So…APA has granted its first master’s program accreditation and it’s concerning

[EnPsychlopedia]

It’s Capella, guys. Capella. Off to a great start, I see. /s

I can’t seem to get the url work properly, but click below and search for “Master’s.”

APA-Accredited Programs

Find APA-accredited programs, including doctoral graduate programs in clinical, counseling, school psychology and combination programs; internships, a required component of doctoral training; and postdoctoral residency programs in traditional and specialty practice areas of psychology.

apps.apa.org

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[PsyDr]

😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡

 

[AbnormalPsych]

What the hell?

 

[EnPsychlopedia]

This is more evidence that APA cannot be trusted with field accreditation. Pay-for-play programs have compromised the integrity of the organization. Maybe “program cannot operate on a for-profit model” should be written into the criteria.

I know people here have feelings about PCSAS (and I agree it cannot be the sole solution since it is exclusive of school and counseling psych programs), but at least they abide by their principles.

 

[WisNeuro]

Anyone want to draft a letter to APA and get some people to sign on expressing our significant dismay at this decision?

 

[EnPsychlopedia]

Anyone want to draft a letter to APA and get some people to sign on expressing our significant dismay at this decision?

I’m a busy PhD student who is definitely not looking for additional writing projects…but happy to co-sign lol

 

[EnPsychlopedia]

I guess I do have to say that I'm really not surprised by this. If anyone stands anything to gain from expansion of accreditation down to the master's level, it's the for-profit institutions, so it makes sense that they'd have had a program ready to roll out the moment applications for accreditation were open.

 

[futureapppsy2]

What is this program supposed to prepare students for--psychological associate licensure?

 

[PsyDr]

It occurs to me, that FSPPs are becoming the lobbying force in psychology.

 

[The Cinnabon]

What is this program supposed to prepare students for--psychological associate licensure?

Looks like it could just be another avenue to master's level therapy?

If that's the case I don't care all that much simply because it's not like the other master's level licensing bodies are "killing it." Still, it is a step in the wrong direction.

 

[EnPsychlopedia]

What is this program supposed to prepare students for--psychological associate licensure?

I think it would be for LMFT or counseling licensure (instead of a degree in general mental health counseling, this accreditation would be for “counseling psychology” degrees, specifically).

 

[futureapppsy2]

I think it would be for LMFT or counseling licensure (instead of a degree in general mental health counseling, this accreditation would be for “counseling psychology” degrees, specifically).

Ooof, if that’s what they are trying for, this degree will be a dead end or a struggle for licensure in the vast majority of states.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Looks like it could just be another avenue to master's level therapy?

If that's the case I don't care all that much simply because it's not like the other master's level licensing bodies are "killing it." Still, it is a step in the wrong direction.

That’s not really how it works—you have to fit into or create new licensure laws or titles, which are legal designations.

 

[The Cinnabon]

That’s not really how it works—you have to fit into or create new licensure laws or titles, which are legal designations.

Ahhh, makes sense, thanks for the clarification.

Now I really am perplexed by this move.

 

[EnPsychlopedia]

Ooof, if that’s what they are trying for, this degree will be a dead end or a struggle for licensure in the vast majority of states.

This is the best I could find with regard to the goals of this accreditation system: https://www.apaservices.org/practice/good-practice/accredit-masters-programs.pdf

The accreditation standards themselves make no mention of the niche they want to fill/enter: https://www.apa.org/about/policy/health-service-psychology-masters-programs.pdf

 

[bcliff]

Peter M. Oppenheimer, PhD

2024 president-elect candidate, Peter M. Oppenheimer, PhD.

www.apa.org

I voted for Oppenheimer in the current APA presidential election specifically because he mentions wanting to keep a close eye on APA's work RE: master's level providers:

Regulation: APA is seriously considering endorsing licensing people with master’s degrees in health services psychology, but the association has not given adequate consideration to the potential unintended consequences for the profession and for those who may come after us. It is essential that the Board of Directors have at least one member who has been closely involved in these issues as I have led the membership through this important discussion.

 

[borne_before]

I think apa has been too corrupted by special interests and is ideologically hijacked - intent on moving away from science and is anti-open inquiry. It’s basically ran by academics without a touch on professional practice. No duh they moved to create more academic jobs for them.

 

[Action_Potential]

ASPPB Potential Regulatory Implications of Master’s Licensure (PRI-LM) Task Force - Call for public comments.

https://www.asppb.net/page/PRI-LM_taskforce

 

[R. Matey]

Ooof, if that’s what they are trying for, this degree will be a dead end or a struggle for licensure in the vast majority of states.

Especially those which strongly favor CACREP-accreditation. Seems like an first attempt to bleed MA credentialing orgs of what is likely their primary sources of income.

 

[Sanman]

It occurs to me, that FSPPs are becoming the lobbying force in psychology.

At the end of the day, that is where the money is and the APA is a business like any other.

 

[quickpsych]

Isn't Capella one of those online diploma mills; I thought they got shut down.

As for the topic of APA/ASPPB wanting to regulate licensing masters level vs leaving it up to social work, this could improve the quality of masters level providers providing psychological services vs lots of LCSWs who seem limited in the scope and depth and rely mostly on manuals and worksheets. Some do great work but seems more that they can do the intervention but don't know what or why of it. It might force programs to be a little more robust. Then again I'm sure LPCs and MFTS will have a thing or two to say about this.

 

[PsyDr]

As for the topic of APA/ASPPB wanting to regulate licensing masters level vs leaving it up to social work, this could improve the quality of masters level providers providing psychological services vs lots of LCSWs who seem limited in the scope and depth and rely mostly on manuals and worksheets. Some do great work but seems more that they can do the intervention but don't know what or why of it. It might force programs to be a little more robust. Then again I'm sure LPCs and MFTS will have a thing or two to say about this.

Social worker and counselors are wholly separate professions, and are licensed as such. ASPPB have nothing to do with them.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Isn't Capella one of those online diploma mills; I thought they got shut down.

As for the topic of APA/ASPPB wanting to regulate licensing masters level vs leaving it up to social work, this could improve the quality of masters level providers providing psychological services vs lots of LCSWs who seem limited in the scope and depth and rely mostly on manuals and worksheets. Some do great work but seems more that they can do the intervention but don't know what or why of it. It might force programs to be a little more robust. Then again I'm sure LPCs and MFTS will have a thing or two to say about this.

I mean, a big part of this is that there’s only so much training and education you can jam into a 2 year program. Labeling that program “psychology” rather than “counseling” isn’t going to suddenly make it possible to jam a doctoral-level curriculum or doctoral-level fieldwork into two years.

 

[EnPsychlopedia]

I mean, a big part of this is that there’s only so much training and education you can jam into a 2 year program. Labeling that program “psychology” rather than “counseling” isn’t going to suddenly make it possible to jam a doctoral-level curriculum or doctoral-level fieldwork into two years.

This is true. However, it may also be true that labeling it "psychology" and requiring more actual coursework in science and statistics will help the clinicians actually understand (a) how to read and accurately evaluate evidence and (b) the robustness of the underlying theories upon which they work. As it currently stands, MSWs can get licensed with one stats and methods class and two years of curriculum on politics, social work theory, and non-profit management. All of their therapy training comes post-school. With counselors, they essentially take two years of various counseling theory degrees with variable amounts of doing any background work on underlying psychological theory/science. Again, clinical training comes post-school. If these fields can get licensed with either (almost) no background in psychological or counseling theory (MSW) or background in counseling theory but very little grounding in psychological science (counseling), why not license master's-level folks who have coursework in psychological science and post-school clinical training? At least they might be somewhat primed against thinking IFS makes theoretical sense, or EMDR actually makes coherent claims about neurological processing, or repressed memories are real, or polyvagal theory is anything other than pig slop...

 

[Sanman]

I mean, a big part of this is that there’s only so much training and education you can jam into a 2 year program. Labeling that program “psychology” rather than “counseling” isn’t going to suddenly make it possible to jam a doctoral-level curriculum or doctoral-level fieldwork into two years.

School psychology is a masters and also labeled psychology. I am not seeing the need for doctoral level curriculum. Much like PAs and NPs though, I think they are late to the party.

 

[jdawg2017]

This is true. However, it may also be true that labeling it "psychology" and requiring more actual coursework in science and statistics will help the clinicians actually understand (a) how to read and accurately evaluate evidence and (b) the robustness of the underlying theories upon which they work. As it currently stands, MSWs can get licensed with one stats and methods class and two years of curriculum on politics, social work theory, and non-profit management. All of their therapy training comes post-school. With counselors, they essentially take two years of various counseling theory degrees with variable amounts of doing any background work on underlying psychological theory/science. Again, clinical training comes post-school. If these fields can get licensed with either (almost) no background in psychological or counseling theory (MSW) or background in counseling theory but very little grounding in psychological science (counseling), why not license master's-level folks who have coursework in psychological science and post-school clinical training? At least they might be somewhat primed against thinking IFS makes theoretical sense, or EMDR actually makes coherent claims about neurological processing, or reprmemories are real, or polyvagal theory is anythin other than pig slop...

My partner is a social worker, and this is not entirely accurate, as she did a foundational and advanced therapy placement as part of her training which totaled about 1500 hours of direct f2f work. Now she is completing 4000 hours of post-degree supervised work in our state in order to become a licensed social worker. I suppose this is different if you train as a “macro” social worker vs “micro” social worker, as the former has a heavier emphasis on policy and non-profit work. I believe your point about LPC is also not accurate for the same reason. I’m fairly positive neither can be licensed for independent practice without extensive post-degree experience… again I am mostly familiar with social work because of my partner. Just an FYI, as I know our mid-level colleagues don’t appreciate their training being misrepresented. 😃 I’m not sure what the goals of two year psych MA degrees in this model would be, but I doubt it will frankly include much if any clinical training if the emphasis is on science. If that’s the case, there’s zero way they should be eligible even for provisional licensure.

I personally think the term psychologist should be protected for doctoral professionals. Having lived in MI, it’s actually one of my biggest beefs with the state that master’s holders in the state can call themselves “a master’s level psychologist” when in reality they are almost always a psychometrician (at least in my practice area as a soon to be ECP neuropsychologist)… all it does is confuse patients. By the same logic we should call NPs and PAs physicians, because, ya know, they roughly do the same medical thing kinda, just one of them trained for 8+ years after college and brings a broader skill set to the table ! 🙃

 

[EnPsychlopedia]

My partner is a social worker, and this is not entirely accurate, as she did a foundational and advanced therapy placement as part of her training which totaled about 1500 hours of direct f2f work. Now she is completing 4000 hours of post-degree supervised work in our state in order to become a licensed social worker. I suppose this is different if you train as a “macro” social worker vs “micro” social worker, as the former has a heavier emphasis on policy and non-profit work. I believe your point about LPC is also not accurate for the same reason. I’m fairly positive neither can be licensed for independent practice without extensive post-degree experience… again I am mostly familiar with social work because of my partner. Just an FYI, as I know our mid-level colleagues don’t appreciate their training being misrepresented. 😃 I’m not sure what the goals of two year psych MA degrees in this model would be, but I doubt it will frankly include much if any clinical training if the emphasis is on science. If that’s the case, there’s zero way they should be eligible even for provisional licensure.

I personally think the term psychologist should be protected for doctoral professionals. Having lived in MI, it’s actually one of my biggest beefs with the state that master’s holders in the state can call themselves “a master’s level psychologist” when in reality they are almost always a psychometrician (at least in my practice area as a soon to be ECP neuropsychologist)… all it does is confuse patients. By the same logic we should call NPs and PAs physicians, because, ya know, they roughly do the same medical thing kinda, just one of them trained for 8+ years after college and brings a broader skill set to the table ! 🙃

I'm not disagreeing with any of this. What I'm saying is that the coursework of an MSW or counseling program itself is not based in psychological theory and/or science. It is absolutely the case that MSWs and counselors do the bulk of their therapy training for licensure after graduating--I meant to more explicitly say that before--but reading my comment back, I realize I didn't say it quite as pointedly as I thought I did. I'm just saying that the actual degree work itself does not necessarily translate into creating clinicians who can connect practical training back to evidence-based theory. My point is about the coursework itself. I'm alluding to the actual content coursework of MSWs and counseling degrees not always being particularly based in broader behavioral science/theory and not exactly relevant for understanding how therapy relates back to the science (things which can sometimes actually be important for doing clinical work).

I'm not arguing at all that these APA master's should be licensed as psychologists--not sure at all how that came across in my comment. What I am saying is that it’s possible for there to be a master's licensure which is based primarily in psychology and which is, relative to MSWs and LMHCs/LPCs, somewhat more heavy on science and psychological theory than on a dozen classes in social work or counseling theories. These degrees would still include coursework on theories of therapy, psychopathology, etc. and would, like MSWs and counselors, include getting more formal clinical training after the degree for licensure. I just don't think having content courses be almost completely consumed by counseling or social work theory and nonprofit management/policy analysis is conducive to creating mental health clinicians who are grounded in mental health science (i.e., some master's-level equivalent of a practitioner-scholar), and perhaps there is some way of creating a psychology degree which can lead to master's licensure while injecting a bit more basic science into the curriculum. I don't think having 6 classes on counseling theory is necessarily more effective at creating good clinicians than, say, 1-2 such courses and a course each on (e.g.) affective psychology, social psychology, development, and cognition. Some of this coursework might go a long way toward instilling some amount of caution regarding adoption of pseudoscience.

 

[futureapppsy2]

School psychology is a masters and also labeled psychology. I am not seeing the need for doctoral level curriculum. Much like PAs and NPs though, I think they are late to the party.

School psychologist is specialist level (3 years, usually) and relatively narrow in scope and practice permissions at the EdS level. If the APA wants a masters-level psychologist to the have a specific narrow scope and/or be three years minimum (e.g., a psychological associate), that makes some sense. If they want it to be broad-based psychotherapy, then you are basically just recreating MA-level counselors and LCSWs.

 

[futureapppsy2]

I'm not disagreeing with any of this. What I'm saying is that the coursework of an MSW or counseling program itself is not based in psychological theory and/or science. It is absolutely the case that MSWs and counselors do the bulk of their therapy training for licensure after graduating--I meant to more explicitly say that before--but reading my comment back, I realize I didn't say it quite as pointedly as I thought I did. I'm just saying that the actual degree work itself does not necessarily translate into creating clinicians who can connect practical training back to evidence-based theory. My point is about the coursework itself. I'm alluding to the actual content coursework of MSWs and counseling degrees not always being particularly based in broader behavioral science/theory and not exactly relevant for understanding how therapy relates back to the science (things which can sometimes actually be important for doing clinical work).

I'm not arguing at all that these APA master's should be licensed as psychologists--not sure at all how that came across in my comment. What I am saying is that it possible for their to be a master's licensure which is based primarily in psychology and which is, relative to MSWs and LMHCs/LPCs, somewhat more heavy on science and psychological theory than on a dozen classes in social work or counseling theories. These degrees would still include coursework on theories of therapy, psychopathology, etc. and would, like MSWs and counselors, include getting more formal clinical training after the degree for licensure. I just don't think having content courses be almost completely consumed by counseling or social work theory and nonprofit management/policy analysis is conducive to creating mental health clinicians who are grounded in mental health science (i.e., some master's-level equivalent of a practitioner-scholar), and perhaps there is some way of creating a psychology degree which can lead to master's licensure while injecting a bit more basic science into the curriculum. I don't think having 6 classes on counseling theory is necessarily more effective at creating good clinicians than, say, 1-2 such courses and a course each on (e.g.) affective psychology, social psychology, development, and cognition. Some of this coursework might go a long way toward instilling some amount of caution regarding adoption of pseudoscience.

I think you’re way over-estimating what someone can fit in a two year curriculum. A masters-level counseling curriculum pretty much hits the basic foundations (e.g., ethics, research, stats, group counseling, theories, basic counseling skills, psychopathology, substance abuse, assessment, multicultural, etc). There’s not a whole lot of extra room in there in 60 credits, and while the APA could maybe shuffle one or two courses around, anything that’s going to result in supervised licensure in two years is going to be very clinically focused and very much hitting the core areas by necessity.

 

[R. Matey]

I’m fairly positive neither can be licensed for independent practice without extensive post-degree experience… again I am mostly familiar with social work because of my partner. Just an FYI, as I know our mid-level colleagues don’t appreciate their training being misrepresented. 😃

This is true, but post-degree supervision for master's level clinicians is very loosely regulated in many states, which leads to very uneven results. Some clinicians genuinely want to be excellent and take upon themselves to become excellent. Others do the bare minimum and never reach proficiency in any evidenced-based practice, relying instead upon a combination of technical eclecticism and supportive therapy to get them through the day.

 

[borne_before]

School psychology is a masters and also labeled psychology. I am not seeing the need for doctoral level curriculum. Much like PAs and NPs though, I think they are late to the party.

School psychologist is specialist level (3 years, usually) and relatively narrow in scope and practice permissions at the EdS level. If the APA wants a masters-level psychologist to the have a specific narrow scope and/or be three years minimum (e.g., a psychological associate), that makes some sense. If they want it to be broad-based psychotherapy, then you are basically just recreating MA-level counselors and LCSWs.

I struggle to succinctly describe the school psychologists and my doctorate is in school psychology!

I'm kinda talking at you and it's not super relevant.

Imagine a fork in the road representing two paths.

One fork leads to only being able to work in a school through certification through a state's board of education. Those are the traditional school psychologists. They don't do therapy. They can't practice outside of educational settings. Traditionally, their power comes from an educational law and their job is a member of an multidisciplinary evaluation team (MET) regarding special educational services eligibility. There are two routes to become a "school psychologist" - the educational specialist degree (EdS) and the masters in school psychology plus educational certification degree.

The other fork allows you to become a psychologist who can practice outside of schools. The doctoral way.

 

[EnPsychlopedia]

I think you’re way over-estimating what someone can fit in a two year curriculum. A masters-level counseling curriculum pretty much hits the basic foundations (e.g., ethics, research, stats, group counseling, theories, basic counseling skills, psychopathology, substance abuse, assessment, multicultural, etc). There’s not a whole lot of extra room in there in 60 credits, and while the APA could maybe shuffle one or two courses around, anything that’s going to result in supervised licensure in two years is going to be very clinically focused and very much hitting the core areas by necessity.

Fair.

 

[Sanman]

School psychologist is specialist level (3 years, usually) and relatively narrow in scope and practice permissions at the EdS level. If the APA wants a masters-level psychologist to the have a specific narrow scope and/or be three years minimum (e.g., a psychological associate), that makes some sense. If they want it to be broad-based psychotherapy, then you are basically just recreating MA-level counselors and LCSWs.

I imagine that they are attempting to do the latter but much like a PA, this would allow doctoral level psychologists to supervise them (for hours or more permanently like physicians and PAs). I think that would be a good idea, but it is super late to the party given all the mid-level paths already available.

 

[PsyDr]

1) It is interesting, that there is such a demand for online training. The schools are selling them, because people want them. But why?

a. Potentially marketing that tells people that psychotherapy is a high paying, low stress job.
b. Potentially, people believe that education is an alternative to their own treatment.
c. ?????

2) Our own use of telehealth platforms are partially driving the use of distance education. You can't do only do online treatment, and then say that you can't only train online.

3) If telehealth use increases in popularity, our profession is going to become financially untenable. Reimbursement is partially determined by the cost to provide treatment.

4) Are physicians, chiropractors, audiologists, and optometrists the only ones who train in person now? MSN programs are online. PA programs are moving online. The difference in training settings is going to be a point of contention.

 

[WisNeuro]

1) It is interesting, that there is such a demand for online training. The schools are selling them, because people want them. But why?

a. Potentially marketing that tells people that psychotherapy is a high paying, low stress job.
b. Potentially, people believe that education is an alternative to their own treatment.
c. ?????

2) Our own use of telehealth platforms are partially driving the use of distance education. You can't do only do online treatment, and then say that you can't only train online.

3) If telehealth use increases in popularity, our profession is going to become financially untenable. Reimbursement is partially determined by the cost to provide treatment.

4) Are physicians, chiropractors, audiologists, and optometrists the only ones who train in person now? MSN programs are online. PA programs are moving online. The difference in training settings is going to be a point of contention.

I love the narrative and outcomes about how terrible and detrimental distance learning was for K-12 and higher education during the pandemic, but that somehow doctoral level education is just fine to do online and is equivalent.

 

[PsyDr]

I love the narrative and outcomes about how terrible and detrimental distance learning was for K-12 and higher education during the pandemic, but that somehow doctoral level education is just fine to do online and is equivalent.

I prefer the "I can't afford to not work".

The extra 40hrs/week come from where? Time is a finite commodity.

 

[Sanman]

1) It is interesting, that there is such a demand for online training. The schools are selling them, because people want them. But why?

a. Potentially marketing that tells people that psychotherapy is a high paying, low stress job.
b. Potentially, people believe that education is an alternative to their own treatment.
c. ?????

Honestly, I believe the answer is Lower SES and parents. People that don't want to "give up on their dreams" even though they don't have the academic records or SES to do what was necessary to complete the degree. They can't afford relocation expenses, a car to get to practicum, etc. The bottleneck then becomes post-grad for mid-levels. They finish the degree and not find post-grad supervision. Sometimes, they need to pay for supervision and work for free/peanuts.

2) Our own use of telehealth platforms are partially driving the use of distance education. You can't do only do online treatment, and then say that you can't only train online.

Bad for psychotherapy and better for assessment. Assessment training went in the dumpster during COVID and none of those grads know how to complete a proper assessment.

3) If telehealth use increases in popularity, our profession is going to become financially untenable. Reimbursement is partially determined by the cost to provide treatment.

Same as above. I think if it continues, then there will be a bifurcation in payment or therapy reimbursement will tank.

4) Are physicians, chiropractors, audiologists, and optometrists the only ones who train in person now? MSN programs are online. PA programs are moving online. The difference in training settings is going to be a point of contention.

The market will also get flooded for some grad programs. Already happened in pharmacy, podiatry, and a few other professions with easy access and too many schools.

 

[Sanman]

Doing a bit of research. The masters in clinical psychology has several in person requirements including a "practicum" and "residency" component. It seems that students are responsible for finding and getting the experience approved by Capella. I see that going not well for the students.

 

[R. Matey]

Doing a bit of research. The masters in clinical psychology has several in person requirements including a "practicum" and "residency" component. It seems that students are responsible for finding and getting the experience approved by Capella. I see that going not well for the students.

Similar to Fielding's model, and we all know how that's going.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Similar to Fielding's model, and we all know how that's going.

Agreed. I received multiple cold calls from Fielding trainees asking if I'd be willing to take them on as a practicum student. It seems like exceedingly poor form for the school to require students to do this. And if they're placing that type of burden on the trainee, I'm...skeptical of the robustness of the program's vetting process for sites.

 

[futureapppsy2]

I’m just baffled by this idea of accrediting programs that are supposed to lead to licensure without a licensure that they lead to. I wish they would have built it around a psych associate model or something like that.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

In perhaps more positive news (although not to derail), just got an email that APA helped get a bill introduced that would allow for Medicare reimbursement of psychology intern/resident services. Link: Multipronged advocacy effort leads to introduction of legislation to support Medicare reimbursement for interns and postdoctoral residents

Certainly won't hurt, although I don't know if internship or residency are the real bottlenecks they once were. I'm not sure how much it'd actually increase the workforce vs. helping improve the longevity of training programs that already exist.

 

[quickpsych]

In perhaps more positive news (although not to derail), just got an email that APA helped get a bill introduced that would allow for Medicare reimbursement of psychology intern/resident services. Link: Multipronged advocacy effort leads to introduction of legislation to support Medicare reimbursement for interns and postdoctoral residents

Certainly won't hurt, although I don't know if internship or residency are the real bottlenecks they once were. I'm not sure how much it'd actually increase the workforce vs. helping improve the longevity of training programs that already exist.

About time, that seems like an overall positive and might encourage more organizations, agencies, and healthcare settings to create opportunities for intern/resident training and supervision. Costs money to supervise and if they can bill for the services the students provide they can provide further spots for trainees.

Many years ago, maybe a decade or so ago, when in grad school was invited to be part of an APAGS think tank on the then very real internship crisis with many more students then slots. A few months talking with APA, APAGS, and fellow students across the country sharing what we were seeing in real time as students, as well as what might be possible solutions. It's end goal was to generate actual recommendations for policy change and involved us visiting Washington to meet with the then APA president, government representatives and political aides of politicians/elected officials to address and present the importance of our field, the value of our field, and the issues preventing access to required internship training.

So maybe years later this actually did something as lack of funding was a big issue back then.

My stance then was diploma mills should be nixed as they flooded the student market and created a need for more internship slots. At least that has slowed down a bit; although I am slightly concerned with these new pushes by Capella will reverse some of the progress on reducing number of students that need slots each year. But I am also glad to see support for medicare reimbursement might actually lead to further improvements.

 

[cara susanna]

My grad dept had an online Masters program (not a clinical degree) and at one point someone asked what all of these graduates were doing with their Masters. There was a collective shrug. But the program generated a ton of money for the dept, sooo

 

[Sanman]

My grad dept had an online Masters program (not a clinical degree) and at one point someone asked what all of these graduates were doing with their Masters. There was a collective shrug. But the program generated a ton of money for the dept, sooo

It fanned the flames that B or C students might one day get into a doctoral program and be a psychologist until they decide to give up and get a job in HR.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I’m just baffled by this idea of accrediting programs that are supposed to lead to licensure without a licensure that they lead to. I wish they would have built it around a psych associate model or something like that.

This is even worse than the ASU "doctorate" in Behavioral Health. I thought that was the most useless degree, but I guess we just needed to give the for-profit places some time to top it.

 

[MCParent]

My stance then was diploma mills should be nixed as they flooded the student market and created a need for more internship slots.

if only someone had written a paper that supported that position

APA PsycNet

psycnet.apa.org

 

[futureapppsy2]

Call for comments: A Competency Framework for Master’s and Doctoral Degree Education and Training in Health Service Psychology



The public comment period closes on Friday, October 25, 2024, at 11:59 p.m. Eastern time.



The APA Board of Educational Affairs (BEA) and the APA Board of Professional Affairs (BPA) seek member and public comments on A Competency Framework for Master’s and Doctoral Degree Education and Training in Health Service Psychology.



These education and training guidelines present a competency framework to be used by psychology graduate programs that educate and train students earning a master’s or doctoral degree in health service psychology (HSP).



The HSP Competency Framework aims to identify competencies and learning outcomes across doctoral and master’s degree programs in HSP education while also distinguishing the education and training outcomes for each degree program. This Framework focuses on what master’s and doctoral degree graduates are expected to know on day one after completing their respective degrees, recognizing that individuals will continue to grow, learn, and acquire competencies and skills throughout their careers.



In providing your feedback on this document, please keep in mind that the competencies are aspirational and may not be applicable to every situation. They are not mandatory and do not take precedence over the professional judgment of faculty responsible for specific education and training programs or other academic authorities. In addition, please note that clarifying scope of practice for individuals with doctoral and master’s degrees is beyond the purpose of this educational Competency Framework and will be reserved for the work of the BPA Task Force to update the APA Model Licensure Act.



The document is available for a sixty (60) day period of public review and comment. We invite you to review the draft and share your feedback through the APA comment portal by Friday, October 25, 2024, at 11:59 p.m. Eastern. Access the comment portal at APA Comments Portal



Your participation is appreciated, and we encourage you to share this invitation throughout your networks.

 

[Justanothergrad]

😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡

this

 

[NeuPsychLuci]

Anyone want to draft a letter to APA and get some people to sign on expressing our significant dismay at this decision?

Although APA has already approved this the WPA will be holding a masters level licensing town hall March 14th here is the link to register WPA Town Hall Registration. I also drafted and sent a letter to our Wisconsin APA Council Representative - Kim Skerven, [email protected]. Here is the letter:

Dear Dr. Skerven,

I hope this email finds you well. I am writing as a concerned Wisconsin licensed psychologist regarding the APA’s recent approval to expand licensure privileges for master’s-level psychology practitioners. While I recognize the critical need to expand access to mental health care, I am deeply concerned that this approach will compromise the quality of psychological services, diminish public protection, and threaten the integrity of doctoral training in psychology.

I understand firsthand the enormous commitment, sacrifice, and perseverance required to achieve competency in this field. I, like many of my colleagues, spent years in rigorous doctoral training, completing extensive coursework, supervised practica, an APA-accredited internship, and postdoctoral training to develop the skills necessary to competently engage in the practice of psychology.

Concerns About Public Protection and Psychological Testing​

One of the most alarming aspects of APA’s proposal is the potential for master’s-level providers to conduct independent psychological and neuropsychological assessments without the extensive specialized training required for these procedures. Psychological testing is not just about administering a set of standardized tools; it involves:

· Selecting appropriate measures based on referral questions and clinical history

· Integrating multiple sources of data (clinical interviews, test performance, collateral information, medical history, and behavioral observations) to form an accurate diagnosis

· Understanding neurocognitive functioning, psychopharmacology, differential diagnosis, and psychometric principles

· Communicating findings clearly and ethically in legal, medical, and educational settings

Erosion of Doctoral Training and the Future of Psychology​

The argument that this proposal 'modernizes' psychology fails to consider the long-term consequences of lowering educational standards for independent practice.

· If master’s-level providers are granted the same privileges as doctoral-trained psychologists, what incentive remains for students to pursue a Ph.D. or Psy.D.?

· A decline in doctoral-level psychologists will lead to a weakened profession, as fewer individuals will undergo the rigorous training required to handle complex cases.

· The value of board certification, postdoctoral specialization, and advanced competencies will diminish, reducing the overall quality of psychological services.

Access to Care: A Misguided Justification​

APA justifies these changes by citing the mental health provider shortage, but this argument fails to acknowledge that the primary barriers to care are systemic, including:

· Low reimbursement rates for psychologists

· Geographic and socioeconomic disparities

· Lack of funding for doctoral training and recruitment in underserved areas

Instead of lowering entry requirements, APA should advocate for:

· Loan forgiveness programs and scholarships for doctoral psychology students

· Better insurance reimbursement for psychologists

· Expanding supervised practice models for master’s-level providers without granting them independent diagnostic or assessment privileges

Call to Action: Maintaining the Integrity of Our Profession​

Given these significant concerns, I urge APA and the Council of Representatives to:

1. Reconsider and reject the proposed expansion of master's-level licensure for independent practice, particularly in psychological and neuropsychological assessment.

2. Uphold clear distinctions in scope of practice between master’s- and doctoral-level training to protect public safety.

3. Advocate for systemic solutions to access-to-care issues, rather than lowering professional standards.

As a psychologist who has endured the rigorous journey to competency, I cannot stand by while our profession is redefined in a way that risks both public welfare and the future of doctoral psychology. I urge APA to reassess its priorities and engage in solutions that elevate, rather than dilute, the standards of psychological practice.