Accreditation of Programs in Substantive Areas and Specialties Implications for Doctoral Programs

Under the Guidelines and Principles for Accreditation of Programs in Professional Psychology, doctoral education in preparation for entry level practice must be broad and general, representing a substantive area of professional psychology. The substantive areas that are recognized under the Guidelines and Principles are clinical, counseling, or school, or a combination of these areas. In addition, the Guidelines and Principles also include a provision that emerging substantive areas also may be recognized for doctoral accreditation.

Domains of knowledge and practice variously described as tracks or areas of specialization, competence, emphasis, or proficiency must be built on substantive areas of professional psychology. The Committee on Accreditation accredits programs that offer "specialty" training only at the postdoctoral level, where such advanced preparation can either be broad, or focused in a specialized area. It is recognized that there are multiple meanings ascribed to the term "specialty" and "specialization" in the professional community, and, in light of this, it is important to note that the Committee on Accreditation does not consider a "specialty" (in many of the ways the term is being used in organized psychology) to be equivalent to a "substantive area" at the doctoral level as outlined by the Guidelines and Principles.

From the perspective of the Committee on Accreditation, emerging substantive areas should be identified, comprehensively recognized, and delineated by the professional psychology community. This recognition and delineation must be reflected in a broad endorsement from the profession; emerging substantive areas would not be determined in the context of an individual program, or through the recognition of an area by a narrow group of professional committees, councils, or other entities.

To date, consensus about such emerging substantive areas at the doctoral level has not been adequately achieved. However, it is recognized that efforts to distinguish various areas of psychology are being undertaken in a number of different venues, and the Committee hopes to assist in moving these processes forward. It is hoped that the necessary delineation will be accomplished soon. In the meantime, doctoral programs that offer elective concentrations or tracks within the traditional substantive areas may wish to self-designate their areas of emphasis (such as clinical with emphases in health and child).

When an emerging substantive area is adequately clarified, it will be considered by the Committee on Accreditation for a comprehensive evaluation within the accreditation domains according to the requirements set forth in the Guidelines and Principles for doctoral programs (specifically Domain B, number 3) as providing substantive training in the depth and breadth of psychology.

Current Activities and Plans

Following from this statement of the present status of accreditation of training programs in specialties and substantive areas, the Committee recognizes the need to elaborate what is meant for a substantive area to be "comprehensively recognized and delineated." In this regard, the Committee is actively monitoring (and in some cases participating in) the processes that are currently underway in a variety of venues relevant to the issue of specialties, emerging substantive areas, and their designation. These include:

1. Through the Council of Specialties, the formation of aggregate units ("synarchies") representing different specialties
2. Through the Board of Educational Affairs in conjunction with the Committee on Accreditation, the evaluation of the scope and composition of the Committee on Accreditation
3. Through the Council of Credentialing Organizations in Professional Psychology, the development of a conceptual framework for specialization in psychology
4. Through the Commission for Recognition of Specialties and Proficiencies in Professional Psychology, the receipt and recognition of specialty and proficiency petitions, and the development of conceptual tools to diversify the notion of specialization
5. Through the Commission on Education and Training Leading to Licensure, the identification of requisite broad and general training that would lead to entry level practice
6. Through the Committee on Accreditation self study process, the assessment of need from the field for new areas of doctoral accreditation
7. Through the American Board of Professional Psychology, the certification of individual competence in various domains of specialty practice

It is the goal of the Committee on Accreditation to work with these groups and processes as the issues of substantive areas and specialization in professional psychology are addressed, and to be informed by the broadly-based consensus emerging from these efforts in terms of their implications for education and training and for accreditation of doctoral programs, internships, and postdoctoral residencies in professional psychology. Toward this goal, the Committee on Accreditation is committed to moving forward a collaborative process within and between these efforts to facilitate the resolution of these issues.