The EPPP is a computer-delivered, multiple-choice licensing examination covering broad areas of professional psychology. Its questions are often vignette-heavy: you must identify the key facts, decide what the question is asking, and select the single best option rather than an option that is merely reasonable.
The questions below practise that process. For each item, choose the best answer, then read the explanation. Pay particular attention to why the strongest distractor is inferior. In the EPPP, the difference is often one constraint in the stem: immediacy of risk, scope of practice, the purpose of a test, or the distinction between reliability and validity.
How to use these EPPP practice questions
Use a short, repeatable sequence:
- Identify the task: diagnosis, next step, ethical action, treatment, research or psychometrics.
- Extract the constraints: risk, consent, competence, time, available evidence and the client’s stated goal.
- Remove options that are unsafe, premature, outside scope or too broad.
- Compare the remaining options and choose the one that best answers the exact question.
- After each item, explain why the closest alternative is wrong.
The explanations below are designed for this method. Do not judge an answer only by whether it could eventually be useful. The question is usually asking what should happen first, what best explains the facts, or which principle most directly applies.
Question 1: immediate safety and confidentiality
This item tests whether you prioritise an immediate risk over a general confidentiality rule.
MySummaries turns an EPPP revision board into questions like this so the stem, task and competing principles are visible together.
A client tells a psychologist, "I have decided to kill my former partner tomorrow. I know where they will be, and I have access to a firearm. Do not tell anyone." The client denies suicidal thoughts and refuses to discuss a safety plan. What is the psychologist's best next step?
The best answer is to assess the threat and act to protect potential victims while following the applicable law, ethical standards and organisational procedures. The strongest distractor is maintaining confidentiality: confidentiality is important, but it is not an absolute reason to ignore a credible and imminent risk of serious harm. Immediate contact with the former partner may be necessary in some circumstances, but acting before clarifying the threat and relevant obligations is premature.
The useful distinction is between confidentiality as a default and confidentiality when serious, foreseeable harm is indicated. The stem gives several risk factors: a named person, a stated time, access to a weapon and refusal to collaborate on safety. Do not assume that one universal legal procedure applies in every jurisdiction; the candidate should know to consult the applicable law, code and workplace policy.
Question 2: distinguishing diagnosis from a feature
This question tests whether you use the full pattern of symptoms rather than matching one striking feature to a diagnosis.
A 29-year-old has had recurrent episodes of intense fear that peak within 10 minutes, with palpitations, trembling, chest discomfort and fear of dying. For the past 2 months, the person has also avoided public transport because escape might be difficult. Medical causes have been assessed and not found. Which diagnosis best fits this presentation?
The best answer is agoraphobia with recurrent panic attacks: the clinically important pattern includes fear and avoidance of situations where escape may be difficult, alongside panic episodes. The strongest distractor is panic disorder only. Panic attacks are present, but the persistent situational avoidance is the additional feature that changes the formulation. A specific phobia would centre on a particular object or situation, not broadly on escape and help availability.
A common error is to stop at the most memorable symptom. A panic attack is a symptom episode; the surrounding avoidance pattern is what makes the differential more specific. On an exam item, read the duration, triggers, avoidance and functional effect before selecting a diagnosis.
Question 3: informed consent in research
This item tests the difference between obtaining a signature and ensuring that consent is genuinely informed and voluntary.
A researcher wants to recruit psychology students for a study. The researcher teaches the students and says that participation will improve their course grade. What is the most important change before recruitment begins?
The best answer removes undue influence and provides an equivalent alternative for any academic credit. Consent must be voluntary, and students should not feel that refusal will harm their grade or relationship with the teacher. The strongest distractor is a verbal explanation alone: a clearer explanation does not solve the power imbalance or the coercive incentive. A signed form is not sufficient if the choice is not meaningfully voluntary.
When an item includes a teacher, supervisor, employer or clinician who controls an important resource, look for undue influence. The correct response usually protects autonomy while preserving a fair alternative, rather than abandoning consent procedures or assuming that a signature resolves the problem.
Question 4: reliability and validity
This question tests precise psychometrics language: a measure can be consistent without measuring the intended construct.
A new anxiety questionnaire produces nearly identical scores when the same people complete it one week apart. However, scores show little relationship with established measures of anxiety or with clinician ratings. Which conclusion is best supported?
Similar scores over time support test-retest reliability. The weak relationship with established anxiety measures and clinician ratings provides poor evidence of convergent validity. The strongest distractor is criterion validity: clinician ratings may be a criterion, but the stem describes little relationship with them, so it does not support criterion validity. Reliability does not establish validity.
Keep the psychometric terms separate. Reliability concerns consistency of measurement; validity concerns whether the interpretation or use of scores is supported. A reliable measure may repeatedly produce the same wrong or irrelevant result.
Question 5: treatment sequencing
This item asks you to choose the least harmful, most clinically appropriate first intervention rather than the most intensive possible intervention.
A client with obsessive-compulsive disorder has intrusive contamination fears and spends three hours each day washing. The client understands that the fears are excessive and is willing to begin treatment. Which intervention has the strongest evidence as an initial psychological treatment?
Exposure and response prevention directly targets the cycle of fear, avoidance and ritualising, and it should be planned collaboratively and progressed safely. The strongest distractor is immediate confrontation of every feared situation: exposure is relevant, but an unplanned, overwhelming approach can damage engagement and is not the same as graded, informed treatment. Supportive counselling alone does not target the maintaining behaviour.
The word “initial” matters. The best answer is not simply the treatment associated with the diagnosis; it is the appropriate version of that treatment for this client, delivered with preparation, collaboration and attention to tolerability.
Question 6: selecting a test for a purpose
This question tests whether you match the assessment method to the referral question.
A school refers a student because teachers report slow reading, frequent decoding errors and difficulty reading unfamiliar words aloud. The referral asks whether the student has a specific reading difficulty. Which assessment approach is most appropriate?
The referral requires direct assessment of reading accuracy and fluency, interpreted alongside developmental, cognitive and educational information. The strongest distractor is a teacher interview alone: it provides useful contextual data but cannot directly establish the student's reading skills. A test must be selected for its relevance to the referral question, not reliability in isolation.
Before choosing a measure, ask what decision the score will support. A technically reliable test that does not sample the relevant skill is a poor choice. Also distinguish direct evidence of performance from collateral information: both may be useful, but they answer different questions.
Question 7: research design and causation
This item tests the limit of a correlation and the role of random assignment.
Researchers find that adults who report more weekly exercise also report fewer depressive symptoms. The study is cross-sectional and does not assign exercise. Which conclusion is most justified?
A cross-sectional association does not establish temporal order or rule out confounding variables, so causal conclusions are limited. The strongest distractors are the two causal claims: either direction is possible, and shared causes may also explain the relationship. Self-report can have limitations, but it is not automatically invalid.
For correlation questions, look for temporal order, manipulation, random assignment and control of confounds. Do not treat a plausible mechanism as proof of causation. The correct option often describes what the design can support, not what the researchers hope to demonstrate.
Question 8: ethics and competence
This question tests what to do when a client’s needs exceed the psychologist’s current competence.
A psychologist who has practised primarily with adults is asked to evaluate a complex child neurodevelopmental presentation. The psychologist has no training in the relevant assessment instruments or developmental differential diagnosis. What is the best initial action?
The psychologist should work within competence: referral, consultation or appropriate training must occur before offering the evaluation. The strongest distractor is accepting the case while learning during the assessment. Good intentions do not remove the risk of inaccurate diagnosis or harm. Familiarity with adult instruments does not establish competence with children or developmental assessment.
Competence questions are usually decided by the gap between the practitioner’s actual preparation and the service requested. Do not confuse general professional status with competence for every population, instrument or clinical problem.
Question 9: interpreting a screening result
This question tests base rates and the difference between a screening result and a diagnosis.
A brief screening measure for a rare disorder is positive in a client who has no clear functional impairment or characteristic symptoms. What is the most appropriate interpretation?
A positive screen is not a diagnosis. Further assessment is needed, and interpretation depends on prevalence, sensitivity, specificity and the purpose of the instrument. The strongest distractor is treating the result as diagnostic. In a low-base-rate population, even a useful test can produce a substantial proportion of false-positive results.
A screening instrument answers “who may need closer assessment?” It does not automatically answer “does this person meet diagnostic criteria?” When the stem gives a low base rate or weak clinical fit, resist premature conclusions.
Question 10: choosing the best next step
This final item combines risk assessment, differential thinking and treatment planning.
A client presents with sudden confusion, fluctuating attention and visual hallucinations that began yesterday. The client has no previous psychiatric history and appears medically unwell. What should the psychologist do first?
Sudden onset, fluctuating attention and apparent medical illness raise concern for an acute medical or toxic cause, so urgent medical evaluation and immediate safety are the priority. The strongest distractor is beginning treatment for a primary psychotic disorder: hallucinations alone do not establish that diagnosis, and the acute medical features must be addressed first. A personality assessment is not relevant to the immediate problem.
This is the “what do you do next?” pattern. A psychiatric explanation may be possible, but the safest first action is determined by onset, consciousness, medical status and immediate risk. In EPPP practice, prioritise reversible and dangerous causes before making a premature diagnostic commitment.
Review the pattern, not just the score
After completing the ten items, classify each error:
- Stem reading: you missed the task or a limiting fact.
- Content: you did not know the diagnosis, ethical principle, treatment or psychometric concept.
- Distractor control: you recognised a plausible answer but missed why another was better.
- Prioritisation: you selected a useful later action instead of the safest first action.
A single percentage can hide the cause of an error. A candidate who knows reliability but confuses it with validity needs a different review session from a candidate who knows both terms but overlooks the referral question.
Use the weakest section to choose your next revision task. If the same mistake appears twice, rewrite the rule in a form that would change your decision, such as: “A positive screen prompts assessment; it does not establish a diagnosis.”
You lost this mark twice: when a client presents with sudden confusion, fluctuating attention and new hallucinations, what must be prioritised before diagnosing a primary psychotic disorder?
How MySummaries helps
MySummaries can turn your own EPPP notes into revision boards, then generate vignette-based flashcards, written practice papers and audio lectures. For this task, it can keep ethics, diagnosis, assessment, research and treatment errors on separate boards, schedule missed facts for spaced repetition, and return lost marks to a remediation tray.
Start at portal.mysummaries.app.