Examining the ABPP Specialist Workforce: Results from the 2022 ABPP Workforce Survey

If you have been board certified for years, you are aware that ABPP periodically conducts a workforce survey, primarily looking at the diverse nature of board-certified specialists. For the 2022 attestation, we moved from a periodic survey to an annual survey, one that is attached to your attestation. We (the Board of Trustees and the Diversity Committee) decided this approach would provide a more complete picture of who we are as Specialists. 

Before continuing to describe the data, let me address a question that sometimes arises: Why do we need to describe the current body of Specialists? Isn’t it enough to know that we are Specialists, and maybe, just maybe, to consider how many of us exist under each Board? On one level that is true – being a Specialist, in and itself, says so much about a psychologist. However, even with as much promotion as we can muster, a very small percentage of licensed Psychologists move forward to become board certified. The future of the board certification process necessitates that we understand who is getting certified, which may give us an avenue for future outreach.

The second question we sometimes hear is: why do we ask about various diversity characteristics (e.g., race, ethnicity, religious status, sexual identity)? Does it make a difference to who we are as psychologists? Well, maybe more than you think. To rephrase – it absolutely makes a difference! Historically, board certification was perceived as the purview of White men, and considered a fairly elitist endeavor. Anyone who did not see themselves fitting that narrow description may well have decided that board certification was not for them. Today’s data help us see where we have diversified, and where we still need to grow. It is also helpful when prospective candidates reach out to find a board certified psychologist whose identity is similar to their own; in other words, it is a promising sign that “I can do this” if someone who is “like” me has already done it. The diversity of the body of Specialists helps to lift the perception of elitism. I, for one, am excited to see this data. 

The Data

The overall sample consists of 4809 Specialists; please note that not every Specialist completed every item. 

Age. Most Specialists were born between the mid-1940s and the mid-1990s; however, there is quite a range of birth years. Therefore, most fall between the mid-40s and late 70s in age. Our ability to encourage Specialists at the younger end of the spectrum to both remain active and to invite their peers to also become board-certified is critical to our existence. 

Education. The data indicate that 77% of current Specialists hold the PhD (2709), followed by the PsyD (928), and the EdD (52). The relatively small number of the latter certainly reflects the change in the type of programs in which our degrees are earned. Similarly, current Specialists earned their doctoral degrees between 1951 and 2020. Interestingly, the percentage of Specialists with degrees granted in 2000 and beyond probably reflects an increase in awareness of board certification as the next step beyond licensure. It could also reflect the increase in potential areas of specialization (i.e., as the field diversifies, more Psychologists find a path to specialization).

Year of Licensure and Board Certification. As might be expected with Specialists graduating in the late 1990s and beyond, they are also getting licensed in that time frame. The relevance? It is likely that we are not seeing as many board-certified Psychologists who have spent many years building expertise before getting certified. Instead, we are likely seeing more candidates who are knowledgeable in their areas of specialization but have years ahead of them to keep honing the specialty.

Career Stage. While some Specialists newly boarded in any given year will be mid-career or senior level professionals, many new Specialists each year would be Early Career Psychologists (ECPs; i.e., with doctoral degrees less than 10 years old, as per the definition of the American Psychological Association). As the pie graph shows, we continue to be heavy on senior level Specialists (but keep in mind that we will all reach the senior level eventually as we keep practicing).

Employment Status. Most Specialists are working full time, followed distantly by those reporting part-time work. There were 205 (4.3%) respondents who did not share their work status.

Work Setting. Specialists work in a wide variety of settings, including academic medical centers or medical clinics, college or university centers, consultation firms, legal or correctional settings, military and other public service settings, private practice (individual or group), rehabilitation settings, and school settings. Our primary work roles include:

Interjurisdictional Practice. One of our new questions pertains to participation in PSYPACT, an interstate compact designed to facilitate the practice of telepsychology and the temporary in-person, face-to-face practice of psychology across state boundaries. As of 2024, the compact is currently effective in 40 jurisdictions. Twenty percent of respondents left this question blank.  Nearly 33% of Specialists live in PSYPACT jurisdictions but do not participate in the compact. Another 35% do not live in a PSYPACT jurisdiction or otherwise report that they are not eligible to participate in PSYPACT. Of those who do participate in PSYPACT, most are enrolled in the “telepsychology” option (7.6%), or in both the “telepsychology” and “temporary interjurisdictional” option (3.5%). A very small percentage (1%) participate in the “temporary interjurisdictional” option alone.

Professional Involvement. Specialists are involved with their professional communities. Many of us belong to one of more professional associations, including (but not limited to) any board academies. The American Psychological Association and its respective Divisions, state and regional psychological associations, international societies, and treatment-specific organizations. Unfortunately, these data were not easily categorized – lesson learned for how to word the item on future surveys.

How diverse are Specialists?

We included survey questions specific to the various salient identities of Specialists. 

Race and Ethnicity. Most Specialists identify as Caucasian/European American or White (3943 or 81.9%). Specialists listed multiple other identities, including some derivative of Asian or Asian American (148 or 3.1%), Black or African American (142 or 2.9%), or American Indian/Alaska Native/Indigenous (13 or 0.3%). There were 116 (2.4%) Specialists who identified as multi-ethnic. Others reported such identities as Irish American, Jewish, Native Hawaiian, or Togolese American. The majority of Specialists identify as non-Hispanic, or did not answer the question. The 211(4.4%) Specialists who did identify as Hispanic or Latino/a listed a variety of specific identities, including Mexican, Puerto Rican, and Cuban. Another subset of Specialists (47 or 1%) identified as Arab, Middle Eastern, or North African. 

Sex and Gender. It appears that 2322, or 48%, of Specialists identify as female, while 2219, or 46%, identify as male. Another 273, or nearly 6% identify as “other.” As to gender, 2197 (45.6%) identify as a man and 2301 (47.8%) identify as a woman, 8 identify as non-binary, 4 as transgender, and 61 preferred to not answer. In addition, 239 did not give a response.

Nationality. The data show that 88% of respondents are US citizens or permanent residents. Forty four respondents are Canadian citizens or permanent residents, followed by another 58 who hold dual citizenship in the US and another country. 

Language. Most respondents (86.7%) only provide services in English. Of those Specialists who report competence to provide services in another language, Spanish is the predominant second language, followed by French. Only 7 Specialists indicate facility with American Sign language. Other languages were listed by a handful of Specialists each, distributed across nearly every continent. Of note, several Specialists indicated they were aware of interpreter services in their workplace that would help them with their clients.

Sexual orientation. The vast majority (3845, or 80%) report being heterosexual, followed by gay male, bisexual, and lesbian (in that order); pansexual, queer, and asexual were also listed. For the rest of the data, 350 respondents chose “prefer not to answer” while another 338 simply did not respond. 

Disabilities. We asked Specialists about any disabilities they wished to report. Most did not provide a response; the other 9% reported a wide variety of mental and physical health challenges, from Type 1 diabetes to Parkinson’s disease to cardiac symptoms. Specialists were most likely to report hearing loss, vision loss, and/or mobility issues. 

Religious beliefs. Specialists report significant variety in relation to their religious identities. While a number identified as agnostic (379 or 7.9%) or atheist (422 or 8.8%), most either reported being religious/spiritual (1469 30.5%) or spiritual but not religious (854 or 17.7%). “None” was reported by 384 (8%) Specialists. As with some other questions, the breadth of specific responses (e.g., Islam, Jewish Atheist, Ritualistic, Secular Humanist) made it difficult to determine the best way to categorize the information provided. 

Summary

The data presented here describe the population of Specialists. We have extracted the data by Specialty Board, also, which has been shared with the respective boards. Although our data are not complete (because of missing responses), what we have provides a good description of the characteristics of Specialists. We do not have much data on how Specialists reach out to diverse communities, other than the ability to dialogue in languages other than English.