Return to APA Collection Inventory Page
Return to the APA Collection Series III
Image file of document
Text of document:
Division 40 Task Force on Education, Accreditation, and Credentialing
August 13, 1994
Los Angeles Hilton Hotel
Paul L. Craig, Ph.D. (Member); Lloyd I. Cripe, Ph.D. (Member); Bruce Crosson, Ph.D. (Chair); John DeLuca, Ph.D. (Member); Janet R. Mathews, Ph.D. (Member); Richard I. Naugle, Ph.D. (Member); Kenneth R. Perrine, Ph.D. (Member)
David M. Tucker, Ph.D. (Member
1. The meeting was called to order by Dr. Crosson.
2. Dr. Perrine discussed a draft of the clarification on the 2-years of supervised experience criterion in the Definition of a Clinical Neuropsychologist. Considerable discussion occurred regarding the precise wording. After getting this feedback, Dr. Perrine agreed to draft another revision of the clarification.
3. Task Force members discussed clarification of what is meant by a regionally accredited university. Two rather lengthy statements in this regard were handed out to members, a draft by Dr. Cripe and a response by Dr. Crosson. Lengthy discussion ensued. It was decided that a more terse statement would be in order and that a statement should be made supporting the residency requirement for doctoral degrees from a regionally accredited university, such as that contained in the accreditation criteria of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. Dr. Cripe agreed to draft the briefer revision.
4. The need for a mechanism for retooling in Clinical Neuropsychology for established psychologists who could not give up an established practice was discussed. It was agreed that any such mechanism should conform to the spirit of existing criteria of Division 40. Drs. Perrine and DeLuca agreed to draft a proposal.
5. The acceptability of week-end seminar series as a method for learning Clinical Neuropsychology was discussed. It was decided that reaffirmation of existing statements on continuing education would suffice. Dr. Naugle agreed to draft a statement.
6. Additional observers to the Task Force (in addition to NAN and APPCN)
were discussed. It was decided to invite an observer from Division 22.
The possibility of inviting observers from ABCN and ABPN was discussed.
Some felt that an observer from ABCN could not be invited without inviting
an observer from ABPN. However, the point that recognizing ABPN was not
consistent with past actions of the Division was raised. The Chair decided
to table the issue because many members of the Task Force were not present
at the time of this discussion and in order to seek guidance from the President
regarding the Division's policy.
Div. 40 Task Force
Minutes: 8/ 13/94
Page - 2
7. The need to address how third-party payors could identify Clinical Neuropsychologists was discussed. NAN has been extremely interested in this issue. It was decided that we should address this issue with NAN, but keep it separate from the Definition of a Clinical Neuropsychologist. For the work we are doing on the Definition, it was decided that we must keep the future impact on the profession in mind.'
8. Dr. DeLuca noted that the ASPPB had invited us to make a presentation at their next meeting. It was decided that we needed to seek guidance from the Executive Committee on this issue.
9. The need to wrap up work on our original charges at the Seattle INS conference in February 1995 was discussed, and it was noted that this would take an all day meeting.
10. The meeting was adjourned.
In subsequent discussion with the President of Division 40, Dr. Dodrill,
he requested that the Task Force take up no new issues, including the issue
of third-party payor identification of Clinical Neuropsychologists, so
that completion of work on the original charges by August 1995 could be
(End of text)