English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

We join Brian A. Sharpless and Jacques P. Barber (2009) in calling for strengthening the evidence base supporting the Examination for Professional Practice in Psychology (EPPP), particularly in the areas of criterion and predictive validity. Although 1 clear purpose of the EPPP is to assess core areas of knowledge, materials from the Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards are less clear as to whether the EPPP is also intended to predict future performance as a psychologist. If the EPPP is expected to protect the public from poorly trained psychologists, then data supporting its use for that purpose are urgently needed. Sharpless and Barber offer suggestions for evaluating the EPPP against this criterion. Although a step in the right direction, these suggestions do not fully satisfy the need for predictive validation. Our greatest difference with Sharpless and Barber concerns their recommendation for abandoning generic licensing in favor of specialty exams tied to subfields. Segmenting licensure in this manner would deviate from the profession’s long-standing com-mitment to broad and general training and would necessarily be accompanied by an undesirably narrowed scope of practice.

How should the effectiveness of the EPPP be judged?