The historical roots of CRSPPP and its mission to recognize specialties and proficiencies in professional psychology

The history of concern about issues of specialization in professional (applied) psychology is nearly as long as the history of the American Psychological Association (APA) itself, and parallels the evolution of psychology as a profession. In what was probably the first major organizational event associated with professional specialty identification, an Association of Clinical Psychologists was formed as a section of the APA in 1917. Two years later, amidst failed attempts to develop licensing procedures for applied psychologists, the APA established a committee to consider procedures for certification. This action was taken with the idea in mind of differentiating "clinical" psychologists from "consulting" psychologists, and other possible "specialists" related to emerging sections of the APA on "educational" psychology and "industrial" psychology.

Nothing much came of these actions at the time. Psychology, after all, was an infant discipline the members of which were predominantly academicians and scholars dedicated to advancing psychology as a science. Between the world wars, those who were pioneers in the applications of psychology in any form resembling a profession were in the distinct minority among APA members, so much so that by the late 1930s they formed a new association, the American Association for Applied Psychology (AAAP), apart from the APA. World War II served in many ways as a catalyst in bringing the disparate forces of academic and applied psychologists together. Following the war, the AAAP and APA joined forces once again in a reorganized APA, one that recognized the potential of psychology as a profession as well as a science. For those interested in a scholarly account of the history of the APA and, by reflection, of psychology as a scientific and applied discipline, an overview is provided in R.B. Evans, V.S. Sexton and T.C. Cadwallader (Eds.) (1992), The American Psychological Association: A Historical Perspective, American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C. Another excellent account of these formative years for psychology as an applied science and profession is that of J.H. Capshew (1999), Psychologists on the March: Science, Practice, and Professional Identity in America, 1929-1969, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

By virtue of their significant contributions during World War II, the various applications of psychology had truly become the foundation on which the profession would grow over the next 50 years. In recognition of the need for credentials in various areas or specialties of professional psychology, the American Board of Examiners in Professional Psychology (ABEPP...now ABPP) was incorporated apart from the APA in 1947 through initiatives of the APA. The intent of this development was to serve the public by certifying competence in major areas of professional practice beyond that certified by a general license to practice. Licensing laws and regulations for psychology were also to develop for the first time during these years, as would the development of ethical principles and guidelines for practice, general and specialty-specific. In 1949 the APA established the Committee on Intra-Professional Relationships in Psychology to examine relationships between education and training, licensure, and advanced diploma credential requirements in the different areas of practice, or specialties of practice as they would come to be known.

Historically, there has been a tension of sorts between those who regard psychology as a unitary profession (the generalists) and those who view the profession as having a common core of knowledge but from which quite different professional practices are derived (the specialists). In proceedings of a national conference on graduate education and training in psychology held in Miami in 1958, a section was devoted to specialty training (A. Roe, J.W. Gustad, B.V. Moore, S. Ross, & M. Skodak, Eds., 1959 Graduate Education in Psychology, American Psychological Association, 1959, pp. 52-64). Thirty years later, examining the assumptions underlying different perspectives on these issues, J. D. Matarazzo published an article in the October 1987 issue of American Psychologist (pp. 893-903) with the title "There is only one psychology, no specialties, but many applications."

Until recent years, recognition of specialties in professional psychology was done on a de facto basis. Psychologists identifying with a specialty did so primarily through membership in divisions of the APA and through areas recognized by ABPP diploma (though the latter has always been a credential earned by a small proportion of practicing psychologists, unlike specialty board certification in medicine). By the late 1970s and early 1980s, however, developments pertaining to the profession of psychology gave impetus to an expressed need by some for a more formal de jure process of recognizing different practice areas. It was out of this more recent history that the need was conceived for an entity such as the Commission for the Recognition of Specialties and Proficiencies in Professional Psychology (CRSPPP). More importantly in that recent history, the establishment of CRSPPP was a development that arose initially from parallel, then converging, needs of both the professional practice and education communities of psychology.

From the practice community in the early 1980s the Board of Professional Affairs (BPA) established a Subcommittee on Specialization (SOS). In 1985, the BPA/SOS submitted a set of recommendations to the APA Council of Representatives, the substance of which was a conceptual plan with criteria and procedures by which the APA could formally recognize specialties and proficiencies of professional psychology. Following lengthy and contentious discussion, however, no approval was given by Council at that time to the proposed de jure process of specialty and proficiency recognition. Meanwhile, faced also with newly emerging areas of applied psychology seeking to establish a specialty examination process and diploma credential, ABPP adopted with some modification for its use the criteria and procedures proposed by the BPA/SOS. Thus, in an effort to carry out its mission of credentialing individual practitioners in psychology, ABPP became involved in the formal recognition of specialties in professional psychology.

From the education perspective the need for a mechanism by which to formally recognize specialties, but not proficiencies, was introduced in 1986 when the APA Council endorsed in principle a resolution that the scope of accreditation of professional education and training programs in psychology be expanded beyond the areas that historically had been accredited (i.e., clinical, counseling, and school psychology). This action anticipated the possibility that new areas of specialization might emerge for which professional training would be required at either or both the doctoral or postdoctoral level. This led the Education and Training Board to propose, and the Board of Directors to approve, establishing the Task Force on Scope and Criteria for Accreditation to propose a conceptual model for the future accreditation of programs in professional psychology and procedures by which new specialty areas might be recognized. With input from virtually all practitioner and educator communities, the task force included in its final report to the Council the recommendation for a de jure process of specialty recognition, with slight modification of the proposal submitted a few years earlier by the BPA/SOS.

In 1990, the APA Council received yet another report that included a recommendation for the APA establish a formal process by which to recognize specialties and proficiencies in professional psychology, based on a systematic taxonomy and set of definitional criteria. This recommendation came from the Joint Council on Professional Education in Psychology (JCPEP), a group formed two years earlier by leaders of APA practitioner divisions, joined by national leaders of the professional psychology education and training community, to advocate for policies that would bring consistency and coherence to professional education, training, and credentialing standards for benefit of the profession and publics it serves. The JCPEP also made a number of recommendations related to future practices of professional education and training programs and their accreditation at doctoral and postdoctoral levels.

From 1989-1992, much of the attention in accreditation was focused on reorganizing the accrediting body (Committee on Accreditation). With the impetus of new specialties being recognized by ABPP or otherwise emerging from within various education and practice communities, however, there was growing concern about the lack of APA involvement in the formal recognition of specialty areas in professional psychology as had been proposed on previous occasions. Consequently, in November 1992 a letter was forwarded to the Board of Directors jointly by Board of Educational Affairs (BEA), the Board of Professional Affairs (BPA), and the Committee for the Advancement of Professional Psychology (CAPP), recommending the appointment of a Joint Interim Committee on the Identification and Recognition of Specialties and Proficiencies (JIC). The Board responded favorably and in 1993 appointed and funded the JIC to propose criteria and procedures by which the APA could undertake the formal recognition of specialties and proficiencies in professional psychology.

In February 1995, the Council received from the JIC a final report and approved its recommendations as amended by the Board of Directors. The APA thereby established CRSPPP as its organizational agent to implement the recognition process, all final decisions from which would be affirmed by the APA Council. The structure and functions of CRSPPP are documented in the APA Association Rule 90-8. It is important to note that in addition to one member being a representative of the general public, CRSPPP members are elected by Council based on nominations from constituencies of the APA representing practice, education, science, and public interest, thus broadly representing all of psychology. Subsequent to the implementation of a formal process for recognizing specialties and proficiencies by the APA, the process established earlier by ABPP was suspended.

The APA specialty and proficiency recognition process does not credential individual psychologists, nor does it limit their practice. Boundaries for the latter are set by licensing boards and regulations, on the one hand, and on the other by the ethical principles and code of conduct for psychologists. Specialty and proficiency recognition does not create areas of practice, but rather identifies, codifies by recognition, and clarifies for the public distinctive patterns of professional education, training, and practice that exist among professional psychologists.

In serving the public through this process, however, CRSPPP does not function in isolation. While the recognition process for which it is responsible must be conducted in a manner consistent with the published criteria and procedures for recognition, CRSPPP also serves as a public forum through which others of the general public or the profession can provide feedback or otherwise share their concerns about issues related to the recognition process and its outcomes. This it does in several ways, making information available as in this web site, holding open forums at annual professional meetings, and preparing annual reports for the APA governance. It also is represented by liaisons at meetings of other national organizations concerned with issues of professional psychology. Indeed, in 1995 when it established CRSPPP, the APA Council formally recognized the need for a mechanism by which organizations having authority for specialty recognition, professional education and training, program accreditation, and practitioner credentialing functions could meet periodically for the purpose of sharing information and discussing policy issues related to these functions and the effects that each has on the other, while also honoring the independent and autonomous functioning of each organization.

Following a few name changes, the voluntary organization now serving as this mechanism is the Council of Credentialing Organizations in Professional Psychology (CCOPP). Its participant organizations are: the American Board of Professional Psychology (ABPP), the APA Practice Organization College of Professional Psychology (CPP), the APA Commission for the Recognition of Specialties and Proficiencies in Professional Psychology (CRSPPP), the Association of Psychology Postdoctoral and Internship Programs (APPIC), the Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards (ASPPB), the Canadian Psychological Association (CPA), the Canadian Register of Health Service Providers in Professional Psychology (CNR ), and the National Register of Health Service Providers in Psychology (NR). The Committee on Accreditation (CoA) and Council of Specialties (CoS) participate in CCOPP as observers rather than voting members.

The mission CCOPP adopted is:

To provide inter-organizational leadership in generating integrated, effectively coordinated policies and procedures to improve quality and process in recognition of specialties and proficiencies in professional psychology, designation and accreditation of education and training programs, and credentialing of individuals in professional psychology.

Paul D. Nelson, Ph.D.
American Psychological Association
June 1999