Return to APA Collection Inventory Page
Return to the APA Collection Series II
Text of Printed Item:
Division of Clinical Neuropsychology
Newsletter 40
American Psychological Association
Volume 14, Number 1 Winter/Spring 1996
DIVISION 40 OFFICERS AND COMMITTEE CHAIRS
AUGUST 1995 - AUGUST 1996
PRESIDENT -KENNETH M. ADAMS, PhD PRESIDENT-ELECT -EILEEN B. FENNELL,
PhD PAST-PRESIDENT - CARL B. DODRILL, PhD SECRETARY - ANN C. MARCO'ITE,
PhD TREASURER -WILDRED G. VAN GORP, PhD MEMBERS-AT-LARGE:
THOMAS A. MANNEKE, PhD.
JILL S. FlSCHER PhD
KERRY HAMSHER, PhD
COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVES
GERALD GOLDSTEIN, PhD
ANTONIO PUENTE, PhD
THOMAS J. BOLL, PhD COMMIITEE CHAIRS (STANDING COMMITTEES)
FELLOWS - STAN BERENT, PhD
MEMBERSHIP - WILLIAM B. MENEESE, PhD ELECTIONS - CARL B. DODRILL, PhD
PROGRAM -
MAX R. TRENERRY, PhD
KEITH YEATES, PhD
COMMITTEE HEADS (AD HOC COMMITTEESQ'ASK FORCES
SCIENCE ADVISORY -ANN C. MARCO'ITE, PhD EDUCATION ADVISORY - BRUCE
CROSSON, PhD PRACTICE ADVISORY -JOSEPH D. EUBANKS, PhD
PUBLIC INTEREST ADVISORY -ROBERTA WHITE, PhD
PLANNING - MANFRED MEIER, PhD
TASK FORCE - BRUCE CROSSON, PhD
ETHICS - BRUCE BECKER, PhD
MINORITY AFFAIRS - TONY L. STRICKLAND, PhD
NEWSLETTER - JOHN DE LUCA, PhD PROFESSIONAL AFFAIRS -JOSEPH D. EUBANKS,
PhD
TRAINING PROGRAMS DATA BANK LLOYD CRIPE, PhD
HECAEN AWARD -KERRY HAMSHER, PhD BENTON, LEVI'IT AWARDS - IDA SUE BARON,
PhD
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS - ROBERT HEILBRONNER, PhD
CPT CODE - ANTONIO PUENTE, PhD
From The Editor
I am pleased and honored to have been selected to
be the new Editor for the Division 40 Newsletter. It is an important position
which I take very seriously. I have asked Dr. Joel Morgan to serve as an
Associate Editor. On behalf of the membership, I would like to thank Dr.
Roberta White, who has done an outstanding job as Editor. Her diligence,
expertise, and foresight have made our newsletter one of the best in APA.
The following are some of my ideas for modifying an already excellent publication.
The newsletter serves as the primary means of communication
between the Division and its members. Thus, regular features such as the
President's Message”,information regarding the APA convention, committee
minutes, listing of new members, and articles on issues regarding the field
(e.g.,Nondoctoral Technicians”) have formed the backbone of the newsletter.
While this information is important and informative, it in essence is unidirectional.
That is, it is information from the Division & the members. One of
my major goals as Editor will be to provide a forum for increasing communication
from members to the Division.
In order to achieve this objective, I will be piloting”
several columns where members can contribute to the newsletter. These include
the following: 1) Clinical Corner: a brief column in which issues
of immediate clinical relevance can be discussed. The hope here would be
to foster a sense of intercommunication among the membership, perhaps by
serving as a starting point for informal communications directly between
members who may share the same ideas (or may disagree), but who would not
otherwise interact. 2) Research Lyceum: As with the Clinical Corner”,
this column would discuss issues related to research. These may include
calls for collaboration, discussion of recent findings, test development,
a discussion of a recent article from a related discipline, or a discussion
of one's own research. 3) "From the Membership”: Such a column would
be for the membership to discuss any issue of importance to our Division.
Perhaps the members could discuss critical or opposing views of what is
occurring with the Division leadership. I see this as healthy for our Division.
Our newsletter is primarily "forward-thinking” in
its presentation, and I think this is the primary purpose of any newsletter.
However, ours is a rich field, one which has been nurtured by an important
interdisciplinary developmental focus. Thus, I am planning a column documenting
the history of the field of Neuropsychology, to preserve and promote our
history. Perhaps it could include interviews with forefathers of our field
(The first will be a discussion
Continued on page 10
In This Issue
From The Editor 1
Presidents Message 2
CRSPP 5
Exec. Cmte. Mtg. Mnts. 6
Annual Bux. Mtg. 8
Announcements 9
Dues Increase 9
Training 10
Election 12
[Page 2]
President's Message
"May You Live in Interesting Times”
Chinese Proverb
It is a pleasure to be able to write to you to report such tremendous hard work going on within the Committees of the Division and as well with our elected representatives in the APA governance structure. I believe that our collective bridge-building and the individual efforts of colleagues have resulted in a better and better relationship and acceptance of clinical neuropsychology as a stakeholder” in many APA realms. Your individual support has made a material difference as well, and having three APA Council of Representative seats and the sixth largest aggregate divisional membership are serious symptoms of a constituency whose ideas and work merit consideration in APA business. Thanks for your continued support that makes a difference for all of us.
Much as I would like to restrict your attention to these signs of progress, I felt obliged in this message to relate to you some of the concerns that I have been hearing from many of you about trends in individual and institutional life for neuropsychologists. Communications have taken the form of letters (Ken Adams, Ph.D, Psychology-l 16B, VA Medical Center, Ann Arbor, MI, 48105-2300), telephone calls (3 13-936-8314), e-mail (kmadams@umich.edu), and in some cases even fax messages (313-761-7197) about urgent crises -or at least severe storm warnings. I have tried to respond promptly to all.
While local conditions or concerns vary, I must tell you that the aggregate picture of career life for neuropsychologists is not a rosy one. This seems more true for those in institutions at this point, because it seems that independent practitioners have traditionally had a harder row to hoe and have been significantly more adaptive in their responses to major changes of the kind that are now seemingly non-stop. It is also true that neuropsychologists have basked in the positive regard that they have earned as the profile of contributions we have,made has grown greatly over the last 30 years. To the degree that this pride in our methods and results is appropriate, the contribution to our collective self-esteem is good. However, I fear that it has also left us sometimes smug and thus vulnerable to the forces of change that are definitely not interested in our self-perception, whether accurate or not.
The changes and scenarios that I have heard about do vary, but assume some regular forms. Please let me share with you an aggregate set of questions that colleagues are being asked in roughly ascending order of ominousness; along with some thoughts about the questions. I would offer this as a "top ten” list, but there are only nine here and this is no laughing matter at the heart of it:
Question 1: Why are we paying you?
This is actually a fair question for both independent practitioners and those on institutional salary. The answer traditionally has taken the form of logical or rational statements of work and activities that can be verified and usually satisfy payors or most administrators.
Yet the change from fee-for-service models to more in the way of managed care has changed the valence of the traditionally rational responses to this question. In the old health world order” the main problem in justification of effort rested in the explanation of activity levels in terms of numbers of patients seen” Most neuropsychologists generally do not have six-packs of waiting rooms filled with half-naked people waiting for 15 minute appointments and trying not to crinkle the tissue paper covering the exam table. This is a revelation that takes some time for some administrative types to fathom. Explaining further, it has usually been possible to accurately characterize a neuropsychological exam as a study” which may take some hours, but would yield very valuable results.
All of this has changed during the growth of managed care, and activity no longer is good, but evil. Promising to increase”activity is the last thing that a cupitation-meister wants to hear. In fact, neuropsychological assessment is increasingly viewed as a premium product line”. This is a compliment, but also the proverbial kiss of death. While not in the league of a bone marrow transplant just yet, we are now coming to be regarded as a service to be rationed and dispensed only when necessarv” ( necessary
[Page 3]
being, of course, the devil in the details word).
We must start both locally and collectively to explain to insured patients and fellow providers in health care the importance of what we can bring to the lives of patients. We have not done this well, and it goes against the self-modesty grain of many if not most. This means that we need a major new focus that will sound like marketing to some. However, the alternative is to be characterized as a too expensive and unnecessary service commodity that few patients merit.
Question 2: How come [insert name here such as: Chapter 11 University Hospital, or Community Osteopathic Hospital, or Our Lady of the Precious Blood Sample Medical Center, or Sid Vicious State Psychiatric Hospital, etc.] has no neuropsychologists?
The best continuations of this question usually involve the asker amazing themselves by realizing that not only do these facilities have no neuropsychologists, but actually no regular and credible mental health/behavioral science services at all; save for the occasional haloperidol-poking appearance of a consultant whose lack of behavioral science skills can be more or less traced directly to their bilging out completely on the third line of the WRAT3 Reading Subtest (Tan or Blue, no matter).
Centers that purport to provide any more than basic health services need to have the personnel and tools to provide such services. Where there is sufficient need to address brain dysfunction, disease, or injury, there is sufficient rationale to configure those services in an intelligent way. It is also usually the case that the asker of this Question 2 is not unaware of the difference between a community-based, open panel hospital and a secondary or tertiary level facility. When the asker's mother has a stroke, there is no way that she will be admitted to any of the facilities captioned above. In fact, you can count on seeing her and should use the exercise as a marketing opportunity.
This present question is one that most neuropsychologists should be able to answer without much trouble; and I actually find it interesting that some neuropsychologists have now set up practices in smaller or primary level facilities where they are providing a variety of services, including capable neuropsychological assessment and treatment. The reception for neuropsychologists who are adaptive has been remarkable.
Question 3: What is it you do all day?
This is similar to question one, except that it involves a more fine-grained description of what neuropsychologists accomplish in their working days. This also innocently (or not so innocently) usually follows on from some discussion about technicians, interns, or others who are engaged in doing test protocols or batteries. The null hypothesis departure point for the asker is a naive or pseudo-naive view that the neuropsychologist is watching cartoons, doing multiple sleep latency trials, or some other vile activity such as unfunded research (these last words are usually uttered gutturally with a sneer).
Again, it is importantto educate such questioners and to even ask them to join you for a typical day to shadow” you as you do your work. This is an important test, since a manager or administrative type interested sincerely in the answer to the question will probably be pleased to do so. A decline to the invitation and a suggestion that some operations analysis” may be undertaken will be the tip-off to a much less positive set of developments on the horizon. Internal operations analysis” groups are liberally stocked with business bottom-dwellers who are so inept as to make their only useful function to be hatchet persons. Their appearance in your clinic would be best met with small arms fire, if only in your fantasies.
A harder offer to refuse is the appointment of a consultant” who - if they are not a neuropsychologist in our field you recognize and is sincerely retained to help - will be a non-entity who will say exactly what they are told to say. I have heard about some colleagues who have even hired their own outside consultants to counter or at least balance hired guns.Provided that you are not actually addicted to Nickelodeon during the day, a rational answering of this question should trouble no capable neuropsychologist.
Question 4: Do you serve my priorities? or What have you done for me lately?
This question has come up most often in medical settings where the view of the proper role of the neuropsychologist is to make a medical person or group successful in research if not famous. This is easiest to address for those relating to neurology, neurosurgery, or PM&R groups. It is hardest to address for those relating to Psychiatry groups.
Every person needs to work out what roles they wish to play in their career, and there are those who
[Page 4]
are more or less suited to play in the shade of the medical umbrella. When this question is asked, it is high time to face the question squarely and honestly; since someone is not meeting someone else's expectations.
Question 5: What value do you add here?
This is an extremely important question and one that might lead a neuropsychologist to assess just what contribution he or she makes to the patient and/or the institution. This question is at the midpoint of the nine I have heard, and the neuropsychologists who attacks the answer with an open mind and creativity will change themselves and produce solutions that will make the answer to Question 9 (no, don't look now) easy, automatic, and satisfactory. I would advise colleagues not to blow this one off as so much more business-speak. The degree to which you have value will depend upon the appraisal of your work. Your constituents are your colleagues and patients. Only they can confer value in this context.
Question 6: Can we replace you with (insert here a B.A. - level Cognitive Therapist”, a nurse with a SCL-90 checklist and a Trail-Making Test, a computer-based screening measure, etc).
These is obviously a question aimed at trading down for an acceptable” loss in quality. To the degree that the neuropsychologist has been working hard on the previous question, these options can be rationally examined and found to be not acceptable in terms of the patient care satisfaction, results, and outcome. However, the appearance of such questioning suggests that money may be in much shorter supply than is being discussed openly, or that the political stock of the neuropsychologist may be overvalued and due for a nasty deflation.
Question 7: Why should we retain you when anyone who calls themselves a psychologist will do?
This question follows from Question 6, and reflects the pervasivedumbing down” of clinical neuropsychology. There simply are too many neuropsychologists either trained or in the pipeline at this point, given the marketplace. This crunch is at its worst for the many well-trained students seeking to secure academic or quasi-academic positions. Most trained fellows are now finding clinical employment, but it is often a near thing, and not the placement they might have sought at the outset of their job search.
It is perplexing then to see the start of a proliferation of programs purporting to train neuropsychologists without anv of the essential infrastructure essential to do it. Our division has worked long and hard to articulate guidelines for training of neuropsychologists; these should be refined and followed. Gratuitous paper training credentials, bogus board certifications, and pusillanimous acceptance of equivalent” preparation based upon politically correct ruses are warnings that we might self-destruct. We are a specialty that requires high-level, and rigorous academic preparation. If mediocrity arising from false egalitarianism becomes the order of the day, the quick answer to Question 6 is surely going to be yes.
Question 8: Can we renegotiate your contract?
None of the assumptions that have generally structured the health care/science business seems immune to questioning today, and the idea that everything is at risk” is at work in even the most traditionally stable of institutions. Some of the instability is deliberately induced without any consideration of the consequences. In other cases, the reality of radically shifting economic circumstances make what seemed like extreme measures prudent. When this question arises, it make sense to sit down and reflect on what is essential, what is beneficial (but not essential), and what is nice but not at all essential.
Some colleagues have informed me that their employment settings have become places in which the sense of anxiety about who is next' has replaced all semblance of morale. Fear rules in these settings, but fear is a poor long term motivator. If it is possible to make a different contract or arrangement, it is better to be the proposer rather than the party reacting to a proposal. I have heard of some arrangements for renegotiation that have had happy endings for now.
However, I have also heard of scenarios in which
the entire infrastructure for practice, education, or research is being
demolished piecemeal. Clinicians are being reassigned involuntarily to
do substandard care or even tasks outside their training. Education programs
are being dismantled as being non-essential, even when it is clear that
the economic assumptions of the training program add up to a net benefit
to an institution, and research funding continues to implode along with
pressures to reduce investigator autonomy.
Continued on page 10
[Page 5}
CRSPP: Commission for the Recognition of Specialties and Proficiencies in Psychology
Thomas J. Boll, PhD, Professor of Psychology, Pediatrics and Neurological Surgery; Director, Comprehensive Head Injury Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham; Department of Surgery, Section of Neuropsychology
It was not until 1994 that the APA produced a mechanism for the establishment of Specialties and Proficiencies. Many members believed that such a formal process existed prior to that, but that is simply not the case. Accreditations, Board Certifications, and third-party reimbursers led many of us to believe that Clinical, Counseling and School psychologists had such Specialty status, and that non-clinically trained individuals did not. Again, that was a figment of our imagination.
Starting in the 1980's the Subcommittee on Specialization (SOS) worked diligently to accomplish the task, Pat Bricklin, Judy Hall, Bruce Sales, Bruce Bennett, and Frank Farley (then President of the APA) worked to develop a commission that has developed rules and regulations which have been passed by the Council of Representatives. The Commission, composed of eight APA members and one public member, is charged with the recognition of specialties and their continuing recognition. Extensive conceptual guides are provided to potential applicant organizations for specialty status. Once the field is recognized for specialty status, it must meet certain additional criteria to be maintained. If not, it will be de-certified” and essentially cease to exist as a specialty. Long-standing specialties” of Clinical, Counseling, School, and Industrial/Organizational were recognized as part of the overall development of the Commission. Additional specialties may now be created through an application process. An application from the field of Neuropsychology has been submitted, and will be considered at the first formal meeting. It may be one of the first new specialties to be declared by the Commission. The process, though cumbersome and legalistic, provides for any organization or multiple organizations to submit application for specialization, and such is the case with Neuropsychology, where at least two oganizations have put forth parallel applications. This is not deemed inappropriate or conflictual. The applications are then available for public commentary, and the organization making application may comment on the first set of public comments, and so on until a discussion has been had, Once the processhas been completed, the Commission will take up the application and the comments and consider the application. If the application meets the conceptual requirements, it will make a recommendation to the Council of Representatives that the field be declared a new specialty. If the Council of Representatives confirms that recommendation, then the specialty will have been created and will exist for a period of seven years under certain monitors. It will be renewed every seven years thereafter, if it continues to meet the criteria. If the Commission feels the application is insufficient, then that recommendation is taken to the Council. If at any time the Commission feels that a specialty has ceased to exist, then that is recoended to Council also.
With regard to proficiencies, the circumstances are the same. Any group can put forth a proficiency. Criteria must be met which will determine whether or not the proficiency will be recognized. These applications are also made public; they can come from multiple organizations and are available for public critique. When that critique period has passed, the Commission will make a recommendation and submit that recommendation to Council in an analogous fashion to specialties. Importantly, an area cannot be simultaneously recommended as both a specialty and a proficiency.
The purposes of recognizing specialties and proficienciesare somewhat different. With specialties, we are dealing with large areas of psychology which have a recognized existence in various academic training and professional practice settings. The field of Neuropsychology has doctoral training programs, internships, and post-doctoral fellowships. It has a substantial scientific knowedge base and numerous publications, and applied practice. This must all be documented in a way to suggest that it is not identical with some other field of professional endeavor.
With proficiencies, the area of concern is much more
focused. One proficiency has already been recognized by the Council of
Representatives: Alcohol and Substance Abuse. Having proficiencies provides
an opportunity for such bodies as the National College to provide credentialing,
while APA's Continuing Education program may develop formal curricula for
the training of psychologists potentially leading to proficiency credentials.
Such activities will help to remove barriers confronting psychologists
by formally recognizing professional
Continued on page 11
[Page 6]
Division 40 Executive Committee Meeting Minutes
August 11,1995, New York Hilton and Towers
Present: Adams, Baron, Becker, Crosson, Deluca, Dodrill Eubanks, Fennel], Fischer, Goldstein, Hammeke, Hamsher, Heaton, Heilbronner, Marcotte, McSweeny, Meneese, Puente, Strickland, Trenerry, Van Gorp, Yeates. Absent: Cripe, Meier, Prigitano, White.
1. The meeting was called to order by Dr. Dodrill at 3:02.
2. Minutes of the February 8, 1995, Executive Committee (EC) meeting were reviewed. An error in the Treasurer's Report section was noted: Division cash assets were $37,563.85, and not $31563.85 as indicated. Dr. Jill Fischer's last name was also misspelled. Corrections were noted, and the revised minutes were approved.
3. Treasurer's Report: Dr. Van Gorp announced that dues received to date as reported by APA total $30,672.00. Our Division account, including dues and monies carried forward and interest total $43,554.98. We continue to have funds invested in a CD valued currently at $31,992.94. Division expenses to date total $33,843.10, with this year's operating budget set at $34,900.00. As reviewed at the February, 1995 EC Meeting, costs have increased significantly for postage, and membership has also risen. We also send out more mailings to members this year, including a postcard reminder to vote (resulting in the Division'obtaining a 3rd Council seat) as well, as statements from candidates running for Division offices. The EC returned to the discussion of a dues increase first raised at the 1995 Winter meeting. Division dues of $7.00 have not been increased since 1984. Dr. Van Gorp reported on the proposed budgets for all committees and officers requested at the February EC meeting. Budgets were reviewed by Drs. Van Gorp, Adams and Dodrill. They in turn proposed budgets for the Division for 1995-1996, 1996-1997, and 1997-1998, which were reviewed by the EC. These proposed budgets would mandate a raise of Division dues. A discussion ensued about the pros and cons of raising dues. A motion to increase dues to $20.00 for 1996 was passed, with guidelines pertaining to travel expenses to be developed and implemented.
4. Council Repesentatives' Report: Drs. Goldstein and Puente reported that the psychopharmacology project has been approved. Accreditation issues have also been revised; programs can only be accredited by APA if they are at least three years long and have one year of in-house residency, except for unusual individual cases”. Divisions also need to be careful in preparing guidelines, policies, etc that may have an impact on other Divisions and/or APA. Divisions are requested to have all such documents reviewed by APA. Council may additionally have to approve of any further Divisional statements and guidelines.
5. Newsletter: Dr. White sent a written report indicating that the Newsletter was mailed to members in July, 1995. The EC extended its sincere thanks to Dr. White for her invaluable contributions to the Division as Newsletter Editor for many years, and as Treasurer for two terms. A plaque honoring her contributions will be presented at the Business meeting. Dr. Dodrill then introduced Dr. John DeLuca, who is taking over as Editor of the Newsletter. He welcomes new ideas from the members.
6. Membership: Dr. Meneese submitted the names of 447 applicants for Division membership, including 2 19 members, 8 Associate members, and 220 student members. A motion to grant all applicants membership status was made and approved. As of August 4, 1995, Division 40 has 3,809 members (not including students). With the new members, the Division membership is 4,036.
7. Elections: Dr. Heaton reported that Dr. Eileen Fennel1 has been elected as President for 1996-1997, and will serve as President-Elect in 1995-1996. Dr. Kerry Hamsher was elected to a three-year term as EC Member at Large. Dr. Gerry Goldstein was re-elected as Council Representative. Dr. Tom Boll was elected as the Division's third Council representative.
8. Fellows: Dr. Berent has been appointed to Chair this committee. He reported that a new Division 40 Fellow was approved and is Dr. John McSweeny. He encourages all members to nominate individuals as Fellows, and self-nominations are also welcomed. The Division 40 Newsletter will provide information in an upcoming edition to members about requirements for Fellow status.
9. Program: Dr. Trenerry reported that the term of Program Chair has been reduced from three to two years. The first year of term will be served as mentoring year, with the title Assistant Program Chair. Dr. Keith Yeates has been selected to serve in this capacity for the 1996 convention. We will again be having a joint social hour with Division 22 on Sunday, with generous underwriting provided by the Psychological Corporation and Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc, and the Rusk Institute of NYC.
AD-HOC COMMITTEES:
10. Ethics: Dr. McSweeny reported this committee met in February and August, 1995. An new column, The Ethical Neuropsychologist” has begun to appear in The Clinical Neuropsychologist. Submissions from Division 40 members are encouraged. The issue of third-party observers during evaluations continues to be discussed; a request for an advisory opinion has been made to APA. Dr. McSweeny has resigned as Chair of this committee effective 8/l 3/95. The EC thanked him for his work. Dr. Bruce Becker is now serving as committee Chair.
[Page 7]
11. Science Advisorv Committee: Dr. Marcotte reported that the committee has been formed,and is comprised of ten members, many of whom are new to Division 40 activities. The committee reviewed the goals outlined by the Planning Committee Report. Ways to increase participation of more science-oriented”neuropsychologists in Div. 40 events, especially the Annual Convention were discussed. The Committee also recognized changing APA's perception of Division 40 as not only a practice-oriented but also science-oriented division are needed. The next meeting will take place at the NAN meeting.
12. Education Advisory Committee: Dr. Crosson reported that thE committee is still under development, and has not yet formally met. A meeting will tentatively take place during INS.
13. Practice Advisorv Committee/Professional Affairs: Dr. Eubanks reported that the committee is organized into four subcommittees, each with 5 members. They will also formally meet at INS.
14. Public Interest Committee: Dr. White submitted a brief written report. This group is working on a pamphlet on neuropsychological practice for distribution to relevant groups and agencies.
15. Task Force on Training Accreditation, Credentialing: Dr. Crosson prepared a lengthy written report of the Task Force which was distributed to all EC members for review prior to the meeting. A lengthy review of several defining features of the drafted definition of a clinical neuropsychologist proposed by the Task Force ensued. Most discussion centered on the exclusion in the proposed definition of mention of a specific credentialing board, although the proposed definition mentioned the boarding agency should be dedicated to the guidelines of Division 40. After lengthy discussion, a motion was made to accept the proposed definition as written by the Task Force as a working document, with a statement to be added to specify that the ABCN/ABPP Board certification does meet these guidelines. The motion was approved by the voting members of the EC. Drs. Heaton and Crosson will revise the definition to include such a statement. A motion was then made that a Division 40 subcommittee be formed to liaison with members of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists, to review the Task Force document and the revised definition, and to produce a final version of the definition. The motion was unanimously approved, and Dr. Adams will be in charge of forming this subcommittee. Dr. Crosson suggested that the Task Force report be published for the membership to carefully read and review. The issue of respecialization touched upon in the Task Force report will be taken up by the newly formed Education Advisory committee, also to be chaired by Dr. Crosson. The EC expressed its sincere thanks to Dr. Crosson for the time he has devoted to this project and for his leadership of the Task Force.
16. Program Listings: Dr. Cripe was unable to attend the EC meeting but submitted the following information in written report. The 1995 listing of Training Programs will be appearing in the next edition of The Clinical Neuropsvchologist. This listing is also now posted on the World Wide Web. The WWW address is with the Medical College of Georgia pages at http://www.neuro.mcg.edu. Dr. David Loring is the coordinator of this project.
17. CPT Code Task Force: Dr. Puente updated the EC on the movement to include rehabilitation services in CPT codes. APA's survey on test usage has been completed, and the data are being analyzed. Dr. Puente also reported on interest in NAN and the Practice Directorate of APA to educate insurance companies about neuropsychological procedures; the EC also expressed interest in participation in such efforts.
18. Minority Affairs: Dr. Strickland reported that three subcommittees are continuing efforts related to minority issues in neuropsychological practice. One subcommittee is continuing to work on a publication reviewing neuropsychological test usage with minority populations.
19. International Affairs: Dr. Heilbronner reported that at the INS meeting, he met with members interested in serving on this committee. This group also planned activities for the committee to pursue, as well as to liaison with other international affairs committees from other organizations. Dr. Heilbronner also represented Division 40 at the CIRP meeting in March, 1995.
20. Specialty Recognition: Dr. Dodrill reported for Dr. Meier who could not attend the meeting. A formal application seeking specialty recognition for neuropsychology has been filed by the Division to APA. ABPN also filed for specialty and proficiency status for neuropsychology with APA.
21. ASHA: There was no report from this committee.
22. Awards: Dr. Baron reported that this year's Levitt award was received by Dr. Max Trennery. Dr. Lou Costa was the recipient of the Benton Lectureship Award. Announcements for the 1996 awards will be included in the Division 40 Fall mailing.
23. Hecaen Award: Dr. Hamsher reported that a recommendation for this year's Hecaen award recipient has been made by the committee to APF; he awaits word as to the approval by APF of the committee's nominee. [Note: On August 22, 1995, Dr. Hamsher was informed that this year's recipient of the Hecaen award is Scott J. Hunter, M.A.] Continued on page 11
[Page 8]
Annual Business Meeting Division 40 - Division of Clinical Neuropsychology August 13,1995 New York Hilton Hotel and Towers
1. The Business Meeting of Division 40 was called to order by President Carl Dodrill at 4:05. Division members were asked to review the minutes of the 1994 Business meeting in the Winter 1995 Edition of the Division 40 Newsletter.
2. Treasurer's Report: Dr. Wilfred Van Gorp reviewed the Division's financial status. With dues collected as well as carryover monies, the Division currently has $43,555 in funds available. The Division also has in reserve a CD valued at $31,993. 1995 expenses to date are $33,843, however the entire annual budget was approved at $34,900. Reasons for higher expenses this year were reviewed, and included more mailings to members (with increases in both postage and the number of members receiving mailings), as well as new committee work. Division dues have not been increased since 1984. The Executive Committee (EC) requested that all committees and officers prepare three-year budgets, which were reviewed. A new three-year budget for the Division was developed by Drs. Van Gorp, Adams and Dodrill. Data was also collected regarding the dues of other divisions. Mean dues of other practice-oriented divisions without journals is between $25-$30. This information was all presented on August 11, 1995, to the EC. The EC voted to increase dues to $20.00. Student fees will not be effected. Dr. Van Gorp and other EC members answered questions from the membership. Dr. Van Gorp will prepare a summary explaining the dues increase to be included in the upcoming Newsletter.
3. Elections: Dr. Heaton reported on the results of the recent Division 40 election. Dr. Eileen Fennel1 was elected President Elect for 1995-1996, and will serve as President of the Division in 1996-1997. Dr. Gerry Goldstein was re-elected to a three year term as Council Representative. Dr. Tom Boll also was elected to the Division's third Council Representative seat. Dr. Kerry Hamsher was elected to a three-year term as Member at Large of the EC.
4. Council Representatives' Report: Drs. Goldstein and Puente reported on Council activities. They reported that accreditation of graduate training programs will require at least three years of training, with at least one year in residence”. The Practice Directorate is also about to begin a public relations media campaign promoting the practice of psychology. An application seeking specialty recognition for neuropsychology has been filed with APA. They also noted that the newly elected President of APA is a member of Division 40.
5. Fellows: Dr. Berent was introduced as the new Chair of the Fellows Committee for the Division. He reported that the guidelines for Fellow status in APA will be published for Division members to review in an upcoming Newsletter. He encouraged all members to nominate colleagues for fellow status, and self-nominations are also welcomed. Dr. Berent also announced that Dr. John McSweeny has been elected as a fellow in Division 40.
6. Program: Dr. Trennery reported that 185 submissions were received this year, and there was an acceptance rate of 77% for presentation at the convention. Division 40 has also actively participated in this year's Science Weekend. He reminded members that the Social Hour following the Business meeting has been generously underwritten by The Psychological Corporation and Psychological Resources, Inc. The Rusk Institute in NYC has also contributed to this event. Dr. Trenerry encouraged members to begin preparing submissions for next year's convention. The Call for Papers will appear in next month's APA Monitor. He also announced that Dr. Keith Yeates will serve as Assistant Program Chair next year. Any member interested in working on this committee was encouraged to send his/her vita to Dr. Trenerry.
7. Announcements: Dr. Dodrill thanked Dr. George Prigitano whose term as member at large on the EC ends with this meeting. He also thanked Dr. John McSweeny for his efforts as Chair of the Ethics Committee. Dr. Bruce Becker will now serve as Chair of this Committee. He also announced that Dr. Roberta White has resigned as Newsletter Editor after serving in this capacity for many years. Dr. John Deluca has been selected as the new Editor. A plaque was presented to Dr. White thanking her for her many contributions to the Division. Dr. Dodrill also thanked Dr. Bruce Crosson, who has served as Chair of the Task Force on Training, Accreditation and Credentialing. The Task Force has prepared a final report which was reviewed by the EC. It is a working document, and contains a new definition of a clinical neuropsychologist. A subcommittee will be formed to continue to work on this document and to liaison with NAN. Dr. Dodrill also reported that Dr. Nelson Butters has asked to continue as Editor of Neuropsychology for 1996. Dr. Laird Cermak will assume Editorship after that time.
8. Awards: Dr. Ida Sue Baron presented Dr. Trenerry with a certificate and check as this year's winner of the Levitt Award. Dr. Lou Costa was also recognized as this year's Benton Lectureship Recipient. Dr. Dodrill also announced that Dr. Puente was one of the 1995 Karl F. Heiser Award winners, which recognizes psychologists who have made distinguished contributions to advocacy efforts on behalf of psychology.
9. Ethics: Dr. McSweeny reported that a new column, The Ethical Neuropsychologist” has begun to appear in The Clinical Neuropsychologist. The committee has also sought an advisory statement form APA regarding third party observers during neuropsychological assessments.
10. Dr. Ken Adams presented Dr. Dodrill with a plaque, and on behalf of the Division 40 membership, thanked him for his tireless efforts this year as Division President.
11. There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:50.
Respectfully Submitted,
Ann C. Marcotte, Ph.D.
Secretary, Division 40
[Page 9]
Announcement
As stated by APA, becoming an APA Fellow recognizes evidence of unusual and outstanding contribution in the field of psychology and is an honor valued by the APA membership. We in Division 40 view Fellowship as an honor for the individual as well as for the Division, and we welcome nomination of outstanding members for this distinction.
In nominating a Division 40 member for Fellowship, you are required to complete and submit a Uniform Fellow Blank” along with supporting material (e.g., a current vita, listing the nominee's publications and indicating R” for refereed). A minimum of three (3) endorsement blanks written within the calendar year of nomination should be completed by individuals who are current APA Fellows. Nomination of an existing Fellow is also encouraged. If the nominee is being supported by another division, supporting documentation from that division should also be submitted, clearly indicating the name of that division and contact person. Optional, but recommended, material includes a nominee's self-statement setting forth the accomplishments that warrant nomination to Fellow status. Nomination materials can be obtained from the office of the Division 40 Fellowship Committee Chair.
All nomination materials should be completed and submitted to the Division's Fellowship Committee Chair (not APA Central Office) by December 15 of each year. This will allow time for the Division Committee to review all materials, make its decision, and forward its nominations to the APA Membership Committee for its February 15 deadline. Successful nominations are announced in August following the APA annual meeting.
The Chair of the Division's Fellowship Committee is:
Stan Berent, PhD
Professor and Chief of Psychology
Director, Neuropsychology Division
University of Michigan Hospitals (0840)
Ann Arbor, MI 48 109-0849
Phone: 313 763-9259
Fax: 313-936-9262
e-mail: sberent@umich.edu
Division 40 Dues Increase
The Executive Committee has voted to increase members' dues from $9.00 to $20.00. This decision came after many hours of careful review and deliberation by the elected officers and the members of the Executive Committee. In arriving at its decision the Executive Committee completed the following steps:
1) At the request of the Executive Committee, the Treasurer surveyed the dues of all Divisions of the APA, especially the practice divisions. The mean, median, and modal dues assessment for all practice divisions was $35.00, $28.00, and $25.00. Even when correcting for the journal assessment” for divisions with journals, the mean, median and mode did not differ significantly. Our Division was among the lowest of all practice divisions. The current range for dues of practice divisions charging dues is $20.00 to $70.00;
2) A review of Division 40 expenses over the past few years indicates a sharp rise in Newsletter statement setting forth the accomplishments that expenses, especially postage. This has resulted in warrant nomination to Fellow status.Nominationthe situation that before the dues increase, our annual materials can be obtained from the office of the expenses were greater than our dues revenues;
3) The Executive Committee established four focus areas (Professional Affairs, Education, Science, and Chair (not APA Central Office) by December 15 of Public Interest) but thus far had no funds allocated to each year. This will allow time for the Division these areas in the budget. Funds must be allocated in order for these groups to be effective;
4) The President requested that each officer and committee chair submit a budget for his/her area, and these were reviewed by the President, President-elect and Treasurer. In many instances, budgets were adjusted (usually downward) to ensure comparability across committees and focus areas;
5) The proposed budget and dues increase were presented to,and ratified by, the Executive Committee.
Even with the dues increase, Division 40 remains below the mean for dues assessments of APA practice divisions. We believe that this increase will allow us to provide considerably more benefit for Division 40 members in both communication and advocacy.
[Page 10]
Continued from page four
Question 9 : Can we do without you?
This, of course, is the ultimate question at the brink and one to which more institutions are willing to answer in the affirmative when the evidence points the other way. The pseudo-Darwinian commerce culture of the 90's has somehow made destructive decisions OK”; and all the more so when these decisions can have been shown to be tough” to make.
We are now pervaded by administrative "decision makers” who have invaded health care in the last twenty years and enriched themselves at the expense of patients and providers. While some economies and efficiency” could be achieved for a time without real harm, we have now reached a point where real damage is being done. We must not continue to abide it.
Neuropsychology has made great strides in the last three decades. We have arrived as a specialty only to see an environment evolving that could result in its atrophy as a knowledge and practice force for good. While individual circumstances will be different wherever one is, there is simply no doubt that the whole picture is one in which we are at grave risk. In the next months, I will be working to develop a neuropsychology marketing board' that will prioritize ways in which we can improve our chances to survive and improve our visibility. I would very much like your advice and comments on how this can be best accomplished. Not all effective efforts correlate with mass money outlays, and I believe that a great deal of the work can be done at a local level. One aim might be to develop a strategy or handbook that members can use as a flexible blueprint to help our specialty remain in an effective and appropriate balance to serve our missions to the public.
As a final note, I want to add again that we also need to take a continuing and serious look at our supply/demand balance with respect to our programs of education and the marketplace. Many students and junior members have told me of their very negative and discouraging experiences over the last three years. In the environment I have described herein, this situation will not improve. We have an ethical obligation to not only train our students well, but to give them accurate and true information about the prospects for various career paths. We also need to be clear with colleagues seeking to respecialize in neurpsychology about the serious scope of the undertaking and their prospects as well in the world as it seems to be evolving. In this and other regards, the recent information from the Fielding Institute's "Neuropsychology Certificate Program” suggesting that there is a massive shortfall of neuropsychologists is irresponsible. At the very least, let us at least not mislead for profit those who do not yet face the particular problems of our specialty.
Kenneth M. Adams. Ph.D
I invite you to contact me regarding your Newsletter.
Tell me about what you would like to see in your Newsletter. I am specifically
soliciting articles for the 3 columns described above. I am especially
looking for immediate submissions for the From the Membershin” column which
I would like to include in the next issue. Submissions should be addressed
to John DeLuca, Ph.D., Division 40 Newsletter Editor, Kessler Institute
for Rehabilitation, Neuropsychology and Neuroscience Laboratory, 1199 Pleasant
Valley Way, West Orange, NJ 07052
John DeLuca, Ph.D.
Division 40 Newsletter Editor
DIVISION 40 TRAINING PROGRAM LISTING ON THE INTERNET
You can instantly access the current Training Program Listing at the
following World Wide Web URL address: http://www.neuro.mcg.edu
For additions, corrections or deletions to the listing contact Lloyd
Cripe at the following address:
e-mail lcripe@olympus.net
[Page 11]
Continued from page five
activities that they are already- fully capable of providing.
This process represents a great value to the development of the overall profession of psychology. The goal is that as interest in a field develops, the recognition of the field as a specialty is a first step. Once it has become a specialty, it may then be appropriate for board certification in that area to begin.Until now, a great burden has been placed on the American Board of Professional Psychology to certify individuals and to recognize areas. They have done that job superbly well and will continue to do so, with collaboration from the Commission for the Recognition of Specialties and Proficiencies in Psychology (CRSPP). Fields seeking initial recognition of specialty status would start with CRSSP, and following completion of that process, then move on to ABPP, and possibly to licensing and accreditation bodies, as well. Once a new specialty area exists, it then can apply for accreditation of its programs. Now, the only areas which have such accreditation are in School, Counseling, and Clinical. Therefore one cannot, as yet, have an accredited program in Neuropsychology or Health psychology.
The specialty and proficiency topic is thus a process of going back and fixing some things that probably should have been done in 1947. We have established an orderly process whereby a formal establishment of a specialty can be recognized and specific proficiencies can be credentialed. As new areas of interest emerge, we now have a mechanism in place to appropriately acknowedge them. In time, other forms of recognition may emerge, and we hope by having such a process in place, it will keep an undue proliferation of such things from occurring. The ultimate benefit is to the consumer of psychological services, by recognizing areas that are legitimate, by providing a mechanism for failure of those that are illegitimate, or those that are legitimate but best subsumed under some broader and fully recognized category. This orderly process will help protect consumers of psychological services through appropriate labeling, which is an advantage to both the provider as well as the consumer.
Continued from page seven
NEW BUSINESS:
24. Consolidation of Awards Committees: At the request of the President, Drs. Hamsher and Baron met to discuss a possible consolidation of the awards committee. After meeting, they recommended to the EC that the committees remain separate, but that they work closely with each other.
25. APA Practice Directorate: Randy Phelps of the APA Practice Directorate made a brief report about Practice Directorate activities, including legislative initiatives, and continued concerns about Health Care Reform. The Practice Directorate has expanded its efforts beyond just mental health issues to advocate for all psychological activities, including research. He also reported on upcoming public relations activities by APA.
26. APA Continuing Education: Dr. Baron is currently a member of APA's CE Committee, which reviews proposals for CE workshops presented at the annual convention. There is a strong desire for quality neuropsychological workshops, but the committee receives few from neuropsychologists. The Division has typically not co-sponsored such events, but she suggested that better quality control might be achieved by such efforts. It was also discussed how having higher quality and more advanced level neuropsychological workshops might draw more neuropsychologists to attend the APA meeting.
27. Clinical Neuropsychology Synarchy: Dr. Hamsher reported that this group which first met at INS will be meeting again tonight to decide if they will continue to exist. Division 40 continues to participate.
28. Assembly of Scientist-Practioner Psychologists: Dr. Heaton requested that the EC continue to participate in this assembly. The EC moved to continue to pay the dues ($50.00) and to identify our Council Representatives as representatives to this caucus group.
29. Archives of the History of American Psvchology: Division 40 Historian: Dr. Marcotte has received word from Dr. Popplestone that the Division 40 materials can indeed be stored at the Archives of the History of American Psychology.It was, however, advised that the Division name a Historian to help coordinate efforts. Dr. Dodrill has begun such a search, and will consult with Dr. Adams on its continuation.
30. There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:50.
Respectfully Submitted,
Ann C. Marcotte, Ph.D.,
Secretary, Division 40
[Page 12]
CALL FOR NOMINATIONS
The Nominations Committee for Division 40 is seeking nominations for
President-Elect and for Member-at-Large to the Division 40 Executive committee.
For receipt by February 10, 1996, please send your suggested nominations
to:
Carl B. Dodrill, PhD
Chair, Division 40 Nominations Committee
Regional Epilepsy Center
Harborview Medical Center, Box 359745
325 Ninth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98104
Fax: (206)73 l-4409
e-mail: cdodrill@u.washington.edu
NOMINATIONS FOR PRESIDENT-ELECT:
NOMINATIONS FOR MEMBER-AT-LARGE TO DIVISION 40 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE:
Newsletter 40 is the official publication of Division 40. The Editor is John DeLuca; the Associate Editor is Joel E. Morgan. Submissions and correspondence regarding the newsletter should be addressed to the editor, Dr. John DeLuca, Neuropsychology and Neuroscience Laboratory, Kessler Institute for Rehabilitation, 1199 Pleasant Valley Way, West Orange, NJ 07052
(End of text)