Proposed Titles and Draft Scope of Practice for Master’s Trained Professionals in Health Service Psychology 

The public comment period closes on Sunday, November 24, 2024, at 11:59 p.m. Eastern time.  

The APA Board of Professional Affairs (BPA) seeks member and public comments on Proposed Titles and Draft Scope of Practice for Master’s Trained Professionals in Health Service Psychology. (Please see “Licensure TF 2024 brief roster” for names of task force members and liaisons that drafted these recommendations.)

Presently, 20 states have some form of licensure in psychology at the master’s level, 12 require perpetual supervision, and 8 allow some form of independent practice. Additional states also have proposed such licensure. The title and scope of practice for master’s degree professionals vary significantly across jurisdictions.  (Please see “State of the States—licensure UPDATE July 2024”)

The proposed recommendations support a multi-tiered profession that includes doctoral psychologists and psychology professionals with master’s degrees. The intention is to highlight psychology's strengths, appropriately define the roles and services of those with different levels of education and training, and encourage smooth transition from master’s to doctoral education and licensed practice.  

Licensing of psychology professionals with master’s degrees will continue in many states across the U.S., whether or not APA offers guidance.  

This is an opportunity to shape the profession, clarify the distinctiveness of the doctoral degree, and provide guidance for master’s licensure to accompany existing APA guidance for doctoral licensure. Jurisdictions will integrate APA’s guidance as needed.   

APA seeks your feedback and guidance regarding the recommendations for professional title and scope of practice for master’s degree psychology professionals. Two titles are offered for consideration, and additional input and suggestions are welcome. APA policy reserves the title ‘psychologist’ for only those who hold doctoral degrees in psychology. The scope of practice recommendations focus on what services master’s professionals are reasonably expected to be able to provide following completion of their education and a period of post-degree supervision, recognizing that individuals will continue to grow, learn, and acquire competencies and skills throughout their careers. There are several questions regarding scope of practice, for which we are seeking guidance. (Please see “Scope of Practice Comparisons Table” to contrast doctoral and master’s areas of practice.)

In providing your feedback, please keep in mind that this is the first period of public comment, and subsequent comments will be sought before any proposals are finalized. Additionally, APA’s 2010 Model Act for State Licensure of Psychologists (this MLA only addresses doctoral licensure) is undergoing review and update and also will undergo public comment in 2025 before finalizing. 

APA needs to hear from you. Please share your ideas by responding to the following questions after you provide feedback on the Proposed Titles and Draft Scope of Practice for Master’s Trained Professionals in Health Service Psychology. When entering in your responses, please choose from the dropdown menu of the online comment form “Questions for Comment” and reference the question number.

Question/ Comment 1: Please indicate if you support or prefer one of the proposed titles for master’s clinicians, or please suggest an alternative title. Please describe the rationale for your thinking regarding different titles – i.e. why you prefer one title more than another.  

Question/ Comment 2: Are there areas of intervention identified in this scope for independently licensed master’s clinicians that should instead be reserved for the doctoral level? If so, which interventions do you believe would be inappropriate for independently licensed master’s psychology clinicians? Please explain your thinking and rationale.

Question/ Comment 3: Are there areas of intervention missing from this scope that should be included for independently licensed master’s psychology clinicians? If so, what are those areas of intervention? Please explain your thinking and rationale.

Question/ Comment 4: Are there areas of testing/assessment identified in this scope for independently licensed master’s clinicians that should instead be reserved for the doctoral level? If so, which types of assessment do you believe would be inappropriate for independently licensed master’s psychology clinicians? Please explain your thinking and rationale. 

Question/ Comment 5: Are there areas of testing/assessment missing from this scope that should be included for independently licensed master’s psychology clinicians? If so, what are those areas of assessment? Please explain your thinking and rationale.

Question/ Comment 6: Do you recommend any changes related to master’s clinicians’ scope for consultation? (See definition of consultation that precedes the scope of practice section and ‘section f’ of the scope.).  Please explain your thinking and rationale.

Question/ Comment 7: Section h lists ‘exclusions.’ The psychological practices on the ‘exclusion’ list are those practices reserved exclusively for the doctoral level. Are there practices currently on that list, which you believe should be part of the scope of practice for independently licensed master’s psychology clinicians? Please explain your thinking and rationale.

Question/ Comment 8: Section h lists ‘exclusions.’ The psychological practices on the ‘exclusion’ list are those practices reserved exclusively for the doctoral level. Beyond the practices currently on that list, are there additional psychology practices that should be reserved exclusively for the doctoral level?  Please explain your thinking and rationale. 

Question/ Comment 9: Does the language in this proposed scope sufficiently describe the expected practices of independently licensed master’s psychology clinicians? Please offer any other comments, including areas such as diagnosis, treatment planning, supervision, etc. Please explain your thinking and rationale.

These preliminary recommendations are available for a thirty (30) day period of public review and comment until Sunday, November 24, 2024, at 11:59 p.m. Eastern. 

Initial Decisions in Updating APA's (2018) Clinical Practice Guidline for the Treatment of Obesity and Overweight in Children and Adolescents

The public comment period closes on December 7, 2024 at 11:59 pm Eastern time.

The American Psychological Association (APA) invites comments from all interested individuals and groups – including psychologists, health care professionals, researchers, clients/patients and their families, APA governance members, and the general public – on the adequacy of the initial decisions for updating APA’s (2018) Clinical Practice Guideline for Multicomponent Behavioral Treatment of Obesity and Overweight in Children and Adolescents: Current State of the Evidence and Research Needs (also known as the Clinical Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Obesity and Overweight in Children and Adolescents).

APA is seeking feedback on the following initial decisions made by the Guideline Update Panel in updating the 2018 guideline:

1. The Population, Intervention, Comparators, Outcomes, Timing, and Settings (PICOTS) framework that will serve as the blueprint for updating the clinical practice guideline. The PICOTS framework is used in evidence-based medicine to frame and answer a clinical question. The PICOTS framework is also used to develop literature search strategies, for instance in systematic reviews.

AND

2. The list of identified systematic reviews / meta-analyses as a major empirical basis for updating guideline recommendations. The panel plans to look at the individual studies within the systematic reviews / meta-analyses to understand the current evidence. Please refer to the Panel’s PICOTS framework document as you review the identified systematic reviews / meta-analyses document.

The panel will carefully consider all comments received and may make modifications to these decisions based on these considerations (while bearing in mind that no single guideline can address all clinical questions of interest). While commenting, please reference the specific categories of the PICOTS framework and specify which systematic review / meta-analysis you are referring to whenever possible. If you have any other systematic reviews or individual studies that you recommend the panel should consider using, please provide the full citation with a hyperlink to the review / study within the online public comment portal.

Submitted comments will be visible to other visitors to this page. All comments will be reviewed by the panel and formal responses from the panel will be available online. If you have difficulty in accessing any of the documents or submitting comments on the online portal, please send an email to cpg@apa.org.

The documents are available for a thirty (30) day period of public review and comment. We invite you to review the Panel’s initial decisions and share your feedback through the APA comment portal by December 7, 2024 at 11:59 pm Eastern. If you have any questions concerning the review process, please contact Raquel Halfond, PhD, APA’s Senior Director for Evidence-Based Practice and Health Equity at rhalfond@apa.org.

APA Resolution on Psychological Needs of Children Exposed to Disasters 

The public comment period closes on Monday, December 9, 2024, at 11:59 p.m. Eastern time. 

The Committee on Children, Youth, and Families (CYF) has recently submitted a revised version of APA’s Resolution on the Psychological Needs of Children Exposed to Disasters for public comment. The original resolution was written by CYF and passed by APA Council of Representatives in 2009. In our review of policies, we identified that the content and language of the resolution needed significant updating.

The proposed updated Resolution provides current science, corrects outdated language, and addresses present day issues related to the psychological needs of children exposed to disasters. We have sought out content expertise in developing the revisions. Our hope is that it will communicate the current state of research, serve APA’s advocacy efforts, and encourage research and dissemination of evidence-based assessment and interventions mitigating the psychological effects of disasters on children.

The document is available for a thirty (30) day period of public review and comment. We invite you to review the draft and share your feedback through the APA comment portal by Monday, December 9,  2024, at 11:59 p.m. Eastern.

Resolution on Sexual Health Education

The public comment period closes on Monday, December 9, 2024, at 11:59 p.m. Eastern time. 

The Committee on Children, Youth, and Families (CYF) seek member comments on a revised version of APA’s Resolution on Sexual Health Education. The original resolution, “Resolution on Sexuality Health” was written by CYF and passed by APA Council of Representatives in 1996. CYF identified in their review of policies that the content and language of the resolution needed significant updating.

The proposed updated Resolution provides current science, corrects outdated language, and addresses present day issues related to sexual health education. CYF sought out content expertise and consulted with APA Division 44, Society for the Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity and the Committee on Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity in developing the revisions. CYF hopes that the revised Resolution on Sexual Health Education will serve APA’s advocacy efforts and be a resource for the public on current science in sexual health education. 

Please review the draft and share your feedback through the APA comment portal by Monday, December 9,  2024, at 11:59 p.m. Eastern.