Strong Public Disapproval of Proposed Reductions in Psychologist Competency Standards in Ontario: Findings from 1,141 General Community Adults in an Observational Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The regulatory body for psychologists in Ontario, the College of Psychologists and Behavior Analysts of Ontario, has proposed sweeping reductions in competency requirements. These include elimination of the doctoral degree requirement, dramatic reductions in clinical training, and elimination of specializations and would make Ontario the largest jurisdiction with the lowest competency standards in North America. There has been considerable public opposition from active practitioners, but public attitudes toward these changes are unknown. The current study assessed attitudes in 1,141 general community adults in Ontario (mean age = 42.7, 62.1% female) in an ongoing longitudinal observational cohort study. The large majority disapproved of the proposed changes (71%), whereas 20% reported no opinion and 9% approved of the changes. The modal response was strong disapproval (44%), which was more than half of those who disapproved, whereas among those who approved, only a small proportion expressed strong approval (2%). In order of frequency, reasons for disapproval were reduced quality of healthcare (94%), more healthcare providers with a lower skillset and competencies (85%), higher probability of misdiagnosis (78%), and increased risk in high-stakes contexts (69%), increased likelihood of conflicting medical opinions (55%), and adverse impacts on the current workforce and trainees (both 54%). When asked about the single most important concern, 62% identified reduced quality of healthcare followed by an increased number of healthcare providers with lower professional competency (22%). Responses to open text options were highly consistent with the quantitative results (e.g., “ We don’t need fewer professional standards--we need highly skilled professionals to deal with an increasingly complex world.” ). Collectively, the results suggest strong disapproval for the proposed reductions in psychologist competency standards among general community adults in Ontario. VISUAL ABSTRACT Simplified Distribution of Public Attitudes toward Psychologist Competency Reductions (n=1,141)
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".