Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-20T14:20:37.739Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mandating the Licensing of I-O Psychologists Lacks Merit

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2017

Gary P. Latham
Gary P. Latham*
Affiliation:
Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto; cross-appointment Department of Psychology
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Gary P. Latham, Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, 105 St. George St., Toronto, Ontario M5S 3E6, Canada. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

There are at least four interrelated reasons why the practice of industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology should not require a license that is mandated by the state or province where the I-O psychologist resides. First, there is no subject matter domain unique to the practice of I-O psychology. Second, because there is no subject matter domain unique to I-O psychology, the subject matter is extensively practiced by other unregulated professions. Hence, a law mandating a license to practice I-O psychology, restricted to graduates from a doctoral program in a psychology department, is unlikely to be enforceable. It simply would not stand up to a legal challenge. Third, the espoused benefit of a mandated license, namely, to protect the public, is specious. Finally, a mandated license for the practice of I-O psychology by I-O psychologists could lead to the death of I-O psychology programs. Each of these four concerns is explained below.

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , June 2017 , pp. 182 - 186
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

American Psychological Association. (2010). Model act for state licensure of psychologists. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/about/policy/model-act-2010.pdf Google Scholar
Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards. (2016). ASPPB model licensing act for licensure and registration of psychologists. Peachtree City, GA: Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards.Google Scholar
Kleiner, M. M. (2006). Licensing occupations: Ensuring quality or restricting competition? Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleiner, M. M. (2015). Guild-ridden labor markets: The curious case of occupational licensing. Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.Google Scholar
Licensure of Consulting and I-O Psychologists (LCIOP) Joint Task Force. (2017). The licensure issue in consulting and I-O psychology: A discussion paper. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 10 (2), 144–181.Google Scholar
Serafine v. Branaman, No. 14–51151 (US 5th Cir., January 12, 2016).Google Scholar