I’m at the California Board of Behavioral Sciences (BBS) meeting today in Orange County, with Robin Andersen from Prelicensed. The BBS has returned to two issues I’ve raised here previously: The alarmingly low pass rate on the California MFT Clinical Exam, and the issue of sites charging trainees to work there.
Licensure
I took the California MFT Clinical Exam and the National MFT Exam. Here’s how they compare.
I just took the California MFT Clinical Exam and the National MFT Exam within a month of each other. When scheduling both of these exams, my hope was that I could study once, and then ace both. Here, I’ll outline the similarities and differences I noticed between the two exams.
How did we get here? Part 1: 3,000 hours
In every state, and for every psychotherapist license, there is a supervised experience requirement. Those requirements differ a bit from state to state and between license types, but they all hover around the same place: two years of full-time experience or the equivalent, typically operationalized as 3,000 hours. Where did that standard come from, and how has it changed over time? You may be surprised.
It’s nearly 100 years old.
Every excuse for California’s MFT Clinical Exam pass rate, debunked
At the August meeting of the California Board of Behavioral Sciences, I had a tense exchange with representatives from the state’s Office of Professional Examination Services about pass rates for the California MFT Clinical Exam. That pass rate has fallen off a cliff. For the first six months of the year, just 56% of those taking the test for the first time passed.
At the meeting, OPES presented about their exam development process, and argued that nothing meaningful had changed on their end. They and the BBS raised several hypotheses about both the current low pass rate and the drop in pass rate at the start of the year.
Over the past week, I investigated every one of the hypotheses offered. Not one of those hypotheses stands up to scrutiny.
California’s MFT Clinical Exam is broken
Back in May, I wrote about how pass rates on the California MFT Clinical Exam for licensure had fallen off a cliff. At the time, the state’s Board of Behavioral Sciences offered an explanation for why the pass rate might have been higher than expected at the beginning of 2016. However, they had no explanation for why the pass rate since then had fallen so far.
The most recent data on California licensing exam pass rates [page 25] makes clear that the alarmingly low pass rate in the first quarter of 2017 — when just 57% of first-time test-takers passed the MFT Clinical Exam — was not simply an aberration. It truly does appear that the exam is broken.