The enhanced examination for professional practice in psychology: A viable approach?

Abstract

Health disciplines have increasingly required competency-based evaluations as a licensure prerequisite. In keeping with this trend, the Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards (ASPPB) has begun to develop a second part to the Examination for Professional Practice in Psychology (EPPP). The resulting 2-part examination is collectively referred to as the Enhanced EPPP. Part 1 of the Enhanced EPPP, which consists of the current exam, is designed to be an assessment of knowledge. Part 2 of the Enhanced EPPP is newly developed and intended to address the need for a competency-based evaluation. To date, ASPPB has addressed some standard facets of validity for the EPPP Part 2, but not others. In addition, the EPPP Part 2 has yet to be subjected to a broader validation process, in which the suitability of the test for its intended purpose is evaluated. Implementation of the EPPP Part 2 before validation could have negative consequences for those seeking to enter the profession and for the general public (e.g., potential restriction of diversity in the psychology workforce). For jurisdictions implementing the EPPP Part 2, failure to gather and report the evidence required for use of a test in a forensic context may also open the door for legal challenges. We end with suggestions for feasible research that could significantly enhance the validation process for the EPPP Part 2 and offer jurisdictions concrete suggestions of features to look for in determining whether and when to implement the Enhanced EPPP. Public Significance StatementThe national licensing exam for psychologists acts as a gatekeeping evaluation intended to protect public welfare. To date, the suitability and value added of the EPPP Part 2 is unclear, and ASPPB has described only limited plans to conduct validation of the EPPP Part 2. Validation of the planned revision to the exam is of crucial significance to the entire profession and serves to protect the discipline's reputation as a health service provider.

Inviting ASPPB to address systemic bias and racism: Reply to Turner et al. (2021).

“…

Turner et al (2021) subtly relapse in conceptualizing the Examination for Professional Practice in Psychology (Part 2-Skills) exam as a competency evaluation despite Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards' (ASPPB) prior concession that Part 2 measures only the knowledge of skills (not skill competency). They do not address the purpose of redundant evaluation or the other concerns raised in Callahan et al (2020). Instead, Turner et al remain narrowly focused on defense of content validity and a reliance on outdated standards that fail to meet contemporary expectations for assessment of health care professionals.

…”

“…The Examination for Professional Practice in Psychology (EPPP) is an international exam, yet neither the existing nor Part 2 exam reflects contemporary measure development guidelines for evaluation of linguistically and culturally diverse peoples (International Test Commission, 2018). Therefore, it is not surprising that the existing EPPP evidences strong English bias (Callahan et al, 2020) and is not required by jurisdictions where English is not the predominant language (e.g., Quebec, Puerto Rico). Within jurisdictions that do require the EPPP, the prevalence of students for whom English is a second language averages 10% (nearing 20% in the largest jurisdictions; Hussar et al, 2020).…”

Factors associated with passing the EPPP on first attempt: Findings from a mixed methods survey of recent test takers.

“…In the same vein, critical analysis must be expanded to Part 2 during beta-testing in 2020 and beyond. A broad array of strategies to validate that exam are offered in a recent American Psychologist article by Callahan and colleagues (2020). On the eve of Part 2 being offered in some jurisdictions (see www.asppb.net/news/478458), a preponderance of score discrepancies might encourage the publisher to eliminate the possibility that extraneous influences of demographic variables will impinge on the fair assessment of skill for all future psychologists.…”

Appropriate validation standards for licensure examinations: Comment on Callahan et al. (2020).

“…

Callahan et al (2020) asserted that the Examination for Professional Practice in Psychology (Part 2-Skills) has not undergone appropriate validation. Although they recognized that content validity is the foundation of licensure examinations, they suggested additional validational strategies that are not recommended for licensure examination development.

…”