No abstract

This article reviews recent trends in the Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards' Disciplinary Data System-a record of sanctions against psychologists. Review of these data revealed problems with the usefulness of the categorization and reporting system. As a result, a new classification system was devised, based on base-rate descriptive data, and is presented here. Implications for psychology boards, ethics training, and professional practice are discussed.

Professional mobility for psychologists has been a problem since states first passed psychology licensing laws because of relatively small but crucial variations in licensing requirements. Although the profession of psychology and the association of psychology regulatory bodies in the United States and Canada (i.e., the Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards [ASPPB]) have recognized this problem for decades, little progress was made in resolving it. Recently, the ASPPB launched two different approaches to facilitating professional mobility: one to forge agreements between regulatory bodies to accept each other's licensees, and another to certify or endorse individual psychologists who meet ASPPB standards for licensure and therefore can be recommended to licensing boards for relicensure. The specific requirements of each of these programs and their success in addressing the professional mobility problem are described. KIM R. JONASON received his PhD from Ohio State University in physiological psychology. Following postdoctoral study in neuroanatomy at Upstate Medical Center in Syracuse, NY, he trained in clinical psychology at the University of Louisville. He has been actively involved with Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards (ASPPB) mobility efforts since 1993. He is the chair of the ASPPB Mobility Committee and serves on the ASPPB board of directors. He is interested in administrative law as it relates to the practice of psychology and in the issues of licensing mobility and interjurisdictional consistency in licensure requirements. STEPHEN T. DEMERS received his EdD from the school psychology program accredited by the American Psychological Association (APA) at Rutgers University. He is a professor and director of the APA-accredited school psychology program at the University of Kentucky and director of the certification program for the ASPPB. He is a paid consultant to the Certificate of Professional Qualification (CPQ) Program. His areas of interest include legal and ethical issues in psychological practice, credentialing and regulation in psychology, and the development and use of test user qualifications in psychological assessment. THOMAS J. VAUGHN completed his PhD in counseling psychology at the University of Oklahoma. He is a former president of ASPPB and former chair of the ASPPB Mobility Committee. He is in independent practice with Behavioral Medicine Associates at the Unity Health Center Hospital in Shawnee, OK, and serves as the director of professional affairs for the Oklahoma State Board of Examiners of Psychology. He is board certified (American Board of Professional Psychology) in clinical psychology with primary research interests in internship training and professional mobility. RANDOLPH P. REAVES received his JD degree from the University of Alabama School of Law and is a member of the Alabama State Bar. He is chief executive officer of ASPPB. His interests have centered on the legal literature related to psychological-legal issues and in researching the ASP...

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.

The psychology regulatory boards in the various U.S. and Canadian jurisdictions typically have the legal authority to revoke, suspend, or otherwise sanction a psychologist's license when the psychologist is found guilty of illegal, unethical, or inappropriate behavior. In some jurisdictions, that authority rests with a Department of Professional Regulation or some other administrative agency. In some Canadian jurisdictions, this authority is held by provincial psychological associations. Regardless of which U S . entity holds the authority, the parameters of such authority will derive from the same statute. In Canada the authority will be vested by statute, but reference to the association's bylaws may also be required.The statute referred to, typically the jurisdiction's "practice act," may contain a reference to a code of conduct or a code of ethics. Violation of the referenced code may be a reason for disciplinary action. Examples include:Code of Alabama (1975): "Violation of the code of ethics adopted in the rules and regulations of the board." "The board of psychologist examiners shall have the following powers . . . (b) To adopt, and, from time to time, revise such rules and regulations not inconsistent with the law as may be necessary to carry into effect the provisions of this act. Such rules and regulations shall include, but not be limited to, (1) a code of ethics for psychologists in the state consistent with the current, and as future amended, ethical standards for psychologists of the American psychological association."Bylaw No. 1 under the Manitoba Psychologists Registration Act (1981): "Article XII. Standards of Conduct and Procedure for Expulsion and Withdrawal of Members