Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a longtime Florida resident, having moved to the state when she was five, and thereafter was reared and educated in Dade County Florida. Petitioner received an AA degree from Dade County Junior College, a BA from Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton, Florida, and a Masters Degree from Lone Mountain College in San Francisco, California via an external program based in the Miami/Dade area. In pursuit of a Ph.D. in psychology, Petitioner applied to Union was accepted and matriculated there from 1981 through 1953, and received her Ph.D. in psychology on June 29, 1953. Upon receipt of her Ph.D. degree in psychology, Petitioner was required to fulfill a one-year post-doctoral supervision prior to applying for certification to take the psychology licensure examination. Section 490.005, Florida Statutes (1953). Petitioner satisfied this requirement from June 30, 1953 to June 30, 1954 by engaging in psychotherapy under the supervision of Dr. Ted Aidman. Petitioner then applied to the Board for certification to take the psychologist licensure examination. Petitioner applied to take the examination under the provisions of Section 490.OO5(1), Florida Statutes (1953) and in pertinent part is quoted below: Any person desiring to be licensed as a psychologist shall apply to the department to take the licensure examination. The department shall license each applicant who the board certifies has: * * * (b) Submitted proof satisfactory to the Board that he has received a doctoral degree with a major in psychology from a university or professional school that has a program approved by the American Psychological Association or that he has received a doctoral degree in psychology from a university or professional school maintaining a standard of training comparable to the standards of training of those universities having programs approved by the American Psychological Association or the doctoral psychology programs of the state universities. The Board adopted Rule 21U-11.06, Florida Administrative Code, to implement Section 490.005, Florida Statutes (1983) and essentially codified the criteria for American Psychological Association (APA) approved programs for the first time in this rule. The rule took effect on April 5, 1984. The pertinent part of the rule is quoted below: In order to be certified by the Board as eligible for examination pursuant to Section 490.005(1), Florida Statutes, an applicant must: * * * Submit proof of the completion of a doctoral degree with a major in psychology from a university or professional school that has a program approved by the American Psychological Association or a doctoral degree in psychology from a university or professional school maintaining a standard of training comparable to those universities having programs approved by the American Psychological Association. For the purpose of determining whether an applicant's doctoral degree in psychology was received from a university or professional school maintaining a standard of training comparable to those universities having programs approved by the American Psychological Association the Board will apply the following criteria: (emphasis supplied) Education and training in psychology must have been received in an institution of higher education accredited by one of the regional accrediting bodies recognized by the Counsel on Postsecondary Accreditation. * * * 5. The doctoral program must be an organized, integrated sequence of study designed by the psychology faculty responsible for the program. The American Psychological Association Accreditation Handbook, Criteria For Accreditation of Doctoral Training Program and Internship in Professional Psychology (Handbook), adopted in January 1979 and amended in January 1950, sets out criteria that the doctoral programs must meet to be eligible for accreditation by APA and in pertinent part are listed below: A. Training in professional psychology is doctoral training offered in an institution of higher education accredited by one of the six regional accrediting bodies recognized by the Council of Postsecondary Accreditation (COPA). * * * The faculty of the program must have clear authority and primary responsibility for all aspects of the program (even if the program cuts across institutional administrative lines). The program must include an integrated, organized plan of study and must ensure a breadth of exposure to the field of psychology. In the Introduction of A Handbook of Accreditation (Petitioner's Exhibit 7, page 1) accreditation is defined as both a process and a result and in pertinent part is quoted below: As a process, it is a form of peer review in which educational institutions establish a set of criteria and procedures by which they and their fellows are judged. As a result, it is a form of certification by which the qualify of an educational institution, as defined by the accrediting body's criteria, is affirmed. The forms of Affiliations are discussed in A Handbook of Accreditation and in pertinent part quoted below: Postsecondary educational institutions may be affiliated with the Commission on Institutions of Higher Education, and through it with the Association, in either two ways. One is membership, which is synonymous with accreditation; the other is candidacy, a preaccreditation status. [page 3] . . . an institution continues its candidacy for accreditation for a fixed period of time - usually no longer than six years - until it either fulfills the Criteria for Accreditation or has its affiliation with the Commission terminated. [page 3] . . . Candidacy indicates that an institution meets the Criteria for Candidacy for Accreditation and is progressing toward accreditation; it does not, however, auto- matically assure eventual accreditation . . . [page 3, 4] The North Central Association of Colleges and Schools' evaluative criteria for candidacy highlight that such standards differ from accreditation standards. A Handbook of Accreditation explains the second evaluation criteria as follows: This criteria differs from the second evaluative criterion for accreditation in that it speaks of a candidate's accomplishing its immediate purposes. The difference is meant to acknowledge that a candidate is not yet fully developed to the point at which it has the ability to accomplish all of its purposes. [page 19] The fourth criteria for candidacy status indicates that candidacy status is not equivalent to accreditation. The fourth evaluative criteria reads in pertinent part: 4. The institution has the potential to achieve accreditation within the candidacy period. In making this judgment, the candidate's present condition, its plans and its timetable for developing to the point where it meets the Criteria for Accreditation must be examined. Candidacy is of a limited duration, and the Commission seeks to determine through this criterion that the candidates current plans are likely to allow it to achieve accreditation within this limited period. [page 20] Union received formal accreditation on February 25, 1985 by the North Central Association for Colleges and Schools, Commission on Institution of Higher Education ("Commission"), a regional accrediting body recognized by the Counsel on Postsecondary Accreditation. During Petitioner's matriculation at Union, and at the time she graduated, Union was in a candidacy status or a preaccreditation status. Union was in candidacy status from 1979 to 1985, a period of six (6) years which is considered the maximum period without special Commission action for extension. Union had to satisfy all thirteen (13) general institutional requirements and all four (4) evaluative criteria to be granted candidacy status. To achieve accreditation, Union had to sustain and maintain the same thirteen (13) institutional requirements and satisfy a similar, but different group of four (4) evaluative criteria. The same general institutional requirements and basically the same evaluative criteria are required for both candidacy status and accreditation but candidacy and accreditation are not the same. In candidacy status the institution is trying to assure the Commission of its ability, financial and otherwise to maintain a viable program. In accreditation the certification has been affirmed. No evidence was presented to show that APA, in its approval process, would substitute candidacy status for accreditation status. In fact the evidence was conclusive that regional accreditation was an important standard and a reasonable criterion in the evaluation and approval of psychology programs by the APA. The evidence is clear that the accreditation requirement of the rule in question is comparable to the requirement of regional accreditation by APA in its approval process. To demonstrate that a program is able to produce qualified health professionals the APA requires that a program must articulate what the program is and what that program requires. A pertinent section in the Handbook under Training Models and Curricula, page 5, is quoted below: C. The foundation of professional practice in psychology is the evolving body of know- ledge in the discipline of psychology. While programs will vary in emphasis and in available resources, sound graduate education in general psychology is therefore essential in any program. The curriculum shall encompass the equivalent of a minimum of three academic years of full-time resident graduate study. Instruction in scientific and professional ethics and standards, research design and methodology, statistics, psychological measurement, and history and systems of psychology must be included in every doctoral program in professional psychology. . . (emphasis supplied) The requirement of a sequenced course of study is an important and essential criteria of the APA in the training of a psychologist. The evidence is clear that the requirements of Rule 21U- 11.06(1)(b)5., Florida Administrative Code, are comparable to the standards for APA approval of a doctoral program with regard to the design of study by the faculty even though the language "sequence of study" does not appear in the APA standards. Dr. Charles A. Brownfield graduated from Union, Antioch College receiving his Ph.D. in psychology on October 1, 1971 and was licensed by the Florida State Board of Examiners in 1973 under a statute with language similar to that of Section 490.005(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1983). The evidence is insufficient to show that APA was approving doctoral psychology programs in 1971 or, if it was, whether the standards used at that time were the same as those standards adopted by APA in 1979 and amended in 1980. The statute under which Dr. Brownfield was licensed was repealed, effective July 1, 1979, by Chapter 77-457, Section 1, Laws of Florida and he was then licensed by exception under the new statute in 1982. The evidence is insufficient to show that any person graduating from Union between 1979 when APA adopted its standards for approving doctoral psychology programs and the effective date of the rule on April 5, 1984 was permitted by the Board to take the examination for licensure.
The Issue Whether petitioner should pass the Level III Behavior Management Certification examination given by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) on June 28, 1985.
Findings Of Fact The Developmental Services Program Office in HRS is the office responsible for the Behavior Management Certification examination. The concept of a certification exam arose out of a commitment to improve and to increase the capabilities of the people who were providing behavioral programs to developmentally disabled people in Florida. In December of 1982 or January of 1983, HRS contracted with Instructional System Design, Inc., to design an examination that would ensure that the persons who passed the examination were persons who possessed proficiency and competency in the field of behavioral management or behavior analysis. Instructional System Design, Inc., also was to design and prepare a curriculum guide that would aid individuals in becoming proficient in behavior management. However, the examination was designed first and then the curriculum guide was prepared to cover the major content areas which were reflected in the examination. The Behavior Analysis Curriculum Guide had not been completed before petitioner took the examination, which was the first time the examination was offered. At that time, the curriculum guide was still in draft form. PREPARATION OF THE TEST The model used for constructing this examination was a domain referenced test model. Items are included which assess every competency. Ms. Goodson, the president of Instructional System Design, Inc., and designer of the examination, assembled an interdisciplinary team which included representatives of HRS and experts in the field of behavioral psychology. Specific competency areas, or content domains, were determined and arranged in competency clusters on the examination. For example, Competency Cluster #1 has to do with making legal and ethical decisions about when to intervene. Competency Cluster #3 relates to observing and recording behavior, and Competency Cluster #6 involves the application of behavioral procedures. The number of questions in each cluster relates to the number of tasks, or subtopics, within the particular competency area. The purpose of designing a test in this manner is to make sure that a question is included in the test that will evaluate proficiency in each defined competency and task within the competency. The content standard was established by the interdisciplinary committee. It was agreed that the minimum standard would be that the content would have to be included in two widely used textbooks and not successfully refuted in any other textbook. This minimum standard was designed to overcome any biases that may exist in any one particular form of training. Two forms of the examination were prepared, Form A and Form B. However, each form was prepared to assess the same competencies. For example, question 2-1 on Form A was designed to assess the same competency and task as question 2-1 on Form B. HRS requested that two forms of the examination be prepared. After the first draft of the examination had been prepared, and content experts reviewed and made revisions to the questions, a field review of the examination was conducted. Thirteen different reviewers were asked 28 questions about each test item. One of the 28 questions was the correct answer, and the other 27 questions asked other information about the particular question. The other 27 questions were asked to ensure that each test question was valid, that the question was clear, and that it was representative of the competency area that it was attempting to assess. None of the field reviewers reviewed all 156 questions, but all questions were reviewed. The examination was not field- tested by actually giving the entire exam to a small group of people because it was felt that it would be impractical to get 15 to 20 people to voluntarily submit to this rigorous an examination for the purpose of field-testing without getting certification. Field review appeared to be more practical and provided more information about the validity of each item. Since there appeared to be no reason to weigh any particular item, so that some items would count more than others, it was agreed that each item would count as one point. It also was determined that more than one person would score the examination to provide a double-check on the scoring process. Since some of the examination questions were essay questions, it was determined that the scorers would be experts in the field with the capabilities to assess the answer given using the standards set forth in the answer key as a guideline. If the two scorers disagreed on the correctness of an answer, the scorers would confer with each other to resolve the difference. TEST ANALYSIS After the first administration of the examination in June of 1985, Dr. Beard, a professor at Florida State University and an expert in testing, conducted a test analysis. Dr. Beard took the data, the indication of whether the items were right or wrong, coded them onto computer records, and computed a large number of statistical items. He computed the P-value of each item, the proportion that answered each item correctly. He computed the points by serial correlation between each item and the total scores. He also computed the frequency distribution of scores, means, standard deviations, and other descriptive statistics of the scores. After this was done, Dr. Beard determined that the two forms of the test differed in difficulty. He therefore applied an equating or calibrating procedure to adjust the difficulty of one form to that of the other. In other words, although each exam form was designed to test the same knowledge and skills, unintended differences in test difficulty from form to form gave an advantage to people taking the easier form. Therefore, it was necessary to convert the scores obtained on one form to the units on the other form, a process called test equating. Form A was the easier form; and therefore, the raw scores on Form A were equated to the scores on Form B. The test analysis also revealed that certain of the test items did not have desirable measurement properties. In any test, some items discriminate better between those who have a large amount of the knowledge being tested and those who do not have. An item that does not discriminate well will show a negative discrimination index. An item showing a negative discrimination index detracts from the measurement properties of the test. Therefore items that have negative discrimination indices should not be included in scoring an examination unless the elimination of the items would destroy the content validity of the examination. Out of the 156 questions on this examination, 31 of the items had a negative discrimination index. Because the elimination of these items did not affect the content validity of the exam, the 31 questions were eliminated. The elimination of these negative indicators did not affect the validity of the exam, and the inclusion of any negative indicator in an examination detracts from the reliability of the exam. CUT-OFF SCORE COMMITTEE The passing score on the examination was determined by a cut-off score committee. The committee was composed of a group of individuals representing practitioners, clients, and persons involved in the administration of the examination. The committee was given statistical information concerning the exam. The committee discussed the consequences of setting too high a passing score and the consequences of setting too low a score. Establishing a passing score by a committee that is aware of both the content of the examination and the impact of choosing a particular score is an acceptable method for determining a passing grade on an examination. After a complete review of the examination and consideration of the statistical information, each member of the committee wrote down a recommended passing score. There was a wide variation in the recommended passing scores. However, after further discussion a consensus was reached, and the ultimate cut- off score voted upon was approved unanimously. The cut-off score was set at 86 out of 125 items, or 68.8 percent. Thirty-three percent of the people taking the examination passed it. PETITIONER'S EXAMINATION Out of the original 156 questions on the examination, petitioner was scored with having answered 105 questions correctly. Of the 31 items eliminated, petitioner answered 21 correctly and missed 10. Of the 125 items which HRS counted on the examination, petitioner answered 84 correctly. However, petitioner took Form A of the exam, and petitioner's raw score of 84 on Form A was the equivalent to a score of 80 on Form B. Therefore, petitioner's equated score was 80. To pass the examination, petitioner would have to have received at least six more points. The deletion of the 31 items from the test served to make the test more reliable. However, had the 31 items not been deleted from the test, petitioner would have gotten the identical percentage of correct answers as he did after the elimination of these items. Therefore, the deletion of the items did not adversely affect the petitioner. The equating of scores is an acceptable testing procedure and adds to the fairness of the test. However, even if petitioner's score had not been equated, he would not have passed the exam. Further, if petitioner's score had not been equated, the scores of the other 49 individuals who took Form A also would not have been equated. This would have raised all of those raw scores and could have resulted in a higher cut-off score being chosen. Because the elimination of negative indicators and the equating of scores on two different forms of an exam are both acceptable-testing procedures, petitioner's contention that he should pass the exam must be based upon a showing that he answered correctly at least six of the questions that he was scored as missing. PETITIONER'S EXAMINATION ANSWERS Petitioner's exam was graded by Dr. James Johnston and Dr. Standler. Dr. Standler and Dr. Johnston initially disagreed on only four of the answers given by petitioner on the essay questions. However, there was no evidence presented concerning whether the disagreement on the four questions was resolved adversely to petitioner. Although petitioner did not designate in his petition the specific questions he was challenging, at the hearing the following question numbers were mentioned: 2-6, 3-3, 3-7, 4-1, 4-11, 5-4, 5-10, 5-11, 6-6, 6-7, 6-46, 6-48, 9- 2, and 10-8. Dr. James Johnston was the only expert in behavior analysis to testify, and he was called as a witness by both petitioner and respondent. Question 2-6 Question 2-6 requested that the examinee write a functional response definition for the given situation. A functional response definition considers only the effect of the behavior. Petitioner's answer was incorrect because he included in his answer where the behavior occurred, when it occurred, and how it occurred. Therefore, petitioner did not write the functional response definition. Question 3-3 The only evidence presented as to this question was that petitioner's response, C, was incorrect and that the correct answer was answer A. Question 3-7 Dr. Johnston agreed with the petitioner that if one defined "interval recording" as meaning "whole interval recording" there would not be a proper answer to question 3-7. However, the question did not use the term "whole interval recording." Therefore a correct answer was provided in the choices. On his exam petitioner wrote the following note: Our instructor used the term "interval" in time sampling synonymously with the term whole interval only. None of the answers provided are thus appropriate, since none apply to whole intervals. Alternative C is given as answer because it applies to momen- tary time sampling whereas A + B are partial time sampling. . . . Dr. Johnston explained that the use of "whole interval time sampling" as a term is improper since it is the mixture of two different procedures. Time sampling is one procedure, often in the form of momentary time sampling. An interval recording, partial or whole, is a totally different procedure. The question asked the best method for obtaining interval recording data. Petitioner did not correctly answer the question. Question 4-1 Question 4-1 may have been a question that was deleted; however, the only competent evidence presented was that petitioner's answer was incorrect. Question 4-11 There was no competent evidence presented to establish that petitioner answered question 4-11 correctly. Petitioner argued that he correctly displayed the data on the graph provided because he assumed that one of the days was a "no chance" day. When "no chance" day occurs, the data points on either side should not be connected by a line. However, the question did not indicate that the day was a no chance day. Question 5-4 Question 5-4 asked which inference was the most reasonable to be made based on the graph that was provided. Petitioner chose the answer, "The data indicate it would be appropriate to begin the treatment phase on the fifth-day." The correct answer was, "Baseline data should continue to be collected until more representative data are obtained." This answer was the correct choice because there were only four observations reflected on the graph. Four observations are too few, even if the fluctuation in the behavior recorded is not a large fluctuation. Question 5-10 Petitioner simply read the graph incorrectly on this question. The question referred to the duration of the behavior. On a six-cycle chart, a standard behavior chart, duration is plotted on the right-hand axis, not the left-hand axis. On the left side the values get larger going up the scale, but on the right side the values get larger going down the scale. When measuring duration of behavior, if the data points on the chart go in a downward direction it would show that the duration is increasing. The correct answer was not given by the petitioner because he thought the duration was decreasing. Question 5-11 Although petitioner did not give the best answer to question 5-11, the answer recognized in the answer key as the correct answer is also incorrect. Although this question was a flawed question, and therefore should have been deleted prior to scoring, petitioner cannot be credited with a correct answer on the question, since his answer was not the best of the three answers given. In other words, although the answer on the answer key was wrong, petitioner's answer was also wrong. This question simply should not be considered in determining the scoring. Question 6-4 Question 6-4 provided a situation and then asked the question, "What is happening according to the social learning model? The key feature of the social learning theory is "cognitive mediation." Because cognitive mediation is the centerpiece of the social learning theory, petitioner's failure to mention it showed that he did not explain the situation in terms of the social learning theory. Question 6-7 Question 6-7 presented a situation and required that the examinee write "at least two prerequisites that should be established so that the client can maximally benefit from behavioral intervention." Petitioner gave one prerequisite that was correct. However, petitioner did not answer correctly the second prerequisite. The second prerequisite given by petitioner, that the client "will perform simple tasks when instructed to do so," does not address specifically the situation provided. The situation refers to the client being so restless that she runs around the room and rarely stays in her seat long enough to be taught. A prerequisite that must be established so that the client can maximally benefit from the behavior intervention is that the client hold still long enough so the training can proceed. Since this is an important and obvious prerequisite for training, petitioner's answer is incorrect. Question 6-46 Question 6-46 provides the following situation: The teacher wants to keep Sybil on task during class, but Sybil is so restless in the classroom setting on that spring afternoon she is not getting much work done. The question asks, "How could you use negative reinforcement to increase the client's behavior?" Petitioner answered the question by stating; "Nag Sybil until she terminates the aversive stimulus by doing her work (staying on task)." Negative reinforcement occurs when you have an aversive stimulus present and the response terminates the aversive stimulus. From the information given in this question, which information is to be used in answering the question, one should know that an aversive stimulus is present. Since the aversive stimulus is present, the teacher does not have to arrange an aversive stimulus. From the information given, the appropriate negative reinforcement procedure is to tell Sybil that she can leave class, the aversive stimulus, when she does her work. Petitioner's answer requires the teacher to add an aversive stimulus to the situation. Further, petitioner's response pairs the aversive stimulus with the teacher, which should be avoided. Petitioner argues in his proposed recommended order that it might be considered irresponsible and dangerous to let a child leave the classroom where she would be unsupervised. As a practical matter, this may be true. However, there is nothing in the situation given indicating that if Sybil left the classroom she would be unsupervised. Further, petitioner's answer on the exam did not reflect this concern. From petitioner's answer, it is not apparent that petitioner was aware that an aversive stimulus was already present. Therefore, petitioner's response was not a correct answer. Question 6-48 Question 6-48 asks, "How can target behavior be strengthened?" Petitioner chose the alternative, "By making all reinforcing activities for the client contingent on the performance of the target behavior." This answer is unwise and incorrect because it refers to all the reinforcing activities for a client. All the reinforcing activities include a variety of different activities and stimuli that are reinforcing for any particular individual. To try to bring all these together, or make them contingent on the particular behavior, would probably be impossible. Although "increasing the frequency of reinforcement short of satiation" does not mention a contingency, the definition of reinforcement means that there is a contingency between a behavior and some following consequence. Therefore, the latter alternative is the best answer, and petitioner's answer is incorrect. Question 9-2 Question 9-2 provided a situation and asked, "How can you use the AB design to evaluate the behavioral treatment." The examinee was informed that his answer must explain what to do and how to do it. One of the hallmark requirements of an AB design is that behavior is measured until it is stable and a representative picture of what is happening in that phase is obtained. Petitioner's answer did not reflect that data be collected until a stable and representative picture is obtained, and therefore his answer was incorrect. Question 10-8 Question 10-8 set forth a situation involving the staff at a facility. The situation explained that staff members were dissatisfied with the working conditions and complained that raises, work schedules and special privileges were made on the basis of whom the supervisor liked rather than on staff performance. The question asked how the supervision and management system could be changed to make it more effective. The question stated that the answer should explain how the examinee would determine the effectiveness of staff performance and what types of consequences might be provided for performance. Although respondent's answer reflected certain positive reinforcers to use for appropriate performance, petitioner mentioned no negative consequences for a poor performance. Although petitioner mentioned evaluations, by stating "if the measuring instrument to evaluate performance is sufficiently detailed there are likely to be far less disputes regarding evaluations," petitioner does not mention having regular evaluations of the staff. Because petitioner did not include any negative consequences for poor performance, and did not mention regular evaluations as a means of determining the effectiveness of staff performance, petitioner's answer is incorrect. TRAINING PROVIDED BY HRS Prior to taking the examination, petitioner attended training classes conducted by Mr. Stelios Chimonides, an employee of HRS. The training classes were provided by HRS as a means by which practitioners could prepare for the certification examination. However, the training provided by HRS did not cover all the competency areas covered on the exam. Further, Mr. Chimonides used certain terms in training that were not identical to the terms used on the exam. However, the examination was not designed to test the information learned in the HRS training session. The examination was designed to test the practitioner's competency in the field of behavior management. Thus, the quality and thoroughness of the training provided by HRS through Mr. Chimonides is not relevant in determining whether petitioner should pass the exam and be certified by HRS. Further, petitioner did not establish that any of the correct answers on the examination were in conflict with the information provided during training.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that a final order be entered finding that petitioner did not pass the Behavior Management Certification Examination given on June 28, 1985, and that petitioner's request to be certified be denied. DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of May 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this day of May 1987. APPENDIX The following constitute my rulings, by paragraph, of the parties' proposed findings of fact. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-2. Accepted to the degree relevant in paragraph 12. Accepted to the degree relevant in paragraph 7. Accepted, in that the items were deleted as explained in paragraph 8, the remainder is rejected in that petitioner's statement does not correctly explain a negative discrimination index. Accepted that Dr. Beard's analysis was a statistical one in paragraph 7 and 8. Accepted as stated in paragraph 5. Accepted in paragraph 7. Rejected as irrelevant. 9-10. Accepted to the degree set forth in paragraph 5. Rejected in that all of HRS's witnesses were petitioner's witnesses. Accepted generally in paragraph 1. 13-14. Accepted as stated in paragraphs 2 and 9. 15-23. Rejected as irrelevant or not appropriate findings of fact; however, accept that test was not based on Chimonides' training in paragraph 34. 24-25. Accepted generally in paragraphs 15 and 17. 26-29. Accepted in part and rejected in part in paragraph 20. Witness Shepherd did state that "interval recording" was not used as a synonym for "partial interval time sampling." This is consistent with Dr. Johnston's testimony which indicated time sampling is a totally different procedure from an interval recording, either partial or whole. 30-34. Accepted in part and rejected in part as stated in paragraph 23. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected by contrary findings. 37-40. Accepted in part and rejected in part as stated in paragraph 25. 45. Accepted in part and rejected in part in paragraph 26. 46-48. Accepted in part and rejected in part in paragraph 27. 49-54. Accepted in part and rejected in part in paragraphs 28-30. 55-56. Accepted in part and rejected in part in paragraph 31. 57-62. Accepted in part and rejected in part in paragraph 33. 63. Rejected by contrary finding in paragraph 35. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted as stated in paragraph 16. Accepted in paragraph 15 and 35. Accepted generally in paragraphs 12-14. Rejected as specific finding as unnecessary, but accepted as true. Rejected as cumulative. 6-8. Accepted to the degree relevant in paragraphs 1 and 2. Accepted in paragraphs 2 and 5. Rejected as irrelevant and not supported by competent substantial evidence. 11-12. Accepted generally in paragraphs 8 and 9. Rejected as cumulative. Rejected as specific finding of fact as unnecessary, but accepted as true. Accepted in paragraph 11. 16-17. Accepted as stated in paragraph 12. Accepted as stated in paragraph 17. Rejected as cumulative. 20-21. Rejected as not findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: George Tsismanakis, pro se 403 N.W. 2nd Avenue Okeechobee, Florida 33472 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Paul V. Smith, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Acting General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact By letter dated February 4, 1976, the Board denied the Petitioner's application for licensure as a psychologist in the State of Florida (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). As grounds for its denial the Board stated that the Petitioner's doctoral degree does not meet the requirements of Florida Statutes Chapter 490.19(1)(d). Petitioner received a master's degree in clinical psychology from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee in March, 1949. A transcript of the Petitioner's record at the University of Tennessee was received in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 2. Petitioner took two academic quarters of course work at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, and two quarters at the University of Tennessee, Memphis, School of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry. While at Knoxville the Petitioner completed, inter alia the following courses: Philosophy 401, a course in esthetics; Psychology 431 and Psychology 432, courses in clinical psychology with an emphasis on testing materials; and Psychology 542, a course in advanced statistics. While at Memphis the Petitioner completed the following courses: Psychiatry 403, a course in fundamentals of human behavior; Psychology 461, a course in applied psychological psychology; Psychology 651, a course in which clinical practices were demonstrated and discussed; Psychology 681, a practicum course in testing, diagnosis, and evaluation of patients at the psychiatric hospital; Psychology 594, a course in advanced testing techniques; and Psychology 682, an additional practicum course. In addition to the course material Petitioner completed a thesis, and oral examinations. The Petitioner then completed an internship at the University of Tennessee, Department of Psychiatry, which is called the Gailor Psychiatric Hospital. Following her internship the Petitioner joined the staff at the Gailor Psychiatric Hospital, where she worked for four years. During the fall of 1967 the Petitioner attended George Washington University. A transcript of her record at George Washington University was received in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 4. Petitioner took the following courses: Learning Problems and Disabilities, a course on how to teach and handle misbehaving, disturbed children; and the Adolescent in School and Work, a course dealing with behavioral adjustment of adolescents. Before she could complete a degree program at George Washington, the Petitioner's husband was relocated, and she moved to Las Alamos, New Mexico. During 1970 the Petitioner enrolled in the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Petitioner entered the College of Education, Department of Guidance and Counselling. Petitioner was seeking a degree in clinical psychology. There is a Department of Psychology at the University of New Mexico, but the program in that department dealt almost exclusively with experimental psychology, a program in which the Petitioner had no interest. The transcript of the Petitioner's record at the university of New Mexico was received in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 5. During the spring academic quarter of 1970, the Petitioner took a workshop course which focused upon working with children who have learning disabilities. During the summer academic quarter of 1970 Petitioner took a course dealing with the treatment of special education children in the regular classroom, and a seminar which dealt with education and treatment of neurologically impaired children. During the fall, 1970 academic quarter Petitioner took a course in group techniques for guidance; a course dealing with the education of emotionally disturbed children; and an advanced course dealing with education and treatment of neurologically impaired persons. During the spring academic quarter, 1971 the Petitioner took a course in techniques of counselling, an advanced practicum course in guidance and counselling, and an additional course in working with physically and neurologically impaired persons. During the summer quarter, 1971 Petitioner took a course titled "Research Design and Statistics". During the fall quarter of 1971, the Petitioner took a course on techniques of parent and teacher counselling, and a course on advanced theories of counselling and psychotherapy. During the spring quarter of 1972, the Petitioner took an additional advanced practicum in counselling and guidance. In addition to her course work the Petitioner completed a dissertation. The Petitioner's dissertation was a study of the way school counsellors view their work, both as they actually perform it and as they ideally perceive it; and the way students view what counsellors do, both in reality and ideally. Petitioner received a Doctor of Philosophy degree from the University of New Mexico. Her degree was labeled a degree in Pupil Personnel Services, which is an umbrella degree for all doctoral programs in the School of Education. Petitioner's major field of study was titled Counselling Psychology. No program in the University of New Mexico School of Education was approved by the American Psychological Association at the time that Petitioner was at the University of New Mexico, and no program has been approved since that time. The course of study undertaken by the Petitioner at the University of New Mexico is not a program with a standard of training comparable to universities having programs approved by the American Psychological Association. Petitioner's program was primarily limited in scope to one specific facet of a general program in psychology, that being school guidance and counselling. Some of the courses taken by the Petitioner included aspects of a general course in psychology, but the courses were not designed to provide a comprehensive background in psychology. The post-graduate programs pursued by the Petitioner prior to her enrolling in the University of New Mexico do not adequately fill the void. Petitioner's course work at the University of Tennessee, and at George Washington University does not provide her with a comprehensive academic background in psychology.
The Issue Whether the Respondent discriminated against the Petitioner by failing to promote the Petitioner as set forth in the claim.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was an employee at the South Florida State Hospital (the Hospital) from October 15, 1979, until approximately October 31, 1998. On the latter date, a private company assumed full management of the hospital. From that time neither the Respondent nor its predecessor (Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services) has maintained management or administration of the facilities. Prior to October 31, 1998, the Hospital was operated by a State of Florida agency. As of October 31, 1998, the Petitioner ceased to be a State of Florida employee. The Petitioner is a black female. On or about May 6, 1997, the Petitioner applied and interviewed for a job at the Hospital. She sought the position of Unit Treatment and Rehabilitation Director. At that time, the Hospital advertised two open positions for Unit Treatment and Rehabilitation Director. Three applicants were ranked for the open positions. Among the three, the Petitioner was ranked third by the selection committee. At or near the same time, the administrator of the Hospital received notice that he would have to cut positions from his budget. This slashing of employee positions was in response to budget demands created at the agency level. It had nothing to do with the job performances of employees at the Hospital. In fact, the Petitioner has always received favorable employee performance evaluations. She was a valued employee at the Hospital and was considered to be hard working by peers and supervisors alike. Nevertheless, when faced with the directive to cut positions, the administrator elected to eliminate open or unfilled positions. Pertinent to this case is the slot that the Petitioner would have filled had it not been eliminated. At least under one theory, the Petitioner would have been promoted to Unit Treatment and Rehabilitation Director had the position not been deleted. The promotion would have happened because one of the higher-ranked applicants for the job chose to reject the Hospital's offer of employment. Thus as the third-ranked applicant, the Petitioner would have been selected. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Petitioner maintained she should have received the position of Unit Treatment and Rehabilitation Director that was filled by an individual named Driscoll. She maintains that although Driscoll was the highest-ranked applicant, she was equally or better qualified for the promotion. Driscoll is a white male. Prior to his employment at the Hospital, Driscoll had served as the director of a short-term residential facility. He had also been the director of case management for a hospital and had supervised other case managers and support staff. The Petitioner had no similar or equivalent supervisory experience. The Petitioner had never supervised employees to any level of supervision as demonstrated by Driscoll at the time of the selection process. The advertised opening sought an individual with "a bachelor's degree and four years of professional direct services experience in a social, rehabilitative or health care treatment program, two of which must have been in a supervisory capacity." The Hospital's consideration of the Petitioner's role as a "lead worker" was a generous allowance. Technically, the Petitioner did not meet the job description requirements. Additionally, the Petitioner's advanced degree did not qualify her for the position of Unit Treatment and Rehabilitation Director. The advertisement for the position of Unit Treatment and Rehabilitation Director provided that a: . . . masters degree in health, special education or one of the behavioral or rehabilitative sciences can substitute for one year of the required [sic] nonsupervisory experience. A doctorate degree in health, special education or one of the behavioral or rehabilitative sciences can substitute for the required [sic] nonsupervisory experience. The Petitioner did not hold either the referenced master's degree or doctorate degree. The Petitioner was not an equally qualified or a superiorly qualified applicant for the position of Unit Treatment and Rehabilitation Director. Nevertheless, when she was not chosen for the position the Petitioner wrote a memorandum to the Commission to complain about the selection of Driscoll. The memorandum stated: A blatant campaign of racism reigns at South Florida State Hospital. Most recently, the hospital advertised for the position of Unit Treatment and Rehabilitation Director. Two (2) positions were to be filled as a result of that advertisement. Qualified applicants were interviewed from within the hospital. There were two (2) Afro-American and three (3) Anglo-Saxon applicants. Of the two (2) Afro-American applicants applying, I met all of the qualifications to fill one (1) of the positions. Over the dissent of others on the interviewing committee, Patricia Espinosa Thomson (acting hospital administrator) re-advertised the position(s). On September 12, 1997, the Commission acknowledged receipt of the Petitioner's Memorandum of June 27, 1997, and, in accordance with a Worksharing Agreement with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the complaint was forwarded to the Miami District Office of the EEOC. This complaint became the subject matter of the instant case. The Commission's notice to the Petitioner provided: Within 35 days of notice of EEOC's Letter of Determination regarding the above referenced complaint, you may request the FCHR to review the final finding and orders of the EEOC by requesting a Substantial Weight [sic] Review. There is no evidence regarding whether the Miami District issued a Letter of Determination. It is undisputed, however, that the Commission did not issue its Notice of Determination until October 9, 2001. The Notice of Determination represented that the Respondent was advised of the Petitioner's claim in January of 1998. The Notice of Determination also recognized that the Respondent had asserted that the claim was "time-barred" and that it would not provide information regarding the claim. Based upon the inference found in Rule 60Y-5.003(4), Florida Administrative Code, the Commission entered a determination of cause. The Commission apparently did nothing to timely investigate the complaint, did not act within 180 days of its filing, and did not notify the Hospital that its records should be maintained in connection with the allegations of this case. When the Hospital went to private management all public records that had been maintained were stored or destroyed according to agency rules. There was no effort to conceal or destroy records related to this matter. The Hospital administrators faced the daunting tasks of trimming the Hospital FTEs, preparing for and transitioning to the private company, and organizing records for storage. There was no effort to single Petitioner out for discriminatory purposes. When eventually questioned regarding this case, the Department elected not to participate in the investigation as under the then known precedent it was not required to do so. The Department's decision predated Joshua v. City of Gainesville, 768 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 2000). Both parties claim prejudice as a result of the delays in pursuing this cause. The Petitioner maintains that records that would have helped her assessment of the matter have been either lost or destroyed. The Respondent maintains that witness unavailability, loss of records, and the fact that it does not even manage the Hospital anymore compounds its inability to appropriately respond to the Petitioner's claim. What is certain is the fact that the Department cannot award the position to the Petitioner. Further, even at the time in question, the Hospital could not have awarded the position to the Petitioner since the position had been eliminated. The only way the Petitioner could have gotten the position would have been if Driscoll had been removed. And, as previously noted, the Petitioner was not equal to or superior to Driscoll in her qualifications for the position. In June 2002, the instant case was heard on a motion to dismiss. That motion was granted. The conclusions of law from the Recommended Order of Dismissal found that the Division of Administrative Hearings does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of this proceeding. Despite that conclusion, the Commission entered an Order Remanding Petition for Relief from an Unlawful Employment Practice. Accordingly, this matter was re-opened and scheduled for hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order dismissing the Petitioner's claim. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of March 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ J. D. Parrish Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Hearings Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 25th day of March, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul Flounlacker, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Randy A. Fleischer, Esquire 4801 South University Drive, Suite 3070 Davie, Florida 33328 Sondra R. Schwartz, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 201 West Broward Boulevard, Suite 502 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
The Issue The issue posed for decision herein is whether or not the Petitioner meets the educational requirements for entitlement to licensure as a psychologist. Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received, and consideration of the Respondent's proposed memorandum, I hereby make the following relevant:
Findings Of Fact Petitioner made application to Respondent to obtain a psychology license by exception pursuant to the provisions of Section 1 of Chapter 81-235, Laws of Florida, as amended by Section 37 of Chapter 82-179, Laws of Florida, and Rule 21U-11.05, Florida Administrative Code. Respondent denied Petitioner's application on the grounds that his doctoral degree did not meet the educational requirements of subsection (2) of Rule 21U-11.05, Florida Administrative Code. (Joint Exhibit #1) At Petitioner's request, Respondent (herein sometimes referred to as the Board of Psychological Examiners or Board) reconsidered his application. It was reaffirmed that his doctoral degree was not from a program primarily psychological in nature because the program did not include at least one course in biological bases of behavior, cognitive-affective bases of behavior, individual behavior, or methodology for the application of psychological knowledge as required by sub-paragraphs (a), (b), (4), and (f), of subsection (2) of Rule 21U-11.05, Florida Administrative Code. (Joint Exhibit #1) Respondent presented the testimony of board member Edward Murray, Ph.D., who was received as an expert in these proceedings in the subject matter of psychology. In order to receive a license in Florida, an applicant, pursuant to Chapter 490, Florida Statutes, must receive a degree from a program primarily psychological in nature. The Board, in carrying out the statutory requirements, promulgated Rule 21U-11.05 to determine whether or not a program was primarily psychological in nature. In so doing, the Board has set forth a requirement that a full course be devoted entirely to the content of the following areas: (a) biological bases of behavior; (b) cognitive-affective bases of behavior; (c) social bases of behavior; (d) individual differences; (e) statistics; and (f) methodology and application of psychological knowledge. (TR-49) Without reciting the Petitioner's testimony, in hoc verba, it suffices to say that the Petitioner has taken several courses which touch upon some of the areas required in the above-referred rule (21U-11.05, Florida Administrative Code). However, Petitioner failed to establish that he had taken a class which was primarily in the "biological bases of behavior" as was required. Additionally, Petitioner failed to establish that he had taken a course which primarily dealt with the cognitive bases of behavior which was required in order to satisfy the requirements of subsection (2)(b) of Rule 21U-11.05, Florida Administrative Code. Further, Petitioner, while having taken several sociology courses, failed to satisfy the requirement of having taken a course which dealt primarily with individual behavior. Finally, Petitioner failed to satisfy the requirement of establishing that he had taken a course to satisfy the requirement of research methodology for the application of psychological knowledge. The Board requires one individual course in each specific area set forth in Rule 21U-11.05 and does not permit an applicant to piece together parts of several courses to satisfy the requirements. (Testimony of Dr. Murray, TR 51-54) Respondent's Position Respondent graduated from the University of Illinois with a Ph.D. in Social Psychology. Respondent's position is that, based on the numerous courses that he has taken, both graduate and post-graduate, including his years of experience in the counseling and advisory areas, he more than satisfies the requirements of Rule 21U-11.05, Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner's application for licensure as a psychologist by exception be DENIED. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of July, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of July, 1983.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner should be awarded credit for his answers to five (5) questions on the September, 1989, Florida Behavior Analysis Certification Examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner sat for the Florida Behavior Analysis Certification Examination administered on September 19, 1989. He failed to achieve a passing score on that examination. At the final hearing, Petitioner challenged the score he achieved on that examination by raising a general challenge to the essay portion of the examination and by challenging the score given for his answers to questions numbered 60 on Part I, and his answers to questions numbered 11, 36, 42, and 43 on Part II of the examination. Part I, Item 60, was correctly answered as "C" rather than Petitioner's answer of "B" because raisins and water are quickly consumed, minimally interfere with ongoing training activity and, therefore, would be an excellent functional reinforcer. However, reading would take much longer and is counterproductive since reading is a quiet, non-physical activity, and the staff member is trying to increase the client's physical movement. Part II, Item 11, was correctly answered with "A" instead of Petitioner's choice of "C" because "A" is a statement of a goal, which is a general statement. "C" is a good example of an objective because it includes specified criteria and time scales. The question asked for a goal. Part II, Item 36, asks which method of staffing violates legal and/or ethical requirements and standards. Respondent's expert admitted that the question was not well constructed and that answer "B" which was keyed as the correct answer is not correct. Respondent argues that solution "C" is the best answer since it violates the most legal and ethical standards. However, the question does not request the solution which violates the most legal and ethical standards. Since solution "C" and solution "A" chosen by Petitioner both violate legal and/or ethical requirements and standards", both "C" and "A" are correct answers. Part II, Item 42, is correctly scored as "B" rather than Petitioner's choice of "A" because "B" specifies the particular behaviors that the staff should be engaging in so that the monitoring or supervisory staff can observe a staff member and then mark on a checklist whether those specific behaviors did or did not occur. Answer "A" does not specify the particular staff behaviors being observed, and it uses a rating system which has inherent problems because different meanings can be attributed to each rating description. Part II, Item 43, is correctly scored as "A" rather than "C" as chosen by Petitioner. "A" specifies checking the staff behavior according to performance criteria on a monthly basis and is positively oriented by giving positive reinforcement for competent performance, giving corrective feedback, and requiring performance to improve to specified criteria. "C" does not describe the monitoring process, does not specify frequency, does not specify giving corrective feedback, and provides for praising only limited behaviors.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered awarding to Petitioner credit for his answer to Item 36 of Part II, and rejecting the remainder of Petitioner's challenges to the September 19, 1989, Florida Behavior Analysis Certification Examination. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 21st day of September, 1990. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of September 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 90-2407 Petitioner's first through fourth, sixth, seventh, and eleventh through seventeenth unnumbered paragraphs have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting recitation of the testimony, argument, or conclusions of law. Petitioner's fifth, eighth, and tenth unnumbered paragraphs have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the evidence in this cause. Petitioner's ninth unnumbered paragraph has been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-4, 6, and 7 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 5 has been rejected as being contrary to the weight of the evidence in this cause. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 8 has been rejected as being unnecessary for determination of the issues herein. COPIES FURNISHED: John W. Hedrick, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building 1, Suite 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 William Robinson Foundation for Learning 1489 South University Drive Plantation, Florida 33324
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for licensure as a psychologist should be approved, pursuant to Chapter 490, Florida Statutes. This proceeding arose as a result of Respondent's provisional denial of Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement as a psychologist under Chapter 490, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 21U-11, Florida Administrative Code, based upon Respondent's determination that Petitioner did not hold a license in another state which was obtained by requirements substantially equivalent or more stringent to requirements for licensure as a psychologist in the State of Florida. At the commencement of the hearing, Petitioner was advised of his rights in administrative proceedings. He indicated his understanding of such rights and elected to represent himself at the hearing. Petitioner testified in his own behalf and submitted 4 exhibits in evidence. Respondent presented the testimony of Dr. Frank Biasco, a member of the Board of Psychological Examiners. Joint Exhibit 1 representing the application file of Petitioner was also received in evidence.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Henry S. Tugender, Morganville, New Jersey, filed an application for licensure by endorsement as a psychologist with Respondent Board of Psychological Examiners on February 22, 1982. By letter of November 4, 1982, the Board's executive director informed Petitioner that his application had been denied by the Board pursuant to Rule 21U-11.04, Florida Administrative Code, because he did not hold a license in another state obtained by requirements substantially equivalent or more stringent to requirements for licensure as a psychologist in the State of Florida. Petitioner thereafter requested an administrative hearing. (Testimony of Tugender, Joint Exhibit 1) Petitioner received a master's degree in clinical psychology from Long Island University in 1959. He pursued doctoral studies in the clinical psychology program of Arizona State University from 1962 to 1964. In 1970, he obtained a Doctor of Philosophy degree from East Coast University, Dade City Florida, with a major in psychology. He was in an "external" degree program that involved a minimum residency during two summers and and submission of a dissertation. The university was not accredited by the American Psychology Association (APA) and is no longer in existence. (Testimony of Tugender, Joint Exhibit 1, Petitioner's Exhibit 1) Petitioner is licensed to practice psychology in three states and the District of Columbia. He was licensed in New Jersey in 1968, Illinois in 1971, Pennsylvania in 1975, and the District of Columbia in 1973. At the time of licensure, none of the three states or the District of Columbia required a doctoral degree to obtain a license. He qualified in each instance by having a master's degree, plus a varying number of years of experience. (Testimony of Petitioner, Joint Exhibit 1) At the time Petitioner was licensed in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Illinois and the District of Columbia, the licensure requirements of those states were not substantially equivalent to or more stringent than those now contained in Chapter 490, Florida Statutes, in that they did not require a doctoral degree with a major in psychology from a school with an APA approved program, or from a school maintaining a standard of training comparable to those universities having programs approved by the APA or the doctoral psychology programs of the state universities. Rifle 21U-11.04(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, sets forth criteria that must be met in all respects in order to demonstrate that the doctoral program meets the comparability requirements established by the rule. Petitioner presented no evidence concerning the content of his doctoral program at East Coast University, but conceded at the hearing that the program did not meet a number of the requirements specified in the rule. (Testimony of Petitioner, Biasco) Petitioner seeks to relocate to Florida for professional and health reasons. He currently is in private practice in New Jersey. He specializes in hypnosis and has been active in that field over many years. At the time of hearing, he held a valid Florida Department of Education teacher's certificate in psychology. He is also a certified school psychologist in the states of Pennsylvania and New Jersey. He is affiliated with a number of professional organizations and is listed in the National Register of Health Service Providers in Psychology. In 1974-75, he served as a consultant to the Florida Parole and Probation Commission, and in the Department of Corrections. (Testimony of Petitioner, Joint Exhibit 1, Petitioner's Exhibits 1-4)
Recommendation That Petitioner's application for licensure as a psychologist by endorsement be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of July, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of July, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Jane Raker, Executive Director Board of Psychological Examiners 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Randy Holland, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol - 1601 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Henry S. Tugender 35 Wickatunk Village Morganville, N.J. 07751
The Issue The first issue to be determined is whether Petitioner, Rebecca Coleman Curtis (“Petitioner” or “Dr. Curtis”), is entitled to licensure as a psychologist in the State of Florida by virtue of the “deemer” provision in section 120.60(1). The second issue to be determined is whether the Florida Board of Psychology (the “Board”) used an unadopted rule in violation of section 120.54(1)(a), with respect to its decision to deny Dr. Curtis’s application for a license.
Findings Of Fact Section 490.006(1), Florida Statutes, presents three avenues for a psychologist to obtain licensure by endorsement. Petitioner applied to the Board of Psychology for licensure as a psychologist on September 30, 2014. She applied under the category of licensure authorized by section 490.006(1)(c), which allows for licensure to persons who possess a doctoral degree in psychology as described in section 490.003 and have at least 20 years of experience as a licensed psychologist in any jurisdiction or territory of the United States within 25 years preceding the date of the application. Petitioner’s application was deemed complete by the Board office on October 17, 2014. Ninety days from Petitioner’s completed application was January 15, 2015. The Department of Health sent Petitioner a letter regarding her application dated October 17, 2014, which states in pertinent part: Dear Dr. Curtis: Psychology board staff has reviewed your application. You have been authorized for the Florida laws and rules exam. You have been approved for licensure upon passage of your exam. Please note that that you have 24 months, from the date of this letter, to verify completion of these requirements or your application will be administratively closed as required in Section 490.005(3)(a), Florida Statutes. (emphasis added). Petitioner was included in a list of applicants (the APA List) to be ratified by Respondent at a telephone conference call on November 21, 2014. The Board approved all of the candidates on the list. Both the letter authorizing Petitioner to take the laws and rules examination and the Board’s action ratifying approval of Petitioner’s application for licensure occurred within 90 days of her completed application. The top of the first page of the APA List contains a statement which reads: “regardless of the application method, if board staff becomes aware of any issues of concern, approved applicants will be brought back before the Board for reconsideration prior to issuance of a license.” Respondent has not cited any authority for this statement. This statement was applicable to all candidates on the APA List, including Petitioner, and was applicable to similar candidates on previous lists on which the Board has acted. Applicants for licensure are not made aware that the Board will reconsider an application previously approved by the Board. Petitioner took and passed the required laws and rules examination in August 2016, and her score was reported to the Board office. Respondent sent Petitioner a letter dated August 9, 2016, which stated that her application would be considered by the Board of Psychology’s Credentials Committee at its meeting September 9, 2016, despite that she was advised previously that she was approved for licensure. That same day, Michelle Branch from the Board office sent Dr. Curtis an email which stated, in part: We have received your Laws and Rules exam score and it appeared you were ready for licensure, however, after further review of your file, there is a question on whether you received your doctorate degree from a program that was accredited by the American Psychological Association. To obtain a psychology license under the Endorsement of 20 Years of Licensed Psychology Experience method, you must have received your doctorate degree from an APA accredited program. I have provided Section 490.005, F.S., for your reference: . . . . Your transcripts indicated that you received your PhD from the Social Psychology program at the Teachers College, Columbia University, New York City, which is not listed as an accredited program on APA’s website. I have contacted APA to verify and am waiting on a reply. Please request a letter from the university indicting [sic] your major. This letter can be emailed to me. Your application and transcripts will then go before the September 9, 2016 Credentials Committee for review. Please find the attached meeting notice. (emphasis added). Ms. Branch’s request for additional information was more than 30 days from the Board’s receipt of Petitioner’s application, and well after the application had been deemed complete, and well after the application was approved by the Board. On August 24, 2016, Petitioner submitted to Respondent’s agency clerk a Notice of Intent to Rely upon Default License Provision. A memo provided to the Board regarding Dr. Curtis’s application contained the following information for the Board’s consideration. Dr. Curtis applied for licensure under the Endorsement of 20 Years of Licensed Psychology Experience method, however, her doctoral psychology program completed at the Teachers College, Columbia University, New York City in 1973, did not hold programmatic accreditation by the American Psychological Association (APA). Although Dr. Curtis went on to complete studies in Clinical Psychology at the APA-accredited Adelphi University in 1988, the transcript indicates it was a non- degree program. In the initial review of Dr. Curtis’ application by former staff, these issues were not addressed and the staff erroneously approved Dr. Curtis to sit for the laws and rules examination. Upon the receipt of Dr. Curtis’ exam score, current staff performed a final review for license issuance and these issues were discovered. Dr. Curtis was subsequently notified that her application would require review by the Board’s Credentials Committee before further action could be taken. The author of this memo is not identified, and did not testify at hearing. While it is admissible for the purpose of demonstrating what the Board considered in its second review of Dr. Curtis’s application, it is hearsay. Dr. Curtis’s unrefuted testimony is that she holds two separate doctoral degrees in psychology, the first from Teachers College at Columbia University, and one from Adelphi University. Both schools are located in New York. According to Dr. Curtis, because New York would not issue a second doctoral degree in the same field, her degree from Adelphi is listed as non-degree seeking, despite her completing the requirements for a degree and being issued a diploma. Dr. Curtis has been licensed in the State of New York since 1983, and her application file does not include any indication that her license has ever been disciplined. The only evidence other than the memo cited above that would indicate that Dr. Curtis’s education did not qualify her for licensure in Florida are copies of emails, which appear to be the source of the Board staff’s information. Neither the person who received the email nor the person who sent them testified at hearing, and, although included in Petitioner’s licensure file, the contents of the emails are also hearsay. During the September 9, 2016, meeting, the Committee voted to deny Petitioner’s application for licensure. Petitioner received a Notice of Intent to Deny from Respondent on or about October 11, 2016, notwithstanding the Board’s prior approval of her application nearly two years before. The Board has not promulgated any rule that provides for “re-screening” or a “second review” or “final review” of an application that has been previously approved by the Board. Nor has the Board promulgated any rule that provides for “reconsideration” of an application that has been previously approved by the Board. The Board delegates to office staff the review of applications to see if applications meet the requirements specified in chapter 490 and the Board’s rules. Petitioner provided notice to the Board on September 12, 2016, pursuant to section 120.595(4)(b), regarding possible unadopted rules. The Board has not commenced any rulemaking proceedings regarding the subjects addressed in the September 12, 2016, notice to the Board of Psychology.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Psychology enter a final order that: 1) acknowledges Petitioner’s application for licensure is approved, pursuant to the procedure in section 120.60(1); and 2) directs the issuance of Petitioner’s license as a psychologist. With respect to Petitioner’s claims pursuant to section 120.57(1)(e), it is further RECOMMENDED that: 1) the statements related to reconsideration or a second review of approved applications for licensure after the receipt of examination scores and before the issuance of the license meet the definition of a rule and constitute an unpromulgated rule; 2) the Board must immediately discontinue all reliance on these statements or any substantially similar statement as a basis for agency action; and 3) Petitioner is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, in an amount to be determined after the entry of the final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of March, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of March, 2017.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background By application dated March 29, 1989, petitioner, Stuart B. Novick, sought licensure by examination as a psychologist. The application was filed with respondent, Board of Psychological Examiners (Board), which has statutory authority to license and regulate the psychologist profession. In action taken act its August 1989 meeting, the Board voted to deny the application on the ground petitioner did not satisfy the educational and work experience requirements imposed by statute and rule. In addition, the Board concluded that Novick had not submitted proof of completion of an educational course concerning HIV and AIDS, as required by agency rule. This decision was conveyed to Novick in an order issued by the Board on September 15, 1989. This proceeding involves petitioner's challenge of that preliminary decision. The specific objections to licensure will be dealt with separately in the findings below. Educational Requirements The Board's preliminary decision made the following findings pertinent to petitioner's education: Your doctoral program was not completed at an institution of higher education fully accredited by a regional accrediting body recognized by the Council on Postsecondary Education or an institution which is publicly recognized as a member in good standing with the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. In addition, your doctoral program was not approved by the American Psychological Association as required by Chapter 490.005(1)(b), Florida Statutes and Chapter 21U-11.006(1)(b)1., 9., and 10., Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner received a bachelor of arts in political science from the University of California - Los Angeles in December 1970. He then obtained a masters degree in educational psychology and guidance from California State University Northridge in January 1974. In the summer of 1977 he enrolled at California Graduate Institute (CGI), an institution of higher learning in Los Angeles. After attending CGI fulltime for approximately five years, Novick was awarded a doctorate in psychology in October 1982. At issue in this case is whether CGI and its psychology program meet the requirements of the law for licensure. According to applicable statutory requirements, petitioner was required to submit satisfactory proof that he had received a doctoral degree with a major in psychology from a program which at the time petitioner was enrolled and graduated was accredited by the American Psychological Association (APA). As to this requirement, Novick conceded that when he attended CGI from 1977 until 1982, that institution was not fully accredited by the APA. Therefore, petitioner did not meet that requirement. In lieu of satisfying the requirement described in the preceding paragraph, petitioner was authorized by law to submit satisfactory proof that he received a doctoral degree in psychology from a program which at the time petitioner was enrolled and graduated maintained a standard of training comparable to the standards of training of those programs accredited by the APA. In this regard, the more persuasive evidence, including the program analysis form submitted by petitioner with his application, shows that petitioner's doctoral program did not require each student to demonstrate knowledge and use of scientific and professional ethics and standards, research design and methodology, statistics, psychological measurements, and history and systems of psychology. The foregoing educational requirements are embodied in Rule 21U-11.006(1)(b)10., Florida Administrative Code, and must be satisfied in order to show comparability. In view of these deficiencies, it is found that petitioner failed to satisfy this part of the requirements for licensure. In addition to the foregoing comparability requirement, petitioner was obligated to show that his education and training in psychology wash received in an institution of higher education fully accredited by a regional accrediting body recognized by the Council on Postsecondary Accreditation. As to this requirement, petitioner conceded that CGI's psychology program was not accredited by a recognized regional accrediting body. That admission is corroborated by a letter dated May 15, 1989 from the chairperson of CGI's department of psychology to the Board. Therefore, this criterion was not met. Work Experience In its proposed agency action, the Board cited the following concerns with petitioner's work experience: You have not completed the two years or 4000 hours of supervised experience in the field of psychology as required by Chapter 490.005(1)(c), Florida Statutes, and Chapter 21U-11.006(1) (c), Florida Administrative Code and in compliance with Chapter 21U-17, Florida Administrative Code. The experience under Dr. Milana was experience as a marriage and family therapist, rather than as a psychological resident in compliance with Chapter 21U-17, Florida Administrative Code. As explained further at hearing by the Board's executive director, although petitioner's "supervising psychologist verification form" facially complied with the required work experience in the field of psychology, the Board was concerned with the fact that Novick has been licensed as a marriage and family therapist (MFT) since September 1986, was employed as a MFT when much of the work experience was obtained, and may have rendered services in that capacity rather than as a psychological resident. After graduation from CGI, petitioner was employed as an outpatient therapist by Northside Centers (the center), a mental health clinic in the Tampa area. During the course of that employment, petitioner obtained approval from Dr. Suzette Milana, a licensed psychologist, to train under her supervision as a psychological resident at the center. According to petitioner, as confirmed by Dr. Milana's testimony as well as documents in his application file, he worked, at least part of the time, under Dr. Milana's supervision from July 1984 until the application was filed. The supervising psychologist verification form completed by Dr. Milana reflects that Novick was supervised for 228 weeks, rendered approximately 2200 hours of psychological services to clients, and was employed by the center for a total of 4880 hours. According to Dr. Milana, petitioner is now competent to perform without supervision adult, adolescent and child treatment. Doctor Milana verified that, during his supervised period of employment, petitioner participated in the following activities: evaluation and assessment, intake activity, formulation of treatment plans, treatment intervention, case management and crisis intervention, all being activities normally engaged in by psycholgical residents. However, Novick did no psychological testing since the clinic already had an employee assigned to that job. Even so, there was no evidence to establish that psychological testing is a current required part of a resident's work experience. Doctor Milana described petitioner's supervision to be the same that she received when she was fulfilling her work experience requirement for licensure. By agency rule effective October 3, 1985, the Board imposed the requirement that, during one's training period, an applicant shall be known by the title "psychological resident". In addition, a requirement was added that all business cards, signs, stationery and the like naming the applicant must also bear the name and affiliation of the supervisor/associate. Finally, each resident is obliged to advise each client at the time services are initiated of his status as a resident, the requirements of a supervised status and of the name of his supervisor. The requirement concerning the disclosure of the supervisor's identity is necessary since the supervisor must ultimately take full responsibility for the resident's patients and their treatment. During the period after October 1985 and until the application was filed, petitioner continued to use business cards issued by the center which reflected his title as being a "marriage and family therapist" and did not disclose the name of his supervisor. According to petitioner, he never indicated on any reports or insurance forms that he was a psychological resident. Further, Dr. Milana did not co-sign any reports. Although petitioner told all of his patients that he was an outpatient therapist or a MFT, he told only "some" that he was working under the supervision of Dr. Milana. Except as to these departures from the rule, petitioner's training was in conformity with the Board rule. Course in HIV and AIDS The Board's order noted that Novick had not furnished "proof of completion of an educational course concerning HIV and AIDS in compliance with Chapter 21U-21, Florida Administrative Code". According to Rule 21U- 21.001, Florida Administrative Code (1989), each person applying for licensure subsequent to July 1, 1989 shall be required to complete an educational course approved by the Board and consisting of education on the transmission, control treatment and prevention of Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome with emphasis on appropriate behavior and attitude change. Novick did not submit proof of completion of such a course with his initial application. However, at hearing he stated he had completed a Board approved course at a local hospital in April 1989 and shortly thereafter forwarded a copy of his diploma to the Board. Although no documentary proof was submitted at hearing to support this claim, it was not contradicted by the Board, and it is accordingly found that Novick has satisfied this part of the licensure requirements.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of petitioner for licensure as a psychologist by examination be DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this 16 day of March, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1236 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16 day of March, 1990.
