Master’s level practice: Introduction, history, and current status.

Abstract

The master's degree has been an elusive training and practice component of psychology as early as 1947, generating well over 45 conferences and many working groups charged with determining the function and role of the degree within the field. In 2016, a Master's Summit was held for the same purpose and to ask the same questions including, "Should APA embrace the training of psychological practitioners at the master's level?" This article introduces the Special Section on Master's Training in Psychological Practice and reviews the early major conferences, taskforces, and reports which, over the last 70 years, have investigated the master's issue and identified the recurring topics, findings, and recommendations. Periodic, internal APA work groups on the issue have conferred in recent years but few publications have been issued since the early attention to the topic. This article first provides a brief overview of the history and context of each of four master's topics that were themes of the 2016 Master's Summit and were recurring topics of master's discussions over the years (American Psychological Association Minority Fellowship Program, 2017). These topics are (a) quality assurance and accreditation, (b) scope of practice, (c) regulation and licensure, and (d) marketplace and workforce and each of these is presented in an article in this special section. Past barriers to resolution of the master's issue are reviewed, why questions could not be answered earlier, and reasons why they may be answered now are proposed. The final article of the series identifies consensus findings and suggests future directions. Public Significance StatementThis article highlights history of the debate regarding master's practice in psychology and describes the context that fueled the pro and con stances. Descriptions of elements of the debate-quality assurance/accreditation, scope of practice, regulation/licensure, marketplace/workforce, current barriers, and potential resolutions for the future of master's level practice-provide the context for review of the subsequent articles in this special section.

Subdoctoral practitioners in psychology: Implications for master’s-level psychologists.

“…In this model, a doctoral-level psychologist would serve as the chief coordinator, with master's-level psychologists or other master'slevel mental health care providers providing the majority of mental health care. Thus, in line with the analysis of Campbell et al (2018), the presence of master's-level providers would shift the role of the doctoral-level psychologist from primary provider to that of a consultant, educator, and leader. The added benefit of working with master's-level psychologists over other subdoctoral providers in this model is the shared common education and professional affiliation.…”

Master’s level accreditation in health services psychology: A primer to the special section with commentary.

“…Campbell, Worrell, Dailey, and Brown (2018) trace a significant shift in the mental health workforce to the advent of widespread managed behavioral health care that began approximately 30 years ago. Subsequently, the marketplace became highly competitive (De Vaney Olvey, Hogg, & Counts, 2002) and a variety of disciplines effectively adopted practice scopes that were traditionally within the purview of psychologists.…”

“…In that vein, the watershed event may have been the 2009 decision by the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP) to disavow counseling psychologists from being recognized as qualified to provide the core training of master’s level counselors (CACREP, 2015; Grus, 2019; Jackson & Scheel, 2013; Owen, Henderson Metzger, Gorgens, & Nadkarni, 2019). Upon enactment of that decision in 2013, counseling psychologists were specifically singled out as ineligible to teach in counselor education programs (Campbell et al, 2018). At this time, CACREP is actively seeking to expand its reach into state licensing regulations via prohibiting those earning a master’s degree in counseling psychology from licensure as a professional counselor (Brady-Amoon & Keefe-Cooperman, 2017; Jackson & Scheel, 2013).…”

Commentary: Consensus findings and future directions.

“…This special issue provides a summary of the Summit on Master’s Training in Psychological Practice (American Psychological Association Minority Fellowship Program, 2017) convened in December 2016 at APA headquarters. As detailed in the first article in this special section (Campbell, Worrell, Dailey, & Brown, 2018), the Master’s degree has been a contentious issue for many decades in the history of the American Psychological Association (APA). Indeed, one can argue that the Master’s degree in psychology constitutes the third rail of APA politics, in that APA has policies that speak to the training of students in psychology at the high school, community college, undergraduate, and doctoral levels, but APA has not had any official policies related to psychology training for the Master’s degree.…”

“…These percentages parallel the pattern for doctoral degrees: 55.7% (HSPs) and 44.3% (research). Also, as noted, one of the primary reasons that the master’s degree is controversial is related to HSP, specifically, as APA policy is clear that the doctorate is the entry degree for independent practice as a psychologist (American Psychological Association, 2011; Campbell et al, 2018). The concern that individuals with master’s degrees in psychology might be allowed to practice, and the potentially negative impact of this outcome on HSPs, may have resulted in APA boards shying away from dealing with the master’s degree in psychology until relatively recently.…”