APA Commission on Accreditation Accepts Specialty Training Input

ABPP Comment following initial COA proposal read as follows:

The American Board of Professional Psychology (ABPP) has reviewed and supports each of the comments provided to COA by the Council of Specialties in Professional Psychology (COS) as well as those from the Commission for the Recognition of Specialties and Subspecialties in Professional Psychology (CRSSPP), and others that have expressed support for the existing state of the field as represented by ABPP, CRSSPP, and COS regarding specialty. Rather than restating all that has already been provided by other organizations’ comments to CoA, some additional history and context is provided here for those who may not be fully aware of the substantial work that has gone into the evolution of specialty in psychology.  

Specialty has long been the purview of ABPP (established in 1947) and, more recently, the collaborative and cooperative work of ABPP, CRSSPP, and COS. Indeed, ABPP, CRSSPP, and COS have worked diligently for many, many years to facilitate a common “language” in the field, including several large meetings on this very topic. This has included participating in the development of APA’s 2012 Education and Training Guidelines: A Taxonomy for Education and Training in Professional Psychology Health Service Specialties (herein after referred to as Taxonomy) which has since also become APA policy.   

In their work together, ABPP, CRSSPP, and COS have assisted and facilitated each existing specialty in its work to use the Taxonomy as a structure and language for defining the education and training each specialty deems appropriate and necessary. While CRSSPP and COS deal directly with specialty as areas of study and practice, ABPP also utilizes the Taxonomy in examination of specialists.   

COS, ABPP, and the Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards (ASPPB) co-facilitated four Interorganizational Summits on Specialty, Specialization, and Board Certification with the final meeting in 2019. In attendance at each meeting were representatives of nearly 30 major boards, committees, and organizations in psychology. A nearly unanimous decision was reached that the profession should be using the Taxonomy (again, APA policy) and its structure as a basis for defining specialty education and training. COA was in attendance at those meetings and was the recipient of a consensus letter from the Interorganizational Summit urging it to do similarly. In the letter, it was made clear that the state of the field had reached the point that this common language was essential, agreed upon, and desired. The letter (dated June 2, 2020) was co-signed by the following:  

American Board of Professional Psychology (ABPP) 

American Board of Professional Psychology Foundation (ABPP-F) 

American Psychological Association of Graduate Students Committee (APAGS) 

APA Committee on Early Career Psychologists (CECP) 

Association of Psychology Postdoctoral and Internship Centers (APPIC) 

Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards (ASPPB) 

Council of Counseling Psychology Training Programs (CCPTP) 

Council of Directors of School Psychology Programs (CDSPP) 

Council of Specialties in Professional Psychology (COS) 

Council of   University Directors of Clinical Psychology (CUDCP) 

National Council of Schools and Programs of Professional Psychology (NCSPP)  

The current CoA proposed revision intends to have COA determine specialties and competencies, items that have been historically (for decades) been determined largely by CRSSPP, COS, and ABPP. Such a change is unnecessary and has the potential to set the profession of psychology back many years. While recognition of specialties and related competencies is encouraged in the accreditation process, COA is encouraged to embrace the Taxonomy and existing work that has been produced by ABPP, CRSSPP, COS and others. To do otherwise would be to disregard the state of the field and would be contrary to the clear and unified direction in which the profession has evolved. ABPP is more than happy to work collaboratively with COA and others to continue this important progress for psychology.