State Affairs Committee
Greg Gormanous, Ph.D.
M. Peter Scontrino, Ph.D.
December 23, 2009
Goal One. Reconstitute the committee membership with at least three new members.
This goal has been accomplished.
Goal Two. Continue to review and update website information, including links to state and provincial boards.
This is an ongoing goal.
Goal Three: Provide referrals and information to members/student affiliates seeking licensure.
We respond to about four inquiries per month.
Goal Four: Continue to scan the environment in relation to license requirements and issues.
Each committee member does this for their assigned states and provinces.
Goal Five: Continue to collect sunset information on licensing laws for all state and provinces.
We do this on an annual basis, usually in the fall and winter.
Goal Six: Communicate state developments and licensure issues to members.
We have written an article which will be published in TIP in January 2010.
Goal Seven: Participate in Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards annual meeting to continue to keep them aware of the needs of I/O psychologists.
Greg Gormanous made a presentation at the fall board meeting. See the trip report below for more information on this meeting.
Additionally, SIOP members were actively recruited to participate in the data collection for a practice analysis of psychologists in Canada & the U.S. The study examined the relevance and criticality of the content domains of the licensing exam. It is worth noting that preliminary reviews suggest ethical and legal issues are most critical in terms of professional psychology.
Goal Eight: Establish a liaison with the graduate student organization to make licensing information readily available to graduate students
We have not worked on this goal to date.
Goal Nine: Distribute brochure on licensing written by Judy Blanton
We have revised the brochure and have submitted it to TIP for publication.
Trip Report for
ASSOCIATION OF STATE AND PROVINCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BOARDS
Coeur d’Alene, Idaho October 28 – November 1, 2009
Greg Gormanous and Judith Blanton attended the ASPPB annual meeting. ASPPB is the “umbrella association” of Boards of Psychology from all the US States and Canadian Provinces. As an alliance, these Boards license and oversee the practice of psychology in their jurisdictions.
Attendees included lay and psychology board members as well as the executive directors of a many of the boards. The theme of the conference was Bridging the Divide Across Jurisdictions. Because of the 10th amendment to the US Constitution, each state has the authority to create its own laws and regulations. The jurisdictions have quite varied laws and regulations and ASPPB is working hard to gain more consistency. Canada has much more consistency than in the US.
There were a wide variety of topics discussed. In this report we have focused on issues of interest to Consulting and I-O psychologists.
ASPPB Services - ASPPB provides a number of services for psychologists who want information about licensure. It maintains a Handbook on its website that contains a short summary of each jurisdiction’s laws and regulations as well as links to its website. This is very useful and available at no cost. It also provides a place where you can “bank” your credentials in perpetuity. So if your supervisor was no longer available to document hours or other materials were lost, the documents would be available. This would be important if you needed to supply these to another state where you wanted to be licensed.
EPPP – The EPPP is the license exam approved by almost all jurisdictions. There was a number of presentations describing how the test is developed, how passing rates are set, how items are created, and how forms of the test are equated. The EPPP currently consists of 225 items, 200 of which are scored and 25 of which are “pre-tested” as part of a future item pool. In the future, there will be 50 “pre-test” items and only 175 will be actively scored. The rationale is to increase the item pool. Statistical analysis has shown that test reliability will not be impacted in any significant manner.
The test developers, Professional Exam Services, discussed how the test is developed and strategies for improving the test in terms of its relevance. ASPPB has instituted a “practice analysis” based on a survey of licensed psychologists. In addition, a sample of SIOP members (who might not be licensed) was included to assure that information about consulting and I-O practice was incorporated. The information from this practice analysis will be used to define content areas for questions on the exam. Psychologists from varying disciplines are recruited and trained to write items. By design, I-O and Consulting psychologists are part of these groups.
Greg Gormanous and Judy Blanton discussed how to help ASPPB recruit more Consulting and I-O psychologists to participate in the item writing workshops. There seems to be support from ASPPB for such a move and we will follow up on this initiative.
Long term, there is great interest in moving from a test of knowledge to “competency”. Mechanisms for doing this are complex but the goal is to move in this direction over time.
CASE LAW – The Attorney for ASPPB made a presentation of major legal rulings related to psychology practice and licensure that held implications for future regulation or disciplinary hearings. Here is one example. The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania upheld the ruling of the Pennsylvania Board of Psychology that rejected the application of a graduate of Capella University on the grounds that the institution did not meet the residency requirements for licensure of “two consecutive semesters as a matriculated student physically present at the institution granting the degree”. This has serious implications for other on-line or “mixed model” graduate programs, not only in Pennsylvania but elsewhere. Some states allow Capella and other non-residency graduates to be licensed but it may be impossible for them to get licensed in another state if they move.
TELEPRACTICE AND THE IMPACT OF TECHNOLOGY ON PSYCHOLOGICAL PRACTICE – Greg Gormanous and Judy Blanton consistently urged the use of the term “telepractice” rather than “tele-health” or “telemedicine” to refer to the use of electronic media such as phones, video-conferencing, etc. in practice. Most of the discussion on telepractice tends to deal with mental health and health care but we want to be sure that these discussions address the concerns on General Applied Psychologists as well. Next April, the ASPPB meeting in Seattle will focus on these issues. The issue of practice across jurisdictional lines using electronic media and concerns regarding privacy are major issues. Judy has put this on the agenda for the APA Board of Professional Affairs to discuss. APA needs to address this issue soon to deal with the realities of 21st century practice.
– Greg Gormanous and Judy Blanton were active proponents for increasing the flexibility of licensure and regulation to support the short term practice across jurisdictional lines. Judy attended small group meetings and privately lobbied on the issue. ASPPB now has an “Inter-jurisdictional Practice Certificate” (check the ASPPB website www.asppb.org
for more information on this). The IPC involved a credential review, documentation of no disciplinary action and the paying of a one-time $200 fee. This will allow the ICP holder to practice in all jurisdictions that approve the certificate for “at least” 30 days per year. Prior notification by email is required (but no need for a formal approval of that notification is needed). The ICP is an attempt (not ideal
but an attempt
) to deal with cross-jurisdictional practice and the realities of modern mobility of clients and psychologists. At this point, only a few jurisdictions have approved this but many others are considering it. All those who already have the CPQ (Certificate of Professional Qualification) will automatically receive an ICP without an additional fee. Check the ASPPB website for information on how to obtain the CPQ, which is extremely useful if one wants to be fully licensed in another jurisdiction.
CONSISTENCY -The past president of ASPPB, Alex Siegel, gave a major address on the need for further consistency in the areas of CE hours required, hours required for an internship, temporary practice laws, and disciplinary criteria. He proposed a “universal application” in which one application could be used by all those applying for licensure in any jurisdiction. A draft of this application has been developed but points out the often small, but significant differences in requirements. Another speaker from the Federation of Associations of Regulatory Boards spoke about how other professions have addressed consistency. In particular he outlines the efforts of medicine and social work to become more consistent and what psychology could learn from them.
INTERNSHIP HOURS and POST-DOCTORAL REQUIREMENT – A couple of years ago, APA approved the idea that graduate programs could provide all supervisory hours for licensure prior to graduation rather than requiring a post doctoral year. This was seen as a boon for students who could be licensed right out of graduate school and to clinics that could now collect funds for full psychologists (Many could not bill for services provided by post-doc interns). Unfortunately, there were a number of unanticipated consequences of this change. For example, it is likely that it will now take more time for students to get their degree and that mobility among jurisdictions that have accepted and not accepted this change will become much more difficult.