THE SECOND NATIONAL CONFERENCE

ON MASTER’S TRAINING

IN PSYCHOLOGY

“MASTER’S IN PSYCHOLOGY:

ACTION FOR THE PUBLIC INTEREST”

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Executive Summary

Frank R. Yeatman

Avila College

Kansas City, MO

William D. Siegfried, Jr.

University of North Carolina, Charlotte

Charlotte, NC

The Second National Conference on Master’s Training in Psychology convened at the University of Central Oklahoma in Edmond, Oklahoma, on September 16-19, 1994. The basic themes and format for the conference were developed by representatives (see Appendix B) from the Council of Applied Master’s Programs in Psychology (CAMPP) and the Northamerican Association for Master’s in Psychology (NAMP) in meetings at the Sage Colleges in Troy, NY, and at the 1994 meeting of the Council of Graduate Departments of Psychology (COGDOP) in New Orleans.

The Edmond Conference drew approximately 60 people, including master’s-level practitioners and those who train master’s-level psychologists. Invited observers and speakers included representatives from the American Psychological Association (APA), the American Psychological Society (APS), the managed health-care industry, and the Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS).

The Edmond Conference consisted of a series of white paper presentations and speeches by individuals with particular expertise on issues, alternating with small-group discussion of those issues. Operating in a parallel-processing fashion, these small groups produced reports back to the Conference, focusing on specific actions for the public interest.

Following several iterations of this process, the latter sessions of the Edmond Conference identified the priorities that emerged as central to the participants. These priorities, summarized below, were shaped into a set of action plans, and submitted to the Conference for approval.

1. Issues Concerning the General Standards of Education and Training for Master’s in Psychology

The major outcome from the First National Conference, held in 1990, was a set of General Standards of Education and Training. These General Standards were revisited, discussed, debated, and revised by the participants at the Edmond Conference. The full text of these changes will be presented in the Proceedings. In general, the changes focused on concerns about:

-the importance of assessment relevant to the goals of the various sub-disciplines;

-basic content areas of the programs;

-the highlighting of issues of cultural diversity;

-expansion of the domain of applied psychology to include systemic points of view;

-ethical issues concerning the admission of students to programs; and

-expansion of the concept of research.

In addition to these changes to the General Standards, the Conference voted to direct CAMPP to develop a preamble to its General Standards, describing its position with respect to the knowledge base, clientele, methodology, and applications of psychology.

2. Issues Concerning Accreditation

Concerns surrounding the issue of accreditation of master’s programs in psychology provided a major focal point for discussion. Participants favoring the development of an accreditation process spoke about how such a process would legitimize practitioners with master’s degrees, increase the level of quality control in training programs, increase the level of resources available to such programs, help with recruiting students, and broaden the base of employment for graduates.

Several problems that might accompany such an effort would include the cost of establishing an accreditation process, the possible need for restructuring programs, concern with how the standards would be established, the possibility of curtailing program creativity, and liability to lawsuit if a program is not approved.

The consensus of the Conference was that, if at all possible, the establishing of an accreditation process should precede action with regard to issues of licensure.

The Conference voted unanimously to direct CAMPP and NAMP to establish a Joint Task Force on Accreditation, and proceed with the steps of establishing an accreditation process. The resulting process will seek recognition by the Committee on Recognition of Post-Secondary Accreditation (CORPA) and will develop within the context of Department of Education requirements. CAMPP members will be assessed a fee to cover the costs of the Task Force. In the establishing of an accreditation process, the Task Force will develop and maintain ties with APA, APS, the American Association of Applied and Preventive Psychology (AAAPP), COGDOP, the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP), and other appropriate bodies. Accreditation standards developed by the Task Force will be driven by CAMPP General Standards of Education and Training.

2. Issues Concerning Licensure

The discussion and debate surrounding issues of licensure served as another important focal point of the Conference. Strong feeling surfaced concerning the important and unique competencies of master’s-level psychologists compared with master’s-level practitioners in other fields. There was general consensus that lack of a licensure process for master’s-level psychologists prevents such practitioners from obtaining gainful employment that preserves professional identity with the field of psychology.

The Conference voted to direct NAMP to organize master’s-level psychologists concerning this issue, and to develop the structural foundations that will facilitate licensure. The Conference also directed CAMPP to collaborate with NAMP to:

-set professional standards for licensure;

-develop a center for information on licensing laws;

-disseminate research on master’s-level practitioners; and

-develop and maintain a uniform alumnus survey for master’s-level psychologists.

The Conference agreed that the entry-level degree for the practice of psychology should be the master’s degree.

3. Issues Concerning the I/O Sub-Discipline

A subcommittee of the Education and Training Committee of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) brought to the Conference a set of guidelines for training, and the Conference voted to write to SIOP, commending them for a job well done.

The I/O people expressed a desire to determine the extent to which I/O programs conform to CAMPP and SIOP standards, and the extent to which these standards are considered relevant. The Conference voted to direct the Executive Committee (EC) of CAMPP to organize a study of current I/O programs.

This group also expressed an interest in facilitating the interaction of programs within sub-disciplines. They proposed, and the Conference agreed, to direct the EC to oversee the development of a clearinghouse that would include a database of programs and their particular characteristics.

Finally, the I/O group encouraged the development of master’s-level organizations of sub-disciplines, and the Conference recommended that CAMPP facilitate the development of such organizations.

In a period of time when change is all around us, when crisis and opportunity are not clearly separate domains, and the future is difficult to discern, we need to be visionary in our efforts to produce actions in the public interest. It is our contention that the work of the Second National Conference on Master’s Training in Psychology will serve to direct the efforts of master’s-level practitioners and the people who train them.

Marilyn Ferguson describes a visionary as one who “does not watch the cresting wave of current events, but anticipates and rides it. The visionary does not protect gains, but advances into the territory of intelligent risk.” It is our hope that this Conference will move us into this territory.