DigitalCommons@Linfield

Data-Driven Change in Oregon Psychologists’ Knowledge and Attitudes about Prescriptive Authority

Jereld R. Nicholson Library

With over half of all states having considered legislating prescriptive authority, an immense amount of time and money has been invested. The literature is limited in terms of understanding if opinions toward prescriptive authority are grounded in knowledge and what implications that has for altering these opinions. Following a veto of a prescriptive authority bill in Oregon, 160 licensed Oregon clinical psychologists were surveyed regarding their attitudes and knowledge. In terms of knowledge, only 5.6% knew which three states/territories currently have prescriptive authority and 70.4% were unfamiliar with any of the prerequisites for postdoctoral training in psychopharmacology. Reflecting division, 42.8% were in favor, 20.1% were undecided, and 37.1% were in opposition to broadening privileges for psychologists. Further, only 15.1% expressed interest in pursuing training or 6.4% in becoming a prescriber. Data on access, training, and legislative costs were presented to participants in the education condition. These participants showed significant gains in their knowledge across all domains and their opinions shifted only in these specific areas leaving their general stance on the issue unchanged. In contrast to ardent supporters who argue that their “data should provide reassurance to psychologists spearheading legislative initiatives” because of high approval ratings (Sammons et al., 2000, p. 608), our data suggest disagreement amongst a group of professionals who are not particularly well-informed, nor interested in becoming prescribers. Future work should investigate whether expanding the data relevant to other facets of the argument contributes to further targeted change or an overall change in opinion toward prescriptive authority.