Following a veto of a prescriptive authority (RxP) bill in Oregon, 397 of 743 randomly selected psychologists were surveyed online regarding their attitudes and knowledge. Participants were randomly assigned to a control (n = 203) or education (n = 194) condition. After being exposed to information regarding access, training, and legislation, education participants completed post‐test measures. Evidence supporting proponents’ argument of improved access was not forthcoming. There was a division about scope expansion (43% support, 32% opposed, 25% undecided). Respondents’ knowledge of RxP was minimal, but education increased knowledge. Views were more stable, with attitudes shifting only in targeted areas. Using a “cultural cognition” framework, the discussion centers on exploring the need to evaluate RxP and use this information to educate psychologists about this issue.

This thesis utilizes original quantitative and qualitative research and takes a structural/critical perspective of disability. Methodology involves participatory action techniques as questions were formulated from discussions with volunteers with

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract