Board asks ASPPB for clearer timeline, eligibility guidance and AI limits on proposed integrated EPPP

The California Board of Psychology on May 9 voted to ask the Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards (ASPPB) for a clearer implementation plan, eligibility guidance and a disclosure policy on artificial intelligence related to the planned integrated Examination for Professional Practice in Psychology (EPPP). The motion passed on a roll call vote after public comment and a presentation from ASPPB staff.

The action followed a 45‑minute presentation from Dr. Hao Seung Song, associate executive officer of examination services for ASPPB, who described ASPPB’s roadmap for moving from the current EPPP structure—two parts measuring knowledge and skills—into a single integrated examination to be delivered in one sitting. Song said ASPPB plans job‑task analyses, public town halls, and a beta test period in 2027 before any operational rollout. He introduced himself at the start of his presentation: “I’m Hao Seung. I’m the associate executive officer of examination services for ASPPB.”

Why it matters: California board members and stakeholders said the state needs time to adjust its statutes, regulations and contracts if the integrated exam is adopted. Board members repeatedly stressed that a change to a competency‑focused exam could require legislative amendments, regulatorily complex rulemaking and changes to vendor contracts (for example, Pearson VUE test‑center arrangements). Several members said a 2027 target could be too soon without additional detail.

What the board asked for: In the motion—moved by Dr. Harp Sheets and seconded on the record—the board directed its president and executive officer to send a letter to ASPPB that: (1) requests a definitive implementation timeline and any planned overlap between current EPPP offerings and the new integrated exam; (2) asks ASPPB to state its recommended eligibility rules and whether states should retain discretion; (3) seeks clarity on estimated test length and fee impacts; and (4) requests transparency about any use of artificial intelligence in item generation, review or quality assurance. The motion passed on roll call (President Tate and a majority of members voting aye). The board delegated final edits to the president and executive officer.

Concerns raised during debate: Board members and members of the public pressed several points: - Implementation lead time: Multiple members said California’s rulemaking and legislative review can take years and asked for a grace period or overlap so examinees and license applicants are not disadvantaged. - Eligibility: Members asked whether ASPPB will recommend that candidates be allowed to sit after coursework (as California law currently permits through AB 282) or only after internship/supervised experience. Dr. Song said eligibility is part of the job‑task analysis discussions and that ASPPB will provide recommendations but jurisdictions may have flexibility. - Cost and length: Board members asked whether a single integrated exam will be longer and more expensive than the current two‑part approach; ASPPB said length/fee decisions depend on final blueprint and item counts and will be addressed later in the development process. - Artificial intelligence: Several board members and public commenters urged ASPPB to confirm whether any AI would be used to write operational items. Song said ASPPB is not using AI to generate operational items now, and that AI might be explored only for supporting tasks such as identifying possibly redundant ("enemy") items; he said ASPPB is not planning to deploy AI‑generated items in the near term.

Public comment: Representatives of the California Psychological Association and the San Diego Psychological Association urged stakeholder engagement, urged minimizing new barriers to licensure, and asked ASPPB and the board to preserve access for applicants. Multiple public commenters asked for strong safeguards around any AI use.

Next steps: The board president and executive officer will draft and send the letter to ASPPB, incorporating board amendments. ASPPB plans to continue town halls, surveys and a beta testing window; the board asked to receive regular updates to inform any future regulatory or legislative action in California.

Ending: The board’s request underscores the practical hurdles states face when national testing programs shift design. The board framed its letter as an effort to ensure an orderly transition that preserves consumer protection while minimizing unintended barriers to licensure.