US dataswitch to UK
Psychologists, All Other
writing or preparing detailed clinical neuropsychological reports, diagnosing and treating conditions involving injury to the central nervous system and consulting with other professionals about patients' neurological conditions. If that's your week, this page is about your job.
The honest answer
AI changes the edges of this job, not the middle: diagnosing and treating conditions involving injury to the central nervous system is work software can't reach.
What shifts is writing or preparing detailed clinical neuropsychological reports: the paper around the work, not the work.
Your week, as this page understands it
All psychologists not listed separately. The job title says “psychologists” or “all other”: officially one job, two names. The real job is the part underneath: diagnosing and treating conditions involving injury to the central nervous system. 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 psychologists, all other is not one task. It is 32 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is diagnosing and treating conditions involving injury to the central nervous system, and the ledger below shows exactly why.
Where the work sits, by task weight
- shifting to AI
- 0%
- changing shape
- 19%
- staying human
- 81%
These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.
Whole-job exposure score 26 out of 100 (20–32 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, across 32 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 psychologists, all other 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.
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.
- 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
0 tasksTasks 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.
Nothing in this job’s scored task list landed in this group. That is the measurement, not an editorial choice, and it is worth knowing either way.
Changing shape
6 tasksTasks 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.
Writing or preparing detailed clinical neuropsychological reports
The software now makes the first pass at detailed clinical neuropsychological 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 5 · CoreSource: “Write or prepare detailed clinical neuropsychological reports, using data from psychological or neuropsychological tests, self-report measures, rating scales, direct observations, or interviews.” (O*NET 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: Writing the report from test scores and notes is drafting software does well, though a licensed psychologist owns the conclusions.
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.
Writing or preparing detailed clinical neuropsychological reports
The software now makes the first pass at detailed clinical neuropsychological 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 5 · CoreSource: “Write or prepare detailed clinical neuropsychological reports, using data from psychological or neuropsychological tests, self-report measures, rating scales, direct observations, or interviews.” (O*NET 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: Writing the report from test scores and notes is drafting software does well, though a licensed psychologist owns the conclusions.
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.
Reading current literature
The software now makes the first pass at current literature, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Read current literature, talk with colleagues, and participate in professional organizations or conferences to keep abreast of developments in neuropsychology.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 53 out of 100 (49–57 allowing for uncertainty): partial 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: Keeping up with published research is reading and summarizing, which software does quickly and thoroughly.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Reading current literature
The software now makes the first pass at current literature, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Read current literature, talk with colleagues, and participate in professional organizations or conferences to keep abreast of developments in neuropsychology.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 53 out of 100 (49–57 allowing for uncertainty): partial 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: Keeping up with published research is reading and summarizing, which software does quickly and thoroughly.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Comparing patients' progress before and after pharmacologic
The software now makes the first pass at patients' progress, 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 4 · CoreSource: “Compare patients' progress before and after pharmacologic, surgical, or behavioral interventions.” (O*NET 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: Comparing test scores before and after treatment is straightforward data work, though a clinician interprets what the change 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 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Staying human
26 tasksTasks 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.
Interviewing patients to obtain comprehensive medical histories
The value here is that a specific person handles patients and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Interview patients to obtain comprehensive medical histories.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 34 out of 100 (27–41 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: Structured history questions work well as an online or spoken intake, though patients often say more to a person.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Conducting neuropsychological evaluations, assessments of intelligence, academic ability, attention, concentration, sensorimotor function, language, learning and memory
This work happens in the physical world: neuropsychological evaluations, assessments of intelligence, academic ability, attention, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Conduct neuropsychological evaluations such as assessments of intelligence, academic ability, attention, concentration, sensorimotor function, language, learning, and memory.” (O*NET 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: the same decision, made over and over; 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: Some testing is already computerized, but sessions are run in person and a licensed psychologist gives and interprets them.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · 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 3/4.
Diagnosing and treating conditions involving injury to the central nervous system
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for conditions involving injury, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Diagnose and treat conditions involving injury to the central nervous system, such as cerebrovascular accidents, neoplasms, infectious or inflammatory diseases, degenerative diseases, head traumas, demyelinating diseases, and various forms of dementing illnesses.” (O*NET 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: Diagnosing and treating brain injury is a licensed clinical act, and treatment itself cannot be delivered by software.
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.
Conducting neuropsychological evaluations, assessments of intelligence, academic ability, attention, concentration, sensorimotor function, language, learning and memory
This work happens in the physical world: neuropsychological evaluations, assessments of intelligence, academic ability, attention, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Conduct neuropsychological evaluations such as assessments of intelligence, academic ability, attention, concentration, sensorimotor function, language, learning, and memory.” (O*NET 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: the same decision, made over and over; 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: Some testing is already computerized, but sessions are run in person and a licensed psychologist gives and interprets them.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · 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 3/4.
Interviewing patients to obtain comprehensive medical histories
The value here is that a specific person handles patients and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Interview patients to obtain comprehensive medical histories.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 34 out of 100 (27–41 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: Structured history questions work well as an online or spoken intake, though patients often say more to a person.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Show the other 22 tasks
Conducting research on neuropsychological disorders
changing shapeThe software now makes the first pass at research, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Conduct research on neuropsychological disorders.” (O*NET 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: Software is strong at literature review and analyzing study data, though designing and running the research needs the researcher.
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.
Participating in educational programs, in-service training or workshops to remain current in methods and techniques
staying humanThe ratings behind this row put educational programs well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Participate in educational programs, in-service training, or workshops to remain current in methods and techniques.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 37 out of 100 (30–44 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: Training courses and workshops can be delivered online, though much of the value comes from attending alongside others.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Participating in educational programs, in-service training or workshops to remain current in methods and techniques
staying humanThe ratings behind this row put educational programs well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Participate in educational programs, in-service training, or workshops to remain current in methods and techniques.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 37 out of 100 (30–44 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: Training courses and workshops can be delivered online, though much of the value comes from attending alongside others.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Consulting with other professionals about patients' neurological conditions
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for other professionals, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Consult with other professionals about patients' neurological conditions.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 30 out of 100 (23–37 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 value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Case discussion between clinicians relies on professional judgment and mutual confidence, though software can prepare the summary.
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 3/4.
Consulting with other professionals about patients' neurological conditions
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for other professionals, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Consult with other professionals about patients' neurological conditions.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 30 out of 100 (23–37 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 value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Case discussion between clinicians relies on professional judgment and mutual confidence, though software can prepare the summary.
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 3/4.
Establishing neurobehavioral baseline measures for monitoring progressive cerebral disease or recovery
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for neurobehavioral baseline measures, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Establish neurobehavioral baseline measures for monitoring progressive cerebral disease or recovery.” (O*NET 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: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Setting baseline measures from standard tests is scoring work software supports, though a clinician decides what counts as baseline.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Distinguishing between psychogenic and neurogenic syndromes
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for psychogenic, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Distinguish between psychogenic and neurogenic syndromes, two or more suspected etiologies of cerebral dysfunction, or between disorders involving complex seizures.” (O*NET 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: Telling apart similar causes of brain dysfunction is reasoning software can support, but the diagnosis is a licensed act.
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.
Establishing neurobehavioral baseline measures for monitoring progressive cerebral disease or recovery
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for neurobehavioral baseline measures, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Establish neurobehavioral baseline measures for monitoring progressive cerebral disease or recovery.” (O*NET 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: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Setting baseline measures from standard tests is scoring work software supports, though a clinician decides what counts as baseline.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Designing or implementing rehabilitation plans for patients with cognitive dysfunction
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for rehabilitation plans, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Design or implement rehabilitation plans for patients with cognitive dysfunction.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 23 out of 100 (16–30 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 value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Rehabilitation plans follow published approaches software can draft, but a clinician tailors and owns the plan.
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 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Designing or implementing rehabilitation plans for patients with cognitive dysfunction
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for rehabilitation plans, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Design or implement rehabilitation plans for patients with cognitive dysfunction.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 23 out of 100 (16–30 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 value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Rehabilitation plans follow published approaches software can draft, but a clinician tailors and owns the plan.
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 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Providing education or counseling to individuals and families
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for education, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Provide education or counseling to individuals and families.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 18 out of 100 (11–25 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Families take in difficult news through someone they trust, even though the explanations themselves can be written out.
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 3/4.
Providing education or counseling to individuals and families
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for education, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Provide education or counseling to individuals and families.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 18 out of 100 (11–25 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Families take in difficult news through someone they trust, even though the explanations themselves can be written out.
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 3/4.
Identifying and communicating risks associated with specific neurological surgical procedures
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for risks, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Identify and communicate risks associated with specific neurological surgical procedures, such as epilepsy surgery.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 17 out of 100 (10–24 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: The risk information can be written out, but a patient facing brain surgery wants it from a clinician they trust.
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 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Diagnosing and treating conditions involving injury to the central nervous system
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for conditions involving injury, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Diagnose and treat conditions involving injury to the central nervous system, such as cerebrovascular accidents, neoplasms, infectious or inflammatory diseases, degenerative diseases, head traumas, demyelinating diseases, and various forms of dementing illnesses.” (O*NET 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: Diagnosing and treating brain injury is a licensed clinical act, and treatment itself cannot be delivered by software.
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.
Diagnosing and treating neural and psychological conditions in medical and surgical populations
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for neural, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Diagnose and treat neural and psychological conditions in medical and surgical populations, such as patients with early dementing illness or chronic pain with a neurological basis.” (O*NET 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: Diagnosing and treating patients on medical and surgical wards is licensed clinical work done at the bedside.
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.
Diagnosing and treating conditions, chemical dependency, alcohol dependency, Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, AIDS) dementia and environmental toxin exposure
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for conditions, chemical dependency, alcohol dependency, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Diagnose and treat conditions such as chemical dependency, alcohol dependency, Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) dementia, and environmental toxin exposure.” (O*NET 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: Diagnosing and treating dependency and toxin-related conditions is licensed clinical work built on a trusting relationship.
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.
Diagnosing and treating pediatric populations
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for pediatric populations, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Diagnose and treat pediatric populations for conditions such as learning disabilities with developmental or organic bases.” (O*NET 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: Diagnosing and treating children with learning disabilities is licensed clinical work built on trust with child and family.
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.
Educating and supervising practicum students
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for practicum students, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Educate and supervise practicum students, psychology interns, or hospital staff.” (O*NET 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: Supervising trainees legally requires a licensed psychologist and depends on a personal working relationship.
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.
Diagnosing and treating pediatric populations
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for pediatric populations, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 5 · CoreSource: “Diagnose and treat pediatric populations for conditions such as learning disabilities with developmental or organic bases.” (O*NET 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: Diagnosing and treating children with learning disabilities is licensed clinical work built on trust with child and family.
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.
Diagnosing and treating psychiatric populations
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for psychiatric populations, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Diagnose and treat psychiatric populations for conditions such as somatoform disorder, dementias, and psychoses.” (O*NET 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: Diagnosing and treating psychiatric conditions is licensed clinical work that depends on a trusting relationship.
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.
Educating and supervising practicum students
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for practicum students, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 4 · CoreSource: “Educate and supervise practicum students, psychology interns, or hospital staff.” (O*NET 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: Supervising trainees legally requires a licensed psychologist and depends on a personal working relationship.
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.
Providing psychotherapy, behavior therapy or other counseling interventions to patients with neurological disorders
staying humanThe rules require a named, qualified person to answer for psychotherapy, behavior therapy or other counseling interventions, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 3 · CoreSource: “Provide psychotherapy, behavior therapy, or other counseling interventions to patients with neurological disorders.” (O*NET task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 6 out of 100 (2–10 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 works through the relationship between patient and therapist, and it is licensed clinical work.
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 4/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
What this job pays, and how many people do it
- Median pay
- $110,840a year, the middle of the range, so half earn more and half earn less.bls-oews, 2025 · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
How we know this
Source: bls-oews
Reference period: May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
Rounding: Shown as published.
- People doing this job
- 18,820in the US, 2025.bls-oews · May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx)
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: detailed clinical neuropsychological reports in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: writing or preparing detailed clinical neuropsychological reports. What it cannot do is be answerable: conditions involving injury needs 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: diagnosing and treating conditions involving injury to the central nervous system is the middle of this job, and the evidence on this page says it stays with a person.
So, given all that: 0% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 19% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 81% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 32 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. Writing or preparing detailed clinical neuropsychological reports 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 detailed clinical neuropsychological reports, 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 conditions involving injury is in scope or not. Nothing to log into, no license 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 writing or preparing detailed clinical neuropsychological reports. 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, use CareerOneStop - Find local training. It is free, it is the Labor Department's own service, 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 US occupations to psychologists, all other (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was neurologists: only about 7% of its durable work is work you already do and the 2.2× pay gap is the market pricing a barrier. And on the numbers you do not need one. This job scores 26/100 here, with only 0% of the task list in the top band, and “conduct neuropsychological evaluations” 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 830 US 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.
Neurologists
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already interview patients to obtain comprehensive medical histories, and their equivalent is to interview patients to obtain information. Across both published task lists that is about 7% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 7% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. The pay gap is the market pricing a barrier: $248,560 against your $110,840 is 2.24× (OEWS May 2025 (both)), and you would be crossing it holding about 7% of their durable work. A gap that size with an overlap that small is a wish, not a route.
Genetic Counselors
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already interview patients to obtain comprehensive medical histories, and their equivalent is to interview patients or review medical records to obtain comprehensive patient or family medical…. Across both published task lists that is about 6% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 6% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. And it is a narrow door: about 3,740 of those jobs against 18,820 of yours (OEWS May 2025), 20% as many seats.
Clinical and Counseling Psychologists
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already provide education or counseling to individuals and families, and their equivalent is to counsel individuals, groups, or families to help them understand problems, deal with crisis…. Across both published task lists that is about 4% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 4% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step.
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: 0% of its task weight, across 32 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 diagnosing and treating conditions involving injury to the central nervous system 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 States figures
The United Kingdom splits this work across more than one official group, of which Other psychologists is the closest. The pay and employment figures are not directly comparable, and we do not average them together.
Switch to the United Kingdom page →partial match
The other groups this work is counted across:
In UK official statistics this job is counted as Other psychologists, Clinical psychologists and Psychotherapists and cognitive behaviour therapists. 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.
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Find local training
Search what's running near you, from the Labor Department's own database, before anyone sells you a course.
Free to search; individual programs vary, and some are funded
Anywhere in the US:
An American Job Center will sit down with you for free. Find yours by ZIP code.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
CareerOneStop - Licensed occupations finder
Check what your state actually requires before you pay for anything.
Free
Anywhere in the US:
Free
Why there is no community here
Collab365, who build this site, run paid Spaces for a small number of subjects, and none of them is built for this job. We are not going to point you at the nearest one and call it a fit.
So the free services listed on this page are the whole answer, and it is the same answer we would give a friend.
Noted, and thank you. We’ll email you if a Space for psychologists / all other 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 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 Psychologists, All Other?
- Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 32 official task statements scored for Psychologists, All Other (United States, SOC 19-3039), 0% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 26 out of 100 (range 20–32, 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 “Psychologists, All Other” can AI already do?
- The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Write or prepare detailed clinical neuropsychological reports, using data from psychological or neuropsychological tests, self-report measures, rating scales…” (56/100, partial); “Compare patients' progress before and after pharmacologic, surgical, or behavioral interventions” (56/100, partial); “Write or prepare detailed clinical neuropsychological reports, using data from psychological or neuropsychological tests, self-report measures, rating scales…” (56/100, partial). 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 “Psychologists, All Other” stay human?
- About 81% 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: “Provide psychotherapy, behavior therapy, or other counseling interventions to patients with neurological disorders” (6/100, minimal); “Educate and supervise practicum students, psychology interns, or hospital staff” (8/100, minimal); “Diagnose and treat psychiatric populations for conditions such as somatoform disorder, dementias, and psychoses” (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 “Psychologists, All Other” do about AI?
- Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 0% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 81% 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 Psychologists, All Other 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 32 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
Worth knowing about these figures
- The match between this job and its counterpart in the other country is partial, so the two pages count slightly different groups of people.
- 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
- onet-dbProcessing: catalogue-bridge → onet-im-rt-weighting → task-scoring → score-aggregation
- Task weights
- onet-db (im-rt)
- Scores
- Rubric task_scoring_v1.0, model claude-opus-5, computed 2026-08-05.
- Pay and employment
- bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))bls-oews (May 2025 estimates (national_M2025_dl.xlsx))
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.
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}
}Data as of release 2026-q4.1, published . 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.