Psychology, Department of


Document Type


Date of this Version



Published in Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 40:4 (2009), pp. 345–347; doi: 10.1037/a0015734 Copyright © 2009 American Psychological Association. Used by permission.


We join Brian A. Sharpless and Jacques P. Barber (2009) in calling for strengthening the evidence base supporting the Examination for Professional Practice in Psychology (EPPP), particularly in the areas of criterion and predictive validity. Although 1 clear purpose of the EPPP is to assess core areas of knowledge, materials from the Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards are less clear as to whether the EPPP is also intended to predict future performance as a psychologist. If the EPPP is expected to protect the public from poorly trained psychologists, then data supporting its use for that purpose are urgently needed. Sharpless and Barber offer suggestions for evaluating the EPPP against this criterion. Although a step in the right direction, these suggestions do not fully satisfy the need for predictive validation. Our greatest difference with Sharpless and Barber concerns their recommendation for abandoning generic licensing in favor of specialty exams tied to subfields. Segmenting licensure in this manner would deviate from the profession’s long-standing commitment to broad and general training and would necessarily be accompanied by an undesirably narrowed scope of practice.