Two and a half years ago, CoA began the G&P revision roadmap process. Once completed and approved, the revised G&P will become the Standards of Accreditation (SoA). Through extensive and systematically solicited public comment from constituents, a draft of the SoA was developed in June 2013. This draft underwent a second public comment period that ended in July 2014. The comments received during this second period focused on six primary issues/questions:
- The use of “Health Service Psychology” as a substitute for “professional psychology.”
- Profession-wide competencies.
- Discipline-specific knowledge.
- Programs in religious institutions.
- Degree type definitions.
- Direct observation.
An FAQ outlining the public comment received and CoA’s is below. The goal is for CoA to finalize the SoA in late fall 2014, and then forward the SoA to APA governance for approval by the end of 2014.
Frequently asked questions and CoA’s responses
“Health Service Psychology”
Public comment revealed some dissatisfaction/confusion related to the term “health service psychology.”
CoA’s response: The “health service psychology” label was selected in an effort to address the long-standing dissatisfaction with the term “professional psychology,” which many felt was far too broad and uninformative. The new term seeks to broadly align both research and practice with a focus on integration of the two. The use of this term in the SoA will strategically align accreditation with current and future health service-related research and practice. Moving forward, CoA will work to further define and provide a rationale for the term within the SoA, including a clear understanding that programs will be accredited in clinical psychology, counseling psychology, school psychology, developed practice areas and combinations of these areas.
Profession-wide competencies
In the context of broad support for the creation and use of profession-wide competencies, CoA considered public comment that recommended adopting HSPEC versus the CoA-drafted profession-wide competencies.
CoA’s response: CoA reviewed its systematic methods and process for determining consensus profession-wide competencies (based on the consideration of nine published competency frameworks). After this review, CoA voted to retain the CoA-drafted consensus profession-wide competencies in the SoA, with minor edits/clarifications based on public comment. In addition to the information in the SoA, an Implementing Regulation for profession-wide competencies will be developed. Once complete, this IR will be posted for public comment prior to finalizing and adoption.
Discipline-specific knowledge
Public comment revealed a need to further articulate discipline-specific knowledge as outlined in the draft SoA, specifically focusing on areas that: 1) can be met either at the undergraduate or graduate level; 2) require some graduate level coverage; or 3) require some higher level integration at the graduate level.
CoA’s response: In order to respond to the request for a detailed explanation, CoA is developing an IR that will clarify and amplify on expectations specified in the SoA. In anticipation of developing an IR on discipline-specific knowledge, CoA also requested consultation from the Council of Graduate Departments of Psychology (COGOP). The new IR will incorporate this consultation, outlining proposed areas of coverage at undergraduate and graduate levels. The IR will also incorporate feedback from public comment which expressed general support for flexibility in methods to acquire discipline-specific knowledge. The IR(s) will be posted for public comment prior to finalizing and adopting.
Programs in religious institutions
Some constituent groups suggested that the meaning or scope of “footnote 4” was changed in the SoA.
CoA’s response: In drafting the SoA, CoA's intention was to move footnote 4 from the current G&P and embed it into the SoA without changing its meaning or scope. To address the unintended perception that the meaning of footnote 4 had been changed, the SoA will be edited to fully incorporate the text from footnote 4 in the SoA, as well as additional language that was reviewed during public comment.1
Degree type definitions
Public comment suggested that the placement of definitions of degrees in Standard I was inconsistent with the goal of adopting profession-wide competencies that cut across degree type. Also, comment indicated that the degree definitions in the SoA needed further clarification.
CoA’s response: Based on the public comment, CoA will move the definition of degrees to Standard II, following the description of discipline-specific knowledge and competencies. The definitions will be refined and the CoA will consider SoA language to allow for other degree type programs (e.g., Ed.D. or P.P.D.) that might demonstrate education and training within the scope of accreditation.
Direct observation
The public comment raised logistical and practical questions related to the requirement that assessment of trainees' competence by supervisors be based, in part, on direct observation.
CoA’s response: The SoA specifies minimum requirements for direct observation of trainees. CoA recognizes that many programs already exceed the minimum requirement specified in the SoA, and this requirement is not intended to create a greater burden for these programs. The CoA is developing an IR to clarify its expectations regarding direct observation (e.g., frequency of observation, what constitutes as direct observation, and who can observe).
1Updated proposed “footnote 4” language:
Administrative Responsibilities. The program recognizes the importance of cultural and individual differences and diversity in the training of psychologists. The program has made systematic, coherent, and long-term efforts to attract and retain students and faculty from diverse backgrounds into the program. Consistent with such efforts, it acts to ensure a supportive and encouraging learning environment appropriate for the training of diverse individuals and the provision of training opportunities for a broad spectrum of individuals. Further, the program avoids any actions that would restrict program access on grounds that are irrelevant to success in graduate training, either directly or by imposing significant and disproportionate burdens on the basis of the personal and demographic characteristics set forth in the definition of cultural diversity. Because of the United States’ rich diverse higher education landscape, training can take place in both secular and faith based settings. Thus this requirement does not exclude programs from having a religious affiliation or purpose and adopting and applying admission and employment policies that directly relate to this affiliation or purpose, so long as public notice of these policies has been made to applicants, students, faculty, or staff before their application or affiliation with the program. These policies may provide a preference for persons adhering to the religious purpose or affiliation of the program, but they shall not be used to preclude the admission, hiring, or retention of individuals because of the personal and demographic characteristics set forth under the definition of cultural diversity. This provision is intended to permit religious policies as to admission, retention, and employment only to the extent that they are protected by the U.S. Constitution. It will be administered as if the U.S. Constitution governed its application. Notwithstanding the above, and regardless of a program’s setting, the program may not constrain academic freedom or otherwise alter the requirements of these standards. Finally, compelling pedagogical interests require that each program prepare graduates to navigate cultural and individual differences in research and practice, including those that may produce value conflicts or other tensions arising from the intersection of different areas of diversity.
