81% of EPPP Performance May Be Determined Before Grad School

A Surprising Statistic

How much of your EPPP score is determined by what you learn in graduate school? Based on research analyzing ASPPB's own data, the answer may be less than you think: approximately 81% of the variance in EPPP scores can be statistically explained by factors that exist before graduate training even begins.

This finding, drawn from Callahan and colleagues' analysis of ASPPB examination data and corroborated by Sharpless and Barber's (2013) large-scale program-level study, challenges a basic assumption about the exam: that it primarily tests what you learned in your doctoral program.

What Are "Pre-Training Factors"?

The pre-training variables that predict EPPP performance include:

• GRE scores — the single most consistent predictor, with correlations of r = .56–.64 for general GRE scores
• Undergraduate GPA — a proxy for academic ability and study habits established before graduate school
• Program admission selectivity — more selective programs (lower admission rates, higher GRE cutoffs) produce higher EPPP averages
• Internship match rates — programs whose students match at higher rates to internships also produce higher EPPP scores

Notably, these are all input variables — they describe the characteristics of students entering programs, not the quality of training they receive during the program.

An Important Nuance

Before you conclude that graduate school doesn't matter: statistical explanation is not the same as causation. The R² = .81 finding means that if you know someone's GRE scores, undergraduate background, and program characteristics, you can make a reasonably good prediction of their EPPP performance. It doesn't mean graduate training is irrelevant.

Think of it this way: students who enter selective programs with strong academic profiles tend to remain strong academic performers throughout training and into the exam. Graduate school adds knowledge and skills on top of an existing foundation. But the variation in performance — who scores higher versus lower — is largely predicted by that foundation.

What This Means for Your Preparation

If you fit the high-predictor profile

If you entered a selective program with strong GRE scores and a solid academic record, you likely have a natural advantage on the EPPP. The statistical prediction is in your favor. Your preparation should focus on efficiency — structured review to refresh content you've already learned well, combined with extensive question practice to train timing and question-reading skills. You probably don't need to start from scratch; you need to sharpen what's already there.

If your pre-training profile is mixed

Maybe your GRE scores weren't stellar, or your program wasn't in the top tier by selectivity rankings. This research doesn't mean you can't pass — the R² is .81, not 1.00. Nineteen percent of the variance is not explained by pre-training factors. That 19% includes your study strategy, your motivation, your exam preparation approach, and your effort.

Your preparation should be more structured, more intensive, and started earlier. Focus heavily on:

• Question-based practice — build the rapid processing and pattern recognition skills that the exam rewards
• Targeted content review — identify your weakest domains early and invest disproportionate time there
• Test-taking strategy — learn to eliminate distractors, manage time, and handle uncertainty efficiently
• Realistic practice exams — simulate exam conditions to build endurance and calibrate your pacing

For everyone

Regardless of your background, one finding is universally actionable: time since training completion matters. Candidates who sit for the EPPP sooner after finishing their degree consistently outperform those who wait. Knowledge fades without reinforcement. If you can avoid a long gap between completing your program and taking the exam, do so.

The Program Paradox

One of the more interesting findings from this research: research-focused programs tend to produce higher EPPP scores than practice-focused programs. This seems paradoxical — a test supposedly measuring readiness for practice is passed at higher rates by students trained primarily for research.

The likely explanation: research programs tend to be more selective (higher GRE requirements), and their students spend more time engaging with the broad scientific literature — exactly the kind of content the EPPP tests. This doesn't mean research training is better preparation for practice. It means the EPPP's content skews toward the kind of knowledge that research-oriented programs emphasize.

For candidates from practice-focused programs, this is useful context. You may need to supplement your clinical training with dedicated content review across all eight domains, particularly in areas like research methods and biological bases that your program may have covered less intensively.

The Bottom Line

The EPPP is influenced by factors you can't change — your academic history, your program, your cognitive profile. But it's also influenced by factors you can: how you prepare, when you sit, and how strategically you approach the exam. Knowing that the deck is structured a certain way doesn't mean you can't play your hand well. It means you play it with clear eyes.

References

Sharpless, B. A., & Barber, J. P. (2013). Predictors of program performance on the Examination for Professional Practice in Psychology (EPPP). Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 44(4), 208–217.

Callahan, J. L., Bell, D. J., Davila, J., Johnson, S. L., Strauman, T. J., & Yee, C. M. (2020). Bigger is not always better: On the value of the EPPP pass rate as a program-level quality indicator. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 14(4), 315–325.