Article archive / December 2019
Originally published: . Volume 10, No. 12. Source pages: 2.
by Julie Nelson ASPPB is rolling out their poor quality, high-priced "skills" exam, which they seem determined to add to the law-enforcement systems at the state regulatory boards.
For what looks to be mostly a commercial effort and moneymaker for the ASPPB, the move is bringing both the standard exam and the new exam into sharper focus by the critics. Some of the most damning observations include:
• a base rate for disciplinary actions that would make it almost impossible for the test to be validated for its purpose; • a serious criterion and criterion validity problem; • the absence of methodology for setting the cut off score; • a very likely situation that both the EPPP and EPPP-2 discriminate on the basis of race; • and a high price. The sad thing is that this new, expensive and low quality exam, comes at a cost that is to be shouldered by the young psychologist hopefuls. Candidates have to spend $700 to $800 to take the exam and this will go to $1200 or more. Add to this the issue of a recommended cut-off that is based on percentiles rather than raw content scores. No matter what then, 50% of the candidates probably take the test again. What is this cut score based on? Nothing that I can tell.
ASPPB is a strange organization. It is a private, nonprofit corporation composed of government officials from state regulatory boards. It has a lot of cash on its balance sheet and a 55% growth over the last five years. But, under scrutiny, the EPPP system, and especially the EPPP-2, looks both poor in quality and fairly expensive. And the boards–and the candidates–are somewhat of a captured market for ASPPB as a vendor, which fools with quality.
The entire situation is a perfect example of what happens when you’re spending someone else’s money on someone else.
There are four ways to spend money, said Milton Friedman, who won the Nobel prize for looking at the psychology of spending, among other things. Friedman said you can spend your own money on yourself and when you do you're going to be careful about the quality and cost.
When you spend your own money on someone else you're going to be careful about the cost but less concerned about the quality.
When you're spending someone else's money on yourself, you're going to go for the best quality but you're not going to be too concerned about the cost.
The fourth way to spend money is when you're spending someone else's money on someone else. And that's what the state boards are doing––spending the candidates' money to "protect the public." The tendency is to care neither about quality or cost.
LSBEP should be commended for their opposition to the new test, and their demand that the vendor, ASPPB, provide a decent selection-testing product, that is useful, valid, and sold at a reasonable cost.
[Julie Nelson is a licensed psychologist, journalist, organizational consultant, and publisher of the Times. She also holds other various positions in the community. However, her opinions here are those of her own, and do not represent any group or association. She and the Times receive no compensation other than paid advertising. Email her at drj@drjulienelson.com, ––she welcomes feedback.]
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.