Board reviews CPA proposal to broaden qualifying degrees for Psychological Testing Technicians in 2025 sunset bill

The California Board of Psychology reviewed a proposal Feb. 27 from the California Psychological Association (CPA) to broaden the list of baccalaureate degrees that would qualify applicants for registration as psychological testing technicians (PTTs) and considered whether to include the language in the board’s 2025 sunset bill.

Why it matters: The PTT registration was created to increase capacity for standardized test administration and scoring under licensed psychologist supervision; narrow statutory language has left some degree holders who otherwise have appropriate foundational coursework ineligible. The CPA asked the board to expand the statutory description so qualified candidates with degrees such as neuroscience, cognitive science or related behavioral-science majors are eligible without requiring case‑by‑case transcript adjudication.

What was proposed: CPA’s redlined draft would allow a bachelor’s or graduate degree in psychology or education with specified specializations, or in other “closely related” fields that provide a relevant foundation (the CPA listed neuroscience, cognitive science and behavioral science as examples). The proposal preserves the current requirement that a prospective PTT complete supervised, task‑specific training (the statute requires 80 hours of education/training and direct observation before full registration) and that a licensed psychologist supervise and attest to competence.

Board concerns and discussion: Board members and licensing staff acknowledged a tension between two goals — avoiding an unnecessarily narrow list that excludes qualified applicants, while also keeping statutory language sufficiently precise to avoid unpredictable or inappropriate qualifications. Some board members and attendees cautioned that an overly broad catch‑all phrase could lead to inconsistent adjudications; others said a rigid list of degree titles would quickly become outdated because universities add new interdisciplinary majors.

Change the board proposed: During discussion a motion was made on the floor to remove a proposed open-ended clause that would have allowed “any other closely related degree” as a standalone path; the motion also asked staff to retain broader but enumerated degree categories (for example, psychology, neuroscience, cognitive science and behavioral science) and to preserve board discretion to review borderline applications. A seconded motion to delete the open-ended clause was put forward; the transcript records debate, but no final roll‑call decision on that motion was announced in open session during the meeting.

Process and next steps: Board staff said the licensing unit currently reviews transcripts and, when coursework is unclear, refers files to a board‑approved subject‑matter expert (a licensed psychologist) for evaluation. Staff also said the current volume of PTT applications is manageable; changes to statute would direct future eligibility, and the board discussed delegating case‑by‑case determinations to the licensure committee so applicants would not face long delays. CPA representatives said they favored language that expands but does not unduly constrain eligibility and expressed willingness to refine draft statutory text to reflect board concerns.

What remains unresolved: The transcript records a motion and a second to delete the broad catch‑all clause and keep enumerated categories with an explicit board‑review fallback for borderline degrees; the audio transcript shows substantive debate and public comment in support of broadening eligibility, but the board did not announce a final enacted change during the Feb. 27 meeting. The committee/staff will return revised language to the board; CPA indicated it intends to seek the statutory change as part of the board’s sunset legislation.

Provenance: Discussion of the CPA PTT proposal (agenda item 18.b) begins in the transcript at the staff introduction of the item and continues through board debate and public comment; the board recorded a motion to remove an overly broad clause but did not announce final adoption on the record.