How Should the Effectiveness of the EPPP Be Judged?

David DiLillo, George C. Tremblay

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

We join Brian A. Sharpless and Jacques P. Barber (2009) in calling for strengthening the evidence base supporting the Examination for Professional Practice in Psychology (EPPP), particularly in the areas of criterion and predictive validity. Although 1 clear purpose of the EPPP is to assess core areas of knowledge, materials from the Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards are less clear as to whether the EPPP is also intended to predict future performance as a psychologist. If the EPPP is expected to protect the public from poorly trained psychologists, then data supporting its use for that purpose are urgently needed. Sharpless and Barber offer suggestions for evaluating the EPPP against this criterion. Although a step in the right direction, these suggestions do not fully satisfy the need for predictive validation. Our greatest difference with Sharpless and Barber concerns their recommendation for abandoning generic licensing in favor of specialty exams tied to subfields. Segmenting licensure in this manner would deviate from the profession's long-standing commitment to broad and general training and would necessarily be accompanied by an undesirably narrowed scope of practice.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)345-347
Number of pages3
JournalProfessional Psychology: Research and Practice
Volume40
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 1 2009

Fingerprint

Professional Practice
Psychology
Licensure

Keywords

  • Examination for Professional Practice in Psychology
  • licensing
  • psychology licensure
  • test validity
  • testing procedures

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Psychology(all)

Cite this

How Should the Effectiveness of the EPPP Be Judged? / DiLillo, David; Tremblay, George C.

In: Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, Vol. 40, No. 4, 01.08.2009, p. 345-347.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{0d75f57bdf484f87848e760560c3c4f6,
title = "How Should the Effectiveness of the EPPP Be Judged?",
abstract = "We join Brian A. Sharpless and Jacques P. Barber (2009) in calling for strengthening the evidence base supporting the Examination for Professional Practice in Psychology (EPPP), particularly in the areas of criterion and predictive validity. Although 1 clear purpose of the EPPP is to assess core areas of knowledge, materials from the Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards are less clear as to whether the EPPP is also intended to predict future performance as a psychologist. If the EPPP is expected to protect the public from poorly trained psychologists, then data supporting its use for that purpose are urgently needed. Sharpless and Barber offer suggestions for evaluating the EPPP against this criterion. Although a step in the right direction, these suggestions do not fully satisfy the need for predictive validation. Our greatest difference with Sharpless and Barber concerns their recommendation for abandoning generic licensing in favor of specialty exams tied to subfields. Segmenting licensure in this manner would deviate from the profession's long-standing commitment to broad and general training and would necessarily be accompanied by an undesirably narrowed scope of practice.",
keywords = "Examination for Professional Practice in Psychology, licensing, psychology licensure, test validity, testing procedures",
author = "David DiLillo and Tremblay, {George C.}",
year = "2009",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1037/a0015734",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "40",
pages = "345--347",
journal = "Professional Psychology: Research and Practice",
issn = "0735-7028",
publisher = "American Psychological Association Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - How Should the Effectiveness of the EPPP Be Judged?

AU - DiLillo, David

AU - Tremblay, George C.

PY - 2009/8/1

Y1 - 2009/8/1

N2 - We join Brian A. Sharpless and Jacques P. Barber (2009) in calling for strengthening the evidence base supporting the Examination for Professional Practice in Psychology (EPPP), particularly in the areas of criterion and predictive validity. Although 1 clear purpose of the EPPP is to assess core areas of knowledge, materials from the Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards are less clear as to whether the EPPP is also intended to predict future performance as a psychologist. If the EPPP is expected to protect the public from poorly trained psychologists, then data supporting its use for that purpose are urgently needed. Sharpless and Barber offer suggestions for evaluating the EPPP against this criterion. Although a step in the right direction, these suggestions do not fully satisfy the need for predictive validation. Our greatest difference with Sharpless and Barber concerns their recommendation for abandoning generic licensing in favor of specialty exams tied to subfields. Segmenting licensure in this manner would deviate from the profession's long-standing commitment to broad and general training and would necessarily be accompanied by an undesirably narrowed scope of practice.

AB - We join Brian A. Sharpless and Jacques P. Barber (2009) in calling for strengthening the evidence base supporting the Examination for Professional Practice in Psychology (EPPP), particularly in the areas of criterion and predictive validity. Although 1 clear purpose of the EPPP is to assess core areas of knowledge, materials from the Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards are less clear as to whether the EPPP is also intended to predict future performance as a psychologist. If the EPPP is expected to protect the public from poorly trained psychologists, then data supporting its use for that purpose are urgently needed. Sharpless and Barber offer suggestions for evaluating the EPPP against this criterion. Although a step in the right direction, these suggestions do not fully satisfy the need for predictive validation. Our greatest difference with Sharpless and Barber concerns their recommendation for abandoning generic licensing in favor of specialty exams tied to subfields. Segmenting licensure in this manner would deviate from the profession's long-standing commitment to broad and general training and would necessarily be accompanied by an undesirably narrowed scope of practice.

KW - Examination for Professional Practice in Psychology

KW - licensing

KW - psychology licensure

KW - test validity

KW - testing procedures

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=69149096975&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=69149096975&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1037/a0015734

DO - 10.1037/a0015734

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:69149096975

VL - 40

SP - 345

EP - 347

JO - Professional Psychology: Research and Practice

JF - Professional Psychology: Research and Practice

SN - 0735-7028

IS - 4

ER -