I believe that testifying under oath that you are something that you are not is a bit more than "grasping for straws." (It's "grasping at straws," BTW)
According to the article, testifying under oath that you are a psychologist when you are not licensed is akin to testifying that you are a lawyer without having a license to practice law.
Words mean things. To most of us, anyway.
She is not a psychologist. This is perjury.
I don't know that it is an issue, or that it is not.
I could go to school, and on to law school and get my degree in law. Then I could turn around and teach law without ever passing the bar anywhere. Could I not claim to be a lawyer?
Years ago I worked part time in accounting without having any sort of degree. I was doing mostly book keeping. I joked about claiming to be an accountant. The Indiana CPA I was working for said I could claim to be an accountant with my experience, but I could NOT claim to be a CPA as that had legal requirements.
I think this issue is cutting the hair pretty thin. If she has a degree in psychology and teaches psychology, but doesn't practice... If I were a prosecutor I wouldn't go after her for claiming to be a psychologist. However, if she hung out a shingle and started to take clients and claim to be a psychologist without passing the state licensing that would be another issue.
Even if the article is correct I still consider it thin ice.
Regards,
Doug