Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Licensure Pathways topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Advisory committee weighs alternative routes to independent licensure amid EPPP concerns
Summary
Members reviewed state comparisons of EPPP cut scores and debated alternatives for long-practicing master's-level licensees who struggle with test-taking, including supervised practice, alternative exams, or targeted remediation rather than lowering independent-practice standards.
The Kansas master's-level psychology advisory committee discussed alternative pathways to independent licensure on Dec. 3, focusing on how scores on the Examination for Professional Practice in Psychology (EPPP) affect master's-level practitioners seeking clinical licensure.
David Fye reported that in Kansas the master's-level license commonly aligns with a 400 EPPP score while the clinical psychotherapist independent level commonly requires 500; he said staff found examples of other states using different cutoffs (Alaska and Michigan at 450, North Carolina at 440) but that data are sometimes hard to verify from agency websites. He said Kansas' tiered model allows practitioners to retain a permanent master's-level license even if they do not progress to the higher tier.
Members discussed options for experienced practitioners who have practiced for many years but perform poorly on exams. Josh Tangaway and others described clinicians with 15–20 years of practice who are effective clinicians yet struggle with exam-taking. "EPPP scores don't necessarily predict how ethical or good of a practitioner you are," one member said. Committee members proposed studying supervised-practice pathways, state-developed alternative examinations (the meeting noted Texas is developing a state exam), or time-limited provisional routes used in some doctoral-level licensing models.
Fye said staff will continue comparative research and suggested inviting outside experts (for example, other states' licensing boards or Texas' exam developers) to future meetings for more detailed discussion. The committee did not adopt any specific policy changes at this meeting, but members agreed the topic merits further analysis in 2026.
