California Psychology Licensing Exam Rates of Graduates of Accredited and Unaccredited Programs
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Graduates of regionally accredited programs had a significantly higher pass rate (64.6%) on the written exam (Examination for Professional Practice in Psychology) than that of graduates of unaccredited programs (39.0%). The respective pass rates ,47.5% and 38.8%, on the oral exam were also significantly different. The implications of the finding were discussed. The purpose of the present study was to compare the California pass/fail rates of graduates of regionally accredited and those of regionally unaccredited program on both the oral exam for licensure and the written exam, the Examination for Professional Practice in Psychology (EPPP). Research using 183 regionally accredited clinical psychology programs in the United States and Canada shows that those programs with more elitist admission standards, few students and graduates, higher faculty to student ratios and a traditional rather than professional school orientation had higher EPPP scores (Yu, Rinaldi, Templer, Colbert, Siscoe, and Van Patten, 1997; Templer and Tomeo, 1998; Templer and Tomeo, 2000). There has been, however, no previous studies in the literature that compared regionally accredited with regionally unaccredited doctoral programs in psychology. The Educational Reporting Service (1995) does not provide the mean EPPP scores of institutions that are not regionally accredited. California is relatively unique in that graduates of unaccredited schools are eligible for licensure. As pointed out by Safarjan (1998), in California the standards applied by the Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education pertain primarily to financial responsibility and not to quality standards. Safarjan said that graduates of unaccredited schools cannot be licensed in states other than California, and possibly Colorado, and that graduates of unaccredited schools are limited in regard to eligibility for employment, managed care companies, pre and post doctoral internship programs, the National Register, and ability to obtain full membership in APA. Method The number of written exam (EPPP) passes and failures as a function of type of program graduated from was obtained from the California Board of Psychology for April 1996, April 1997, and October, 1997. The comparable information was obtained for the oral exam in June 1996, June 1997, and January 1998 (The Board does not provide mean scores). The data from institutions outside the United States and Canada was not included in this study. Programs that were not listed as regionally accredited in the directories of the 6 regional accreditation associations in the United States were presumed to be not regionally accredited. Results and Discussion On the written (EPPP) exam, 127 (39. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».