Board reviews licensing issues: declining EPPP pass rates, EPPP timing, reciprocity and educational language
Loading...
Summary
The California Board of Psychology spent part of its April 17 meeting reviewing licensing items from the sunset background paper — including declining EPPP pass rates, proposed timing changes to the EPPP part 2, reciprocity/portability barriers and recommended wording for doctoral advancement requirements for registered psychological associates.
Board members reviewed several licensing questions in the sunset packet that the joint legislative committees asked the board to address.
Staff and members focused first on falling national exam passage rates. Staff noted they had presented data at the board’s February meeting (the OPS presentation) and recommended continued monitoring and analysis of whether recent legislative changes or exam revisions affect pass rates. Board members asked staff to reference the February presentation in the board’s responses and to note COVID‑period disruptions as a likely contributing factor to recent declines.
The board also discussed status and potential changes to the EPPP (Examination for Professional Practice in Psychology) part 2. Members agreed to track any ASPPB actions that would change the timing of the exam (for example, requiring the test at the end of supervised experience rather than immediately after graduation) and included language indicating the board will pay close attention to such proposals.
On educational prerequisites for a registered psychological associate, public commenter Elizabeth Winkelman (California Psychological Association) urged removing mandatory language requiring “comprehensive exams” or similar program‑specific tests. Board members and staff suggested more flexible wording such as “advancement to candidacy as defined by the applicant’s doctoral program” or removing the exam requirement entirely so the law would not inadvertently block applicants from programs that do not use a formal preliminary/comprehensive exam.
Reciprocity and portability were discussed both in staff remarks and during public comment. A public commenter, Dr. Quinn Austin Small, urged the board to consider a more flexible reciprocity pathway for experienced out‑of‑state licensees (for example, recognizing long‑licensed psychologists in good standing without requiring verification that would be impossible for older training placements). The board heard that some verification pathways (such as certificate programs) can be costly and time consuming for applicants.
Staff also reported on subject‑matter expert recruitment (separate administrative item): the board has increased its roster of experts by roughly 20, from about 34 to about 54 candidates in the last two years; about 10 applications were found not to meet requirements during staff or former‑member reviews. Staff indicated formal expert training is scheduled for September 2026 and the board will conduct a midyear check in for current experts in September 2025.
No formal votes were taken specifically on the licensing subitems during this meeting; the topics were incorporated into the sunset report that the board approved on the record.
Why it matters: exam passage standards, the timing of licensure exams and portability rules all directly affect who may practice in California and how quickly new psychologists can be licensed. Changes the board recommends to the sunset committee may be converted into bill language by legislators.
Public comment highlights: Dr. Quinn Austin Small (public commenter) urged alternate reciprocity routes for longtime licensees; Elizabeth Winkelman (CPA) advised deleting or broadening language about comprehensive exams to avoid excluding applicants from programs without such exams.
Status: Board adopted the sunset report with edits that incorporate the discussion and directed staff to submit the finalized responses to the joint committees.
