DigitalCommons@Linfield

In the Wake of a Veto: What Do Oregon Psychologists Think and Know about Prescription Privileges for Psychologists?

Jereld R. Nicholson Library

Clinical psychology continues to grapple with a contentious debate surrounding prescriptive authority. With over half of all states having considered legislating prescriptive authority, an immense amount of time and money has been invested. This study aims to assess knowledge and attitudes of licensed psychologists in Oregon following a veto that prevented it from becoming the third state with prescription privileges for psychologists. From a list of 1,318 licensed Oregon clinical psychologists, 60% were randomly selected to participate. Of the 130 participants invited thus far, 83 have completed the survey, yielding a respectable response rate (64%). Perceived familiarity with current training models revealed lacking awareness with 75.2% and 72% expressing they were not familiar with the DOD and APA models, respectively. Only 5% knew which three states/territories currently have prescriptive authority and 77% were unfamiliar with any of the three prerequisites for postdoctoral training in psychopharmacology. Arguments in favor of prescription privileges garnering the most support related to perceptions of improved access and treatment enhancement. In contrast, the strongest arguments against prescription privileges involved professional issues (e.g., altered identity). Reflecting division, 43.9% were in favor, 20.7% were undecided, and 36% were in opposition to broadening privileges for psychologists. However, only 15.9% expressed interest in completing training and only 7.2% plan to pursue training and become a prescriber. Overall, these findings suggest legislative efforts should be mindful of the controversy within the field and the low numbers of professionals interested in pursuing prescription privileges, which undercut arguments for improved access and care.