ASPPB outlines plan to integrate EPPP; California board presses for implementation details, AI safeguards

The Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards on Friday presented a roadmap to replace the two-part EPPP with a single, integrated exam that combines knowledge and skills into one administration, and California’s Board of Psychology asked ASPPB for more concrete implementation details — including how jurisdictions should handle eligibility, potential fee increases and any use of artificial intelligence in test preparation or quality control.

Dr. Hao Song, associate executive officer of examination services for ASPPB, told the board the goal is to deliver “one exam administered in one setting” that assesses both knowledge and applied skills. He said the organization expects a multiyear process of job-task analysis, blueprint publication, question bank alignment and beta testing before large-scale rollout.

The board’s discussion focused less on the concept of measuring applied competence and more on practical consequences for licensure in California. Several members said they needed clearer information about: (1) whether California’s existing laws that let candidates take the EPPP upon completion of coursework (Assembly Bill 282) will be compatible with a skills component, (2) how much longer the test would be and whether testing-center fees would rise, and (3) if and how ASPPB plans to use artificial intelligence in item generation or quality assurance.

“Licensure exams are about content validity, not predicting future disciplinary actions,” said Dr. Steven Phillips during the Q&A about psychometric standards and the limits of predictive validity. Dr. Song concurred and pointed to the standards that govern licensure examinations: “This is about meeting a professional standard,” he said, and noted ASPPB would follow the job-task-analysis process and the testing profession’s standards published by APA/AERA/NCME.

Board members repeatedly warned that California’s regulatory and legislative processes can be lengthy. Several members stressed that, even if ASPPB proceeds on the timeline presented, California will likely need statutory or regulatory changes to accommodate any shift in who is eligible to take the exam and when. Board President Tate and Executive Officer Burke asked ASPPB to provide a clear, written timeline and to engage stakeholders.

After extended discussion, the board voted to send a formally worded communication to ASPPB asking for: (1) an implementation timeline that recognizes state legislative and regulatory requirements; (2) clarity on candidate eligibility and how AB 282 interacts with an integrated skills component; and (3) explicit disclosure of any current or planned use of artificial intelligence for item generation, item review, or quality control. The motion passed on a roll-call vote.

Board members and stakeholders asked ASPPB to publish the new exam blueprint and to allow ample public comment and jurisdictional input during the job-task-analysis and beta test phases. Dr. Song said ASPPB plans a public rollout of the new blueprint, multiple town halls, surveys and a recruitment effort for beta test volunteers. He asked California regulators and practitioners to participate.

Why it matters: California’s rules already allow some applicants to sit for the EPPP after completing doctoral coursework (AB 282). If the integrated exam includes an applied skills assessment, the state will need to decide whether to continue the same eligibility rules, adopt new limits, or create a transition period. The board’s letter asks ASPPB to provide the information California would need to make that policy choice.

The board explicitly asked ASPPB to keep jurisdictions informed about the role of artificial intelligence in the exam program. Dr. Song said ASPPB is not currently using AI to author operational items and is cautious about AI-generated test content because copyright and quality concerns remain unresolved, but he did not rule out future, limited uses of AI for administrative or analytic help.

The board asked staff to draft the letter and delegated final sign-off to the board president and executive officer. The board also encouraged ASPPB to publish sample items and a candidate handbook illustrating how the integrated blueprint will be applied.

Ending: ASPPB’s integration plan remains a multi-year project. California’s board urged clear, written commitments on timeline, eligibility, cost and AI use before the state undertakes any regulatory or legislative changes.