internship, then you graduate with a doctorate degree, but still have to work another year, underpaid work, just to get licensed? This is the only profession that does this…it tortures its own… reinforces masochism, and fosters learned hopelessness."

But...But, they used terms like masochism, and learned helplessness! Those are psychology words! Albeit in an empty, meaningless context, but still.

 

[deleted343839]

The sad thing is that there are trainees who are so exploited by their shoddy programs that practicum training probably does seem like "free labor" to them. And yet it's a problem with the state boards and ASBPP, not the training programs. Gotta do something with all that cognitive dissonance, I guess.

 

[WisNeuro]

The sad thing is that there are trainees who are so exploited by their shoddy programs that practicum training probably does seem like "free labor" to them. And yet it's a problem with the state boards and ASBPP, not the training programs. Gotta do something with all that cognitive dissonance, I guess.

Agreed, most people I interact with see the front end of the issue as being the biggest problem in the field. I don't know too many people whocomplain about the internship/postdoc/licensure process. Compared to other medical specialties, we're about on par, really. I actually made more on postdoc than my fiancee does on her medical residency.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Pay is an issue, though removing training they people licensed quicker is uhm...a poor solution.

 

[Shooter]

Stage 1: Denial..

 

[WisNeuro]

Oh, the irony.

 

[smalltownpsych]

I am no fan of state licensing boards and have serious problems with how complicated the process is to go from one state to the other. I also agree that there appears to be a clear conflict of interest when a board member also works for ASPBB. What I am confused about is what is the problem that this has caused that you are trying to redress. If it is just about eliminating the post-doc year as a requirement for licensure, I don't know if I support that. I think simplifying and streamlining and standardizing the process would be more important than shortening it.

 

[bmedclinic]

Stage 1: Denial..

you didnt answer above, are you licensed?

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Stage 1: Denial..

If someone takes the designated path, licensure is cake.
1. APA-acred program
2. APA-acred internship
3. Formal post-doc/Fellowship
4. Pass the EPPP (and possibly juris prudence exam)

People run into issues when they try and make their own rules: attend unacred program, attend unacred internship, accept an unpaid post-doc, etc. it isn't elitist or unrealistic to take the designated path, since it works for the vast majority of students.

 

[MCParent]

"Sounds fair, but have you ever wondered why you have to jump through so many hurdles to become a psychologist? With free-labor practicum (1-2 years), one-year of underpaid internship, then you graduate with a doctorate degree, but still have to work another year, underpaid work, just to get licensed? This is the only profession that does this…it tortures its own… reinforces masochism, and fosters learned hopelessness."

Two points:

1. I didn't get trained like that. Paid pracs and stipend and waiver. OK salary on internship. Got licensed thru my job. Going $100k in debt is not the only option.

2. I'm sorry that the Giver assigned you to be a psychologist and you had no other options.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

Preview info: bit.ly/1q4Cl2H

Very interesting stuff. I am bit surprised at the push back from the forum.

Its a bit shocking for me to read about the multiple relationships between the WI Board and the ASPPB. Tsk, tsk. I don't think there is a conspiracy between state boards and the ASPPB but from reading this it makes me think if there is some undue influence. I am in favor of changing licensure laws, which seem outdated at this point. Though, I am not in favor of breaking the system and rebuilding it anew.

As someone that just took (and passed) the EPPP, what a waste of time. I do not think I had a single question related to the modern evidence on treatment, psychopathology, or diagnosis. Why do I need to know a bunch unrelated, out of date, and completely useless information about I/O?

Anyone want to start a competing company to create a more face valid assessment for licensure?

 

[WisNeuro]

Anyone want to start a competing company to create a more face valid assessment for licensure?

I don't know if you'd want me as a partner in this endeavor. While I do have a good background in psychometrics and IRT, and would like to see the irrelevant material done away with, I would advocate for making the test more difficult. Wouldn't sit well with the diploma mills with already deplorable pass rates.

 

[Lurking Oracle]

I certainly agree that standards need to be changed. They need to be made more stringent. There is more to learn, and more to know. Medicine and medical specialties have increased requirements and the length of some residencies (e.g., neurosurgery). Codified regression to the mean and mediocrity are not solutions.

 

[LETSGONYR]

Two points:

1. I didn't get trained like that. Paid pracs and stipend and waiver. OK salary on internship. Got licensed thru my job. Going $100k in debt is not the only option.

2. I'm sorry that the Giver assigned you to be a psychologist and you had no other options.

Haha, a few people have replied to my post... I just wanted to clarify that I was just quoting that webpage, I am definitely not the originator of that content. .

 

[DynamicDidactic]

I would advocate for making the test more difficult. Wouldn't sit well with the diploma mills with already deplorable pass rates.

oh, I support a more difficult test that actually applies to clinical practice.

 

[smalltownpsych]

I am thinking if you want people to join your cause, you might want to make your points a bit clearer. I still don't get how the board has caused harm by not waiving the postdoc hours requirement. I Am also not clear about how ASBPP makes money off that postdoc year. Also, we knew about the postdoc requirement going into this so its not like they changed the rules in the middle of the game. I was actually in grad school when the first state made that change, it was Washington, iirc, and we were all clear that until it became more universal, then we would get the supervised hours on postdoc.

 

[Shooter]

you didnt answer above, are you licensed?

licensed or not.. how will that change the alleged scheme Dr.?

 

[Shooter]

If someone takes the designated path, licensure is cake.
1. APA-acred program
2. APA-acred internship
3. Formal post-doc/Fellowship
4. Pass the EPPP (and possibly juris prudence exam)

People run into issues when they try and make their own rules: attend unacred program, attend unacred internship, accept an unpaid post-doc, etc. it isn't elitist or unrealistic to take the designated path, since it works for the vast majority of students.

especially good for all of their businesses..

 

[Shooter]

I don't know if you'd want me as a partner in this endeavor. While I do have a good background in psychometrics and IRT, and would like to see the irrelevant material done away with, I would advocate for making the test more difficult. Wouldn't sit well with the diploma mills with already deplorable pass rates.

go for it! we may endorse u

 

[Shooter]

Very interesting stuff. I am bit surprised at the push back from the forum.

Its a bit shocking for me to read about the multiple relationships between the WI Board and the ASPPB. Tsk, tsk. I don't think there is a conspiracy between state boards and the ASPPB but from reading this it makes me think if there is some undue influence. I am in favor of changing licensure laws, which seem outdated at this point. Though, I am not in favor of breaking the system and rebuilding it anew.

As someone that just took (and passed) the EPPP, what a waste of time. I do not think I had a single question related to the modern evidence on treatment, psychopathology, or diagnosis. Why do I need to know a bunch unrelated, out of date, and completely useless information about I/O?

Anyone want to start a competing company to create a more face valid assessment for licensure?

excellent eye ... it probably has to do with our provocateur posting style rather than the message itself, which shows how easiliy psychologists' judgements get clouded by their own biases despite having objective, clear n convincing info


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[MCParent]

our

heh.

 

[bmedclinic]

licensed or not.. how will that change the alleged scheme Dr.?

Like hypothetically, if one were unable to gain licensure for a variety of reasons, it could be that they displaced their anger about the situation and turned towards said licensing authority and blamed them rather then looking at what they could do differently. Of course, this is all hypothetical. Last I looked at the requirements for getting licensed in WI (a year or two ago) they were pretty straightforward and I would easily meet said criteria. That's all. Of course, I see no scheme, have no vendetta, and don't feel they're holding me back any, either.

 

[ClinicalABA]

Preview info: bit.ly/1q4Cl2H

I took a look. A few observations:

-If the WI Board Members' participation on the ASPPB Board resulted in some gain to them personally (particularly fiduciary), and the value of that gain could be maintained or enhanced by decisions they made as WI Board Members, I'd say it's a bit of a conflict of interest and potentially in violation of the regulation you cited

-You (for the sake of this post, "you"= person(s) who wrote the blog post) suggest that the WI Board violated state law by not abolishing post-doc requirements in respsonse to an APA "recommendation." Your link to the APA rec is actually to a pay-walled article related to survey research regarding implementation of the act. Why not link directly to the act itself? Also on this point, you link to a state reg requiring the board to establish rules in line with the APA ethics code, and suggest that it is evidence that the state board has not followed regs because it did not abandon internship. There is nothing in the reg you link to that requires the state board to adopt the APA Model licensure act.

-You seem to be suggesting that every time the board denies licensure, there is the potential that they are restricted fair competition with themselves, as practicing psychologist. You imply strongly that this in their intent. The counter argument would be that every time they approve licensure (which they likely do more than they deny it) they are promoting fair trade. While I think it's worth questioning why board members need to be psychologists, I think your argument here is faulty and comes across as overly personal and "sour grapes" (as does much of this post).

-This whole thing really comes across as being written by somebody who knowingly applied for licensure without having met the standards for post-doc as promulgated by the state legislature and licensing board, almost with an intent to complain afterwards about discrepancies between what is missing from the direct language of the law (e.g. no mention of post-doc requirements) and what is allowed through the law (e.g. language along the lines of "the board shall promulgate rules pertaining to licensure..."). While I didn't look at the WI law beyond your links, my hunch is this is what's going on. Licensure laws can be confusing. We just went through this in our state with another newly licensed disciple (ABA). The legislature makes the rules requiring licensure and the make up of the board, while the board makes the rules pertaining to licensure eligibility, as the specifics of that task are beyond the abilities of your typical state legislature.

 

[ClinicalABA]

Preview info: bit.ly/1q4Cl2H

I'vecspentvsome more time with your document, and I'm just not following the logic with one piece of it. In the blog, you make the following statement:

• On December 29, 2015, the Board intentionally promulgated PSY-2 rule alleged above, to directly favor I/O psychologists, who would otherwise have no previous psychologist-supervised clinical experiences, to become licensed after one-year of experience.

I don't see anything in PSY-2 in the linked document relating to I/O. What are you referring to? Seems that the section of PSY-2 related to 1500 hours post-doc requirement was originally implemented in 1991. Is this just an assumed "scheme" to favor I/O because that's andersen's field, or is there additional evidence beyond the docs linked on the blog?

 

[Shooter]

fire is catching ... WI Board suddenly canceled their meeting this week, and ASPPB folks tried to block our communication attempts...got more info abt APPIC + ASPPB ganging up against APA (dropping postdoc req. for licensure)... to clearly preserve their businesses' scheme....you are missing lots of details for obvious reasons...n we see why u may still support the flawed n self-perpetuating scheme.

 

[Shooter]

I took a look. A few observations:

-If the WI Board Members' participation on the ASPPB Board resulted in some gain to them personally (particularly fiduciary), and the value of that gain could be maintained or enhanced by decisions they made as WI Board Members, I'd say it's a bit of a conflict of interest and potentially in violation of the regulation you cited

-You (for the sake of this post, "you"= person(s) who wrote the blog post) suggest that the WI Board violated state law by not abolishing post-doc requirements in respsonse to an APA "recommendation." Your link to the APA rec is actually to a pay-walled article related to survey research regarding implementation of the act. Why not link directly to the act itself? Also on this point, you link to a state reg requiring the board to establish rules in line with the APA ethics code, and suggest that it is evidence that the state board has not followed regs because it did not abandon internship. There is nothing in the reg you link to that requires the state board to adopt the APA Model licensure act.

-You seem to be suggesting that every time the board denies licensure, there is the potential that they are restricted fair competition with themselves, as practicing psychologist. You imply strongly that this in their intent. The counter argument would be that every time they approve licensure (which they likely do more than they deny it) they are promoting fair trade. While I think it's worth questioning why board members need to be psychologists, I think your argument here is faulty and comes across as overly personal and "sour grapes" (as does much of this post).

-This whole thing really comes across as being written by somebody who knowingly applied for licensure without having met the standards for post-doc as promulgated by the state legislature and licensing board, almost with an intent to complain afterwards about discrepancies between what is missing from the direct language of the law (e.g. no mention of post-doc requirements) and what is allowed through the law (e.g. language along the lines of "the board shall promulgate rules pertaining to licensure..."). While I didn't look at the WI law beyond your links, my hunch is this is what's going on. Licensure laws can be confusing. We just went through this in our state with another newly licensed disciple (ABA). The legislature makes the rules requiring licensure and the make up of the board, while the board makes the rules pertaining to licensure eligibility, as the specifics of that task are beyond the abilities of your typical state legislature.

1-Supreme court decided in 2015 State Boards are no longer exempted from antitrust scrutiny. Restriction of trade requires active supervision beyond just procedural processes, ....monopolies, and trade discrimination are rarely in writing...passively using ur public office to support another organization..over and over again if sufficient enough to meet the legal standard.

2-The APA 2010, could have been there as reference..it didn't change much...u seem familiar enough with it... WI statute instructs the Board model APA guidelines...not the ASPPB's ..yet we've seen the over reliance and clear reasons w/ ASPPB since 1990' s.

3-Change won't occur when all these businesses have lots of $$ at stake...challenging rules that violate federal and in this case state law...it's an ideal catalyst to turns some gears....its ironic to be licensed in a few states, but not in others.... despite same qualifications or meeting state laws.....when we have better gun licensing reciprocity.. yet boards pretend to be so concerned 'protecting he public' by limiting those qualified....and obviously ignoring the phony life coaches and self proclaimed gurus that board rules are intended to protect the ppl from to begin with.

 

[Shooter]

I'vecspentvsome more time with your document, and I'm just not following the logic with one piece of it. In the blog, you make the following statement:

• On December 29, 2015, the Board intentionally promulgated PSY-2 rule alleged above, to directly favor I/O psychologists, who would otherwise have no previous psychologist-supervised clinical experiences, to become licensed after one-year of experience.

I don't see anything in PSY-2 in the linked document relating to I/O. What are you referring to? Seems that the section of PSY-2 related to 1500 hours post-doc requirement was originally implemented in 1991. Is this just an assumed "scheme" to favor I/O because that's andersen's field, or is there additional evidence beyond the docs linked on the blog?

the Board (and all WI Boards) was mandated by the Gov. (2012) to make rules more accessible to Wi small businesses..the board have always denied any impact on their reports...and modified rules to only count the post-doc time..to support the chair's I/o relationship, and maintaining their ASPPb friends happy, and please the Gov. by 'fixing' the rule( 15-102 )... everyone wins...preponderance of evidence shows the real deal here.

 

[Shooter]

Like hypothetically, if one were unable to gain licensure for a variety of reasons, it could be that they displaced their anger about the situation and turned towards said licensing authority and blamed them rather then looking at what they could do differently. Of course, this is all hypothetical. Last I looked at the requirements for getting licensed in WI (a year or two ago) they were pretty straightforward and I would easily meet said criteria. That's all. Of course, I see no scheme, have no vendetta, and don't feel they're holding me back any, either.

you n ur groupies seemed so self-focused, congrats we all did it..now

it sounds like in the civil rights? 'just follow the rules"...'don't cause any trouble'... 'separate but equal' .

despite the totality of the scheme, more than plausible, fails under the commerce clause, privilege and immunities..state and federal antitrust laws...

not sure why psychologist are so fearful...or so obedient? hmm

and for the already licensed here what would be ur one-upper attempt?

 

[ClinicalABA]

the Board (and all WI Boards) was mandated by the Gov. (2012) to make rules more accessible to Wi small businesses..the board have always denied any impact on their reports...and modified rules to only count the post-doc time..to support the chair's I/o relationship, and maintaining their ASPPb friends happy, and please the Gov. by 'fixing' the rule( 15-102 )... everyone wins...preponderance of evidence shows the real deal here.

Are you referencing 2.09(3)(a)1-4? That's the only section I see related to supervised experience. Is it different- either in content or practice- than what was first promulgated in 1991? If not, how can anything here be attributed the current board?

I'm not trying to argue here or push my own position (which is that I think that regs requiring a set number of post doc hours without specifying how those hours should be tied qualitatively to the applicants proposed area of practice are flawed). I'm just trying to follow your argument. Your replies and general narrative style, imho, don't seem to be clarifying things, but rather having the opposite effect for me. It would help to know what specific chapter and section you have issue with, how that rule can be attributed to the current board, and what evidence you have that board decisions are self-serving, with the intent to make it easier for I/O psychs to get licensed, while deliberately restricting the practice of other legally qualified psychs.

If your current position is, as you've stated in your posts, that "you have more info but it's too big a deal/too sensitive/too early to divulge it," then this discussion is basically over, as there is subsequently no way for us to logically evaluate, subscribe to, or refute your position.

 

[ClinicalABA]

2-The APA 2010, could have been there as reference..it didn't change much...u seem familiar enough with it... WI statute instructs the Board model APA guidelines...not the ASPPB's ..yet we've seen the over reliance and clear reasons w/ ASPPB since 1990' s.

Actually, the section you site only instructs the board to model APA ethical guidelines as they relate to the practice of psychology, particularly as related to scope of practice issues. This all applies to stuff that happens after licensure, rather than related to obtaining licensure. I don't see how anything in this section can be construed as a mandate on the board to adopt anything in the APA model licensing document.

 

[smalltownpsych]

3-Change won't occur when all these businesses have lots of $$ at stake...challenging rules that violate federal and in this case state law...it's an ideal catalyst to turns some gears....its ironic to be licensed in a few states, but not in others.... despite same qualifications or meeting state laws.....when we have better gun licensing reciprocity.. yet boards pretend to be so concerned 'protecting he public' by limiting those qualified....and obviously ignoring the phony life coaches and self proclaimed gurus that board rules are intended to protect the ppl from to begin with.

As someone who has been licensed in two different states and plans to not move to another state unless I get licensed there first. I agree that there is a problem. I recently found out that if I ever wanted to move back to California, my postdoc hours might not count because I didn't have enough supervision. I pay a few hundred bucks a year just to have certification of my training so that I can try to minimize the nightmare that moving across a state line involves. I think you are right when you say that there are vested interests in keeping it the way it is. The state I am in now just raised license renewal fees to pay for legal fees incurred while fighting lawsuits over preventing psychologists from getting licensed.

 

[WisNeuro]

Actually, the section you site only instructs the board to model APA ethical guidelines as they relate to the practice of psychology, particularly as related to scope of practice issues. This all applies to stuff that happens after licensure, rather than related to obtaining licensure. I don't see how anything in this section can be construed as a mandate on the board to adopt anything in the APA model licensing document.

Put on a tinfoil hat, and read it again. I hear it changes the perspective.

 

[Shooter]

Are you referencing 2.09(3)(a)1-4? That's the only section I see related to supervised experience. Is it different- either in content or practice- than what was first promulgated in 1991? If not, how can anything here be attributed the current board?

I'm not trying to argue here or push my own position (which is that I think that regs requiring a set number of post doc hours without specifying how those hours should be tied qualitatively to the applicants proposed area of practice are flawed). I'm just trying to follow your argument. Your replies and general narrative style, imho, don't seem to be clarifying things, but rather having the opposite effect for me. It would help to know what specific chapter and section you have issue with, how that rule can be attributed to the current board, and what evidence you have that board decisions are self-serving, with the intent to make it easier for I/O psychs to get licensed, while deliberately restricting the practice of other legally qualified psychs.

If your current position is, as you've stated in your posts, that "you have more info but it's too big a deal/too sensitive/too early to divulge it," then this discussion is basically over, as there is subsequently no way for us to logically evaluate, subscribe to, or refute your position.

1- Admin Code: Psy 2.09 n the proposed 2.10 are not state law (CH.455)...thus unenforceable, they were inserted into rules soon after the same guy who created the guidelines for ASPPB...history of nepotism is evident ever since..where they knew or should have known they were looking for their best interests...current board also supported the behavior..no one stood up or cared to ask is this right? deliberate indifference was another way of responding after being made aware of issues...all laws are listed in the "cause for action" section. Peeps are still entertained, so discussion won't be over anytime soon.

 

[Shooter]

Actually, the section you site only instructs the board to model APA ethical guidelines as they relate to the practice of psychology, particularly as related to scope of practice issues. This all applies to stuff that happens after licensure, rather than related to obtaining licensure. I don't see how anything in this section can be construed as a mandate on the board to adopt anything in the APA model licensing document.

the whole issue involves unethical practice by us psychologists regulating practice and denying conflicts of interest

 

[Shooter]

As someone who has been licensed in two different states and plans to not move to another state unless I get licensed there first. I agree that there is a problem. I recently found out that if I ever wanted to move back to California, my postdoc hours might not count because I didn't have enough supervision. I pay a few hundred bucks a year just to have certification of my training so that I can try to minimize the nightmare that moving across a state line involves. I think you are right when you say that there are vested interests in keeping it the way it is. The state I am in now just raised license renewal fees to pay for legal fees incurred while fighting lawsuits over preventing psychologists from getting licensed.

the lovely fees to protect the world... meanwhile the dr.phills of the US are banking on our nonsense

 

[deleted343839]

you n ur groupies seemed so self-focused, congrats we all did it..now

it sounds like in the civil rights? 'just follow the rules"...'don't cause any trouble'... 'separate but equal' .

despite the totality of the scheme, more than plausible, fails under the commerce clause, privilege and immunities..state and federal antitrust laws...

not sure why psychologist are so fearful...or so obedient? hmm

and for the already licensed here what would be ur one-upper attempt?

Several folks on the board are trying to give your ideas a fair hearing despite your disregard for sentence structure. You're not going to win friends to your cause by accusing people of being "fearful" or "self-focused."

Most of us who have been licensed and in practice for a little while have seen first-hand the need for psychology to be a tightly regulated profession with a high bar for entry. State licensing boards, in the capacities granted to them by the states, are obliged to make rules that maintain the integrity of the profession and protect the public. Boards that blindly accept whatever APA preaches from on high are simply not doing their jobs.

You accuse the state licensing boards and ASBPP of conspiring to "gang up" on APA. While I agree with you that conflicts of interest need to be managed, and I also agree that interstate practice issues are in dire need of attention, I am entirely unsympathetic to the complaint that APA is being "ganged up" on. Frankly, APA deserves the pushback and much more. APA's actions over the years have encouraged thoughtless growth in the number of new doctorates, serious issues with training quality control, and scope of practice creep (RxP). Looking at what's happening on the national scene, as a state board member my instinct would be to resist the race to the bottom and hold tight to high standards for licensure.

 

[Shooter]

Put on a tinfoil hat, and read it again. I hear it changes the perspective.

r u still at the trump rally @WisNeuro

 

[WisNeuro]

r u still at the trump rally @WisNeuro

Considering the coherent nature and sentence structure of my posting, it would not seem likely.

 

[Shooter]

Several folks on the board are trying to give your ideas a fair hearing despite your disregard for sentence structure. You're not going to win friends to your cause by accusing people of being "fearful" or "self-focused."

Most of us who have been licensed and in practice for a little while have seen first-hand the need for psychology to be a tightly regulated profession with a high bar for entry. State licensing boards, in the capacities granted to them by the states, are obliged to make rules that maintain the integrity of the profession and protect the public. Boards that blindly accept whatever APA preaches from on high are simply not doing their jobs.

You accuse the state licensing boards and ASBPP of conspiring to "gang up" on APA. While I agree with you that conflicts of interest need to be managed, and I also agree that interstate practice issues are in dire need of attention, I am entirely unsympathetic to the complaint that APA is being "ganged up" on. Frankly, APA deserves the pushback and much more. APA's actions over the years have encouraged thoughtless growth in the number of new doctorates, serious issues with training quality control, and scope of practice creep (RxP). Looking at what's happening on the national scene, as a state board member my instinct would be to resist the race to the bottom and hold tight to high standards for licensure.

definitely self-focused... that the disconnect! ...many of you are focused on I, I, I, "I did this or that" .."it wasn't a problem for me because I followed the expected path.."..meanwhile 'We' are focused on the "We, we, we"..how we can accelerate fixing the scheme..."We need to do this..or that" so failed punchlines by some of u peeps, to the person on this side, did not deliver.

like u, i could have said im licensed and paid... screw it..."its their problem now"..."I had to do it, now its their turn"...that's convenient and complacent, but wrong to me, i didn't like it...it's ok not to to care...we all care abt whatever we want...but many of you all are still here...reading this stuff, so there's part of u if still interested...maybe the altruistic side..and not self-focused side?

it is not just an accusation APPIC and ASPPB have not tried to hide it...i bet anyone can google it... it's not ok for boards to blindly accept the ASPPB's either, and in turn ignore APA's guidelines...especially after the long history of privates interests involved.. among others.

 

[Shooter]

Considering the coherent nature and sentence structure of my posting, it would not seem likely.

u can write APA-style in a forum! ...wait, u should have used those skills to help ur state's board..where were you?

 

[WisNeuro]

u can write APA-style in a forum! ...wait, u should have used those skills to help ur state's board..where were you?

My state board seems to be doing just fine. If it ain't broke...

 

[Shooter]

Several folks on the board are trying to give your ideas a fair hearing despite your disregard for sentence structure. You're not going to win friends to your cause by accusing people of being "fearful" or "self-focused."

Most of us who have been licensed and in practice for a little while have seen first-hand the need for psychology to be a tightly regulated profession with a high bar for entry. State licensing boards, in the capacities granted to them by the states, are obliged to make rules that maintain the integrity of the profession and protect the public. Boards that blindly accept whatever APA preaches from on high are simply not doing their jobs.

You accuse the state licensing boards and ASBPP of conspiring to "gang up" on APA. While I agree with you that conflicts of interest need to be managed, and I also agree that interstate practice issues are in dire need of attention, I am entirely unsympathetic to the complaint that APA is being "ganged up" on. Frankly, APA deserves the pushback and much more. APA's actions over the years have encouraged thoughtless growth in the number of new doctorates, serious issues with training quality control, and scope of practice creep (RxP). Looking at what's happening on the national scene, as a state board member my instinct would be to resist the race to the bottom and hold tight to high standards for licensure.

btw Rxp is here to stay.

 

[psych.meout]

it sounds like in the civil rights? 'just follow the rules"...'don't cause any trouble'... 'separate but equal' .

Are you seriously drawing an analogy to the Civil Rights Movement?

 

[Shooter]

Are you seriously drawing an analogy to the Civil Rights Movement?

trade/property is a civil right

 

[deleted343839]

like u, i could have said im licensed and paid... screw it..."its their problem now"..."I had to do it, now its their turn"...that's convenient and complacent, but wrong to me, i didn't like it...it's ok not to to care...we all care abt whatever we want...but many of you all are still here...reading this stuff, so there's part of u if still interested...maybe the altruistic side..and not self-focused side?

That really would be extraordinary if you were actually able to become licensed but simply chose not to in solidarity with less qualified people also seeking licensure.

Begging the question others have asked... are you licensed? Have you ever attempted to become licensed? Does Modern Psychologist really amount to more than your personal crusade against the forces that withhold the license to which you feel entitled?

Edited: Apologies to shooter for questioning his personal stake in Modern Psychologist.