California board hears widespread concern about EPPP pass rates as ASPPB moves toward an enhanced exam
Loading...
Summary
At an Aug. 8 meeting of the California Board of Psychology Licensure Committee, board staff described low EPPP pass rates and plans to share ASPPB town-hall and job-task analysis outreach. Public commenters — many of them license applicants — urged the board to pursue alternatives, including coordination with Texas and other states.
SACRAMENTO — The California Board of Psychology’s Licensure Committee on Aug. 8 discussed sharply lower pass rates on the Examination for Professional Practice in Psychology (EPPP) and told applicants how to take part in upcoming Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards (ASPPB) outreach. John Burke, the board’s executive officer, said the board will send email and social-media notices about an ASPPB town hall for students and licensure candidates and a job-task analysis survey that closes Sept. 29, 2025.
Why it matters: Committee members and dozens of public commenters said the EPPP is functioning as a barrier to licensure and to California’s capacity to expand access to mental-health services. Multiple commenters described repeated test attempts, job loss and high personal cost. The board said it is monitoring ASPPB’s work and recently sent a formal letter to ASPPB outlining California’s concerns (see materials in the meeting packet).
Board staff laid out the current timeline and outreach. Burke said ASPPB’s candidates’ town hall will be Sept. 18 (1–2 p.m. ET) and that the board will distribute links and the job-task-analysis survey to licensees via its email list and social channels. Burke also told the committee that the board has previously explored developing a California-specific exam but declined to do so because of cost and risks to reciprocity and portability.
Public comments were extensive and focused on perceptions that the EPPP has become both more difficult and less tied to clinical competence. “There’s so many things — I started coaching because of this,” said Dr. Araceli Lopez Arenas, a commenter who described multiple attempts to pass the exam and urged the board to act. “So suicide is what's at stake here,” she added during public comment.
Several other commenters detailed long series of attempts and personal and financial harm; Jason Fryer, an applicant on his fifth attempt, said the exam is “egregiously difficult” and urged the board to consider alternatives or relief for people nearing the six-year eligibility limit. Dr. Gertsakian, who identified as an unlicensed candidate, asked what the board could do to improve outcomes for applicants.
Committee members noted the board’s recent letter to ASPPB, which is included beginning on page 41 of the meeting materials, and said they would continue to press for data and engagement. Miss Hanson, the board’s exam coordinator, pointed members to earlier materials showing California’s pass rates compared with other jurisdictions.
What the board said it will do: share the ASPPB town-hall and survey information, continue correspondence with ASPPB leadership, and monitor the job-task-analysis results. Burke told the committee he had a recent conversation with ASPPB’s CEO to raise California’s implementation concerns and equity questions.
What the board is not doing now: there was no motion or vote to adopt a California-specific replacement test at this meeting. Burke confirmed there are no current plans to change the six-year eligibility limit; requests for individual extensions are handled case by case.
The committee asked staff to publicize ASPPB’s Sept. 18 town hall and the job-task-analysis survey and to report back at the board meeting later in August.
The meeting packet includes the board’s letter to ASPPB and cross-references to ASPPB resources; the committee encouraged candidates and licensed psychologists to participate in ASPPB’s survey and town hall.
