Accreditation Public Comment System

This project is now closed for new comments.

Document	Section	Item	First Name	Last Name	Group Name	Comment
Accreditation Operating Procedures for Master's Programs (AOP-M)	General Operating Procedures	1. Reaffirmation for Continued Accreditation	john	smith		comment
Accreditation Operating Procedures for Master's Programs (AOP-M)	General Operating Procedures	1. Reaffirmation for Continued Accreditation	john	smith		comment
Accreditation Operating Procedures for Master's Programs (AOP-M)	General Operating Procedures	1. Reaffirmation for Continued Accreditation	Allison	Gillens	APA Committee on Early Career Psychologists	General Comments: As the CoA considers and implements the AOP-M alongside the AOP, it may be helpful for the CoA to require doctoral programs to document how they differentiate training from master's programs when both exist at the same institution. The CoA should also consider explicitly stating that (in both documents) that master's and doctoral accreditation operate under distinct scopes of practice and training outcomes. These two accreditation procedures are very similar, and it makes sense as to why the CoA is interested in maintaining strict accreditation procedures for any program it accredits. However, the CoA may wish to ensure that the close alignment of accreditation and standards do not inadvertently blur the lines between scope-of-practice boundaries.
Accreditation Operating Procedures for Master's Programs (AOP-M)	General Operating Procedures	3.1 Complaint Against an Accredited Program	john	smith	group test	test comment
Accreditation Operating Procedures for Master's Programs (AOP-M)	General Operating Procedures	3.1.2 Timelines for Filing a Complaint	Allison	Gillens	APA Committee on Early Career Psychologists	It is clear complaints must be filed in writing within 18 months of leaving a program but it may be prudent to clarify, if it is true, that an active employee/student/individual actively still engaged in program can file a complaint. Additionally, if the individual/group remain engaged in the program, are there safeguards to prevent retaliation against the student/group filing the report?
Accreditation Operating Procedures for Master's Programs (AOP-M)	General Operating Procedures	3.2.1 Filing a Complaint	Allison	Gillens	APA Committee on Early Career Psychologists	? Similarly, it may be helpful to allow complainants to receive redacted copies of program responses so they can meaningfully rebut factual claims. ? It may also be helpful for the CoA to establish a confidential whistleblower pathway.
Accreditation Operating Procedures for Master's Programs (AOP-M)	General Operating Procedures	4.1 Provision of Third-Party Comment	Allison	Gillens	APA Committee on Early Career Psychologists	Consider requiring programs to notify all currently enrolled students, interns, and residents of upcoming accreditation reviews and the third-party testimony deadline at least 60 days in advance, rather than relying on students and early career professionals to read through the Monitor on Psychology to be aware of these accreditation visits and what may be needed from them. Similarly, the CoA may consider creating a dedicated submission portal or email address for student/early career testimony, with clear instructions accessible from the CoA homepage.
Accreditation Operating Procedures for Master's Programs (AOP-M)	General Operating Procedures	5. Confidentiality and Public Disclosure of Information	Allison	Gillens	APA Committee on Early Career Psychologists	We suggest consideration of requiring program’s to clearly communicate to existing and incoming students/faculty any updates in their accreditation status within 30 days of the change.
Accreditation Operating Procedures for Master's Programs (AOP-M)	Masters Accreditation Operating Procedures	8.1 M Guiding Principles of the Periodic Review	Billy	Holcombe		My concern is that the AOP-M document uses language such as “entry into practice.” It also charges the CoA to consider whether students are “adequately prepared for entry into practice.” However, there isn't any disclaimer or mention that APA accreditation does not in and of itself authorize practice, determine a title, establish independent practice authority, or define assessment scope. This might be important, particularly given the novelty of these masters programs.
Accreditation Operating Procedures for Master's Programs (AOP-M)	Masters Accreditation Operating Procedures	8.2 M Accreditation Statuses and Decision Options	Allison	Gillens	APA Committee on Early Career Psychologists	At this time, it seems that the CoA is responsible for communicating to students and recent graduates of a program’s change in accreditation status. It may be helpful to consider requiring communication from the program to the students and recent graduates regarding these changes. Specifically, direct notification to all currently enrolled students and those who graduated within the past 5 years when a program's status changes to probation, revocation, or deemed withdrawal would be helpful. As it is possible that ECPs who trained in programs that subsequently lost accreditation may face significant professional barriers, it may also be helpful for the CoA to provide a statement on the CoA website and in accreditation directories regarding that graduates of later-revoked programs remain eligible for licensure, credentialing, and employment