Citizen Portal
Sign In

Board hears public concern about EPPP first-time pass rates; item on practice exam feasibility scheduled

California Board of Psychology · October 20, 2025

Loading...

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A public commenter said EPPP first-time pass rates fell from about 60% in 2012 to 33% in 2024; board staff said exam statistics are presented at each meeting and pointed to an upcoming agenda item on practice-exam feasibility prepared by the Office of Professional Examination Services.

The California Board of Psychology heard public comment Aug. 9, 2024, about falling pass rates on the Examination for Professional Practice in Psychology (EPPP). Jason Fryer, a member of the public, said he graphed historical results and found the first-time pass rate was about 60% in 2012 and about 33% this year, and asked whether the board planned to address the difference.

Dr. Harv Sheets, speaking for the board, said the board publishes exam statistics at every meeting and suggested the discrepancy may come from different reporting measures — first-time pass rate versus overall pass rate, which counts repeat attempts. “I think a key difference sometimes is, are you looking at the pass rate for first time pass, or are you looking at the pass rate for overall, which includes people who are taking it for the second, third, or sometimes fourth time?” Sheets said, and invited the commenter to review the licensing report and meeting materials online.

Board member Mr. Fu called attention to item 17 on the board’s multi-day agenda, saying item 17 includes “California practice examination feasibility information prepared by the Office of Professional Examination Services,” which the board member linked to the public’s concern about exam performance. The board indicated that licensing and exam statistics will be covered in the licensing report at the next meeting in Berkeley.

The board did not take formal action on the public comment during the open session; most substantive business was handled in closed session. Next procedural steps noted during the meeting: the licensing report and agenda item on practice-exam feasibility will be available at the board’s next meeting for further review and public materials online are the primary source for the underlying data cited by the commenter.