The "Reimagined EPPP" is the EPPP Part-2

[psychtrauma]

---

Members do not see this ad.

More of a PSA that the proposed "Reimagined EPPP" is really just the EPPP Part-2 by a different name. For those interested in the future of psychology licensure that fought against EPPP Part-2, please consider making your voice heard by ASPPB before the same test, with its significant documented flaws, is moved forward in a couple years. Let your voice be heard by emailing here to stop this exam before it gets started: [email protected]

Here are the domains for the (now largely cancelled) EPPP Part-2:
Assessment and Intervention
Ethical Practice
Collaboration, Consultation, Supervision
Relational Competence
Professionalism
Scientific Orientation to Practice

Here are the domains proposed for the reimagined EPPP (look familiar?)
Assessment
Intervention
Ethical and Professional Practice
Consultation and Supervision
Interpersonal Relationships
Scientific Orientation to Practice

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

More of a PSA that the proposed "Reimagined EPPP" is really just the EPPP Part-2 by a different name. For those interested in the future of psychology licensure that fought against EPPP Part-2, please consider making your voice heard by ASPPB before the same test, with its significant documented flaws, is moved forward in a couple years. Let your voice be heard by emailing here to stop this exam before it gets started: [email protected]

Here are the domains for the (now largely cancelled) EPPP Part-2:
Assessment and Intervention
Ethical Practice
Collaboration, Consultation, Supervision
Relational Competence
Professionalism
Scientific Orientation to Practice

Here are the domains proposed for the reimagined EPPP (look familiar?)
Assessment
Intervention
Ethical and Professional Practice
Consultation and Supervision
Interpersonal Relationships
Scientific Orientation to Practice

"Interpersonal Relationships."
It will be interesting to see how they reliably/validly 'measure' this one. Are you going to have to do a personal essay, get 'letters of reference' from peers, co-workers, supervisors, and patients or are they going to view a videotape of you doing therapy and rate you on it?
If you have significant problems in these areas that would prevent licensure, shouldn't that have been caught at the undergraduate, graduate, and internship level already? In 10-15 years, will there be yet ANOTHER hurdle (post-EPPP, post-licensure, 'we're-super-serious-this-will-be-the-LAST-hurdle-we-pinky-promise-this-time' evaluation point?

 

[PsyDr]

Just ask why Pearson gets to administer the test, damn.

 

[WisNeuro]

Meh, I'm actually in support of the new format, think it's an improvement. The licensure exam probably ranks in the triple digits when I'm ranking the problems within the field.

 

[psych.meout]

I might be misunderstanding this, but is this replacing the EPPP as it stands now instead of being a supplement to the EPPP, i.e., taking one new test instead of taking the original test and the new part 2?

If it's the former, I'm not really understanding what the outrage is. I'm sure it has its flaws but anything beats having I/O crap on my exam for clinical licensure.

 

[oliversacks4thewin]

I might be misunderstanding this, but is this replacing the EPPP as it stands now instead of being a supplement to the EPPP, i.e., taking one new test instead of taking the original test and the new part 2?

If it's the former, I'm not really understanding what the outrage is. I'm sure it has its flaws but anything beats having I/O crap on my exam for clinical licensure.

Oh memories of studying for I/O Psych. I love learning in general, but I distinctly recall walking out of my test and announcing all intent to forget that information lol.

 

[psych.meout]

Oh memories of studying for I/O Psych. I love learning in general, but I distinctly recall walking out of my test and announcing all intent to forget that information lol.

You ever have that experience where you don't know much about a field and then you're forced to learn about it for whatever reason and come out of it with little to no respect for that field?

Yeah.....

 

[WisNeuro]

I'd have to see the old EPPP handbook, but wasn't the I/O section only like 8% of the test, and the material covered was fairly limited. I remember the actual test questions to be nearly identical to my practice test questions.

 

[PsyDuck90]

From my understanding and what our TD has reported, the intent is to create a new EPPP that combines the content knowledge aspect of the original EPPP part 1 and the more skills-based applied knowledge that was intended to be captured by EPPP part 2. This is pretty in line with other professional exams, like the STEP exams in medicine. Granted, I’ve already passed the EPPP so I don’t have to worry about changes, but I feel like one of the biggest gripes was having to take 2 very expensive exams in order to be licensed, so combining them takes away the added financial burden of a whole other $700 test.

 

[LM02]

There's an upcoming "town hall" to discuss these changes - I have already attended one for leaders in training, and it's pretty much a done deal as far as I can tell. As described above, they've given up on the two test format (which has only been adopted by a small handful of states) and instead are keeping the single test format and integrating the "skills" questions with the pre-existing bank of "knowledge" questions. Honestly, I think it will just be more of the same - with the caveat that the test prep materials might not be as useful for the first cycle or two of the new version of the exam. See below for more detials.

The Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards (ASPPB) looks forward to your attendance at the upcoming Virtual Town Hall Meeting for Students and License/Certification Candidates.

This Zoom event will be held on September 18th, 2025, from 1:00 to 2:00 PM EST.



The Virtual Town Hall Meeting for Students and License/Certification Candidates will present updates on the Examination for Professional Practice in Psychology (EPPP):

• What’s New
• What to Expect
• Q & A

Be on the lookout for an upcoming email with registration details!

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I might be misunderstanding this, but is this replacing the EPPP as it stands now instead of being a supplement to the EPPP, i.e., taking one new test instead of taking the original test and the new part 2?

If it's the former, I'm not really understanding what the outrage is. I'm sure it has its flaws but anything beats having I/O crap on my exam for clinical licensure.

I loved the I/O section bc I used to do some consulting, so I had already learned a portion of it. My biggest gripe were the psychopharmacology questions bc more than a couple were not accurate as written. Way back when they allowed for comment on a question, so I had some extra time after finishing, so I went back and added citations to support my comments.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

I loved the I/O section bc I used to do some consulting, so I had already learned a portion of it. My biggest gripe were the psychopharmacology questions bc more than a couple were not accurate as written. Way back when they allowed for comment on a question, so I had some extra time after finishing, so I went back and added citations to support my comments.

Yeah, I remember one or two questions like that, as well. It was like, 'If someone with truly advanced knowledge in this area is answering this multiple choice question, they'd probably answer it differently based on the choices offered'--or the choices offered didn't exactly make sense if you have an advanced knowledge (of, say, cognitive therapy)...but you could tell what the answer was 'supposed' to be (based on a basic/intermediate knowledge framework). Just one of the hazards of trying to craft a multiple-choice test covering some extremely nuanced or complex topic areas.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

Exactly that. Every Pharma question I had to read like, "what are they trying to ask" because the wording was usually trash. The SSRI questions were so bad.

 

[BuckeyeLove]

wait there's not a specific stats section? And they took out all the great questions about IO from 1967????? lulz

 

[cara susanna]

Yeah, I remember one or two questions like that, as well. It was like, 'If someone with truly advanced knowledge in this area is answering this multiple choice question, they'd probably answer it differently based on the choices offered'--or the choices offered didn't exactly make sense if you have an advanced knowledge (of, say, cognitive therapy)...but you could tell what the answer was 'supposed' to be (based on a basic/intermediate knowledge framework). Just one of the hazards of trying to craft a multiple-choice test covering some extremely nuanced or complex topic areas.

I actually didn't believe that I passed at first. I was like "That's impossible, I definitely failed." And I'm a very good test taker!

 

[BuckeyeLove]

I actually didn't believe that I passed at first. I was like "That's impossible, I definitely failed." And I'm a very good test taker!

Same. I didn't actually study anything, just took old tests and tried to get each question down to at least two viable answer options, let the odds be in my favor. I did the same thing for my board written exam (as there's no real life way to read ALL of the material, articles, books, papers, etc. that they say you "need to know.")

 

[oliversacks4thewin]

I loved the I/O section bc I used to do some consulting, so I had already learned a portion of it. My biggest gripe were the psychopharmacology questions bc more than a couple were not accurate as written. Way back when they allowed for comment on a question, so I had some extra time after finishing, so I went back and added citations to support my comments.

I fully agree with your sentiment but as someone who is currently studying for the PEP, the research and clinical practice of psychopharmacology sometimes are at odds with each other. For example, everyone and their dog have to study the CATIE study related to efficacy and long-term sustainability of various pharmacotherapies for schizophrenia, but on the whole, the recommendations are rarely applied clinically (although the study does promote individualized treatment..., so take this with a grain of salt). Otherwise we would all see way more prescribed olanzapine or ziprasidone lol. Either way, it is a seminal work and therefore questions to the knowledge of assessable fundamental research appreciation on the subject within the PEP are bountiful. Readily and frequently clinically applicable or not, it's a decent way to make sure the test taker is educated on the important theories that underly the practice, which we would all hope translate to good practice.