Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T10:27:17.146Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Licensing of I-O Psychologists: Some Potentially Lethal Features

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2017

John P. Campbell
John P. Campbell*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to John P. Campbell, Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, 75 E. River Rd, Minneapolis, MN 55455. E-mail: campb006@umn.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The focal article (LCIOP Joint Task Force, 2017) is a painstakingly thorough discussion of licensing issues regarding I-O psychology as they have evolved over the last 40–50 years. There is also a very large literature produced by Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) members, and cited in the focal article, that discusses many of these issues in some detail (e.g., Campbell, Levy, Murphy, Schmitt, & Weiss, 2009). The focal article makes a very useful distinction between health service providers (HSP) and general applied psychologists (GAP). The position of SIOP for some time has been that licensure should be required for the former, but not for the latter, although a path to licensure should be provided for those who need it. I would certainly agree. Also, the Society of Consulting Psychology (SCP) is much more infused with applied clinical psychology than is SIOP. Consequently, the licensing needs of most SIOP members and most SCP members are most likely not quite the same.

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , June 2017 , pp. 190 - 193
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Campbell, J., Levy, P., Murphy, K., Schmitt, N., & Weiss, H. (2009). Letter to the SIOP executive committee. The Industrial and Organizational Psychologist, 46 (4), 11–12.Google Scholar
Ford, J. K., Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ryan, A. M. (2014). Solutions in search of the problem: Innovation, flexibility, and graduate education. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 7 (1), 44–50.Google Scholar
Kleiner, M. M. (2006). Licensing occupations: Ensuring quality or restricting competition? Kalamazoo, MI: W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.Google Scholar
Kleiner, M. M. (2015). Guild-ridden labor markets: The curious case of occupational licensing. Kalamazoo, MI: W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latham, G. P. (2017). Mandating the licensing of I-O psychologists lacks merit. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 10 (2), 182–186.Google Scholar
Licensure of Consulting and I-O Psychologists (LCIOP) Joint Task Force. (2017). The licensure issue in consulting and I-O psychology: A discussion paper. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 10 (2), 144–181.Google Scholar
Sund, A., Smith, R., Bastos, M., Small, P., Mills, N., & Chaudhuri, A. (2014). A case against internship certification. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 7 (1), 80–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandaveer, V. (1991). A letter to my pro-exemptionist colleagues. The Industrial and Organizational Psychologist, 29 (1), 51–58.Google Scholar