Article archive / November 1, 2010
Originally published: . Volume 2, No. 3. Source pages: 1, 6.
The Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards (ASPPB) provided its draft proposal on “competence and licensure” at the 50th Annual Meeting, October 13-17th in Savannah, Georgia. The task force on “Maintenance of Competence and Licensure” (MOCAL) presented ideas about new licensing requirements for maintaining competency.
Authors noted that continuing professional development is different from continuing professional education. “Participation in continuing education activities is one way that psychologists maintain and enhance their knowledge and skills; however, it is not the only way, nor is it necessarily the most effective way.”
Board members Dr. Rita Culross and Dr. Tony Young indicated to the Times that this topic might be of interest to psychologists. Dr. Young said, “The group is working on a variety of issues, the most important or immediately relevant to most of us is the emphasis on the ongoing demonstration of competence, or Continuing Professional Development.”
This is a growing trend in many professions that acknowledges that educational activities may not always lead to genuine competence. Self- assessment of competence is not always accurate, and approaches to continuing education assume that the psychologist can accurately rate his or her own abilities and deficits, the authors explained.
Studies have found that people overestimate their abilities and this is particularly true for those falling in lower quartiles. Another concern that emerged was “…the common educational practice of massed training (a one day workshop, or two or three successive days), while appearing to promote the rapid acquisition of skill and self- confidence, does not necessarily promote the retention of skill.”
ASPPB authors suggested 40 credits of “Continuing Professional Development” (CPD) every two years. “The concept of credits replaces the concept of hours, as many of the recommended activities do not have an hourly component.”
One aid to this process is for psychologists to identify their areas of practice. They gave the following classifications:
1. Clinical Psychology
2. Counseling Psychology
3. School Psychology
4. Forensic Psychology
5. Cognitive & Behavior Psychology
6. Clinical Health Psychology
7. Correctional
8. Academic (teaching psychology)
9. Industrial/Organizational
10. Clinical Neuropsychology
11. Rehabilitation Psychology
12. Psychoanalysis Psychology
13. Research
14. Other (specify)
The task team laid out the variety of activities that would count toward “CPD” credits, which included traditional types of CEs, such as workshops and classes, but described a new “Professional” type as:
“1. Peer consultation (May include case consultation groups, journal clubs, regional research groups; mentoring; shadowing a colleague)
2. Practice outcome monitoring (assessing patient/client outcomes via questionnaire)
3. Professional activities (serving on psychological association boards or committees or board member of regulatory body)
4. Conference/convention ”
Along with other resources, the draft document on this topic is available at: http://www.asppb.net/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageID=357 2.
The Times appreciates Dr. Tony Young’s help in pointing out this source material.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.