MD Psych Juris common mistakes
MD Psych Juris · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Treating the Maryland Psychology Act's scope-of-practice language as interchangeable with the APA Ethics Code, so when a question asks 'what does Maryland law require' the candidate answers with an ethical aspiration (e.g., 'aspirational' or 'best practice') rather than the statutory minimum or prohibition.
Candidates study the Ethics Code as the primary source and assume Maryland merely 'adopts' it wholesale, missing that the Act and its regulations impose independent, sometimes stricter, legal duties (e.g., specific record content, specific reporting timelines) that the Code does not contain.
What to do instead
For every topic, build a two-column comparison: 'Maryland statute/regulation says' versus 'APA Code says.' When a stem cites the Act, COMAR, or the Board, answer from the legal column only. Practice by rewriting each ethics standard as a legal question and locating the corresponding Maryland provision.
Answering licensure-eligibility questions from memory of generic '2 years of supervised experience' without distinguishing the required doctoral-level supervised hours, the postdoctoral versus predoctoral distinction, and the requirement that supervisors hold Maryland approval.
Supervised-experience rules are numerically specific and differ by degree level and by when the experience was obtained; candidates conflate predoctoral practicum/internship hours with postdoctoral supervised professional experience and assume any licensed psychologist can supervise.
What to do instead
Memorize the Maryland hour and duration requirements separately for predoctoral and postdoctoral experience, and note the supervisor-qualification condition (active Maryland license, Board-recognized supervisor status where required). When a stem gives hours, first classify the experience as predoctoral or postdoctoral before applying the threshold.
Describing the Board of Examiners of Psychologists as a purely advisory body, or assuming it cannot act without a complainant, when the question concerns its authority to investigate, subpoena, impose emergency suspension, or act on its own motion.
Candidates import a generic 'licensing boards only react to complaints' model and are unfamiliar with the Board's statutory investigative and disciplinary powers, including interim action to protect the public.
What to do instead
Learn the Board's composition (professional and public members, how appointed) and its enumerated powers separately: complaint intake, investigation, subpoena of records, hearings, sanctions ranging from reprimand to revocation, and emergency/interim suspension. Flag any answer choice that reduces the Board to an advisory role as wrong unless the stem is about a purely recommendatory function.
Releasing records or information in a Maryland-specific scenario by applying only the Ethics Code's 'appropriate release' standard, ignoring the statutory minor-consent and parental-access rules, the specific content a record must contain, and the retention period.
Confidentiality questions feel familiar from ethics training, so candidates skip the Maryland overlay: who may consent for a minor, when parents may access a child's record, what must be documented and for how long, and the statutory exceptions that permit disclosure without consent.
What to do instead
Create a one-page Maryland confidentiality sheet: mandatory record contents, retention period, minor-consent and parental-access rules, and the enumerated exceptions (e.g., court order, danger to self or others, abuse reporting). On each item, identify whether the stem invokes a statute or the Code, then apply only that source.
Choosing 'warn the identifiable victim' or 'hospitalize' as an automatic answer on every duty-to-protect item, without first determining whether the Maryland standard is triggered and which protective action the statute or regulation actually contemplates.
Candidates memorize Tarasoff-style slogans and a single 'duty to warn' formula, then apply it to stems involving no identifiable victim, a client who is not seriously threatening, or a situation governed by a different Maryland provision.
What to do instead
Learn the Maryland duty-to-protect framework as a decision sequence: (1) is there a serious threat of imminent harm to an identifiable person, (2) what protective steps does Maryland authorize or require, and (3) what documentation and consent-to-disclose considerations apply. Reject any answer that skips the trigger analysis or that states a duty broader than Maryland imposes.
Missing mandatory-reporting deadlines and thresholds: reporting suspected child abuse or neglect to the correct Maryland authority within the statutory time frame, and recognizing that 'suspicion' rather than proof is the trigger, and that a report may be required even when the alleged abuser is a colleague or the information arrived secondhand.
Candidates confuse 'reasonable suspicion' with 'confirmed evidence,' assume confidentiality or privilege excuses the report, and do not know the Maryland-specific reporting channel and timing, so they pick 'consult a supervisor first' or 'report only after investigation.'
What to do instead
Memorize the trigger (reasonable suspicion), the Maryland reporting authority and time limit, and the rule that confidentiality does not bar a mandated report. Drill stems where the client is an adult disclosing past abuse, where the suspected abuser is another professional, and where a colleague already reported, to test the secondhand and duplicate-report rules.
Treating a boundary question as satisfied by 'discuss it in supervision' or 'document the rationale,' when the stem describes conduct Maryland prohibits outright (sexual or romantic involvement with a current client, and the statutory extension to former clients and to clients' relatives or significant others within a defined period).
Ethics training emphasizes decision-making models for boundary crossings, so candidates apply a reflective process to conduct that is a flat statutory prohibition with no permissible justification, and they underestimate how far the Maryland ban extends beyond current clients.
What to do instead
Separate the two categories explicitly: (a) prohibited conduct with no exception (sexual/romantic contact with clients, and the statutory look-back period covering former clients and close relatives), and (b) boundary crossings that require a documented rationale. For any item describing sexual or romantic conduct, eliminate all 'discuss and document' options first.
Answering competence and impairment items as if self-assessment and informal peer consultation satisfy the obligation, without identifying the affirmative duties Maryland imposes: practicing within competence, taking steps to remediate or limit practice when impaired, and completing the required continuing-education hours in the required content areas.
Candidates rely on general ethical language ('seek consultation') and do not know the Maryland CE hour totals, content mandates, reporting cycle, or the Board's authority to require evaluation and to condition or restrict a license for impairment.
What to do instead
Memorize the Maryland CE requirement (total hours per renewal cycle, mandated topic hours, documentation and audit rules) and the impairment pathway (evaluation, monitoring, practice restriction). On competence items, prefer answers that specify a concrete action (referral, additional training, practice limitation) over vague consultation language.
Applying general advertising intuition to Maryland-regulated business practices, missing the specific prohibitions on false or deceptive statements, the rules on testimonials and comparative claims, and the fee-related duties such as disclosing fees in advance and the limits on bartering or fee splitting.
This domain feels like ordinary marketing common sense, so candidates do not study the regulatory text and overlook Maryland-specific limits on how credentials are stated and how fees and referrals are handled.
What to do instead
Build a checklist of regulated advertising and fee practices: accuracy of credentials and specialty claims, no misleading testimonials or guarantees, advance fee disclosure, restrictions on bartering and on paying or receiving referral fees, and required handling of fee disputes and collection. Test each answer choice against 'is this a prohibited practice under Maryland regulation?' rather than 'is this good marketing?'
Answering telepsychology and interstate-practice items by assuming that a Maryland license is unnecessary when the client is located elsewhere, or that an out-of-state license permits occasional Maryland practice, without distinguishing where the client is physically located and whether the psychologist holds a Maryland license or practices under a recognized interstate pathway.
Candidates apply a 'license where I sit' or 'license where I am licensed' rule and are unfamiliar with the Maryland provisions governing practice across state lines, the jurisdictional basis of the client's location, and the conditions under which interstate practice is permitted.
What to do instead
Adopt the rule that the client's physical location drives the licensing requirement, then learn the Maryland telepsychology provisions: licensure needed to serve clients located in Maryland, permitted interstate pathways and their conditions, and the informed-consent and emergency-planning requirements specific to telehealth. For each stem, first state where the client is physically located, then apply Maryland law.