Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Licensee Survey Psychology topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kansas committee reviews psychologist survey; telehealth, supervision and title protection are prominent themes
Summary
At its Jan. 6 meeting the advisory committee examined psychology survey results: 297 respondents answered the question on consumer protection (92 said no changes), and common topics included telehealth, evidence‑based practice, complaints, master's‑level licensure, supervision and title protection.
Members of the Licensed Psychology Advisory Committee reviewed results from the BSRB’s 2025 licensee survey during the Jan. 6, 2026 meeting and discussed implications for regulation and advisory recommendations.
David Fye, executive director, said the BSRB’s broader 2025 surveying effort across seven professions returned about 4,000 responses and that draft, profession‑specific reports are being finalized for posting. For psychology‑specific items he reported that 297 licensed psychologists answered question 17 (recommendations to better protect and serve consumers); of those, 92 said they had no recommendations. For question 18 (other comments), 180 psychologists answered; about half of that group had no further recommendations. "So I do find that notable," Fye said, pointing to both the number of respondents and recurring themes.
Committee members identified recurring concerns in the open‑ended responses: telehealth and insurance/reimbursement, evidence‑based practice, complaints processes, supervision (including whether psychologists should supervise master’s‑level clinicians), protecting the title "psychologist," continuing education access and workforce issues such as burnout. One member summarized the response pattern as frequent mentions of LMLP (master’s‑level) regulation and title protection. Fye cautioned that some respondents appeared to expect advocacy from the agency; he reminded the committee that the BSRB’s statutory charge is public protection, not active advocacy for reimbursement or pay rates. "It's a little outside of our lane," he said when characterizing requests for advocacy.
Committee members suggested tracking these themes over time and noted the value of including verbatim open‑ended responses in appendices to give a sense of licensee sentiment. Staff said the finalized psychology report and a cross‑profession comparison should be available at the board’s upcoming meeting, and the advisory committee agreed to continue discussion at future meetings as needed.
Provenance: Survey findings and discussion were presented and deliberated during the advisory committee’s operational report and the dedicated survey review item.
