California Psychology Licensing Exam Rates of Graduates of Accredited and Unaccredited Programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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. …
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".