Will AI replace Clinical psychologists?

Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 60 official task statements scored for Clinical psychologists (United Kingdom, SOC 2225), 16% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 32 out of 100 (range 25–38, band: low). That is a statement about tasks, not about headcount: this measures what AI could do, not whether any employer adopts it, whether the law allows it, or whether doing the routine parts faster creates more demand for the human parts. Figures are from release 2026-q4.1.

Which tasks in “Clinical psychologists” can AI already do?

The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Research new topic areas to maintain up-to-date subject knowledge” (83/100, very high); “Write papers describing the results of psychological research” (83/100, very high); “Maintain client-related paperwork” (81/100, very high). Each score comes from five published 0–4 ratings turned into a number by a published formula, and each carries the model's one-sentence reason on the page.

Which tasks in “Clinical psychologists” stay human?

About 70% of this job's task weight sits in work that scores low for AI exposure. The lowest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Act as an expert witness during legal proceedings” (3/100, minimal); “Monitor individuals in various contexts to detect mental deficiency, abnormal behaviour, or maladjustment” (5/100, minimal); “Direct staff and interns in patient assessment” (8/100, minimal). Low scores usually mean the task needs a body in a room, a legally accountable human, or trust built in real time. Those are the three things the scoring rubric treats as gates rather than obstacles.

What should someone working in “Clinical psychologists” do about AI?

Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 16% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 70% is not. The practical move is to spend more of your week on the tasks that score low, the ones above, and to get fluent at directing AI through the tasks that score high, because those are the parts that change whether or not you are ready for them. This page does not predict your job, and nothing here is career advice tailored to you: the score describes the occupation, not the person.

How is the AI exposure score for Clinical psychologists calculated?

Each official task statement for the occupation is rated on five published 0–4 dimensions (output replicability, physical embodiment, licensed accountability, real-time human trust, and data availability) by claude-opus-5 using scoring prompt task_scoring_v1.0. The model never writes the score; a published formula turns the five ratings into a 0–100 number, so every score can be recomputed by hand. The occupation figure is the importance-weighted mean across 60 scored tasks. The prompt, the rubric, the formula and the full dataset are published at https://futureproof.collab365.com/method and https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1 under CC BY 4.0.

UK dataswitch to US

Clinical psychologists

developing and implementing treatment plans, helping clients develop insight into themselves or their relationships and offering therapy and treatments for issues relating to a range of mental health conditions. If that's your week, this page is about your job.

The honest answer

AI is already taking a real slice of the routine work here: analysing data to evaluate the effectiveness of specific treatments or therapy approaches. That is a slice of tasks, not of you.

Your move: what you can actually do about this ↓

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI: 16%
changing shape: 14%
staying human: 70%

These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.

Whole-job exposure score 32 out of 100 (25–38 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, across 60 scored tasks. The number is the support for the sentence above it, not a headline about anyone’s future.

How we know this

What is measured: Every published task statement for clinical psychologists is rated on five dimensions: can a model produce the output, does the work need a body in a room, does it need a legally accountable person, does it depend on a person being trusted in the moment, and how much data exists. A published formula turns those five ratings into the score; the model never writes the number.

How the bar is built: Each task’s share of the bar is its published importance weight, so a task you do all day counts for more than one you do twice a year.

Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-05. Read the full method.

That slice is not coming back; the core of the job, assessing clients' needs and abilities using psychometric tests, stays yours. New tools, same person answering for it.

Your week, as this page understands it

Clinical psychologists work with people experiencing emotional, psychological or behavioural distress, perform tests and assess their emotional, cognitive and behavioural processes, and determine treatments to help patients improve their mental wellbeing. The job title says “clinical psychologists”. The real job is the part underneath: assessing clients' needs and abilities using psychometric tests. That is the thing someone has to be right about.

The exposed part of this job is specific, and we won’t pretend it is coming back. But clinical psychologists is not one task. It is 60 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is assessing clients' needs and abilities using psychometric tests, and the ledger below shows exactly why.

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI: 16%
changing shape: 14%
staying human: 70%

These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.

How we know this

How the bar is built: Each task’s share of the bar is its published importance weight, so a task you do all day counts for more than one you do twice a year.

Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-05. Read the full method.

Your job, task by task

These are the official task statements for this occupation, in plain English, sorted by what the evidence says is happening to each one. The official wording sits under every line so you can check the rewrite against it.

1 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.

Shifting to AI

10 tasks

Tasks today’s tools can already do most of. This is the part we will not soften: where these rows are the bulk of your week, the week changes.

Analysing data to evaluate the effectiveness of specific treatments or therapy approaches
This is reading one thing and writing another: data in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 90 · 2225/00
Source: “Analyse data to evaluate the effectiveness of specific treatments or therapy approaches.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (71–79 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Comparing outcome data across treatments is straightforward analysis, and nothing about doing it needs the psychologist personally.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Documenting patient notes detailing treatment and progress
This is reading one thing and writing another: patient notes detailing treatment in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 85 · 2225/00
Source: “Document patient notes detailing treatment and progress.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (62–70 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Notes on treatment and progress follow a familiar pattern and can be drafted automatically for the psychologist to check and approve.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Reviewing records to understand medical and family histories
This is reading one thing and writing another: records in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 75 · 2225/00
Source: “Review records to understand medical and family histories.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (62–70 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Reading through medical and family records to pull out what matters is document work that software already does quickly and accurately.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Using research and development to inform personal professional development and enhance skills
It is the same call made over and over on research, with a right answer to check it against. That is what a model is trained on.
importance 75 · 2225/00
Source: “Use research and development to inform personal professional development and enhance skills.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 65 out of 100 (58–72 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Finding and summarising relevant research is a real strength of AI, though deciding what to change in your own practice is personal.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.

Changing shape

9 tasks

Tasks where the machine takes the producing and a person keeps the checking, the deciding, or the answering-for-it. For most jobs this is the biggest group, and it is where "transformation, not termination" is literally visible.

Monitoring and evaluating the outcome of treatments to ensure effectiveness
The software now makes the first pass at the outcome of treatments, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 90 · 2225/00
Source: “Monitor and evaluate the outcome of treatments to ensure effectiveness.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 48 out of 100 (41–55 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Tracking whether treatment is working is measurement and analysis that software handles well, with the psychologist judging what it means.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Writing client reports on psychological assessments
The software now makes the first pass at client reports, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 80 · 2225/00
Source: “Write client reports on psychological assessments.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (49–63 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Assessment reports follow a standard structure and draft well, but the clinical opinion inside them must come from the psychologist.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Referring patients to other healthcare practitioners
The software now makes the first pass at patients, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 80 · 2225/00
Source: “Refer patients to other healthcare practitioners as necessary.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 48 out of 100 (41–55 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Referral letters draft easily, but deciding someone needs another practitioner is a clinical judgement made by the qualified psychologist.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

Staying human

41 tasks

Tasks that stay with a person, because they happen in the physical world, because the rules need someone accountable, or because the value is that a specific person does them.

Developing and implementing treatment plans
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for treatment plans, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 95 · 2225/00
Source: “Develop and implement treatment plans.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 22 out of 100 (15–29 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Drafting a treatment plan is easy; deciding and carrying it out for a specific patient stays with the registered psychologist.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Assessing clients' needs and abilities using psychometric tests
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for clients' needs, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 95 · 2225/00
Source: “Assess clients' needs and abilities using psychometric tests, interviews, and direct observation.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 16 out of 100 (9–23 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Psychometric testing and direct observation must be carried out by a qualified practitioner, though scoring and write-up are increasingly automated.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Developing client treatment plans based on research
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for client treatment plans, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 90 · 2225/00
Source: “Develop client treatment plans based on research, clinical experience, and client histories.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 27 out of 100 (20–34 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: A plan can be drafted from notes, but choosing psychological treatment for a specific person is the registered psychologist's own clinical decision.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.

Show the other 50 tasks

Researching new topic areas to maintain up-to-date subject knowledge
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: new topic areas in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 70 · 2225/00
Source: “Research new topic areas to maintain up-to-date subject knowledge.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 83 out of 100 (76–90 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Getting up to speed on a new subject area is reading and synthesis, which software does quickly from abundant published sources.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Writing papers describing the results of psychological research
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: papers describing the results of psychological research in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 70 · 2225/00
Source: “Write papers describing the results of psychological research.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 83 out of 100 (76–90 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Research writing follows established conventions with a huge published literature to draw on, so drafts come easily and need checking.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Maintaining client-related paperwork
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: client-related paperwork in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 70 · 2225/00
Source: “Maintain client-related paperwork.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 81 out of 100 (77–85 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Client paperwork is structured and repetitive, and practice software already handles most of it with the psychologist checking.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Developing training programmes for staff and students
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: programmes in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 75 · 2225/00
Source: “Develop training programmes for staff and students.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (57–71 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Training programmes and materials are well-documented work that software drafts quickly, with staff tailoring them to the service.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Attending conferences, seminars and training sessions to stay informed about field developments
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: conferences, seminars and training sessions in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 70 · 2225/00
Source: “Attend conferences, seminars, and training sessions to stay informed about field developments.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (57–71 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Keeping up with developments in the field is reading and summarising, which software does quickly, though conferences also build contacts.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Sharing occupational information with other professionals
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: occupational information in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 70 · 2225/00
Source: “Share occupational information with other professionals, agencies, or universities.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 64 out of 100 (60–68 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Passing information to colleagues, agencies and universities is written communication that can be drafted and sent automatically.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Conducting risk assessments to maintain a safe working environment
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at risk assessments, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 70 · 2225/00
Source: “Conduct risk assessments to maintain a safe working environment.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (49–63 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Workplace risk assessments follow published templates and standards, though someone has to walk round and look at the actual premises.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Providing prevention talks to the general public
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at prevention talks, but the part that matters is a person saying it and standing behind it. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 65 · 2225/00
Source: “Provide prevention talks to the general public.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 53 out of 100 (46–60 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Public prevention talks draw on well-known material that can be written automatically, though someone still has to stand up and deliver it.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Providing career information to individuals for educational or vocational planning
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at career information, but the part that matters is a person saying it and standing behind it. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 60 · 2225/00
Source: “Provide career information to individuals for educational or vocational planning.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 53 out of 100 (46–60 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Careers and course information is public and well documented, so it can be assembled automatically, though people often want it explained.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Offering educational programmes to community members to promote health and wellbeing
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at educational programmes, but the part that matters is a person saying it and standing behind it. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 70 · 2225/00
Source: “Offer educational programmes to community members to promote health and wellbeing.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 46 out of 100 (39–53 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Wellbeing programmes for the public follow well-documented material that can largely be written automatically, though delivering them well still involves an audience.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Conducting applied research to enhance the evidence base in healthcare practices
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at applied research, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 75 · 2225/00
Source: “Conduct applied research to enhance the evidence base in healthcare practices.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 43 out of 100 (36–50 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Research design and analysis are well supported by tools, though gathering the data needs people.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Developing and evaluating service provision for clients
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at service provision, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 75 · 2225/00
Source: “Develop and evaluate service provision for clients.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 43 out of 100 (36–50 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Designing and reviewing a service is largely analysis and writing, which software drafts well, though local knowledge shapes the final decisions.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Advising clients on how they could be helped by counselling
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles clients and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 85 · 2225/00
Source: “Advise clients on how they could be helped by counselling.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 36 out of 100 (29–43 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: What counselling offers is well documented and easy to explain in writing, but people decide to try it through conversation.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Discussing therapies and treatments with other professionals
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles therapies and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 80 · 2225/00
Source: “Discuss therapies and treatments with other professionals, agencies, or universities.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 35 out of 100 (28–42 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Talking through treatments with other professionals is a two-way exchange of judgement, though the background material can be prepared automatically.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Coordinating activities of medical specialists and therapists
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles activities of medical specialists and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 70 · 2225/00
Source: “Coordinate activities of medical specialists and therapists.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 35 out of 100 (28–42 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Scheduling and chasing specialists is easy to automate, but keeping busy professionals aligned still takes personal contact.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Planning and conducting psychological research
staying human
The ratings behind this row put psychological research well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 70 · 2225/00
Source: “Plan and conduct psychological research.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 32 out of 100 (25–39 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Design, analysis and writing can be heavily assisted, but collecting data from participants and taking responsibility for the study stays human.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Consulting reference material to identify symptoms and make diagnoses
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for reference material, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 80 · 2225/00
Source: “Consult reference material to identify symptoms and make diagnoses.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 31 out of 100 (24–38 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Looking symptoms up in reference material is quick and easy; making the diagnosis remains the qualified psychologist's decision.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Interviewing individuals or family members to compile information on social and educational history
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles individuals and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 80 · 2225/00
Source: “Interview individuals or family members to compile information on social and educational history.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 31 out of 100 (24–38 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Structured history questions can be asked digitally, but people tend to give fuller accounts of their lives to a person.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Preparing detailed reports for legal cases
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for detailed reports, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 75 · 2225/00
Source: “Prepare detailed reports for legal cases.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 31 out of 100 (24–38 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Legal reports draft well from structured material, but the opinion has to be the qualified psychologist's and is signed by them.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Adjusting treatment programmes based on patients' progress
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for treatment programmes, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 85 · 2225/00
Source: “Adjust treatment programmes based on patients' progress as required.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 27 out of 100 (20–34 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Changing a treatment programme as a patient progresses is a clinical decision the registered psychologist makes and remains answerable for.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Determining appropriate therapy or counselling treatments for patients based on their conditions
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for appropriate therapy, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 85 · 2225/00
Source: “Determine appropriate therapy or counselling treatments for patients based on their conditions.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 27 out of 100 (20–34 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Choosing which therapy suits a patient's condition is a clinical decision that the registered psychologist makes and is answerable for.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Developing psychological formulations to inform personalised care and enhance psychological interventions for professional
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for psychological formulations, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 85 · 2225/00
Source: “Develop psychological formulations to inform personalised care and enhance psychological interventions for professional use.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 27 out of 100 (20–34 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: A formulation can be drafted from notes, but it is a registered psychologist judgement about a particular person.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Modifying treatment plans to comply with changes in clients' status
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for treatment plans, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 85 · 2225/00
Source: “Modify treatment plans to comply with changes in clients' status.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 27 out of 100 (20–34 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Changing a treatment plan when someone's mental state shifts is a clinical decision the registered psychologist has to make and own.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Planning accredited psychological service programmes in collaboration with professional staff
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for accredited psychological service programmes, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 75 · 2225/00
Source: “Plan accredited psychological service programmes in collaboration with professional staff.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 26 out of 100 (19–33 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Service programmes can be drafted from templates, but accreditation rules and local realities mean qualified staff shape the final plan together.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Providing consulting services to other doctors to integrate psychological insights into patient care
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for services, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 70 · 2225/00
Source: “Provide consulting services to other doctors to integrate psychological insights into patient care.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 26 out of 100 (19–33 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Advising doctors on the psychological side of a case is a professional-to-professional conversation that relies on the psychologist's experience.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Planning actions with clients to achieve social
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles actions and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 80 · 2225/00
Source: “Plan actions with clients to achieve social, educational, or vocational development.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 24 out of 100 (17–31 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Plans for study or work goals can be drafted, but people commit to them through conversation with someone they trust.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Assessing clients' needs to develop tailored therapeutic interventions
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for clients' needs, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 90 · 2225/00
Source: “Assess clients' needs to develop tailored therapeutic interventions.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 22 out of 100 (15–29 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Working out what someone needs and designing their therapy is the registered psychologist's clinical decision, informed by conversation with them.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Identifying psychological, emotional or behavioural issues using information from interviews, tests, records or reference materials
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for psychological, emotional or behavioural issues, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 90 · 2225/00
Source: “Identify psychological, emotional, or behavioural issues using information from interviews, tests, records, or reference materials.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 22 out of 100 (15–29 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Pulling themes from interviews, tests and records can be assisted, but identifying the underlying problem is the qualified psychologist's judgement.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Planning appropriate treatment programmes and interventions in collaboration with colleagues
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for appropriate treatment programmes, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 85 · 2225/00
Source: “Plan appropriate treatment programmes and interventions in collaboration with colleagues.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 22 out of 100 (15–29 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Plans can be drafted, but agreeing the psychological treatment with colleagues and owning it falls to the registered psychologist.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Conducting outreach programmes
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: outreach programmes, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 60 · 2225/00
Source: “Conduct outreach programmes for schools, agencies, and businesses.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 20 out of 100 (13–27 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Outreach material can be prepared automatically, but running sessions in schools and workplaces means turning up and engaging an audience.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Distinguishing between physiologically- and psychologically-based disorders
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for physiologically-, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 90 · 2225/00
Source: “Distinguish between physiologically- and psychologically-based disorders, and diagnose appropriately.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 17 out of 100 (13–21 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Deciding whether a problem is physical or psychological, and naming the condition, is a diagnosis the registered psychologist makes and signs.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Preparing written evaluations of individuals' psychological competence for court hearings
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for written evaluations of individuals' psychological competence, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 60 · 2225/00
Source: “Prepare written evaluations of individuals' psychological competence for court hearings.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 17 out of 100 (13–21 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: A court will only accept an opinion on someone's psychological competence from a qualified, named psychologist who assessed them personally.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Administering psychological tests to individuals
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for psychological tests, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 90 · 2225/00
Source: “Administer psychological tests to individuals.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 16 out of 100 (9–23 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Many psychological tests are already computer-delivered and scored, but they must be administered and interpreted by a qualified practitioner.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Providing consultation to other members of the multidisciplinary team
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for consultation, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 75 · 2225/00
Source: “Provide consultation to other members of the multidisciplinary team, encouraging a psychological approach in their work.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 15 out of 100 (8–22 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Written guidance is easy to produce, but shifting how a clinical team works depends on trusted conversations with colleagues.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Collecting information about clients through interviews
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for information, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 90 · 2225/00
Source: “Collect information about clients through interviews, observation, or tests.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 13 out of 100 (6–20 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: People disclose more to a psychologist they trust, and formal testing has to be run by a qualified practitioner.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Conducting psychological assessment to identify the priorities and requirements
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for psychological assessment, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 85 · 2225/00
Source: “Conduct psychological assessment to identify the priorities and requirements for personalised, evidence-based psychological interventions.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 13 out of 100 (6–20 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Structured questionnaires can be scored automatically, but a proper assessment is a regulated clinical judgement made with the person present.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Advising families to understand problems and developing realistic action plans
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for families, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 80 · 2225/00
Source: “Advise families to understand problems and develop realistic action plans.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 13 out of 100 (6–20 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Families work through problems with someone they trust, and the useful detail usually comes out in conversation rather than from records.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Supervising counsellors, social service staff, assistants and postgraduate students
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for counsellors, social service staff, assistants and postgraduate students, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 65 · 2225/00
Source: “Supervise counsellors, social service staff, assistants, and postgraduate students.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 13 out of 100 (6–20 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Supervision works through a trusted working relationship, and the supervisor carries responsibility for the work being discussed.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Collaborating with multidisciplinary health teams to enhance patient care
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles multidisciplinary health teams and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 80 · 2225/00
Source: “Collaborate with multidisciplinary health teams to enhance patient care.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 12 out of 100 (5–19 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Working with doctors, nurses and other therapists on a patient depends on live professional relationships and shared judgement rather than paperwork.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Assessing the risk patients pose to themselves
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for the risk patients pose, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 85 · 2225/00
Source: “Assess the risk patients pose to themselves and others.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 11 out of 100 (7–15 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Judging whether someone might harm themselves or others rests with the registered psychologist and depends on what the person reveals face to face.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Providing guidance to mental health tribunals
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for guidance, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 70 · 2225/00
Source: “Provide guidance to mental health tribunals.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 11 out of 100 (4–18 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: A tribunal needs the view of a named qualified clinician who knows the patient, given under professional and legal responsibility.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Advising groups to deal with crisis situations and defining goals
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for groups, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 75 · 2225/00
Source: “Advise groups to deal with crisis situations and define goals.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 10 out of 100 (3–17 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Helping a group through a crisis depends on reading the room live and being trusted by the people in it.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Providing clinical supervision to other less experienced play therapists
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for clinical supervision, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 70 · 2225/00
Source: “Provide clinical supervision to other less experienced play therapists.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 9 out of 100 (2–16 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Supervising a less experienced therapist's clinical work has to come from a qualified psychologist who carries responsibility for the cases discussed.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Applying treatment methods like psychotherapy and hypnosis for patient care
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for treatment methods like psychotherapy, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 85 · 2225/00
Source: “Apply treatment methods like psychotherapy and hypnosis for patient care.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 8 out of 100 (4–12 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Psychotherapy and hypnosis work through the relationship with the patient, and delivering them here is the registered psychologist's own clinical act.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 4/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Helping clients develop insight into themselves or their relationships
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for clients develop insight, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 85 · 2225/00
Source: “Help clients develop insight into themselves or their relationships.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 8 out of 100 (4–12 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Insight develops through trusted conversation over time, and a person's willingness to look at themselves depends on who is asking.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 4/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Offering therapy and treatments for issues relating to a range of mental health conditions
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for therapy, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 85 · 2225/00
Source: “Offer therapy and treatments for issues relating to a range of mental health conditions.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 8 out of 100 (4–12 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Therapy for mental health conditions is delivered by the registered clinical psychologist, and it works through the relationship built with the person.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 4/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Providing support to clients, their families and carers
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for support, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 80 · 2225/00
Source: “Provide support to clients, their families, and carers.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 8 out of 100 (4–12 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Support for a distressed person and their family is carried by the relationship itself, which needs a human on the other side.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 4/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Directing staff and interns in patient assessment
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for staff, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 70 · 2225/00
Source: “Direct staff and interns in patient assessment.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 8 out of 100 (1–15 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Guiding staff and trainees through assessments depends on live judgement, and the registered psychologist remains accountable for the assessment work they direct.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Monitoring individuals in various contexts to detect mental deficiency
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: individuals, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 80 · 2225/00
Source: “Monitor individuals in various contexts to detect mental deficiency, abnormal behaviour, or maladjustment.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 5 out of 100 (0–12 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Spotting difficulties by watching someone in real settings needs a trained observer present, and the conclusions are the psychologist's.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Acting as an expert witness during legal proceedings
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for an expert witness during legal proceedings, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 70 · 2225/00
Source: “Act as an expert witness during legal proceedings.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 3 out of 100 (0–7 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Only a named, qualified person can be sworn in and questioned as an expert; a court will not take evidence from software.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.

What this job pays, and how many people do it

Median pay: £58,400a year, before tax, the middle of the range, so half earn more and half earn less.ashe-t14, 2025 · ASHE 2025 provisional (reference April 2025)Provisional, because the ONS revises this figure in the autumn.
How we know this
Source: ashe-t14
Reference period: ASHE 2025 provisional (reference April 2025)
Rounding: Shown to the nearest £100. The exact published figure is in the downloadable dataset. We do not render pounds the survey cannot support.
People doing this job: 23,900in the UK, 2026.nomis-aps · Apr 2025-Mar 2026 (latest APS 12-month period)This headcount comes from a survey, not a census, so treat it as a good estimate rather than an exact count.

What is deliberately not here: a forecast of how many of these jobs exist in ten years. Where an official projection exists for a market we publish it with its vintage; where it does not, we leave the space empty rather than borrow the other country’s number.

Why this is shifting

The reason is boringly specific. Most of what is shifting here is reading one thing and writing another: patient notes detailing treatment in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: analysing data to evaluate the effectiveness of specific treatments or therapy approaches and documenting patient notes detailing treatment and progress. What it cannot do is be answerable: clients' needs need a named person the rules will accept, and software cannot be that person. Which is why this page talks about your tasks changing, not your job ending.

Your move

Over a pint: what I’d tell you if you were my friend

Start with what does not change: assessing clients' needs and abilities using psychometric tests is the middle of this job, and the evidence on this page says it stays with a person.

So, given all that: 16% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 14% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 70% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 60 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.

So the thing worth your attention is not the job going away. It is the layer around it. Analysing data to evaluate the effectiveness of specific treatments or therapy approaches is the part turning into software, and being the person who understands that layer is worth money.

This week: one thing

Ask the one question. Find whoever is bringing new software into your workplace (the manager, the office, whoever runs the system) and ask them what it is meant to do to patient notes detailing treatment, and what it is not meant to touch. Ten minutes, this week, before anyone decides it for you.

What you end up holding: a straight answer about what is actually being rolled out, and when
How long it takes: ten minutes

If there’s nobody obvious to ask, or you’d rather not ask your manager: Put the same question to your union rep, your shift lead or the person who has been there longest, in person, over a break. Same ten minutes, same answer, and you will usually get a straighter one. Write down what they say. The note is the artifact, and it tells you whether clients' needs are in scope or not. Nothing to log into, no licence needed.

Over the next 90 days

Get inside the tool rollout rather than waiting for it. Over the next ninety days, ask to be in the group that tests, checks or signs off whatever new system arrives near monitoring and evaluating the outcome of treatments to ensure effectiveness. It is usually an unglamorous seat that nobody fights for, and it is the one that decides how the software is used on your job rather than to it.

Over the next 12 months

On this evidence I would not retrain out of this job, and I will say that plainly rather than hedge it. The task list here is dominated by work that stays with a person. What I would do with a year is get formally recognised for the layer around it (the systems, the compliance, the planning), so you are the one who understands the software instead of the one it is done to. Before you pay for anything, spend an hour with National Careers Service. It is free and government-funded, and it is listed below with the rest of the free routes.

The roads out of here, and why I am not sending you down them

I looked at the obvious moves out of this job, and here is what I found.

I checked the 12 nearest UK occupations to clinical psychologists (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was psychotherapists and cognitive behaviour therapists: only about 35% of its durable work is work you already do and it pays 17.8% less. And on the numbers you do not need one. This job scores 32/100 here, with only 16% of the task list in the top band, and “assess clients' needs and abilities using psychometric tests, interviews, and direct observation” is not work that hands over cleanly. None of them beats deepening what you already have.

How that was checked: this job was compared against all 412 UK occupations in this release on their official task statements, and the 12 nearest were examined one by one. A move that turns on an industry, an employer or a qualification rather than on the work itself will not show up in a check like that. And this release carries no licence register, so anything you are weighing needs that looked up separately.

3 moves I checked and rejected

These are the obvious-looking jumps. They are here with their reasons rather than quietly dropped, because the ones that fail are worth knowing about. It is one less thing to turn over at night.

Psychotherapists and cognitive behaviour therapists
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour because one of your tasks is on their list in the same words: “apply treatment methods like psychotherapy and hypnosis for patient care”. Across the whole of both lists that adds up to about 35% of the work in that job the software is not taking.
Why I am not recommending it: It is closer than most, and still not close enough: about 35% of that job's durable work is already yours, against the 35% I want to see before I will call something a route. It is a pay cut, in those words: £47,971 against your £58,366, 17.8% less (ASHE Table 14.7a, 2025 provisional (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Look at that job’s page anyway →
Registered nurse practitioners
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour because one of your tasks is on their list in the same words: “offer therapy and treatments for issues relating to a range of mental health conditions”. Across the whole of both lists that adds up to about 14% of the work in that job the software is not taking.
Why I am not recommending it: You would be starting most of it from nothing: about 14% of the durable work in that job is work you do today, and the rest you would be learning while the bills carried on. It is a pay cut, in those words: £46,069 against your £58,366, 21.1% less (ASHE Table 14.7a, 2025 provisional (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Look at that job’s page anyway →
Occupational therapists
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour because one of your tasks is on their list in the same words: “provide support to clients, their families, and carers”. Across the whole of both lists that adds up to about 12% of the work in that job the software is not taking.
Why I am not recommending it: You would be starting most of it from nothing: about 12% of the durable work in that job is work you do today, and the rest you would be learning while the bills carried on. It is a pay cut, in those words: £44,040 against your £58,366, 24.5% less (ASHE Table 14.7a, 2025 provisional (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Look at that job’s page anyway →

What I’d stop worrying about

A friend tells you what not to spend fear on. This is that list.

The headline number you read somewhere
The big “X% of jobs” figures are about the whole economy, not about you. The number that describes your job is on this page: 16% of its task weight, across 60 scored tasks. Every row behind it is printed above with the source. Check ours; ignore theirs.
The headlines about your trade disappearing
They are usually about the technology, not the timetable. Changes to work like assessing clients' needs and abilities using psychometric tests arrive through rules, insurance and money, slowly and visibly. This page tracks the task evidence and will move when it moves.
Retraining out of a job that is holding up
On this evidence I would not spend money leaving. Spend it on the layer around the job instead: the tools, the paperwork, the planning. That is where the change actually is.
The “obvious” next job everyone suggests
I checked the obvious moves and most of them did not survive. The reasons are printed with the routes above, including the pay and the gate. A move that fails on the numbers is worth knowing about so you can stop turning it over at night.

You are reading the United Kingdom figures

The United States splits this work across more than one official group, of which Industrial-Organizational Psychologists is the closest. The pay and employment figures are not directly comparable, and we do not average them together.

Switch to the United States page →partial match

The other groups this work is counted across:

In US official statistics this job is counted as Industrial-Organizational Psychologists, Clinical and Counseling Psychologists, School Psychologists and Psychologists, All Other. Pay is shown separately for each of those groups (medians cannot be averaged together), while the task list and the scores on this page are for this group only.

Your route through this

Where to go next, and what it costs

Free, and complete

The moves above cost nothing. These are the real services that go with them: public, government-funded, and free at the point of use. Nothing on this page is behind an email address or a payment.

In England:
National Careers Service
A free hour with a government-funded careers adviser is worth more than another evening of reading. In England that's the National Careers Service.
Free, government-funded
- Discover your skills and careers (the skills assessment)
In England:
National Careers Service - Find a course
Search what's actually running near you before you spend anything.
Free to search; individual courses vary
In England:
Free courses for jobs (Level 3 qualifications)
A free Level 3 qualification you already qualify for beats a paid course you don't need.
Free for eligible adults
In England:
Skills Bootcamps
Free, up to 16 weeks, and you get a job interview at the end. In England these are Skills Bootcamps - search what's running near you.
Free for eligible adults in England
- Skills Bootcamps - what they are and who can do them (DfE, Skills for Careers)
- Skills Bootcamps - JobHelp (DWP)
In Scotland:
My World of Work (Skills Development Scotland)
In Scotland it's My World of Work, from Skills Development Scotland.
Free, publicly funded
- Skills Development Scotland
In Wales:
Careers Wales
In Wales it's Careers Wales.
Free, Welsh Government-funded
In Northern Ireland:
Careers Service Northern Ireland
In Northern Ireland it's the Careers Service on nidirect.
Free, Department for the Economy-funded

No Space for this job, but one for what is happening to it

Nothing Collab365 runs is built for clinical psychologists, and we are not going to point you at the nearest one and call it a fit.

There is one that is not about a job title at all. The AI Authority is about being the person who directs these tools at work rather than the person they get compared to. That is worth saying here, because 16% of the work on this page is already inside what they can do.

Try The AI Authority free →

7 days free, no card needed. Explore up to 2 Spaces before you choose a plan: you pick a plan later, not now.

The AI Authority is a general community about working with AI, not a course for clinical psychologists. You do not need it to act on anything here: the moves above cost nothing and stand on their own. The data on this page is the same either way.

Noted, and thank you. We’ll email you if a Space for clinical psychologists launches. Nothing else.

That did not look like an email address, so nothing was saved. Have another go below.

We could not save that. The fault is ours, not yours, and your address was not stored. Please try again later.

No Space for clinical psychologists yet. Should there be one?

Collab365 Spaces is built by the same people as this site. We find the problems that AI and automation are creating inside one kind of work, then solve them as short courses, briefings and Blueprints. Each Space is the community too, so the research and the people doing your job are in the same place.

What a Space actually is, in full

Collab365 launches new communities where the need is real. If one for clinical psychologists existed, with researched problems, courses and people in the same boat, would you want in?

Your email

We use your email address for one thing: to tell you if a Space for clinical psychologists launches. We never sell it, never use it for unrelated marketing, and every email has a one-click unsubscribe. Our privacy policy has the full version.

This unlocks nothing. Every figure, every row and every step on this page is already yours, whether you fill this in or not.

No deadline on any of this. The page will still be here, and the data is refreshed on a published schedule rather than when someone wants a headline.

Questions people ask about this job

Will AI replace Clinical psychologists?: Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 60 official task statements scored for Clinical psychologists (United Kingdom, SOC 2225), 16% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 32 out of 100 (range 25–38, band: low). That is a statement about tasks, not about headcount: this measures what AI could do, not whether any employer adopts it, whether the law allows it, or whether doing the routine parts faster creates more demand for the human parts. Figures are from release 2026-q4.1.
Which tasks in “Clinical psychologists” can AI already do?: The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Research new topic areas to maintain up-to-date subject knowledge” (83/100, very high); “Write papers describing the results of psychological research” (83/100, very high); “Maintain client-related paperwork” (81/100, very high). Each score comes from five published 0–4 ratings turned into a number by a published formula, and each carries the model's one-sentence reason on the page.
Which tasks in “Clinical psychologists” stay human?: About 70% of this job's task weight sits in work that scores low for AI exposure. The lowest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Act as an expert witness during legal proceedings” (3/100, minimal); “Monitor individuals in various contexts to detect mental deficiency, abnormal behaviour, or maladjustment” (5/100, minimal); “Direct staff and interns in patient assessment” (8/100, minimal). Low scores usually mean the task needs a body in a room, a legally accountable human, or trust built in real time. Those are the three things the scoring rubric treats as gates rather than obstacles.
What should someone working in “Clinical psychologists” do about AI?: Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 16% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 70% is not. The practical move is to spend more of your week on the tasks that score low, the ones above, and to get fluent at directing AI through the tasks that score high, because those are the parts that change whether or not you are ready for them. This page does not predict your job, and nothing here is career advice tailored to you: the score describes the occupation, not the person.
How is the AI exposure score for Clinical psychologists calculated?: Each official task statement for the occupation is rated on five published 0–4 dimensions (output replicability, physical embodiment, licensed accountability, real-time human trust, and data availability) by claude-opus-5 using scoring prompt task_scoring_v1.0. The model never writes the score; a published formula turns the five ratings into a 0–100 number, so every score can be recomputed by hand. The occupation figure is the importance-weighted mean across 60 scored tasks. The prompt, the rubric, the formula and the full dataset are published at https://futureproof.collab365.com/method and https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1 under CC BY 4.0.

Where these numbers come from

About the data on this page

Provisional, because the ONS revises this figure in the autumn.
This headcount comes from a survey, not a census, so treat it as a good estimate rather than an exact count.
The match between this job and its counterpart in the other country is partial, so the two pages count slightly different groups of people.
1 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.

Task statements: gaisi-indexProcessing: catalogue-bridge → ssc-relatedness-weighting → task-scoring → score-aggregation
Task weights: gaisi-index (relatedness)
Scores: Rubric task_scoring_v1.0, model claude-opus-5, computed 2026-08-05.
Pay and employment: ashe-t14 (ASHE 2025 provisional (reference April 2025))nomis-aps (Apr 2025-Mar 2026 (latest APS 12-month period))

Figures on this page come from release 2026-q4.1, published 2026-08-05. Every release keeps its own permanent address, so a figure you cite in March is still there, unchanged, in November.

The plain-English wording on this page is assembled directly from the task statements and the published ratings, not written by hand for this occupation. That is why it is specific, and it is also why we say so.

The routes and free resources further up are today’s, not the release’s (last reviewed 2026-08-05). A route is an offer, not a historical fact, so it moves on its own clock.

How we score a job Download this release Look up another job

Using these figures?

Cite this

Everything on this site is published under CC BY 4.0. Quote it, chart it, sell something built on it. Just say where it came from, and cite the dated release rather than the site, so the figure you quote stays checkable.

Plain text

Collab365 (2026). Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1 (methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0). https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1. Licensed CC BY 4.0. Built with O*NET data (USDOL/ETA, CC BY 4.0); ONS data (Open Government Licence v3.0); GAISI task framework (arXiv:2507.22748, MIT); BLS data (public domain).

BibTeX

@misc{collab365futureproof2026q41,
  title        = {Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1},
  author       = {{Collab365}},
  year         = {2026},
  url          = {https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1},
  note         = {Release 2026-q4.1, methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0, CC BY 4.0}
}

Permalink

https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1

Data as of release 2026-q4.1, published 2026-08-05. Releases never change after publication; when the figures move, a new dated release is published beside this one and this one stays exactly where it is.