A survey of the perceptions and practices of faculty in clinical neuropsychology doctoral training programs: is heterogeneity the norm?

Abstract

Objective: Doctoral education is a cornerstone in the training of clinical neuropsychologists. However, we know little about perceptions, practices, and needs of the faculty who oversee doctoral training in clinical neuropsychology (CN). Method: Seventy-one faculty from 45 doctoral programs providing CN training completed at least part of a survey assessing characteristics of their programs, current training practices and views, and challenges to CN doctoral training. Results: Over half of CN faculty reported having zero or only one CN colleague. CN faculty reported that the goals of CN doctoral training are research training, clinical training, and acquisition of knowledge and skills reflected in the Houston Conference Guidelines (HCG). CN faculty reported that doctoral trainees obtain more clinical hours than faculty would like and endorsed alternative clinical metrics, including competency-based ratings. CN faculty are divided about the benefits of a required two-year postdoctoral CN fellowship. Conclusions: The HCG states that specialization in CN begins at the doctoral level. CN faculty in doctoral programs are fully immersed in the early development and education of future CN researchers and practitioners. Tensions between clinical and research training in CN at the doctoral level—and student overemphasis on accruing clinical hours—might place CN at risk for failing to make research innovations necessary for our field to evolve and thrive. More CN doctoral faculty are needed to serve as mentors to students, especially for students from backgrounds that have been historically excluded and marginalized. A greater voice from CN doctoral faculty in CN governance is needed.