Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Licensing And Exams topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board reviews licensing data and EPPP pass‑rate report; California pass rates lower than other jurisdictions
Summary
Licensing staff reported application volumes, processing times and workforce counts; examination staff told the board California’s overall EPPP pass rate is lower than other jurisdictions and first‑time pass rates are also depressed relative to peers.
At its May 9 meeting in Berkeley, the California Board of Psychology received routine licensing and examination reports showing steady application volumes, modest staffing strains and persistently lower EPPP pass rates for California candidates compared with other jurisdictions.
Licensing numbers and processing: Miss Chung, who presented the licensing report, told the board that as of April 16, 2025 the board’s records showed 23,512 licensed psychologists, 1,846 registered psychological associates, 90 registered psychological testing technicians, 72 research psychoanalysts and 23 student research psychoanalysts. Chung said the board’s licensing unit still operates with a small team and that staff are managing seasonal application surges by reallocating tasks and asking for overtime when needed. “On average, we are providing our initial review outcome for each step of the application process within 2 weeks,” Chung said, adding that the office expects a 2–3 week increase in processing delays during peak graduation season.
Examination pass rates: The examination report, which covered January through March 2025, showed markedly lower pass rates for candidates under California jurisdiction. Staff reported an overall EPPP pass rate for California candidates of roughly 37%–39% in early 2025, compared with about 56% in other jurisdictions. For first‑time candidates the board’s materials show a California average first‑time pass rate near 58% versus about 69% elsewhere; repeat‑taker rates averaged about 21% in California vs. 34% in other jurisdictions.
Board questions and causes considered: Members asked whether differences could reflect candidate mix (higher share of repeat takers), program accreditation (greater proportion of graduates from non‑APA programs), the size and diversity of California’s candidate pool, or the timing of when candidates take the exam. Board members noted ASPPB comparisons provided context but said staff could not—and did not—attribute the differences to a single cause. One board member observed that some jurisdictions limit the number of retakes, which could affect comparative numbers.
What staff recommended: Miss Chung advised applicants to use the board’s online checklist to avoid avoidable deficiencies and recommended that prospective applicants ensure their submission is complete before filing; she also said staff will continue to monitor workloads and processing times and will provide updates at future meetings.
Ending: The board heard the data in an informational session and asked staff to continue monitoring trends and to report back; members said the examination findings underscore the need for further study into root causes and for engagement with national testing authorities on exam content and policy.
