Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Licensure Alternatives topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kansas BSRB advisory committee begins debate over alternate pathway to clinical licensure without EPPP
Summary
The advisory committee discussed whether experienced master's‑level practitioners could qualify for clinical licensure without passing the EPPP exam, weighing possible safeguards such as years of practice, documented clinical hours, supervisor attestations, oral exams and continuing education evidence.
The Kansas Behavioral Sciences Regulatory Board’s master’s‑level psychology advisory committee on May 12 began a sustained discussion of whether to create an alternate pathway to clinical licensure that would not require passing the Examination for Professional Practice in Psychology (EPPP).
Chair Dave Anderson opened the conversation as an initial step in a larger review of licensing pathways and public protection. Executive Director David Fye said the board asked advisory groups to weigh alternatives and gather comparative data from the 17 states that license at the master’s level.
Committee members discussed several possible safeguards. One member proposed a decade‑of‑experience threshold with a cumulative‑hours requirement — “somewhere around the 10‑year mark and perhaps 8,000 direct clinical hours,” the member said — combined with attestations from supervisors and evidence of continuing professional development. Another member urged inclusion of objective measures such as oral boards or defined coursework to avoid purely subjective approvals.
“People who have been practicing for 15, 20 years and are great clinicians shouldn’t be blocked by a test,” one committee member said. “But if you open things up, how do you evaluate fairly and consistently?”
Fye cautioned the committee that the board’s existing numerical standards (testing scores, coursework, hours) provide an efficient, objective way to process many applicants and avoid perceptions of favoritism. He noted that a non‑standard pathway could slow licensing decisions unless the board designs clear, auditable criteria.
Members raised practical questions about verification and administration: how applicants would document long‑term hours, which supervisors could attest to competency, whether a state compact or multistate portability would be affected, and how to avoid creating an outlier system that impedes interstate practice.
Several members suggested pilot options — narrower eligibility windows, an oral board, or a combination of experience plus targeted competency evidence — and asked staff to collect comparative requirements from other states, including any use of oral exams or alternative assessments.
The committee did not vote on a policy; members agreed to continue the discussion at a future meeting after staff compiles cross‑state data and potential models. Fye said staff will prepare materials for the next meeting so the advisory group can focus on a limited set of questions (supervision concerns and documented competencies) rather than the full survey at once.
