To put comments and criticisms raised by Koocher (1989) concerning the screening of psychology licensing examinations for accuracy into a comprehensive perspective, we discuss the process of development, finalization, and administration of the Examination for Professional Practice in Psychology (EPPP). We also address Koocher's objections to five items considered for inclusion in Draft 26 of the EPPP, which was used in April 1987, as well as the issue he raises of content validity, citing the Testing Standards (Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing, 1985). Koocher (1989) reinforced the importance for all psychologists of paying serious attention to their obligation to protect the public through the licensing exam. This responsibility is particularly noteworthy for psychologists who serve on state licensing boards and have prescreening functions in terms of specific exam questions.Even though the experts on the American Association of State Psychology Boards (AASPB) Examination Committee, and the content consultants whom the committee utilizes, bring particular expertise to the process of developing the examination, members of the individual licensing boards (where permitted by law) have a critical role to play in finalizing the exam protocols. In order to put both the Examination for Professional Practice in Psychology (EPPP) and the concerns expressed by Koocher (1989) into context, it will be useful to review the process used in developing examinations.

No abstract

Scores from the Milwaukee Academic Interest Inventory were shown to effect a significant pattern of discrimination of examinees among Holland's six personality types, as specified by his Vocational Preference Inventory. Other evidence was provided that demonstrated the close relationships among personality, academic interests, and vocational choice as well as the construct validity of the two instruments.

No abstract

No abstract