American Board Of Clinical Neuropsychology Research Articles

Barriers to board certification in clinical neuropsychology identified by surveyed trainees and professionals

Objective: Board certification (BC) in clinical neuropsychology via the American Board of Clinical Neuropsychology (ABCN) is a rigorous process demonstrating clinical competence to practice. While myths about BC have been addressed, barriers to BC have yet to be studied. The aim of this study was to identify barriers to BC among neuropsychology trainees and professionals. Method: Data were collected through pre-webinar surveys administered to 1202 participants across four webinars conducted between 2018 and 2021. The surveys, via open-ended questions, captured specific concerns about BC as well as, demographic information including self-identification with racial/ethnic and culturally diverse groups. Qualitative analyses of self-reported barriers were conducted, and themes were identified. Results: The themes identified included Preparedness (11.8%), Lack of Training and Mentoring Opportunities (5.8%), Training Flexibility (11.9%), BC Knowledge (13.4%), Overall Knowledge of neuropsychology (4.4%), Time (24.7%), Money (10.9%), Documentation (3.4%), International Issues (1.5%), and COVID-19 concerns (2.5%). Respondents that identified with a racial/ethnic diverse group were more likely to report Opportunities and International Issues, whereas White respondents more frequently identified Time and Documentation as barriers. Trainees were more likely to report Training Flexibility, Opportunities, BC Knowledge, whereas Professionals were more likely to report Preparedness and Time as barriers. Conclusions: Results from this survey demonstrate that Time, BC Knowledge, Training Flexibility, Preparedness, and Money related to the examination were the most frequently reported barriers. However, differences across groups (i.e. career stage, racial/ethnic) emerged, highlighting the need to develop initiatives that address the specific needs of different groups of neuropsychology trainees and professionals.

Examining Age-Specific Barriers and Facilitators to Research Participation in Underrepresented Americans (P14-6.003)

<h3>Objective:</h3> Determine barriers and facilitators to participation amongst African Americans in observational research in Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRD). <h3>Background:</h3> African Americans experience a high burden of ADRD yet are critically underrepresented in ADRD research. Continued lack of representation increases the likelihood that research findings may not generalize to African Americans, including efficacy and safety data from trials of putative ADRD-modifying therapies. <h3>Design/Methods:</h3> An electronic survey asked respondents to rate barriers and facilitators of research participation on a 0–3-point Likert scale. Responses ≥2 corresponded with barriers/facilitators likely to influence participation decisions. Survey questions were developed in partnership with African American community leaders. Survey invitations were distributed through social media advertisements focused within zip codes surrounding our research center. Differences across participants from different age groups (18–44 [n=76]; 45–64 [n=86], 65+ years [n=86]) were evaluated using nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis tests. <h3>Results:</h3> 248/294 completed surveys were from local respondents and were included in analyses (96.8% African American). Across all respondents, a requirement to undergo a diagnostic lumbar puncture was the greatest barrier to participation (median=2.0). Attending weekday visits presented a substantial barrier for individuals 18–44 (median=2.0), but not those aged 44–64 (median=1.5) or 65+ years (median=0; p=0.001). Length of visit (≥2 hours) was a greater barrier in younger (median=2.0) vs older respondents (median=1.0; p=0.001). The ability to attend visits in the local community, on weekends, and having access to a door-to-door car service were substantial facilitators for younger respondents (18–44, median=2.0; 65+, median=0; p=0.001). The option to complete tests at home was a substantial facilitator for 18–64-year-old (median=2.0) but not 65+-year-old respondents (median=0; p=0.001). Compensation for meals/transportation were substantial facilitators across all ages (p&lt;0.05). <h3>Conclusions:</h3> Barriers and facilitators to ADRD research participation varied across the age spectrum. Survey responses may inform age-specific strategies to address disparities in ADRD research participation amongst African Americans <b>Disclosure:</b> Dr. Nissim has nothing to disclose. Ms. Fudge has nothing to disclose. Christian Lachner has nothing to disclose. The institution of Dr. Graff-Radford has received research support from Biogen. The institution of Dr. Graff-Radford has received research support from Lilly. The institution of Dr. Graff-Radford has received research support from Novartis. The institution of Dr. Graff-Radford has received research support from AbbVie. Dr. Graff-Radford has received publishing royalties from a publication relating to health care. John A. Lucas has received personal compensation in the range of $500-$4,999 for serving as an officer or member of the Board of Directors for American Board of Clinical Neuropsychology. Dr. Day has received personal compensation in the range of $5,000-$9,999 for serving as a Consultant for Parabon Nanolabs. The institution of Dr. Day has received personal compensation in the range of $5,000-$9,999 for serving as a Consultant for Eli Lilly. Dr. Day has received personal compensation in the range of $500-$4,999 for serving as an Editor, Associate Editor, or Editorial Advisory Board Member for DynaMed (EBSCO Health). Dr. Day has received personal compensation in the range of $10,000-$49,999 for serving as an Expert Witness for Barrow Law. Dr. Day has stock in ANI Pharmaceuticals. The institution of Dr. Day has received research support from National Institutes of Health / NIA. The institution of Dr. Day has received research support from Chan Zuckerberg Initiative. The institution of Dr. Day has received research support from Alzheimer’s Association. The institution of Dr. Day has received research support from National Institutes of Health / NINDS. The institution of Dr. Day has received research support from Horizon Therapeutics. Dr. Day has received personal compensation in the range of $500-$4,999 for serving as a Presenter at Annual Meeting (CME) with American Academy of Neurology. Dr. Day has received personal compensation in the range of $500-$4,999 for serving as a Content Development (CME) with PeerView, Inc. Dr. Day has received personal compensation in the range of $5,000-$9,999 for serving as a Content Development (CME) with Continuing Education, Inc. Dr. Day has a non-compensated relationship as a Clinical Director with AntiNMDA Receptor Encephalitis Foundation that is relevant to AAN interests or activities.

A survey of postdoctoral training in rehabilitation psychology in the United States and Canada: 2019.

Survey psychology postdoctoral training programs involving patients with disability receiving rehabilitation services, and compare with similar data from 2007. Public data sources identified 297 potential postdoctoral training programs. Of these, 100 programs (34%) provided services for patients with disability in rehabilitation settings, and 92% returned a survey (n = 92). Programs reported having a primary rehabilitation involvement (42%), a secondary involvement (26%), or an optional involvement (23%). Programs were based in university settings (27%), VA/DoD settings (35%), or private/public health care settings (38%). A total of 433 faculty and 308 residents were involved in these programs. Fifty percent (50%) of programs had faculty with American Board of Rehabilitation Psychology (ABRP) certification, while 62% of programs had faculty with American Board of Clinical Neuropsychology (ABCN) certification. On average, programs formally taught 58% of the ABRP competencies. Compared to 2007, there has been a 200% increase in the number of training programs with rehabilitation involvement. However, there has been an overall decrease in the variety of populations with which residents work, and an overall decrease in the number of ABRP competencies that are formally taught, so that training has become more focused on specific populations and specific competencies to the exclusion of others. Many rehabilitation patients and teams receive services from psychologists whose professional concentration is not primarily in rehabilitation psychology, and many psychology residents involved with rehabilitation populations do not receive comprehensive training in rehabilitation psychology. There is an opportunity for rehabilitation psychologists to collaborate with these programs to enhance competent services to persons with disability. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Forensic neuropsychology: History and current status

Objective:This review provides a summary of historical details and current practice activities related to Forensic Neuropsychology (FN). Under the auspices of the American Board of Clinical Neuropsychology (ABCN), the Forensic Neuropsychology Special Interest Group (FNSIG) views the FN as a subspecialty, which has developed over time as the straightforward result of more than 20 years of numerous publications, extensive continuing education, focused research and growth of forensic practice within neuropsychology. In this article, the FNSIG core work group documents and integrates information that is the basis of efforts to consolidate practice knowledge and facilitate attainment of forensic practice competencies by clinical neuropsychologists. Method:Overview of continuing education topics at professional conferences, search results that identify relevant books and peer-reviewed publications, as well as pertinent findings across years of large-scale national survey results. Results:Relevant evidence has shown for decades that FN is prominent within Clinical Neuropsychology as practiced in the United States and Canada. A majority of U.S. neuropsychologists have received FN training and provide forensic evaluation services. FN practice time per week is considerable for many practitioners, and across survey epochs has been shown to be increasing. Conclusion:The present review leads to the conclusion that in the interest of promoting the acquisition of competence, FN practice should remain a focal point of training and continuing education. Alternate routes to attain competence are discussed, as are ongoing professional activities that undoubtedly will ensure continued growth of, and interest in, the subspecialty of FN.

Barriers and Concerns Regarding Board Certification in Clinical Neuropsychology: A Program Evaluation

Abstract Objective The Relevance 2050 Initiative’s Student Pipeline Subcommittee and the Board Certification Promotion Committee of the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology, in collaboration with the American Board of Clinical Neuropsychology, produced the first installment of a free webinar series to promote early education on board certification (BC) in clinical neuropsychology. A pre-webinar survey was given to inform future webinar topics and initiatives, including identification of specific barriers/concerns about BC. Method A total of 197 respondents completed the survey and self-identified as White (61%), Asian (16%), Hispanic (11%), African American (6%) and Multiracial (6%). Respondents’ demographics, type of doctoral program, program accreditation status, level of interest in pursuing BC, and specific barriers/concerns about BC were collected. Respondents self-identified with the following diverse groups: first-generation college student (19% White, 38% Asian, 18% Hispanic, 16% African American, 41% Multiracial), low SES (8% White, 6% Asian, 36% Hispanic, 33% African American, 33% Multiracial) and sexual gender minority (6% White, 6% Asian, 9% Hispanic, 43% Multiracial). Outcomes Qualitative data analysis of barriers/concerns identified the following themes: money, time, knowledge about BC, training flexibility, breadth of knowledge, training/mentor opportunities, international issues, and documentation. The top three barriers included training/mentor opportunities, training flexibility, and knowledge about BC. More than half of non-White trainees (60%; χ2 = 3.864, p = .049) endorsed training/mentor opportunities as a barrier relative to White trainees (41%), particularly among Hispanic trainees (82%) relative to other minority trainees. Discussion Results highlight the need to increase awareness and information about the BC. Also suggested is prioritization of resources for training/mentor opportunities, particularly for minority trainees.

Postdoctoral training in clinical neuropsychology in America: how did we get here and where do recent applicants suggest we go next?

Objective: The United States appears to be the only country which typically requires completion of a two-year postdoctoral fellowship for one to be considered competent to practice clinical neuropsychology. We review the history of how this came to be in the United States. Further, we describe obstacles that postdoctoral trainees face during this stage of training. Method: We first describe the most significant events leading to the requirement of a two-year fellowship in clinical neuropsychology. Next, we describe factors that trainees face when selecting and completing postdoctoral training. Finally, we review the results of the most recent annual survey of applicants for postdoctoral training to measure their experiences. Results: Postdoctoral training in the United States is a relatively recent requirement in neuropsychology. Trainees face many obstacles when obtaining a postdoctoral position some of which can be addressed by the field. Conclusions: Training in Clinical Neuropsychology in the United States has evolved considerably over at least the last 45 or so years to the point that a two-year postdoctoral fellowship is now required for one to be a candidate for board certification through the American Board of Clinical Neuropsychology. We review many of the challenges that postdoctoral trainees face and provide survey data to describe their experiences and preferences.

Pediatric Neuropsychology: Toward Subspecialty Designation

Clinical neuropsychology is a rapidly expanding field of study in the psychological sciences whose practitioners are expert in the assessment, treatment, and research of individuals with known or suspected central nervous system disease or disorder. Pediatric neuropsychology has emerged as a distinct subspecialty area with related education, training, and clinical expertise for a growing number of neuropsychologists. This paper details the numerous steps taken by two affiliated organizations, the American Board of Clinical Neuropsychology and its membership organization, the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology, in the interest of the larger pediatric neuropsychology community and in pediatric neuropsychology subspecialty development.

Board Certification in Professional Psychology: Promoting Competency and Consumer Protection

Board certification in psychology provides an opportunity for increased assessment of and demonstration of competence in the profession. In addition to serving as a means of consumer protection, it can serve the professional psychologist by providing the opportunity for increased income, professional satisfaction, facilitated mobility, and professional development. Jurisdictional and organizational recognition of the importance of board certification is increasing. This article uses the model and experience of the American Board of Professional Psychology, with particular attention to the American Board of Clinical Neuropsychology and the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology, to illustrate these benefits. Recent developments regarding board certification are described, as well as how to become involved in the process.

The American Board of Clinical Neuropsychology and American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology: Milestones Past and Present

The origins of the American Board of Clinical Neuropsychology (ABCN) and American Academy of Clinical Neuropshychology (AACN) can be traced to a meeting in June 1981, when several members of the In...

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

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.

A statistical analysis of board certification in Clinical Neuropsychology

In this paper, we use tools from decision theory to evaluate the effectiveness of the current psychology board certification process used by the American Board of Clinical Neuropsychology (ABCN). These analyses indicate that ABCN’s current process is likely to be failing to certify too many competently trained candidates, and identifying relatively few truly competent neuropsychologists. In fact, we estimate that ABCN is only certifying between 16 and 52% of competent clinical neuropsychologists. This is in contrast to the processes of the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS), after which ABCN has indicated that it models its examination. ABMS estimates that 89% of all practicing physicians are board-certified by one of their member boards. Based on our analyses, specific recommendations for change are offered for credentialing the profession of neuropsychology.

Board Certification in Clinical Neuropsychology

Abstract A brief historical review is provided of the American Board of Professional Psychology (ABPP) regarding its relationship to the American Psychological Association (APA) and to examining boards in clinical neuropsychology. It is pointed out that while the APA originally sponsored ABPP, the two organizations are now independent. Furthermore, APA does not endorse or recognize any examining boards in psychology. of the two major examining boards in clinical neuropsychology, the American Board of Clinical Neuropsychology (ABCN) is affiliated with ABPP, but the American Board of Professional Neuropsychology (ABPN) is not. It is pointed out that the ABCN affiliation with ABPP does not imply APA endorsement. Similarities and differences between the ABCN and ABPN with regard to policy, philosophy, and examination procedures are discussed, and a plea is made for unification of the boards, and for discouragement of the proliferation of “vanity boards.”

AMERICAN BOARD OF CLINICAL NEUROPSYCHOLOGY SPECIAL PRESENTATION The American Board of Clinical Neuropsychology (ABCN), 2000 Update

This paper updates neuropsychologists on the process of obtaining board certification in clinical neuropsychology through the American Board of Clinical Neuropsychology (ABCN), a specialty board operating under the auspices of the American Board of Professional Psychology (ABPP). At this time, the ABPP and ABCN have certified 406 clinical neuropsychologists, which makes it the largest board-certification organization in clinical neuropsychology. This article details the advantages of board certification through the ABCN and the four steps which must be passed in order to obtain board certification. These steps are: credential review, written examination, work sample, and oral examination.

In Memoriam: Aaron Smith, Ph.D. 1916–1998

Aaron Smith died on June 13, 1998. He was a past president and founding member of the International Neuropsychological Society, Charter Member and Diplomate of the American Board of Clinical Neuropsychology, Editor of the International Journal of Neuroscience and Professor Emeritus of the University of Michigan. He also developed the Symbol Digit Modalities Test and the Michigan Neuropsychological Battery. In both cases he employed a rationale which permitted differentiation of impairments in higher cognitive functions that the tests were designed to measure from deficits in lower sensory input and motor output modalities which were required to carry out the tests.

American Board of Clinical Neuropsychology, 1996 update: Facts, data, and information for potential candidates

Changes in the policies and procedures since 1990 for examination for the diplomate in Clinical Neuropsychology by the American Board of Clinical Neuropsychology (ABCN) are reviewed. Facts, figures, and answers to commonly asked questions about the examination and the organization of ABCN are also provided. Instructions for application and for obtaining further information are furnished.

Diplomates in clinical neuropsychology american board of clinical neuropsychology (ABCN) American board of professional psychology (ABPP)

Diplomates in clinical neuropsychology american board of clinical neuropsychology (ABCN) American board of professional psychology (ABPP)

Diplomates in clinical neuropsychology: American board of clinical neuropsychology (ABCN): American board of professional psychology (ABPP)

Diplomates in clinical neuropsychology: American board of clinical neuropsychology (ABCN): American board of professional psychology (ABPP)

Diplomates in clinical neuropsychology: American Board of clinical neuropsychology (ABCN): American Board of professional psychology (ABPP)

Diplomates in clinical neuropsychology: American Board of clinical neuropsychology (ABCN): American Board of professional psychology (ABPP)

Diplomates in clinical neuropsychology: American board of clinical neuropsychology (ABCN): American board of professional psychology (ABPP)

Diplomates in clinical neuropsychology: American board of clinical neuropsychology (ABCN): American board of professional psychology (ABPP)

Diplomates in clinical neuropsychology american board of clinical neuropsychology (ABCN): American board of professional psychology (ABPP)

Diplomates in clinical neuropsychology american board of clinical neuropsychology (ABCN): American board of professional psychology (ABPP)