Perceptions of the EPPP: How do licensure candidates view the process?

Ryan, Ann Marie; Chan, David

doi:10.1037/0735-7028.30.5.519

Cited by 22 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A variety of perceptions have been studied to date, including procedural justice (e.g., Bauer, Truxillo, Sanchez, Craig, Ferrara, & Campion, 2001;Ployhart & Ryan, 1998), distributive justice (e.g., Smither et al, 1993), interpersonal justice (e.g., Ryan & Chan, 1999), informational justice (e.g., Bauer, Maertz, Dolen, & Campion, 1998), test motivation (e.g., Sanchez, Truxillo, & Bauer, 2000), test anxiety (e.g., Ryan, Ployhart, Greguras, & Schmit, 1998), attitudes towards tests in general (e.g., Chan, Schmitt, Jennings, Clause, & Delbridge, 1998), and attitudes towards selection in general (e.g., Macan et al, 1994). The justice perspective stems directly from Gilliland (1993) who proposed that applicants' perceptions of fairness directly influence subsequent attitudes and behaviors both during and after hiring.…”

Section: Applicant Reactionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Perceived procedure characteristics include many of the justice rules identified by Gilliland (1993) such as job relatedness, opportunity to perform, reconsideration opportunity, two-way communication, and propriety of questions (e.g., Bauer et al, 1998;Ryan & Chan, 1999;Truxillo et al, 2001). In particular, job relatedness has been studied extensively in previous research based on the premise that applicants will perceive selection more favorably to the extent that techniques are perceived as face valid and predictive of job performance.…”

Section: Applicant Reactionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Applicant Reactions to Selection Procedures: An Updated Model and Meta-Analysis

Hausknecht¹

2005

PsycEXTRA Dataset

195

453

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract[Excerpt] An updated theoretical model of applicant reactions to selection procedures is proposed and tested using meta-analysis. Results from 86 independent samples (N = 48,750) indicated that applicants who hold positive perceptions about selection are more likely to view the organization favorably and report stronger intentions to accept job offers and recommend the employer to others. Applicant perceptions were positively correlated with actual and perceived performance on selection tools and with self perceptions. The average correlation between applicant perceptions and gender, age, and ethnic background was near zero. Face validity and perceived predictive validity were strong predictors of many applicant perceptions including procedural justice, distributive justice, attitudes towards tests, and attitudes towards selection. Interviews and work samples were perceived more favorably than cognitive ability tests, which were perceived more favorably than personality inventories, honesty tests, biodata, and graphology. The discussion identifies remaining theoretical and methodological issues as well as directions for future research. This paper is based in part on John Hausknecht's doctoral dissertation, which was completed at Penn State University under the supervision of David Day. The dissertation was the co-recipient of the 2004 S. Rains Wallace Dissertation Award sponsored by the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Special thanks to committee members James Farr, Susan Mohammed, and Karen Jansen. We also acknowledge the helpful comments provided by Kevin Murphy and Alice Stuhlmacher on earlier drafts of this paper. We thank Bridgette Harder, Anna Matuszewska, and Julianne Rodda for assistance with coding and data management.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to John P. Hausknecht, Department of Psychology, DePaul University, 2219 N. Kenmore Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60614. E-mail: jhauskne@depaul.edu Applicant Reactions 2 Abstract An updated theoretical model of applicant reactions to selection procedures is proposed and tested using meta-analysis. Results from 86 independent samples (N = 48,750) indicated that applicants who hold positive perceptions about selection are more likely to view the organization favorably and report stronger intentions to accept job offers and recommend the employer to others. Applicant perceptions were positively correlated with actual and perceived performance on selection tools and with self perceptions. The average correlation between applicant perceptions and gender, age, and ethnic background was near zero. Face validity and perceived predictive validity were strong predictors of many applicant perceptions including procedural justice, distributive justice, attitudes towards tests, and attitudes towards selection. Interviews and work samples were perceived more favorably than cognitive ability tests, which were perceived more favorably than personality inventories, honesty tests, biodata, and graphology.The discussion ide...

show abstract

Section: Applicant Reactionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Applicant Reactionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Applicant Reactions to Selection Procedures: An Updated Model and Meta-Analysis

Hausknecht¹

2005

PsycEXTRA Dataset

195

453

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although the nature of postdoctoral requirements varies from state to state, nearly all jurisdictions call for (a) a minimum number of supervised training hours, (b) successful completion of the national Exam for the Professional Practice of Psychology (EPPP), and (c) the passing of additional state-specifi c oral and/or written exams. Regardless of the career path chosen, graduates may struggle to fi nd postdoctoral experiences that will allow them to meet licensure requirements (Olvey, Hogg, & Counts, 2002;Ryan & Chan, 1999). However, those seeking tenure-track positions in clinical or counseling psychology doctoral programs accredited by the American Psychological Association (APA) may encounter unique challenges in the pursuit of licensure.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The path to licensure for academic psychologists: How tough is the road?

DiLillo¹,

DeGue²,

Cohen³

et al. 2006

Professional Psychology: Research and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What obstacles are faced by academic psychologists seeking professional licensure? Data presented here from all U.S. jurisdictions suggests that licensure requirements vary greatly across states and in some areas may be quite difficult to fulfill within the context of an academic position. Results of a survey of training directors of clinical and counseling doctoral programs accredited by the American Psychological Association indicated that, although licensure is expected of most faculty, a number of challenges may impede this goal. Programmatic efforts to facilitate licensure of new faculty, as well as implications of our findings, possible remedies, and recommendations to new faculty, are presented.

show abstract

“…High failure rates do not, of course, constitute a prima facia reason to presume that the exam is not serving its intended purpose; the failure rate for the EPPP is comparable with that for the bar exam (33% in 2007), which also determines eligibility for a broad, generic license to practice. Still, as Sharpless and Barber have noted, examinees report weak confidence in the validity and fairness of the test (Ryan & Chan, 1999), which adds to the perception that psychology has constructed unreasonable barriers to entry into the profession (Olvey, Hogg, & Counts, 2002). Until it can be demonstrated that the EPPP is associated with some relevant performance criterion, the exam and its developers remain vulnerable to charges that it is an arbitrary obstacle serving the professional guild more than the consumer.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

How should the effectiveness of the EPPP be judged?

DiLillo¹,

Tremblay

2009

Professional Psychology: Research and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Perceptions of the EPPP: How do licensure candidates view the process?

Cited by 22 publications

References 51 publications

Applicant Reactions to Selection Procedures: An Updated Model and Meta-Analysis

Applicant Reactions to Selection Procedures: An Updated Model and Meta-Analysis

The path to licensure for academic psychologists: How tough is the road?

How should the effectiveness of the EPPP be judged?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About