Return to APA Collection Inventory Page
Text of document:
Members: Wilfred van Gorp (Chair), Melissa A. Friedman (Recorder), Ida Sue Baron, C. Munro Cullum, Anne L. Hess, Neil H. Pliskin, Robert J. Sbordone, Barbara C. Wilson.
Group members used the Reports of the INS-Division 40 Task Force on
Education, Accreditation, and Credentialing (1987) to define the core knowledge
base and as a starting point of the ensuing discussion.
They agreed that students should acquire core knowledge in: a Generic
Psychology Core, a Generic Clinical Core, a Core for Neuroscience and Basic
Human and Animal Neuropsychology, and Specific Clinical Neuropsychology
Training. Several modifications were made to the Generic Psychology Core.
Group members elected to divide the knowledge area which had been termed
"Learning, cognition and perception" into "Sensation and perception" and
"Learning and motivation." They also decided to separate "Social psychology
and personality" into "Social psychology" and "Personality theory." They
changed "History of psychology" to "History and systems of psychology."
"Behavior therapy" was removed from the Generic Clinical Core and "Rehabilitation"
was added since the group was mindful of the importance of intervention
in neuropsychology.
The group largely adopted the skill areas under the Generic Clinical
Core in the above report, with the addition of several areas. "Health psychology"
was added since it was believed to represent an important and emerging
area within psychology. "Outcome measurement" was also believed to be a
critical skill, especially in light of the current emphasis on demonstrating
the benefit and utility of neuropsychological services. Group members agreed
that "Behavioral assessment and history taking" should be added to the
Generic Clinical Core.
The group adopted the knowledge base known as "Neurosciences and Basic
Human and Animal Neuropsychology" but added "Neuropathology and pathophysiology"
to it.
The group was concerned that the knowledge base and skills given in
the INS-Division 40 document were incomplete. Group members were impressed
with the delineation of theoretical and scientific knowledge given in the
Division 40 Petition (1995) to the Commission for the Recognition of Specialities
and Proficiencies in Professional Psychology but felt that a category of
"CNS effects of systemic disorders and neurotoxic agents" needed to be
added.
The group stressed the importance of acquiring a solid knowledge base
and skills in the provision of services to children and older adults, as
well as to the general population. Group members concluded that it would
not be feasible for all neuropsychologists to have subspecialty training
with all age groups, although they did propose that neuropsychologists
should have "practicum experience in the assessment of children and/or
adults in a supervised assessment facility."
The group agreed with the requirement of a clinical internship consisting
of 1800 hours, preferably in a university-affiliated facility, preceded
by appropriate practice experience.
PLENARY SESSION AND VOTE
Question II
The breakout group chairs had met to combine the views of their groups
and the results of this meeting were presented. They thought that this
section of the conference document should start with a general statement
regarding diversity issues and life span perspective. Aside from this statement,
which had not been written, the proposed section of the document was very
close to sections VI and VII in the final version of the policy statement.
After presentation of this proposed section of the policy statement,
a number of comments and proposed amendments were made. One comment addressed
the issue that multiple routes to becoming a clinical neuropsychologist
had existed in the past but might lead to undesirable fragmentation in
the future. Training at the doctoral, internship, and residency (postdoctoral)
level were seen as desirable for future clinical neuropsychologists, and
the sentiment that residencies should be a requirement in the future was
expressed. Little disagreement arose over this point of view.
Subsequently, it was pointed out that "Physiological psychology" was
an obsolete term in many places; instead, the term Biological bases of
behavior has found favor. The substitution of the latter for the former
in the Generic Psychology Core was accepted as a friendly amendment with
no debate. In the area called "Foundations for the study of brain-behavior
relationships," "Behavioral pharmacology" was changed to "Neurochemistry
of behavior" (e.g., psychopharmacology).
The next issue to be taken up by the assembly was a proposed amendment
to add functional outcomes as a separate knowledge area preceded by an
"E" in the outline. Disability issues, vocational assessment/training,
academic programs for students with disabilities, specific cognitive remediation
and behavioral interventions, and resources for individuals with disabilities
were seen as specific areas encompassed by functional outcomes. This proposal
generated considerable discussion. It was suggested that functional outcomes
should be included as an area under foundations for the practice of clinical
neuropsychology instead of as its own separate section, and this amendment
was accepted as friendly without debate.
A good portion of the debate centered on what functional outcomes meant.
It was obvious from the variety of proposals for changes that the term
had different connotations for different delegates. For example, an amendment
to place "functional outcomes" under "research design and analysis in neuropsychology"
was eventually withdrawn because functional outcomes was seen as broader
than just a research area. An amendment substituting "outcome evaluation"
for "functional outcome" failed. A motion to substitute "disability issues
and resources" for "functional outcomes" also did not achieve adequate
support to pass. Other ways of rewording the proposed area were attempted.
Whether or not all the examples of functional outcomes issues should be
included also was debated. Finally, the suggestion was made that the entire
language to be added to the document consist of "practical implications
of neuropsychological conditions." This language was accepted and added
to the document by vote of the assembly.
The next amendment was to add to the assessment section under core
skills an item reading, "develop and integrate an interdisciplinary database
and perform differential diagnosis of neurobehavioral syndromes." The reason
for this proposed addition was to make the assessment section more comprehensive,
but some delegates did not understand the meaning of the item. It was explained
that integration referred to the fact we integrate information from neurodiagnostic
procedures, from laboratory exams, and from presenting symptoms in addition
to test results. After a couple of tries at rewording the item, the language
"Interpretation and diagnosis" was added as a separate item under the assessment
section.
A question was raised regarding the inclusion of a statement about
diversity and life span development at the beginning of this section. Why
do so? It was explained that issues of diversity and life span affect all
the categories of knowledge and skills and that it would be redundant to
include that language with every entry.
It also was proposed that the descriptors "cognitive and affective"
be added to the adjective "behavioral" to describe interventions under
the skills
(End of text)
| ||||
