Licensure for I-O Psychologists

Licensure for I-O Psychologists

SIOP Policy on Licensure

Licensure of the title "Psychologist" (known as a title law) and/or the practice of "Psychology" (known as a practice law) is restricted in nearly every state in the U.S. and province in Canada.

The specifics and restrictiveness of state and province licensure requirements differ, but they have a few main requirements in common:

  • Obtaining a Ph.D./Psy.D. from an APA- or CPA-accredited doctoral program (some states allow for some type of equivalency or alternate pathway).
  • Supervision by a licensed psychologist for a specified period of time (typically 3,000 hours).
  • Obtaining a qualifying score on the Examination for Professional Practice in Psychology (EPPP)
  • Passing a written or oral exam conducted by the state board (check your state).

Most states require continuing education credits to maintain the license.

The SIOP Licensing, Certification & Credentialing (LCC) Committee monitors information about state licensing requirements for I-O psychologists. We welcome your comments and experiences with the licensing practices in your state.

If you have questions or comments, please contact:

Elliot D. Lasson, LCC Chair, at

Licensure Links

Licensure FAQs

Find State and Provincial Licensure Boards

Practicing Temporarily under PSYPACT

Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards (ASPPB)

Association of state, provincial, and territorial agencies responsible for licensure and certification of psychologists throughout the United States and Canada. Administers the Examination for Professional Practice in Psychology (EPPP). Distributes licensure related brochures for a fee.


American Psychological Association (APA)

The APA’s Practice Directorate's Office of Legal and Regulatory Affairs addresses issues of licensure and certification for psychologists.

SIOP’s Policy on Licensure

Policy Preamble

Licensure of the title of "Psychologist" and/or practice of "Psychology" is restricted in many states. Industrial and Organizational Psychologists, as citizens, obey the laws in the states in which they live and work. Concurrently, it is also true that many of the work and research activities of I-O psychologists are not unique to this discipline, do not pose a threat of harm to the public, and are not subject to licensure. In accord with these principles, SIOP has formulated a policy on licensure.

SIOP recognizes that many states require I-O psychologists to be licensed. SIOP members should be allowed to be licensed in those states that require such licensure, and SIOP should supply guidance to state licensing boards on how to evaluate the education and training of an I-O psychologist.

In addition, many, if not most, I-O psychologists practice in more than one state from time to time. SIOP recognizes that some states require that I-O psychologists must be licensed in that state before practicing in that state. SIOP believes this is inappropriate for I-O Psychologists. Therefore, it is SIOP s position that: A licensed I-O psychologist should be allowed to practice in another state for a reasonable period without having to obtain a license in that state (e.g., 60 days of professional services per year).

Read the policy in its entirety.

Licensure of I-O Psychologists and the Activities of the LCC

Some SIOP members are already licensed, because they came through Clinical and Counseling Psychology doctoral programs which were APA-accredited. They subsequently pursued a practice as I-O, Organizational, Business, or Management Psychologists. However, most SIOP Members received doctoral training in I-O Psychology from programs that were not-APA accredited.

Therefore, the LCC has been active in advocating for non-licensed SIOP members to have new pathways toward obtaining a license as a psychologist. This would enhance their efforts for client engagements where that credential is important.  Ongoing discussions between SIOP and relevant stakeholder organizations—such as ASPPB, APA, PSYPACT, and others—have yielded some encouraging results. It is hoped that the appropriate changes will be made to provide alternative pathways that would demonstrate substantial equivalence of education and training.


This page last modified on February 26, 2024