32-2072. Examinations; exemptions
A. An applicant for licensure must pass the examination for professional practice in psychology, which is the national examination established by the association of state and provincial psychology boards. An applicant is considered to have passed the national examination if the applicant's score equals or exceeds either:
1. Seventy per cent on the written examination.
2. A scaled score of five hundred on the computer-based examination.
B. The board may implement an additional examination for all applicants to cover areas of professional ethics and practice consistent with the applicant's education and experience, state law relating to the practice of psychology or other areas the board determines are suitable.
C. An applicant may not take an examination administered for or by the board until the applicant completes the education requirements of this article. The board may approve an applicant who has obtained a doctoral degree in psychology as required under section 32-2071 to take the national examination before completing the experience requirements of this article. Except as provided in subsection D of this section, an applicant may not take an additional board examination until the applicant passes the national examination. An applicant who fails the national examination administered for or by any jurisdiction three times is not eligible to take that examination again until the applicant meets additional requirements prescribed by the board.
D. An applicant is exempt from taking the national examination administered pursuant to this section if the applicant either:
1. Is a diplomate of the American board of professional psychology.
2. Holds a certificate of professional qualification in psychology in good standing issued by the association of state and provincial psychology boards or its successor.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
2
cases, 1978–1978 · leading case:
Cohen v. State, 588 P.2d 313 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978).
Cohen v. State, 588 P.2d 313 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 126× “In summary, we think it is impossible to determine the legislative intent, as it relates to criteria for certification, in paragraph 3 of A.”
Cohen v. State, 588 P.2d 299 (Ariz. 1978).
· cites it 36× “§ 32-2071 and § 32-2072 are invalid because they are unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-2072(A) — 2 cases
Cohen v. State, 588 P.2d 299 (Ariz. 1978).
“§ 32-2071 and § 32-2072 are invalid because they are unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous.”
Cohen v. State, 588 P.2d 313 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978).
“In summary, we think it is impossible to determine the legislative intent, as it relates to criteria for certification, in paragraph 3 of A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-2072(B) — 1 case
Cohen v. State, 588 P.2d 313 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978).
“In summary, we think it is impossible to determine the legislative intent, as it relates to criteria for certification, in paragraph 3 of A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-2072(D) — 2 cases
Cohen v. State, 588 P.2d 313 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978).
“In summary, we think it is impossible to determine the legislative intent, as it relates to criteria for certification, in paragraph 3 of A.”
Cohen v. State, 588 P.2d 299 (Ariz. 1978).
“§ 32-2071 and § 32-2072 are invalid because they are unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-2072(D)(1) — 1 case
Cohen v. State, 588 P.2d 313 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978).
“In summary, we think it is impossible to determine the legislative intent, as it relates to criteria for certification, in paragraph 3 of A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-2072(D)(l) — 1 case
Cohen v. State, 588 P.2d 313 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978).
“In summary, we think it is impossible to determine the legislative intent, as it relates to criteria for certification, in paragraph 3 of A.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.