Saskatchewan College of Psychologists--Advisories

Practice Advisories will be developed in response to psychologists' questions about standard practice for psychologists in Saskatchewan. We have begun with title format as that has recently been a frequently asked question, and we plan to continue adding information as issues arise.

Sections 14.4 and 14.5 of the SCP Professional Practice Guidelines require members to “in advance” establish a contingency plan for clients and their records to ensure that clients and their information are protected in the event of a member’s death, incapacity, or withdrawal from their position or practice. In April 2011 the Ad Hoc Committee on Privacy made a recommendation to Executive Council regarding establishing a requirement for members to identify a Professional Executor and suggesting that members be encouraged to establish a professional will.

On September 10, 2011 Executive Council of the Saskatchewan College of Psychologists (SCP) passed a Motion (79-11-C) requiring members who are practicing or have practiced to appoint a Professional Executor for their practice and to provide the SCP with that individual’s name and contact information. Thus beginning with the 2012 license renewal period (renewal fee due December 1, 2011) members of the SCP who are practicing** or who have previously practiced and have in their possession client information and/or files are required to identify for the SCP a Professional Executor for their practice who will be responsible to do the following in the event that the member is no longer able:

On a yearly basis members are required to update the information at the annual renewal period. This information will allow the SCP to respond to inquiries with regard to access to file information.

Professional Executors should be a member of the profession, but in the case of members practicing within institutions or organizations may be the employer designate. It is essential that the name of an individual be provided. Family members may not serve as the Professional Executor. Members and Professional Executors should be familiar with their responsibilities under the relevant legislation (the Psychologists Act 1997, the Health Information Protection Act), the Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists, and the SCP Professional Practice Guidelines. This requirement is consistent with the regulatory responsibilities/obligations of the SCP, the ethical responsibilities/obligations of the profession, public expectation, and quality assurance efforts.

**defined as any practice with and/or relating to clients from which one could reasonably expect that there would be a written/electronic record of that practice

The Canadian Code of Ethics 3 rd Edition directs psychologists to obtain informed consent in the provision of psychological services, and in the case of a minor, or one not competent to provide consent this must be obtained from their legal guardian2. Compliance with the Code is required under the legislation and bylaws of the SCP. Failure to comply with the Code may be viewed as professional misconduct and may result in formal discipline.

Psychologists working in certain institutional settings, such as schools, custody facilities or hospitals, may be tempted to rely on the legal doctrine of in loco parentis to avoid obtaining consent, but should do so with great caution.

Literally, in loco parentis means “in place of the parent”. Application of the doctrine occurs when a “person or legal entity undertakes the care or control of a person lacking legal capacity in the absence of supervision by the person’s natural parent or in the absence of formal legal approval (e.g., adoption, guardianship).”3

The intent of the legal doctrine is not to appropriate the right to consent from a fit parent or guardian or legal caregiver, nor is it to be applied as a matter of course to expedite activities/actions, nor does it automatically apply simply because a child is temporarily placed in the care of other persons.

The doctrine has commonly been applied in school systems to justify discipline of students, but is appropriately used in that context ONLY when it is applied for the purpose of educating the child4. Nor is the doctrine applicable to all persons employed within the institution. For example, the Courts have held that school counsellors in their role as counsellors do not perform services directly related to education, and are not school teachers5. Thus, the doctrine does NOT automatically extend to the provision of psychological services, even if they are provided within the school. It is also important to stress that being in loco parentis does not allow teachers to “consent” on behalf of parents or guardians in order to provide psychological services to a minor child.

As a result, psychologists working in schools or other systems where the in loco parentis doctrine may be invoked are required by the Code of Ethics to obtain informed consent from the legal parent/guardian/caregiver of the child, except in cases of emergency.

Similarly, a related concept, the “mature minor” is not applied as a matter of course, and the psychologist must be able to justify its use in each case and to demonstrate that the specific minor is capable of providing informed consent.

1 This Practice Advisory has been prepared with the assistance of legal counsel to the College, Rasmussen Rasmussen & Charowsky LPC

2 Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists Third Editions, Canadian Psychological Association, 2000

4 Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book I, chap. 16, p. 441(1769)

There is a recent policy of the Registration Committee of the College of Psychologists of British Columbia (CPBC) regarding reciprocal applications. For those applicants fully licensed as registrants of a Canadian psychology regulatory body and whose main residence appears to be in B.C., please contact CPBC for more information.

Please be advised that effective March 1, 2013 the EPPP examination fee charged by the Association of State and Provinicial Psychology Boards (ASPPB) will increase from $450.00 US to $600 U.S.

At the June 23, 2007 meeting of the Saskatchewan College of Psychologists the Executive Council approved the application forms for member psychologists to proceed with registration for Professional Incorporation, and Limited Liability Partnerships. Forms and procedural instructions are now available on this web-site. Completed forms can be forwarded to the College office where a Register is maintained. The Registrar will enter the name of the Professional Corporation or Limited Liability Partnership into the register then assign a registration number (Professional Corporation Number or Limited Liability Partnership Number) to the Professional Corporation or Partnership. A certificate bearing this number will be forwarded to the Corporation or Partnership from the Registrar. Members are strongly encouraged to seek legal and financial counsel regarding the costs and benefits before proceeding with this process. Additional questions about the process of registration as a Professional Corporation or Limited Liability Partnership can be directed to the Saskatchewan College of Psychologists office.

The Registration Committee provided advice regarding the matter of full practice members adding or changing competencies. The Council, at its meeting on January 10, 2004, confirmed their position. In December the Registration Committee recommended the following position, reproduced from their minutes of December 18, 2003:

"… requests (are being received) from members of the College for a change in competency. The SCP Executive Council has mandated the Registration Committee to appoint a sub-committee to examine this issue. A number of ways of examining the issue were discussed. In the meantime, the Registrar will accept self-declared areas of competency upon member’s request. Members will be notified that in declaring an added area of competency, they would also be responsible (to the College and in Civil Law) for (the competence of their practice) …in that area of declared competency."

In short, the matter of competence declaration is a self-report or practice limitation in a general practice, not a speciality. Full Practice members may claim a new competency, on their own judgement, by reporting this to the registrar and asking that it be declared on their member file. The registrar shall accept such claims and shall record them in the members’ name. It is strongly recommended that this be done in a responsible way by seeking supervision and in other ways gained this competence, and by having it supported with letters from already competent colleagues. This is encouraged but not required.

Part of the import of the Registration Committee’s statement is that if any complaints are filed against a member with declared competency, you will be held to the standard of the average professional psychologist in general practice providing that service, not that of the average citizen. This is a higher standard. There are a number of statements in the Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists (which Code the SCP endorses for its members) regarding claimed competence. Those would apply in resolving any claims before the Professional Conduct Committee should a written complaint be received about a psychologist’s practice, which the Professional Conduct Committee is called upon to investigate. That is why establishing evidence of competence in combination with a claim for a new area may prove to be an important step for members to have taken. Ultimately, the test is that one has met the expectation of acting competently in the provision of the services.

It should be clear that the claim and responsibility for claimed areas of competence rests with the full practice member and that listing such a claim with the College does not coAnstitute an endorsement of that claim by the college or its committees or employees.

The College requires that all members indicate on any professional psychology documents their full name,the highest degree under which they have been accepted for membership, and the terms "Registered Psychologist" or "Registered Doctoral Psychologist", including the “Provisional” disclaimer if appropriate. Examples of documents in which this full signage would be used include letters, reports, and business cards. It is also important to highlight that members must include the degree under which they are licensed, and their licensure status in any advertisement of their services including but not limited to online listings and telephone book listings. Members may also wish to include their registration number on legal documents.

An example of the form of title use for a member registered as a doctoral level psychologist is:

An example of the form of title use for a member registered as a master's level psychologist is:

There may be certain instances in which a member would prefer to use an abbreviated form of the title such as in clinic notes or hospital charts. For Provisional members it is required that if using an abbreviated form of the title that the “Provisional” disclaimer is spelled out in full.

An example of the recommended abbreviated form of the title for a member registered as a master's level psychologist is:

An example of the recommended abbreviated form of the title for a member registered as a doctoral level psychologist is:

In general it is recommended that the abbreviated form of the title would only be used in documents which are less likely to be read by the general public, and in which it would be easy to reference the full title of the psychologist in other documentation. It is further recommended that if a member works for an agency that has a list of approved abbreviations, the member should submit the abbreviation to the agency.

Please be advised that the license to practice granted by the SCP is a “general” license to practice. The license to practice is not intended to convey licensure or endorsement of a member by the SCP in a specific area of practice. Thus use of additional descriptors in one’s professional licensure title (i.e. Registered Doctoral Educational Psychologist, Registered Clinical Psychologist etc.) is not acceptable.

The goal of title use is to provide clear information to the public about a member's qualifications. If a member is in doubt about the sufficiency of the abbreviated title, the full title should be used.

The Professional Practices and Ethics Committee provided advice to the Executive Council regarding the ethics of contingency fee arrangements. The Council, in its meeting on September 25, 2004, confirmed their position.

In regard to the first, more general, question, the opinion of the Professional Practices and Ethics Committee was that “there may be a situation in which a contingency option makes perfect sense and is permissible, primarily based upon whether or not the contingency and the outcome of the psychological service, or assessment provided, are tied together….If the service provided, and in particular, the outcome, of the service provided and the contingency are not connected, then the psychologist can make a business decision regarding if and when payment for services may occur. However, if the contingency and outcome of the service provided are tied together then a conflict of interest may exist, and the appropriateness of the arrangement is questionable.”

The Committee noted that a psychologist may choose to provide services to needy clients who have limited resources using a variety of payment methods. “However, the psychologist should explore methods of responding to that need without creating a contingency situation that may compromise the objectivity of the psychologist and the integrity of the profession.”

The second question outlined a situation that was clearly questionable under the guidelines outlined above. In the case described, payment could only occur if the assessment pointed in a direction that supported the client’s legal suit. The Committee stated that “The contingency arrangement regarding the payment for services for an assessment based upon a successful court process appear to conflict with (Principle III: of the Code of Ethics for Psychologists)

Maximization of objectivity and minimization of bias is the hallmark of psychological assessment. The expectation of a specific outcome implicit in the contingency fee arrangement clearly conflicts with this principle.

According to the Canadian Code of Ethics 3rd Edition “Conflict-of-interest situations are those that can lead to distorted judgment and can motivate psychologists to act in ways that meet their own personal, political, financial, or business interests at the expense of the best interests of members of the public.” In the view of the Professional Practices and Ethics Committee, “the contingency of assessment outcome, and hence court outcome, and the payment of services is clearly a conflict of interest.”

In keeping with Section 15(2) (i) of The Psychologist Act, 1997, on June 19, 2004 Executive Council (EC) passed a motion that will require members to record and report Continuing Education Credits (CECs) beginning in 2005. Executive Council asked the Professional Practice and Ethics Committee to recommend an implementation plan and procedure for determining CECs. Based on the work of this Committee, the following policy for continuing education was approved on November 20, 2004. Executive Council would like to thank The Professional Practice and Ethics Committee for their work and dedication in assisting with the development of this policy.

The Saskatchewan College of Psychologists (SCP) is committed to quality assurance. One of the ways SCP supports this is through continuing education. Continuing education is central to professional development and the advancement of Psychology. The model of CECs that will be followed by the SCP encourages practitioners to take advantage of educational resources available within Saskatchewan. It is based on the principle of accessibility and availability. The approach of the SCP to quality assurance and continuing education is based upon self-regulation and responsibility.

Each member is encouraged to develop a continuing education plan and is required to complete 20 Continuing Education Credits each year. Continuing Education Credits, in excess of the yearly-required credits may be carried over into the next year. The Continuing Education Plan and record of Continuing Education Credits do not need to be submitted to the College but are to be retained by each member. The declaration of the completion of Continuing Education Credits signed with your annual membership is the College’s assurance and documentation that you are participating in continuing education and supporting quality assurance. Note that non-practising members, intending to return to full practice at some time, are expected to maintain Continuing Education Credits. Providing evidence of continuing education will be one important component to returning to full practice status. Beginning with the 2009 practice year, the College will conduct an audit of the CE activities of a randomly selected portion of the membership. The College will contact you if you need to submit documentation of CE activities.

Basic Requirements
1. 20 hours per year
2. The hours are to comprise of the following:
  1. 10 hours per year direct participatory experiences
    - workshops, conferences, & lectures
  2. 10 hours of individual self-study:
    - reading or structured interactive activities
Description of Acceptable Continuing Education Activities
1. Direct participatory programs (Minimum of 10 hours per year)
  1. formal conferences or workshops
  2. training in enhancing or developing skills and competency in the field
  3. on-line courses (maximum of 6 hours per year, must be CPA or APA sponsored or approved)
2. Self Study
  1. read Code of Conduct, bylaws, practice advisories, relevant legislation, any publication of the College, professional journals or other relevant publications including books, new research, and graduate level reading
  2. Structured Interactive Activities
    - supervision groups
    - study groups
    - in-service presentations
  the activities listed above are to be distinguished from the following which do not meet the continuing education requirements:
  - informal discussion of cases with colleagues
  - personal therapy
  - undergraduate courses
  - routine activities as part of practice
3. Support and participation in advancing the profession and practice of Psychology (only a maximum of 10 credit hours can be claimed and applied to one or the other of a or b above).
  1. Participation in a SCP Committee, (e.g. Standing committee, Oral Examining Committee, etc.) or the Executive Council (maximum of 6 credit hours per year)
  2. Participation on the Executive Council or committees of other professional psychology associations (maximum of 6 credit hours per year)
  3. Supervision in the enhancement of professional skills or the development of new areas of competence (maximum of 6 credit hours per year)
Maintaining records of Continuing Education
1. Members are encouraged to develop a continuing education plan outlining their objectives for professional development in the coming year.
2. Members are to keep copies of attendance at conferences and workshops, and records of continuing education activities. The records of continuing education activities should identify the type of educational activity and the number of hours. Records should be kept at least five years. Please see the example form at the end of this document.
3. Members are required to sign a declaration that they have completed required continuing education credits when licenses are renewed each year.

What is the definition of a continuing education credit?

A continuing educational credit is an acknowledgment of educational activities which members participate in that are directly related to psychological theory, methods, or practice.
Is a credit an hour of continuing education?

Yes
Do hours reading and hours spent on a course and hours spent at a workshop all count the same?

Yes
Are all workshops worth the same number of credits?

depending upon the hours, yes.
How does a member find out how many credits a workshop is worth?

Most major conferences tell you how many continuing education credits the conference is worth; a general rule is 3 credits for 1/2 day, 6 credits for a full day assuming you are attending! Most conferences will issue you a signed certificate for CECs at the end of the conference/workshop.
Does the value of the workshop change depending upon its relevance to the psychologist’s work?

No, the workshop simply needs to meet the criteria necessary to be considered for CECs.
How does an organization putting on a workshop find out how many continuing educational credits it is worth?

The general rule is 3 credits per half day, 6 credits for a full day; this is based on the assumption that the conference/workshop is related to the practice of psychology and meets the criteria established in the continuing educational guidelines.

For the benefit of SCP members, it is strongly recommended that workshop/conference organizers apply to the Canadian Psychology Association (CPA) to have their workshops/conferences issued CECs (see www.cpa.ca/CE.htm)
Can CE credits be gained for participation in the work of the SCP?

Yes!

The College recognizes that through Committee work or the extensive efforts needed in providing supervision, a member is steadily required to update, learn and apply new material and skills as she/he deals with issues and the advanced approaches needed in the situations to which psychologists are asked to respond.
How does one determine the credit hours gained through participation on SCP committees or through providing supervision to a Provisional/Restricted member or individual working to add to their areas of competencies?
1. For participation on any committee of the College a member may claim up to 6 credit hours for a year’s involvement. Only 6 credit hours may be claimed in any calendar year.
2. Similarly, up to 6 credit hours may be claimed by a member who is designated as the primary supervisor for another Provisional/Restricted member or for a Full Practice member who is receiving supervision to increase her/his areas of competencies. Only a designated primary supervisor over a period of 5 – 6 months (= 3 credit hours) or 10 – 12 months (= 6 credit hours) is eligible to count the direct time of providing supervision for CE credits.
How long can a member “carry over” CE credits from one year to the next?

CE credit hours accumulated in one calendar year can only be carried over for the following calendar year.
What evidence of attendance should be required?

This will be a self-monitored system. Members should be able to demonstrate their meeting of the CEC requirements if asked.
What method or routine will be used to check on a member's claims?

The college will require you to sign a yearly declaration when you renew your license. Under some circumstances the college might ask you to submit your log of activities or provide proof of continuing education. It is the psychologist’s responsibility to be able to demonstrate that they have CECs if asked, as for example in the case of a complaint, or if questions of competency were raised. Consequently, the college strongly recommends that all members maintain a log of continuing education and evidence that they have participated in both formal and informal activities.

For a sample form that may be used to record Continuing Education Credits see the forms page.

If you have questions around the policy, its details, or implementation, these inquiries should be directed to the SCP office where they will be collected and responded to as appropriate when time and the occasion permits.

The College recently received notice form Saskatchewan Justice that the Limitations Act will be proclaimed in force on May 10, 2005. The Act applies to all professional groups in the province of Saskatchewan. The Act establishes limits of time during which an individual can take action/make a claim against a professional when they believe that they have been wronged. The Act defines an action or claim as “a claim to remedy an injury, loss or damage that occurred as a result of an act or omission.” The existing legislation identifies exceptions with regard to limitations of actions in cases relating to sexual abuse/assault, persons with a disability and certain other assaults, and these will continue to apply. The Limitations Act will make the time limits for action the same across professions, and will according to Saskatchewan Justice “clarify and modernize the law relating to limitation periods in Saskatchewan.”

Under the present legislation, the Limitations of Actions Act (amended 2001), action can be taken against a psychologist within six years after the cause of action arose. Section 3(1)(j)of the Limitations of Actions Act states:

“Periods of Limitation

3(1) The following actions shall be commenced within and not after the times respectively hereinafter mentioned:

(j) any other action not in this Act or any other Act specifically provided for, within six years after the cause of action arose.”

The Limitations Act will decrease the time limit for initiation of action from six years to two years “from discovery of the cause of action,” with an outside limit of 15 years in some situations. Thus an individual has two years from the day that they knew or ought to have known that damage/injury had occurred. Exceptions to this are outlined in the Act.

Of particular importance to all psychologists and especially those working with minors, the mentally ill, or with those deemed “not competent to manage his or her affairs or estate and are (is) not represented by a guardian” pursuant to the Public Guardian and Trustee Act or the Adult Guardianship and Co-decision-making Act is that limitation periods do not apply for the time during which the claimant is either a minor or is incapacitated by mental disability. Theoretically, therefore, in the case of a minor the outer limits of the limitation period could be 15 years from the time they legally become an adult. Again theoretically, in the case of the mentally disabled the outside limit for taking action could be indefinite.

The Limitations Act has implications for all psychologists. Liability coverage and record keeping are central (especially for those individuals who are in private practice). An action theoretically could be initiated against a retired member for events which occurred during a period of practice, therefore, the College strongly recommends that members ensure that they have adequate insurance coverage for liability, and maintain their records for a suitable period of time.

Members are urged to give serious consideration to purchasing their own liability insurance in addition to any potential employer coverage. An employer may receive legal advice to claim that a member was not acting in a manner consistent with the employer’s standards in order to limit employer liability. Further, the College advises that members download a copy of the Limitations Act from the Queen’s Printer website at www.qp.gov.sk.ca (until proclaimed – Bill 51), and consult with legal counsel if necessary.

The Saskatchewan College of Psychologists recently adopted a policy to address the issue of oral examination failures and incomplete passes. Oral examination panels have declared failures in both the competency and the APE portions of the examination. This has necessitated the creation of policy and procedure for addressing failures/incomplete passes of the oral examination. The overriding responsibility of the SCP is to serve and protect the public. The SCP is also sensitive to the needs and concerns of its members. The policy and its procedures were developed to fulfill the College's primary mandate, while allowing applicants ample opportunity to demonstrate competence and to become Full Practice members. A primary assumption of the Saskatchewan College of Psychologists is that an overriding sensitivity to and competence in expression of professional ethics will be demonstrated throughout the oral examination interaction. Ethical considerations are not simply limited to questions specifically targeted to ethics. Ethics is viewed as crucial to providing a competent, accountable, and quality service.

The policy on oral examination failures and incomplete passes takes into account the above issues and addresses applicants who have been examined under both the "original" registration procedure (began the process of licensure with SCP prior to November 2003), and applicants who are being registered under the new MRA compliant registration process. A recommendation of a failure by an oral examination panel leads to the immediate independent review of any failures of the competency based portion of the examination. If, on review, failure is confirmed, applicants can sit one re-examination of the competency portion and two re-examinations of the APE portion of the examination, before a reapplication process becomes necessary. An applicant may also request an appeal of unfavorable results to the Council of the College following the independent review. A detailed statement of the SCP policy on oral examination incomplete passes and failures is available from the SCP office.

Recent failures of the APE portion of the oral examination have highlighted for Council concerns regarding the APE evaluation process in general. The need to clarify for the membership the meaning and acquisition of APE designation has evolved. The goal of this service advisory is to provide some clarity about these issues.

Under the Psychologists Act 1997, Section 23 the communication (understood by SCP Council as referring primary to written communication) of a diagnosis is a protected practice. Full Practice members wishing to convey diagnoses in their practice must apply to the Saskatchewan College of Psychologists (SCP) for APE, and be declared as competent to diagnose in order to be awarded the APE designation. The only other professional body in the province that is allowed to convey a diagnosis is the medical profession. Delegation of the privilege to diagnose is non-permissible under the Act.

As psychologists we understand that diagnoses can, and usually do, have major consequences and implications for the individual being given diagnoses. The implications can be far reaching and life long, and may impact the individual’s sense of self, his/her family, his/her interpersonal relationships, and his/her employment, education and opportunities. As a regulatory body whose primary responsibility is the protection of the public, the College takes very seriously the issue of competence of diagnostics and its impact on the lives of individuals and families. As a profession we are bound by our Code of Ethics (CPA) to practice only in those areas in which we are competent, and we are compelled to Respect the Dignity of Persons (Principle 1) above all else. The College takes these responsibilities very seriously, and thus has been rigorous in its requirements for members wishing to diagnose in their practices.

In June 2001 the Canadian regulatory bodies in psychology across the country signed the Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA). Through this agreement Canadian Psychology regulators seek to ensure a national standard of training, licensure and practice in psychology, and to allow for the increased mobility of psychologists between jurisdictions. The requirements for APE in Saskatchewan are consistent with, and are assumed under the MRA.

The ability to competently diagnose is viewed by the SCP as a broad function that is not limited to a specific classification system (e.g. DSM IV-TR, ICD 10), a specific set of disorders, or a specific client population. Psychologists agree that diagnostics involve more than simply a “cookbook” approach to classification. An individual competent in diagnostics not only has a thorough understanding of particular classification systems, but also psychopathology, psychological assessment, personality and individual differences, and psycho diagnostics. Therefore, individuals who are granted the APE by the College are viewed as competent to diagnose in general, using various diagnostic systems and with various disorders and populations. Further, these individuals are judged to have competency and understanding in the areas of diagnostics and psychopathology. While there are no limitations placed on the scope of mental disorders diagnoses that an individual with the APE can give, the expectation of the College is that qualified members will use the Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists (CPA) in guiding their practice and thus will avoid practicing in areas where they are not completely competent.

With few exceptions (MRA compliant applicants from other jurisdictions and “grandparented” members of Saskatchewan College of Psychologists) all members of SCP are now required to sit an oral examination in order to be awarded the APE designation (see Saskatchewan College of Psychologists Policy – APE). Application forms for the APE are available here. In applying for APE, applicants must be recommended by a Full Practice member of the College who has the APE designation and the declared areas of practice competence that are consistent with those of the applicant. The endorsing psychologist is responsible for the diagnostic competence of the member being endorsed. Inadequate diagnostic performance by the applicant may create liability for the endorsing member. The required application forms/documentation for APE differs slightly, depending on whether the applicant is a Full Practice member, a Full Practice member from another jurisdiction, or a Restricted Practice member. The composition of the oral examination panel will also differ slightly depending on the member’s status.

Applicants are required to pay a $100.00 application fee and to submit this with all required documentation before an oral examination will be considered. In preparation for the oral examination the applicant must submit three copies of three work samples (identifying information removed) and a CV. An oral examination can be up to 90 minutes in duration. The College reserves the right to impose additional requirements for education, and/or supervision, and/or an oral examination in cases where there are concerns or unclear qualifications. This may include both MRA compliant candidates from other jurisdictions or “grandparented” members of the College.

Questions asked during an oral examination may relate to general questions relating to topics such as multi-axial diagnoses, diagnostic process, differential diagnosis, and psychological assessment or to specific diagnostic criteria from the DSM IV or ICD 10.. Candidates are directed to the SCP Policy on APE as well as the Psychologists Act 1997, Bylaw 43 for more detail on the required knowledge, skills and abilities for APE designation. The focus of the designation and the consequent examination is not narrow, rather it is broad. Assessment for APE relates to the assessment of “broad capacity.” Concerns have been raised as to the fairness of assessing broad capacity. However, as the College cannot predetermine the extent of one’s ability to diagnose, nor can it restrict a candidate’s job mobility, the College has to ensure that a psychologist with this designation is competent to diagnose beyond the population served, the type of diagnostic problem, or the job description at the time of examination.

In the event that an applicant is unsuccessful in obtaining the APE designation he/she will be given two additional chances to re-take the examination. The first can occur no sooner than 6 months following the original examination, and if the second is necessary it must be requested within two years of the original examination. In between re-examinations, the candidate is required to document for the Registration Committee and Oral Examination Committee the sources and type of additional knowledge and training that they have acquired since the last examination. In all re-examinations, an assessor/supervisor will have to recommend the candidate for re-examination, and attest to the candidate’s sufficient knowledge and capacity.

Prior to successfully achieving the APE designation, the candidate will continue to require a qualified co-signer for any diagnoses, and in the case of a Restricted Practice member will also continue to require direct supervision of their practice as outlined by the College. If a candidate fails both re-examinations they will have to wait an additional three years before they reapply for APE. At that time they will be viewed by the College as a new applicant. Failure of the APE portion of the examination, but passing the remainder of the examination may still entitle a candidate to receive a Full Practice License, without the APE endorsement. If a candidate is already a Full Practice member of the SCP, their status will not be affected by a failure of the APE.

Under Section 22 of the Psychologists Act 1997 a candidate who is unsuccessful in obtaining the APE designation can formally appeal to Council the outcome of the examination. The exact procedure for an appeal is outlined in the Act as well as the SCP Policies: Oral Examination Incomplete Passes and Failures and APE. As a matter of Council policy, only one appeal will be heard on the same matter from a member or applicant.

The Council of Saskatchewan College of Psychologists (SCP) recently adopted a policy regarding the length of the term that one is considered a member of the College. Perhaps more simply put “when does one cease to be a member?” The need for a policy arose out of issues facing the Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) in carrying out their investigatory duties for the College. As the SCP has jurisdiction only over members of the College, the question arose as to whether a member can resign from the College to avoid an investigation into their conduct, and/or disciplinary action.

In developing its policy Council differentiated between membership and an annual license to practice. The College is a regulatory body and not a fraternal organization. As such, membership is essentially mandatory for those who wish to call themselves a psychologist and to practice psychology in the Province of Saskatchewan. Membership in the College therefore is ongoing. Once one is registered they become a member and remain a member until such time that Council receives and accepts their resignation, or until such time that they are discharged from the College as part of a disciplinary action. Whether or not there are sufficient grounds to undertake disciplinary action, Council continues to have jurisdiction over the member.

An annual license is granted once the yearly fee is paid to the College. The license entitles a member to use the title of “psychologist” and to diagnose (and transmit diagnoses) if the member has the APE designation. Non-payment of annual fees results in removal from the Register, but not removal from the membership list. When this occurs the member is considered “no longer in good standing”, and cannot use the title of “psychologist” or diagnose if they have APE. Once the annual fee and consequent late fees are paid in full, a member will revert back to being in “good standing” provided that there are no outstanding disciplinary issues. The Saskatchewan College of Psychologists continues to have jurisdiction over members who are not in good standing.

Council also endorses the position of the Canadian Regulators that under the Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) a member must remain a Full Practice member of Saskatchewan College of Psychologists in good standing until such time as they successfully complete all registration requirements and become Full Practice in the new jurisdiction to which they are moving.

Resignation from the SCP requires the member to make a written request to the Registrar who will present the request to Council for a decision. Council will vote on whether to accept or reject the request for withdrawal from the College. The member will be informed by the Registrar in writing as to Council’s decision. Accepted resignations will result in the member’s name being removed from the Register, as well as the membership list of the College. The Saskatchewan College of Psychologists file on that member will be kept by the College, and that information can be accessed by other jurisdictions under the MRA if the individual applies for registration elsewhere. If the individual wishes to resume their membership in the future they will have to reapply for registration and their application will be treated by SCP as a new application.

The Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) is a national agreement which was developed to address jurisdictional obligations under the federal Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT). The MRA was developed by the national regulators of Psychology in Canada. The Saskatchewan College of Psychologists (SCP) is signatory to the agreement. The SCP formally began to admit applicants under the MRA in November 2003, once the necessary infrastructure had been established. The MRA facilitates the mobility of Full Practice registered Psychologists between jurisdictions, and outlines the standards of competence and training that are felt to be necessary for the independent practice of Psychology in Canada.

The MRA outlines 5 areas of core competence skills that independent practitioners of Psychology must possess: Interpersonal Relationships, Assessment and Evaluation, Intervention and Consultation, Research, and Ethics and Standards. In addition, an amendment in 2004 to the MRA established the core body of academic training that Psychologists must possess to be deemed MRA compliant. This is referred to in the agreement as the Foundational Knowledge (FK) requirement. The FK requirement consists of one graduate course or a one year equivalent undergraduate course at the 300-400 level in each of the following areas: Biological Bases of Behaviour, Cognitive Bases of Behaviour, Social Bases of Behaviour, and the Psychology of the Individual.

Members who were admitted to the Register prior to July 1, 2003 can be grandparented into MRA compliance once they have been listed on the Register for 5 years as a Full Practice member in good standing with no history of complaints or disciplinary action against them. Full Practice members who do not qualify for grandparenting under the MRA can be assessed for MRA compliance by the SCP; this will involve writing the EPPP, submission of documentation and references, and may involve an MRA oral examination.

To qualify for transfer to another jurisdiction under the MRA, members must be registered and practicing as a Full Practice Psychologist in their home jurisdiction at the time of application to the receiving jurisdiction. Additional information on the MRA can be obtained at www.cpa.ca/documents/MRA.pdf.