As this issue of the Monitor went to press, the APA Council of Representatives was expected to put the final stamp of approval on the new Standards of Accreditation for Health Service Psychology. The council vote was the conclusion of an intensive three-year process marked by the utmost inclusiveness and transparency. I became a member of APA's Commission on Accreditation in February 2011, and at that month's policy meeting, the conversation began regarding this major initiative. The current Guidelines and Principles for Accreditation (G&P) were initially adopted 20 years ago and implemented in 1996. The monumental task of revising the G&P was in response to the many changes that have occurred in higher education, education and training in psychology, and health care during the last two decades. Given this momentous event, I'd like to highlight the process in this month's column.
It's important to note that accreditation is synonymous with quality assurance and protection of the public. The scope of accreditation includes doctoral programs, internships and postdoctoral residencies in clinical, counseling and school psychology. This also includes combined programs and other developed practice areas. The standards of accreditation are used to assure that these programs have clearly defined and appropriate objectives consistent with the science and practice of psychology. The review of the G&P and the resulting new standards of accreditation were key to maintaining this assurance.
From the very start, broad input was solicited in the development of the new standards. At every stage of the process, the Commission on Accreditation solicited public comment, which generated over 1,200 pages of input from individuals, training councils, APA governance bodies and other interested entities. The first phase of input was based around 34 questions comprising four overarching questions and 10 questions related to each of the training levels (doctoral, internship and postdoctoral residency). The second phase of public comment was shaped by the hundreds of pages of input that were reviewed in their entirety by the CoA. This review culminated in 40 additional questions (20 related to doctoral and internship programs and 20 for postdoctoral programs). Thousands of miles were covered traveling to dozens of annual meetings of training councils and organizations to provide updates and solicit more input. In addition, there were open forums at the last three conventions as well as virtual town hall meetings. Revisions on the standards based on this broad input and legal review continued through the October 2014 meeting of the CoA, which culminated in a unanimous vote to adopt the new standards and begin the formal approval process through APA governance and national accrediting authorities.
Currently, the Commission on Accreditation is developing implementing regulations (IRs) for the new standards and operating procedures. These IRs are clarifying documents that help define the commission's policies and procedures. For example, draft IRs on discipline-specific knowledge, profession-wide competencies, direct observation and site visit procedures (among others) are forthcoming and generated with the input of public comment.
The implementation of the new standards will be sequential so that programs with self-studies due in September 2016 will be the first group asked to follow the new standards. An exciting new online training platform is currently under development to aid in understanding the new standards and how the self-study, site visits, and program review will differ from the current G&P. Updates on these training activities and the implementation of the new standards will be posted regularly on the Commission on Accreditation web pages.
In sum, although the commission implemented, facilitated and organized this arduous undertaking, I think it is clear that due to the extensively transparent process, the new standards of accreditation are a culmination of the science and practice community's best thinking. For the good of the discipline and all who are served by our profession, it will be important to continue to model this inclusive and transparent approach moving forward.
