Tonight (March 22, 2026) I downloaded the AMFTRB candidate handbook for those preparing to take the National MFT Exam. That’s pretty routine. At High Pass Education, we’re working on a prep program for the national exam, and of course we want to make our content and our practice exams consistent with what examinees might see on the actual test.
According to the National MFT Exam handbook that I just downloaded, here’s the breakdown of exam content:
In and of itself, that’s unremarkable. It reflects a pretty typical exam outline. Except that when I had downloaded ostensibly the same 2026 candidate handbook in late January, here’s the outline it showed:
Whoa! Those are some pretty major differences. And I can’t immediately find anything in the handbook or on the AMFTRB web site reporting on the change. Other than the outline and exam plan changes noted below (and corresponding table-of-contents edits), the two versions of the 2026 candidate handbook are identical in appearance. Most examinees likely wouldn’t have stumbled upon these changes on their own. Making matters more confusing, the “Exam Info” page on the AMFTRB web site remains (at least as of this writing) consistent with the January version of the handbook, not the current one.
Detailed content also changed
AMFTRB also made changes throughout the more detailed content outline — many are minor language differences, but some substantive — that are reflected in the new handbook, but not on their web site. And as best as I can tell, there is nothing on or in the handbook or on the site to indicate when these changes took, or are taking, effect.
Metadata on the handbook file shows that the PDF itself was last updated on February 24, marking the earliest possible date the revision could have been posted. Social media posts reference the updated handbook being online as of March 20, marking the latest possible date the revision could have been posted. (If you’ve seen earlier posts noting the change, please let us know.) Clearly, whichever outline was actually used for the March testing window (March 14-21), some examinees saw, and likely used, the wrong one.
What should happen next
As a reminder, testing industry standards demand that examinees have the opportunity to know what they’re being tested on, so that they can prepare themselves accordingly. Unannounced changes in both the exam plan (detailed content descriptions) and the balance of exam content would appear to violate that standard. There are lots of legitimate reasons why the content and balance of an exam might change, but examinees deserve to be informed of those changes with enough lead time to prepare. When changes are made, they should be clearly indicated, and examinees should be proactively informed of them.
AMFTRB is, unfortunately, appearing to follow in ASWB’s footsteps with these kinds of sneak revisions to their handbook. AMFTRB owes it to examinees and member boards to swiftly explain 1) what actually changed and when; 2) why March examinees were given different, conflicting exam outlines that both came from the official AMFTRB site; 3) what steps will be taken to address March examinees, who were given conflicting guidance on exam content and may have failed as a result; 4) why the handbook and website remain inconsistent; 5) why the handbook does not in any way indicate that the new “2026 Candidate Handbook” has been updated from the old “2026 Candidate Handbook;” and 6) what will be done to ensure that such mistakes do not happen again.
Add this to the large-and-still-growing stack of evidence that clinical exams in mental health care are not consistent with industry standards for testing. Mental health professionals deserve better.