Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Exam Performance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board hears data showing lower EPPP pass rates for California candidates; staff, members discuss causes
Summary
Board staff presented EPPP pass-rate data showing lower overall and repeat-taker pass rates for California candidates compared with other jurisdictions. Members discussed possible contributing factors including program accreditation, candidate mix and exam timing.
California Board of Psychology licensing staff presented examination statistics for January through March 2025 showing that pass rates for candidates under California jurisdiction are lower than those reported by other jurisdictions; board members pressed staff for context and potential causes.
Miss Chung, the board’s licensing/examination staff lead, summarized monthly pass-rate data drawn from ASPPB and internal reports. “The average overall pass rate for test takers under California jurisdiction was lower at 37% compared to 56% in all other jurisdictions,” she said. For first-time takers, California averaged about 58% versus 69% elsewhere; for repeat takers, California averaged 21% versus 34% in other jurisdictions. Chung also reported that a larger portion of California candidates were repeat takers (about 58% of candidates) compared with other jurisdictions (about 37%).
Board members and attendees discussed potential explanations. Dr. Harpsheets noted that some jurisdictions limit the number of times a candidate may take the exam, which could affect repeat-taker statistics. “Some states only allow people to take the exam a limited number of times,” he said.
Dr. Musika and other board members suggested the state’s larger and more diverse candidate pool and the prevalence of graduates from non-APA-accredited programs might contribute to lower pass rates. Chung confirmed staff findings that California has a relatively higher share of candidates from non-APA-accredited programs and said staff do not have definitive causal answers: “We don’t have that answer,” she told the board, urging caution when interpreting trends.
Staff proposed several next steps: continuing to analyze pass-rate data by institution and program, sharing ASPPB-compiled comparisons, and making the new charts and monthly visualizations available to the board and public. Board members encouraged greater outreach to training programs and suggested ASPPB’s publicly posted program-level pass-rate data could help programs and applicants make informed choices.
Why it matters: Pass rates affect candidates, graduate programs and licensure policy. Lower pass rates in California could point to differences in candidate mix, training preparation or exam format familiarity. The board asked staff to continue analysis rather than draw definitive conclusions.
Ending: Staff will provide follow-up materials including comparative charts, breakdowns by first-time vs. repeat takers and institution-level data where possible. The board requested outreach to stakeholder groups and asked staff to present updated analysis at a future meeting.
