On accreditation standards, competence assessments and gate-keeping : Houston, we have a problem!

This piece is a commentary on an important article, “An examination of accreditation standards between Australian and US/Canadian doctoral programs in clinical psychology”. The commentary complements and extends the original article by providing additional data on clinical supervision and examination requirements for clinical psychology training in the US and Australia. Indications that end-of-placement supervisor assessments are less reliable than expected, extremely low fail-rates during training, and the absence of a comprehensive and rigorous final examination for Registration with AOPE together constitute a serious concern and raise the possibility of a compromised competence assessment system. Inadequate assessment matters especially in the context of reduced clinical supervision requirements within the new accreditation standards. KEY POINTS What is already known about this topic: The commentary analyses and comments on an important submission to the journal, “An examination of accreditation standards between Australian and US/Canadian Doctoral programs in clinical psychology.” What this topic adds: APAC requirements for clinical supervision are much lower than the APA requirements. Unlike their US counterparts, clinical psychology trainees are not required to pass a final, bench-marked examination to gain registration with AOPE/licensure. Less than satisfactory validity of end-of-placement supervisor assessments, extremely low fail-rates during training, and the absence of a comprehensive and rigorous final examination for Registration with AOPE are indicators of a deficient system of competence assessment.