Return to APA Collection Inventory Page
Text of document:
INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS
I. FOR WHAT PROFESSIONAL ROLES IS IT NECESSARY TO HAVE EDUCATION
AND TRAINING IN THE SPECIALTY OF CLINCAL NEUROPSYCHOLOGY?
CHARGE TO THE DELEGATES
Thomas A. Hammeke
The importance of generating an answer that was not overly broad nor
overly narrow test, as a specialty, neuropsychology encroaches upon the
core competencies of other specialties (e.g., health psychology, rehabilitation
psychology, or clinical neurology) on the one hand or fails to capture
the essential competencies of the specialty on the other was emphasized.
It was indicated that this question had not been formally addressed by
the specialty of clinical neuropsychology before this meeting, though many
professional documents have addressed closely related issues. These documents
included Division 40 s published definition of a clinical neuropsychologist
(Division 40, 1989) as well as the suggested revisions to this definition
made more recently by Division 40 s Task Force on Education, Accreditation,
and Credentialing (Crosson et al., 1995). Another relevant document identified
was the Division 40 Petition (Meier et al., 1995) to the Commission for
the Recognition of Specialites and Proficiencies in Professional Psychology.
Lastly, an example of how a similar question was addressed by delegates
of the Ann Arbor Conference on Residency Education and Training in Psychology
was presented (Belar et al., 1993).
The delegates were then reminded that the conference was devoted to
gaining a consensus document on an integrated model of education and training
in the practice of clinical neuropsychology as it occurs through the "full
human life span." It was recognized that there had been considerable debate
about subspecialty areas in neuropsychology (e.g., pediatric and geriatric
clinical neuropsychology) and that the issue of subspecialties was an important
one, one that was perhaps beyond the scope of this conference and merited
a conference of its own. The planning committee suggested that, in answering
the questions posed, the "full human life span" be kept in mind. It was
noted that the issue of subspecialties would likely be considered on the
third day under Question III C. The delegates then convened in breakout
groups.
SUMMARY OF BREAKOUT GROUP ONE
Question I
Melissa Wright and Stanley Berent
Members: Stanley Berent (Chair), Melissa Wright (Recorder), Cynthia
R. Cimino, Robert J. Ivnik, Brick Johnstone, Christina A. Meyers, Robert
D. Jones, and Keith Owen Yeates.
Four professional positions emerged for which specialty training in
clinical neuropsychology would be necessary: (a) clinical neuropsychology
practitioners, (b) supervisors of trainees in clinical neuropsychology,
(c) directors of training programs in clinical neuropsychology, and (d)
instructors of courses on clinical neuropsychology within training programs.
Members commented that it is important to consider the job responsibilities
inherent to a particular professional role in clinical neuropsychology.
A challenge would be to develop a definition of the unique professional
roles of a clinical neuropsychologist and to enumerate which skills would
be required to be proficient within that role. For instance, a clinical
neuropsychologist in a rehabilitation unit might be responsible for assessment
and rehabilitation treatment planning for patients, two roles that might
overlap with work performed by rehabilitation psychologists.
To incorporate the variety of unique roles and accommodate the great
degree of professional variability present in the field of clinical neuropsychology,
group members agreed upon the following summary statement:
In order to present oneself to the public as a clinical neuropsychologist,
one needs to have specialty training in clinical neuropsychology.
Some members expressed concern that requirements for specialty training
in clinical neuropsychology might lead to restrictions on research in areas
related to the field. Some group members opposed restrictions on research,
and argued that professionals from related fields can be competent to conduct
research that focuses on clinical neuropsychological topics without completion
of specialty training in clinical neuropsychology. The point was made that
within the realm of research, there is more freedom in regards to titles.
In response, one member commented that responsible evaluation of published
articles involves consideration of the training achieved by the authors;
and, if a research project addressed neuropsychological questions, then
one would want to be assured that at least one author was trained in neuropsychology.
The concerns regarding regulation of research were resolved by a proposal
that protection of the title of clinical neuropsychologist through the
implementation of training guidelines might apply only to clinical work
in neuropsychology, as opposed to research.
Discussion returned to the summary statement that the group had made
in regards to public self-representation as a clinical neuropsychologist.
It implied acquisition of specific knowledge and demonstrated proficiency
of particular skills. Neuropsychology was characterized as a testing based
profession, separate from the medical field of clinical neurology. Discussion
generated a cursory list of activities performed by neuropsychologists
that was not considered exhaustive: neuropsychological evaluation, diagnosis,
treatment planning, and treatment evaluation. Reference was made to the
Division 40 Petition (Meier et al., 1995) to the Commission for the Recognition
of Specialties and Proficiencies in Professional Psychology, and the areas
covered for professional practice in the specialty: (a) populations, (b)
problems (psychological, biological, social), and (c) procedures and technologies.
Final discussion focused on the development of a definition for a clinical
neuropsychologist and led to the following statement:
A clinical neuropsychologist employs a psychometric approach to psychological
and neuropsychological assessment and intervention as related to
(End of text)
| ||||
