"1. States seeking legislation regulating the practice of psychology should attempt to develop laws falling in the category of licensing legislation."

Integral to a licensing act is a definition of the practice of psychology. The Committee has hesitated in the past to recommend a specific definition, but now that there are over 20 of them on the books, it seems reasonable to suggest one. There are several principles involved. First the use of the title should be covered as well as the function defined. Second, the definition should be as broad as possible, in order to cover all activities of psychologists as psychologists; the other provisions in the law take care of employment settings that may be exempted, or of persons in related fields whose activities may include some of a psychological nature. Third, there should be a definition of psychotherapy, if possible. The Committee feels, however, that the inclusion of such a definition, or even the use of the word "psychotherapy" (as opposed to "behavior modification," for example), should not be considered critical if there is support from the medical profession for all other aspects of the proposed legislation.

With these principles in mind, the Committee recommends the following series of definitions:

"2. A person represents himself to be a psychologist when he holds himself out to the public by any title or description of services incorporating the words 'psychology,' 'psychological,' 'psychologist,' and/or offers to render or renders services as defined below to individuals, groups, organizations, or the public for a fee, monetary or otherwise.

"The practice of psychology within the meaning of this act is defined as rendering to individuals, groups, organizations, or the public any psychological service involving the application of principles, methods, and procedures of understanding, predicting, and influencing behavior, such as the principles pertaining to learning, perception, motivation, thinking, emotions, and interpersonal relationships; the methods and procedures of interviewing, counseling, and psychotherapy; of constructing, administering, and interpreting tests of mental abilities; aptitudes, interests, attitudes, personality characteristics, emotion, and motivations; and of assessing public opinion.

"The application of said principles and methods includes, but is not restricted to: diagnosis, prevention, and amelioration of adjustment problems and emotional and mental disorders of individuals and groups; hypnosis; educational and vocational counseling; personnel selection and management; the evaluation and planning for effective work and learning situations; advertising and market research; and the resolution of interpersonal and social conflicts.

"Psychotherapy within the meaning of this act means the use of learning, conditioning methods, and emotional reactions, in a professional relationship, to assist a person or persons to modify feelings, attitudes, and behavior which are intellectually, socially, or emotionally maladjustive or ineffectual.

"The practice of psychology shall be defined above, any existing statute in the state of to the contrary notwithstanding."

Upon the advice of legal counsel, the Committee recommends that the wording of the provision covering exemption of members of other professions be as follows:

- or

"3. Nothing in that act shall be construed to prevent qualified members of other professional groups such as from doing work of a psychological nature consistent with their training and consistent with any code of ethics of their respective professions, provided, however, they do not hold themselves out to the public by any title or description incorporating the words 'psychological,' 'psychologist,' or ‘psychology.'”

Medical disclaimer clause.-The 1955 policy statement recommended that laws regulating the practice of psychology should include a disclaimer clause stating that certification or licensing under the act does not confer the right to practice medicine. In one form or another, all of the state laws passed to date do contain such a provision. It is the Committee's judgment, however, that since psychologists do not represent themselves as other than psychologists, to disclaim the right to practice other professions is inappropriate. Here again, however, the Committee does not feel that inclusion or exclusion of such a provision should be made a crucial issue.

B. Level of Certification or Licensure

The 1955 policy statement made three recommendations with respect to levels. Although a preference was expressed for a one-level law, the recommendations

were relatively permissive. Experience with laws leads the Committee in 1967 to recommend that:

"4. Legislation regulating the practice of psychology should be restricted to one level, requiring the doctoral degree from an accredited university or college in a program that is primarily psychological, and no less than 2 years of supervised experience, one of which is subsequent to the granting of the doctoral degree. This level should be designated by the title of ‘psychologist.' Psychology should depend on the profession itself for higher level certification or licensure (of which ABEPP is an example)."

However, in some states it has been necessary to certify or license at more than one level. When this occurs, the legislation should reflect the following recommendations:

"5. If a state desires legislation below the psychologist level, this level should be designated by a title which includes the adjective 'psychological' followed by a noun such as 'examiner,' 'assistant,' 'technician,' etc. It should require a defined program of at least 1 year of graduate training in an accredited university or college, plus experience leading to qualifications in the practice of certain defined psychological functions, under the supervision of a psychologist. In addition, the law should contain a provision prohibiting independent practice by such individuals.

“6. If a state desires legislation beyond the psychologist level, this level should be designed by the title of 'consulting psychologist.' It should require competence and experience equivalent to that of the ABEPP diploma."

That the 1955 recommendations have had an effect is shown by the fact that out of 41 laws now in existence, 32 certify or license at one level, 1 (Michigan) certifies at three levels, with 8 providing for two levels. In 2 (Kentucky and Washington) of these 8, provisions for the nondoctoral person is via a certificate of qualification for specified functions, rather than a specific title. The Committee on Legislation feels that this provision is in accord with Recommendation 5 above.

C. Specialty

As to specialty legislation, in its 1955 report, the Committee did not favor legislation which permits differentiation of specialties within psychology, regardless of whether these specialties are defined by the functions carried out or by the locale where the work is done. These matters are best dealt with by intraprofessional controls. None of the current laws is specialty legislation. We reaffirm the 1955 policy statement against specialty legislation, and recommend that:

"7. Legislation regulating the practice of psychology at the 'psychologist' or 'consulting psychologist' level should not attempt to differentiate psychological specialties either by function or by locale.”

This policy still permits, in those states having certification laws, any person who has been trained as a psychologist to call himself by any other name without being certified. In those states with licensing laws, titles are not relevant.

D. Exemptions for Psychologists

Should legislation be written to include exemptions for psychologists who are salaried employees of certain organizations, such as state and Federal agencies, research laboratories, or academic institutions?

By wording and by implication, present laws cover only the applied activities of psychologists rather than their teaching and research activities. To require the nonpracticing, salaried psychologist of the above named organizations to be certified or licensed is contrary to the generally stated purposes for legislation, since there may be little need to protect the public from the activities of teaching and research within such institutions. Furthermore, requiring such psychologists to obtain a certificate or license places upon them an unwarranted financial burden from which they derive no apparent direct benefit.

On the other hand, it is becoming increasingly common for psychologists employed for a salary by various institutions also to provide direct services of an applied nature to the public, often for a fee. Being a practitioner is not limited to any single field of psychology nor to any one setting. So the question becomes whether some guarantee should be given the public that such psychologists are qualified under the laws governing the practice of psychology in that state. The argument is given that the competence of such a psychologist is assessed by his institution before he is hired, that his actvities are constantly evaluated while

he is employed, and that the institution itself will assume responsibility for his activities. In practice, however, this is not always the case. Institutions do not always assess psychologists with respect to the skills and techniques they utilize in their outside applied activities, and it is questionable whether such institutions in fact would assume responsibility for the consulting activities engaged in by salaried employees outside of the normal duties for which they were hired. Furthermore, it may not be a valid assumption that Federal, state, or private institutions are qualified to judge the competence of those they hire, especially in areas of their consulting activities.

Does the issue, then, revolve around whether the salaried psychologist renders his services for a fee? Is this the only point where there is a need for control by legislation of the qualifications for practice? While our Committee answers these questions affirmatively, we also are aware of the difficulty of defining "fee." It is a contract to do survey research, with a later feedback of the findings for the purpose of facilitating change in an organization, to be considered under the definition of "providing services for a fee"? Does the salaried university psychologist who consults for a Federal agency provide psyhological services for a fee?

In their September 1964 interim report the ad hoc Committee on the Scientific and Professional Aims of Psychology proposed that:

"All laws should exempt salaried employees of academic institutions, state and Federal agencies, research laboratories, and business corporations while performing their duties for such organizations. Such exemptions, however, should not exclude the business or corporation per se from certification where they sell psychological services to the public."

Although implementation of such exemptions may leave loopholes, our Committee agrees in principle with the SPAP Committee and offers the following guidelines and recommendations with respect to this complex issue :

"8. Persons employed as psychologists by accredited academic institutions, governmental agencies, research laboratories, and business corporations should be exempted, provided such employees are performing those duties for which they are employed by such organizations, and within the confines of such organizations."

This does not mean that psychologists should stop their continuing efforts to improve the quality of psychological services offered within the confines of such employment settings.

"9. Persons employed as psychologists by accredited academic institutions, governmental agencies, research laboratories, and business corporations consulting or offering their research findings or providing scientific information to like organizations for a fee should be exempted.

"10. Persons employed as psychologists who offer or provide psychological services to the public for a fee, over and above the salary that they receive for the performance of their regular duties should not be exempted.

"11. Persons employed as psychologists by organizations that sell psychological services to the public should not be exempted."

Recommendations 8 through 11 cover the activities of psychologists. It is also necessary, in licensing legislation, to authorize activities of a psychological nature on the part of salaried employees in exempted settings who are not psychologists. The persons involved may be clerical personnel under the direct supervision of a psychologist, or they may be unsupervised personnel with responsibilities for selection and placement, for example, that include the use of tests. The Committee recommends, therefore, that:

"12. Nothing in the licensing act shall restrict or prevent activities of a psychological nature on the part of persons who are salaried employees of accredited academic institutions, governmental agencies, research laboratories, and business corporations, provided such employees are performing those duties for which they are employed by such organizations, and within the confines of such organization; provided, however, that they do not hold themselves out to the public by any title or description of activities incorporating the words 'psychology,' 'psychological,' or 'psychologist.''

Other exemptions recommended are:

"13. Consideration should be given students of psychology, psychological interns, and other persons preparing for the profession of psychology under qualified supervision in recognized training institutions or facilities. These should be exempted provided they are designated by such titles as 'psychological intern, psychological trainees,' or others, clearly inideating such training status.

"14. The exemption of the sociologically trained social psychologist is recommended in accordance with the policy adopted in 1959 as agreed upon by the American Psychological Association and the American Sociological Association. A suggested wording for such a provision is:

"Nothing in this act is to be construed as restricting the use of the term "social psychologist" by any person (a) who has been graduated with a doctoral degree in sociology or social psychology from an institution whose credits in sociology or social psychology are acceptable by a recognized educational institution, and (b) who has passed comprehensive examinations in the field of social psychology as part of the requirement for the doctoral degree or has had equivalent specialized training in social psychology, and (c) who has filed with the board a statement of the facts demonstrating his compliance with Conditions a and b of this subsection.'

"15. It is recommended that state laws should allow the psychologist who is exempted from certification or licensing by virtue of his employment setting, to offer lecture services for a fee."

Lecturer provisions sometimes deal with the nonresident psychologist from another state or territory. Here the issue is one of the single or relatively few lectures provided within a relatively short span of time, and often to diverse groups. The exemption status of the organization supporting the lecture is a partial answer to this issue, but a more general answer lies in including in legislation, or in examining board regulations, some means of recognizing and dealing with the atypical event through discretionary powers given to the board of examiners.

E. Offer for a Fee

This phrasing is a common one in regulatory laws. The laws are primarily intended for protection of the public. The expected misuse of title or function by an unqualified practitioner is presumed to occur most frequently where the client (individual, group, or organization) is to make payment for services rendered. Payment for services rendered may take a wide variety of forms including but not limited to diagnostic fees and consultant fees. With the advice of legal counsel, the Committee recommends that:

"16. When referring to the psychologist's services offered to the public, the phrasing be 'for a fee, monetary or otherwise.'”

F. Code of Ethics

The Committee reaffirms the 1955 policy that:

"17. Legislation governing the practice of psychology should be so written that the official code of ethics of the APA be adopted, as such or in substance, as the code of ethics for individuals covered by the law."

The means of doing this will vary, for in some states reference to an outside organization (the APA) is not permitted in law. Rules and procedures of the board of examiners, however, may include wording identical with the APA Code. Seventeen of the current laws refer specifically to the APA Code of Ethics in the legislation itself.

G. Accreditation

It is recommended that:

"18. All laws should limit eligibility for certification or licensing to individuals holding degrees from accredited (or recognized foreign) institutions."

The practices of different states in professional legislation vary. Some permit explicit mention of APA or national and regional accrediting bodies, others do not. Rules of the board of examiners should designate the acceptable accrediting bodies.

In September 1963, the Council of Representatives voted that it was the sense of that meeting that APA "disapproves of state procedures involving the registration of graduate training programs in psychology in connection with certification or licensing of psychologists." The Committee therefore recommends that: "19. Nothing in the law or in the administration of the law should require the registration of departments of psychology or doctoral programs in psychology.” H. Examining Boards

It is recommended that:

"20. Examining boards consist of psychologists representing the various fields of psychology. They should include psychologists responsible for the education and training of doctoral students as well as those involved with the public ap

plication of psychology. All of the members of the board should be certified or licensed, or in the case of the first board, eligible for certification or licensure. Where state precedent will permit, nominations should be provided by the state psychological association."

I. Examinations

Although written and oral examinations are customarily required under all but one of the laws, once the grandfather period is over, provision should be made when possible for waiving examinations in special circumstances. It is recommended that:

"21. Wherever possible, laws contain a provision that at the discretion of the examining board, written and/or oral examinations may be waived, either in whole or in part, when in the board's judgment the applicant has already demonstrated competence in areas covered by the examinations."

Some existing boards are authorized to waive examinations when "in the public interest." It seems best, however, to specify the conditions.

It is also recommended that:

"22. Where possible, the laws or the regulations of the examining boards should permit waiving the examination for diplomats of the American Board of Examiners in Professional Psychology."

J. Reciprocity

It is recommended that:

"23. Each state law should contain a provision which enables the certifying or licensing board to grant a certificate or a license, without examination, to a psychologist who is licensed or certified in another state when the requirements for licensure or certification of that state are no lower than those in the present state."

While the evaluation of "no lower than" may be seen as a barrier, that possibility is greatly reduced by the efforts of the American Association of State Psychology Boards and the consultative efforts of the Committee on Legislation of the APA. In addition, it is always possible for a psychologist to obtain legal redress if a state examining board is alleged to have acted capriciously or arbitrarily. In this respect, each state law should serve the public interests by implementing stated APA policy and the scientific and professional traditions of psychology by facilitating rather than hindering the mobility of psychologists. K. The Out-of-State Consultant

Related to the need for adequate reciprocity provisions is the need to provide for the psychologist coming into a state for a brief period of time, as a consultant, but whose employer is in another state. Such activity is common for psychologists working for an industrial consulting firm. It would seem inappropriate to require that such a consultant obtain a certificate or license. The degree of freedom granted in any state will depend upon a number of factors, but it is the Committee's recommendation that:

"24. Provision be made in psychology laws for the visiting psychological consultant offering psychological services on a short-term basis."

The following example from the Illinois law is presented as a reasonable guide: "A psychologist who is not a resident of this State and offers professional services in this State for not more than 5 days in any calendar year is exempt from the provisions of this Act.

"A psychologist who is not a resident of the State, but (1) is licensed or certified by a similar board of another State, or territory of the United States, or of a foreign country or province whose standards, in the opinion of the Department, are equivalent to or higher than, at the date of his certification or licensure, the requirements of this Act, or (2) meets the requirements of paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) of Section 10 (basic requirements except for examination) and resides in another State, or territory of the United States, or in a foreign country or province which does not grant certification or licenses to psychologists may offer professional services in this State for a total of not more than 60 days in any calendar year without holding a certificate issued under this Act; provided that such persons shall report to the Department the nature and extent of their practice in this State if it exceeds 20 days within any calendar year." L. Privileged Communication Provisions

In the policy statement adopted in 1955, the following appears, not as a formal recommendation, but as a general guideline: