Diana
Salvador, MA
APAGS Member at Large, General Focus
In 1999, the Commission on Education and Training Leading to
Licensure in Psychology was created in order to review education and
training standards leading to licensure in psychology. The commission
consisted of 30 commissioners that represent the various committees,
boards, associations, and organizations from the field. This included
several graduate student representatives/commissioners from the American
Psychological Association of Graduate Students (APAGS). The inclusion of
national graduate student representatives ensured that we have a voice
at the table, allowing us to share our unique perspectives and helping
us to close the gap between the policy makers and the students.
Since the mid-1970s, training and education in psychology and the
delivery of mental health services has changed dramatically allowing
psychologists to deliver innovative and expanded services in both new
and existing settings. These changes have been met by a 180% increase in
the number of PhD psychologists entering the field (since 1975). Despite
this growth, there has been a steady decrease in the earning power of
psychologists and an increase in cumulative student debt related to
graduate education. This has left students struggling to complete
requirements at an increasing financial expense. From a training
perspective, these changes have also been met by the diversification of
training standards and requirements amongst programs, training sites,
and state licensing boards. As a result, students and programs seem to
be defining their own level of training and education, in the absence of
a national standardized process. This has caused an increase in
competitiveness among students for internship and post-doctoral
training, as well as employment opportunities, which has inadvertently
raised the bar in some cases (e.g. number of practicum hours obtained)
at the expense of others (i.e. education in the classroom). The
Commission was created to make recommendations about how to better
tailor the sequence and quality of training and education in psychology
in order to train competent psychologists within the context of the
current identity of the field (e.g. the changing marketplace, emerging
sub-specialties, issues of supply and demand).
The first of two Commission meetings was held May 19-21, 2000 in
Reston, VA. The meeting focused on the point at which one achieves the
"journey person" level of competency, defined as the base line
skills or foundation necessary for independent practice in psychology.
Specifically, Commissioners discussed and debated the conditions
necessary for students to be considered eligible to sit for licensure in
psychology. Some themes that emerged and sparked healthy debates
included:
- How many practicum hours should students be required to obtain?
- Should students be required to take an internship that is
accredited by APA and/or the National Register?
- What is the purpose of the post-doctoral year and should it be a
requirement for all students?
- How has the changing marketplace and the emergence of
sub-specialties impacted training and education?
- How can we protect the public and ensure that psychologists are
properly trained?
Of particular interest was a discussion that focused on the pros and
cons of the post-doctoral year, currently required by 37 states in the
US. Many questioned the utility and necessity of this post-doctoral year
in meeting the "journey person level". In addition, it was
reported that the lack of organized post-doctoral training programs has
posed an obstacle for students in meeting requirements for licensure. An
equal number of strong supporters argued that the post-doctoral year
remains a seminal part of training and is critical to achieving the
"journey person level" despite changes in psychology. Although
many remained divided in their opinions, their voices were heard by
those sitting at the table.
Overall, the breadth and depth of the discussions sparked around
these issues in combination with the diversity of the group led to a
stimulating discussion, albeit not one marked by consensus. I believe
that this is reflective of the complexity of the goals posed by the
commission and our willingness to search for long term (rather than
quick) solutions. In addition, the commission may be the first step to
creating a standardized model of training that not only protects the
public but also helps to establish credibility for the field and means
for mobility and future development.
The second and final Commission meeting was held September 7-9, 2000.
Look for an update from this meeting in the next newsletter.
This article first appeared in the Fall 2000 Edition of the APAGS
Newsletter, Vol. 12(3)
