An empirical survey on psychological testing and the use of the term psychological: Turf battles or clinical necessity?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The issue of who, in addition to psychologists, is actually qualified to administer, score, and interpret psychological testing has been a matter of ongoing debate for decades. With the advent of licensing laws for other mental health professionals (e.g., professional counselors, marriage and family therapists, social workers), many professionals now contend that their laws permit them to utilize psychological testing, provided that they have the appropriate training and experience. This article presents a discussion of the issue of psychological testing as well as the adjoining issue of who is permitted to use terms such as psychologist and psychological. The results of a survey that was conducted, to which a response was received by every psychology licensing board in the United States and Canada, indicate that of all 62 jurisdictions, 61 restrict the use of the terms psychologist and psychological to those who hold a valid license to practice psychology. Of the total sample polled, 67.2% indicated that their jurisdiction prohibits other licensed professionals from conducting psychological testing. A discussion section highlights some of the exceptions, along with the dilemmas and future concerns regarding this topic and potential remedies. © 2007 American Psychological Association.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.188 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".