Carol Atkinson Ph.D. the chief psychologist at the Chowchilla prison where psychologist Anderson works, described her as an exemplary employee with high level of skills.The saga of the Oregon psychology examiner board, accused of mishandling has been settled. Now, a similar dispute has erupted in California where a lawsuit is expected to come to trial later this year. The California case is known as: Anderson vs. The Board of Psychology. Curiously, both the Oregon and California suits relate to the heretofore obscure topic by questioning the fairness and reliability of oral licensing exams. In Oregon, the licensing board stubbornly resisted in a case that led to legislation forcing the licensing board to change its oral exam procedure.(ONLY INSOFAR AS THE BOARD HAS BEEN FORCED TO RECORD THE EXAM .CS )
In California, Susan Anderson, Ph.D., a psychologist at the Chowchilla women's prison was licensed after 11 tries at the oral test. She has vowed to continue her fight with the licensing board despite the warning "she could never prevail" against an "all powerful licensing board," said William D. Anderson, her lawyer-husband. The California complaints include allegations that the fail rate is unacceptably high at 65% that the brightest candidates are failing, and that the licensing board is using "gatekeeping" as a means to restrict the number of psychologists entering the marketplace. In defense of his spouse Anderson claims that her performance has always been consistently high, and that it is merely the licensing board's grading that reads like a roller coaster.
By way of example, Anderson asserted she alternately passed and then failed one area of the examination six times, an area that she has taught at the graduate level. Anderson said his wife finally succeeded with the oral exam on her 11th try in February 1997 after passing the written licensing exam in 1993. She filed a mandate proceeding in September 1995 which would require a governmental agency (the licensing board) to undertake a particular course of action. Specifically, she asked the court to rule that the oral examination, as designed, administered and scored, was neither reliable nor valid as a means of judging her competency and, as such, violated her fundamental fight to practice her profession.
Lawyer Anderson contends that California has the strictest eligibility requirements in the country, and that a former examiner who is an expert witness in the case claims the examination process is "highly likely to be biased and without reliability or validity." Anderson presented some bizarre twists in their lawsuit when discussing the behavior of the examiners. Examples: "Dr. Anderson has experienced a sleeping examiner who had to be awakened to ask a question; and an examiner Who excused herself walked into the bathroom and made use of the facilities. She was taken to a. hotel bedroom by two male examiners who positioned her chair against the bed in the room and, with shades drawn and a single light on in the room, commenced to give the test which included a lengthy examination about a farmer masturbating in from of his daughter."
In a letter to The National Psychologist, Lawyer Anderson also wrote: The examination format itself is a vignette which the candidate is allowed to read and then is asked various' questions. The vignettes are a completely separate story. Suffice it to say, they are so devoid of reality that the candidate could not, in a hundred years of practice encounter such a clinical situation. "Few clinicians encounter an interracial couple composed of an Afghan male and Chinese woman who do not speak English; their 16-year-old multiracial child does speak English, although it is not clear what his second language might be. "On such absurd premises, the candidate's competency to practice psychology is judged in 45 minutes by two strangers in a hotel bedroom. The two strangers are volunteer-licensed psychologists having a minimum of three years of clinical experience, in many cases less than the candidates. (THEY DO THIS JOB AS A WAY OF SATISFYING THEIR CONTINUING EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS. CS.)
The examiners have been given 45 minutes of training before administering the examination. The training is provided by the executive director of the Board of Psychologists who is a non-psychologist, does not have any credentials in testing, but has published an article chastising the outcry from failed candidates. According to the executive director, these nonpersons would enhance their chances of passing the oral examination if they would spend more time reading Shakespeare and came to grips with the truth that their failure is of their own making and not the stars."
With Psychologist Anderson now licensed, the state has recently sought dismissal of the suit claiming the issues she raised are moot. However, the court denied the motion, Lawyer Anderson said. The psychologist declared she has expended thousands of dollars in special training but added that the oral exam training program have spawned a booming cottage industry "as there is an ample supply of candidates looking for any help in climbing over this final hurdle." Lawyer Anderson wrote: "One of the unavoidable pieces of humiliation the failed candidate encounters is that within several days of receiving notice of their failure, they are then inundated by solicitations by various training academies that guarantee their future passage."