Built for one applicant first

Who makes it

Jamie McKernan is a data analyst, not a clinical psychologist. He built the first version of these practice tests for his partner while she was applying for clinical psychology doctorates, because nothing existed that showed the reasoning behind an answer rather than just the answer. The clinical judgement in every scenario is checked by people who have completed the training.

That is the whole claim, and it is deliberately not a credential. Plenty of people selling preparation for this process sell their own professional expertise. This site does something different: it says where every fact came from and when it was checked, and it has the clinical judgement reviewed by people who have actually completed the training. You do not have to trust me. You can check the sources.

Why it exists

Applying for a clinical psychology doctorate is long, expensive and often demoralising — 6,236 applicants for 1,133 places in the 2026 cycle. Almost every part of it is discussed somewhere: personal statements endlessly, interviews at length. What nobody maintains is an accurate, current answer to a much more basic question: what does each course actually assess, and when?

Course selection pages get rewritten every autumn and courses do not announce it. The best-ranking summary of them is already out of date. So the first thing here is a record of all 30 courses in the Clearing House, each one quoted from its own page, linked, and carrying the date it was last checked. The build refuses to ship a record older than six months.

The practice material sits underneath that, and only where it applies. If you applied somewhere whose test measures deductive reasoning, this site says so and tells you clinical scenario practice is not what that assesses.

How the judgement is checked

Every scenario explains why each response sits where it does, citing the HCPCStandards of conduct, performance and ethics and the BPS Code of Ethics and Conduct by section — so you can check the reasoning rather than take it on trust. The aim is that you leave understanding what the regulators actually ask for, not just which option scored best.

Clinical review is in progress and not finished. Scenarios are being reviewed by people who have completed clinical training, and they will be named here with their permission when that work is done. Until then this page will not claim it has happened.

What this is not

• Not affiliated with the Clearing House for Postgraduate Courses in Clinical Psychology, the British Psychological Society, or the Health and Care Professions Council.
• Not inside knowledge. Scenarios are written to reflect what research and first-hand accounts indicate these assessments are like. No course publishes its selection test, so nothing here is confirmed and this site claims otherwise nowhere. It does not solicit or want anyone's real test material.
• Not a prediction. There is no readiness score here, no percentage chance of an offer, and no claim that using this improves your odds. No course publishes how it weights anything, so any such number would be invented.
• Not a substitute for the standards themselves. Where a scenario cites a standard, read the standard.
• Not the authority on any course's process. The course's own page is. Every record here links to it for exactly that reason.

Corrections

If something here is out of date or wrong, tell me — course records especially. Corrections to those matter more than anything else on the site, and they get checked against the source the same day where possible.