Board Certification in Clinical Neuropsychology: A Response to Rohling et al.

Abstract

Board certification is intended to protect the public by identifying practitioners that have met minimum standards for education and training in their specialty or discipline. For varied reasons, clinical neuropsychology, like professional psychology as a whole, has struggled to achieve levels of board certification comparable to the medical profession. Rohling, Lees-Haley, Langhinrichsen-Rohling, & Williamson (2003) have recently published a critique of the board certification process in clinical neuropsychology as it is conducted by American Board of Clinical Neuropsychology (ABCN), arguing that one reason for this failure is the overly restrictive nature of the process. In their paper, Rohling et al. provide a signal detection analysis that makes several assumptions about the process and conclude with recommendations for improving the process to better identify “competent” neuropsychologists in practice. While we agree in principle with many of their recommendations, and ABCN had, in fact, implemented several prior to publication of their article, the article contains many faulty assumptions and logical inconsistencies that we believe are harmful to constructive review of the certification process. In this article, we provide a critical review of their analysis and present new and additional data that demonstrate the procedure is not overly restrictive. A primary consideration is the low incidence of seeking board certification among professionals who identify themselves as neuropsychologists (i.e., a low application rate), rather than an overly restrictive process. We describe steps taken to improve the process and conclude that there are numerous areas of agreement with Rohling et al., including the need for ongoing review and continued improvement in the board certification process in all psychological specialties.