The Data Source

The most granular public dataset on EPPP candidate performance comes not from ASPPB's published reports — but from federal court exhibits. In Frye v. ASPPB et al. (Case No. 1:25-CV-00236-KES-SKO, E.D. Cal.), the California Board of Psychology submitted 17 years of monthly first-time pass rate data as Attachment A-1. That data is the foundation of this analysis.

This is court-grade evidence, not self-reported statistics. It covers every month from 2006 through 2023 for first-time California candidates — the longest continuous public dataset available on EPPP performance trends.

The 17-Year Trend

The headline number: California first-time pass rates fell from a peak of 65.5% in 2007 to 38.78% in 2023 — a decline of 26.72 percentage points, or a 40.8% relative drop over 16 years.

YearPass RateYoY Change
200661.80%
200765.50%+3.70 pp
200863.88%−1.62 pp
200963.78%−0.10 pp
201062.68%−1.10 pp
201163.70%+1.02 pp
201259.73%−3.97 pp ⚑
201361.80%+2.07 pp
201457.82%−3.98 pp
201559.60%+1.78 pp
201651.24%−8.36 pp
201753.17%+1.93 pp
201851.09%−2.08 pp
201947.16%−3.93 pp
202047.08%−0.08 pp
202141.83%−5.25 pp
202238.83%−2.99 pp
202338.78%−0.05 pp

⚑ 2012: Year ASPPB publicly stated intent to align psychology licensing with other medical licensing models. Source: Frye v. ASPPB, Attachment A-1 (federal court exhibit).

Three Distinct Periods

The data doesn't show a smooth linear decline — it shows three periods with meaningfully different trajectories:

  • 2006–2011 (Stable era): Average pass rate 63.56%. Modest fluctuation, no clear trend.
  • 2012–2017 (Early decline): Average 56.53%. The 2012 inflection year coincides with ASPPB's public announcement about aligning with other medical licensing models. Pass rates begin a sustained descent.
  • 2018–2023 (Accelerated decline): Average 44.13%. The decline accelerates. By 2021–2023, roughly 60% of California first-time candidates are failing.

The average annual decline from 2012 to 2023 is −1.90 percentage points per year. That is not noise — it is a consistent, sustained downward trend over 11 years.

The Racial Disparity Overlay

Aggregate pass rates mask a significant disparity by race and ethnicity. Sharpless (2019) analyzed 4,892 first-time New York candidates over 25 years using FOIA-obtained data. The findings:

  • White candidates: 85.93% pass rate (14.07% fail)
  • Black candidates: 61.50% pass rate (38.50% fail)
  • Hispanic candidates: 64.40% pass rate (35.60% fail)

Black candidates fail at 2.74 times the rate of white candidates. This disparity has been replicated across multiple studies and has been the subject of ongoing peer-reviewed debate (Saldaña, Callahan & Cox, 2024; Sharpless, 2025).

What the Data Doesn't Tell Us

Honest analysis requires acknowledging what this dataset cannot answer:

  • California is one state. Candidate demographics, program types, and board policies differ across jurisdictions. California's trend may not precisely reflect national patterns.
  • We don't know why pass rates declined. The data shows the trend; it doesn't identify the cause. Possible factors include changes in the candidate pool composition, changes in exam difficulty, changes in the passing standard, or factors unrelated to the exam itself.
  • Pass rate ≠ competence. The relationship between EPPP scores and actual clinical competence is contested in the peer-reviewed literature (Sharpless & Barber, 2009; Saldaña et al., 2024). A declining pass rate may reflect stricter standards, a harder exam, a different candidate pool, or all three.

What This Means for Candidates Preparing Now

The practical implication is straightforward: the exam is harder to pass than it was 10 years ago, by a significant margin. A candidate preparing in 2025 is facing a meaningfully different challenge than a candidate who prepared in 2015 — even if the content domains haven't changed.

That means preparation strategies that worked a decade ago may not be sufficient today. The candidates who score above the pass threshold in 2025 are not necessarily those who know the most content — they're the ones who understand how the exam is constructed and have trained specifically against how it fails knowledgeable candidates.

Sources

  • California Board of Psychology pass rate data, 2006–2023. Submitted as Attachment A-1 in Frye v. ASPPB et al., 1:25-CV-00236-KES-SKO (E.D. Cal.).
  • Sharpless, B.A. (2019). Racial and ethnic differences in EPPP performance. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 13(4).
  • Sharpless, B.A. (2025). Within-program disparities in EPPP performance. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 19(4), 353–357. DOI: 10.1037/tep0000516
  • Saldaña, Callahan, & Cox (2024). Training and Education in Professional Psychology.
  • Sharpless, B.A., & Barber, J.P. (2009). Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40(4), 348–353.