American Board Of Professional Neuropsychology Research Articles

InterOrganizational practice committee guidance/recommendation for models of care during the novel coronavirus pandemic

Objective: The Inter Organizational Practice Committee (IOPC) convened a workgroup to develop guidance on models to provide neuropsychological (NP) care during the COVID-19 pandemic while minimizing risks of novel coronavirus transmission as lockdown orders are lifted and ambulatory clinical services resume.Method: A collaborative panel of experts from major professional organizations developed provisional guidance for models of neuropsychological practice during the pandemic. The stakeholders included the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology/American Board of Clinical Neuropsychology, the National Academy of Neuropsychology, Society of Clinical neuropsychology (Division 40) of the American Psychological Association, the American Board of Professional Neuropsychology, and the American Psychological Association Services, Inc.Results: This guidance reviews the risks and benefits of conducting NP exams in several ways, including standard in-person, mitigated in-person, in-clinic teleneuropsychology (TeleNP), and in-home TeleNP. Strategies are provided for selecting the most appropriate model for a given patient, taking into account four levels of patient risk stratification, level of community risk and the concept of stepped models of care. Links are provided to governmental agency and professional organization resources as well as an outline and discussion of essential infection mitigation processes based on commonalities across recommendations from diverse federal, state, local, and professional organization recommendations.Conclusion: This document provides recommendations and guidance with analysis of the risks relative to the benefits of various models of neuropsychological care during the COVID-19 pandemic. These recommendations may be revised as circumstances evolve, with updates posted continuously on the IOPC website (https://iopc.online/).

Inter Organizational Practice Committee Guidance/Recommendation for Models of Care During the Novel Coronavirus Pandemic.

ObjectiveThe Inter Organizational Practice Committee (IOPC) convened a workgroup to develop guidance on models to provide neuropsychological (NP) care during the COVID-19 pandemic while minimizing risks of novel coronavirus transmission as lockdown orders are lifted and ambulatory clinical services resume.MethodA collaborative panel of experts from major professional organizations developed provisional guidance for models of neuropsychological practice during the pandemic. The stakeholders included the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology/American Board of Clinical Neuropsychology, the National Academy of Neuropsychology, Society of Clinical neuropsychology (Division 40) of the American Psychological Association, the American Board of Professional Neuropsychology, and the American Psychological Association Services, Inc.ResultsThis guidance reviews the risks and benefits of conducting NP exams in several ways, including standard in-person, mitigated in-person, in-clinic teleneuropsychology (TeleNP), and in-home TeleNP. Strategies are provided for selecting the most appropriate model for a given patient, taking into account four levels of patient risk stratification, level of community risk, and the concept of stepped models of care. Links are provided to governmental agency and professional organization resources as well as an outline and discussion of essential infection mitigation processes based on commonalities across recommendations from diverse federal, state, local, and professional organization recommendations.ConclusionThis document provides recommendations and guidance with analysis of the risks relative to the benefits of various models of NP care during the COVID-19 pandemic. These recommendations may be revised as circumstances evolve, with updates posted continuously on the IOPC website (https://iopc.online/).

InterOrganizational practice committee recommendations/guidance for teleneuropsychology (TeleNP) in response to the COVID-19 pandemic

Objective: The Inter Organizational Practice Committee (IOPC) convened a workgroup to provide rapid guidance about teleneuropsychology (TeleNP) in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.Method: A collaborative panel of experts from major professional organizations developed provisional guidance for neuropsychological practice during the pandemic. The stakeholders included the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology/American Board of Clinical Neuropsychology, the National Academy of Neuropsychology, Division 40 of the American Psychological Association, the American Board of Professional Neuropsychology, and the American Psychological Association Services, Inc. The group reviewed literature, collated federal, regional and state regulations and information from insurers, and surveyed practitioners to identify best practices.Results: Literature indicates that TeleNP may offer reliable and valid assessments, but clinicians need to consider limitations, develop new informed consent procedures, report modifications of standard procedures, and state limitations to diagnostic conclusions and recommendations. Specific limitations affect TeleNP assessments of older adults, younger children, individuals with limited access to technology, and individuals with other individual, cultural, and/or linguistic differences. TeleNP may be contraindicated or infeasible given specific patient characteristics, circumstances, and referral questions. Considerations for billing TeleNP services are offered with reservations that clinicians must verify procedures independently. Guidance about technical issues and “tips” for TeleNP procedures are provided.Conclusion: This document provides provisional guidance with links to resources and established guidelines for telepsychology. Specific recommendations extend these practices to TeleNP. These recommendations may be revised as circumstances evolve, with updates posted continuously at OPC.online.

Inter Organizational Practice Committee Recommendations/Guidance for Teleneuropsychology in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic†.

ObjectiveThe Inter Organizational Practice Committee convened a workgroup to provide rapid guidance about teleneuropsychology (TeleNP) in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodA collaborative panel of experts from major professional organizations developed provisional guidance for neuropsychological practice during the pandemic. The stakeholders included the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology/American Board of Clinical Neuropsychology, the National Academy of Neuropsychology, Division 40 of the American Psychological Association, the American Board of Professional Neuropsychology, and the American Psychological Association Services, Inc. The group reviewed literature; collated federal, regional, and state regulations and information from insurers; and surveyed practitioners to identify best practices.ResultsLiterature indicates that TeleNP may offer reliable and valid assessments, but clinicians need to consider limitations, develop new informed consent procedures, report modifications of standard procedures, and state limitations to diagnostic conclusions and recommendations. Specific limitations affect TeleNP assessments of older adults, younger children, individuals with limited access to technology, and individuals with other individual, cultural, and/or linguistic differences. TeleNP may be contraindicated or infeasible given specific patient characteristics, circumstances, and referral questions. Considerations for billing TeleNP services are offered with reservations that clinicians must verify procedures independently. Guidance about technical issues and “tips” for TeleNP procedures are provided.ConclusionThis document provides provisional guidance with links to resources and established guidelines for telepsychology. Specific recommendations extend these practices to TeleNP. These recommendations may be revised as circumstances evolve, with updates posted continuously at IOPC.online.

Role of Neuropsychologists in the Evaluation and Management of Sport-Related Concussion: An Inter-Organization Position Statement

Over the past 20 years, clinical neuropsychologists have been at the forefront of both scientific and clinical initiatives aimed at developing evidence-based approaches to the evaluation and management of sport-related concussion (SRC). These efforts have directly impacted current policy on strategies for injury assessment and return-to-play by athletes after concussion. Many states are considering legislation requiring (a) education of athletes, parents, coaches, and school/organization officials on the recognition, evaluation, and management of SRCs; (b) removal from play of any youth athlete that is suspected of having sustained a concussion; and (c) not allowing the student to return to participation until the student is evaluated and cleared for return to participation in writing by an appropriate healthcare professional. It is the official position of the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology (AACN), American Board of Professional Neuropsychology (ABN), Division 40 (Neuropsychology) of the American Psychological Association (APA), and the National Academy of Neuropsychology (NAN) that neuropsychologists should be included among the licensed healthcare professionals authorized to evaluate, clinically manage, and provide return to play clearance for athletes who sustain a SRC.

Update for the neurology residents and fellows from the Neurology Residency Review Committee (NRRC).

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) has the mission of improving the quality of health care in the United States by ensuring and improving the quality of graduate medical education experience for physicians in training. The ACGME oversees 27 Residency Review Committees (RRC), including the Neurology Residency Review Committee (NRRC). Each RRC functions as the ACGME body that accredits specialty training programs. The Neurology RRC is comprised of seven members serving up to 6 years, two members each appointed by American Academy of Neurology, American Board of Professional Neuropsychology (ABPN), and the American Medical Association and a resident member serving 2 years. Two-thirds of the requirements for training programs are defined by the ACGME; the other third are specific to the specialty and defined by the RRC based on input from specialists in that field. The RRC and ACGME accomplish their goals by an in-depth review and subsequent accreditation of …

American Board of Professional Neuropsychology

This paper updates neuropsychologists on the process and procedures for obtaining board certification in clinical neuropsychology through the American Board of Professional Neuropsychology (ABPN), a free-standing post-doctoral level diplomate granting certification board. ABPN has certified well over 200 professional neuropsychologists in clinical neuropsychology. This article describes the eligibility criteria, application submission requirements, examination procedures and psychometric characteristics of the essay examination, work sample and oral examination, and re-certification standards for ABPN. The purpose of the ABPN is to promote high standards of professional practice in clinical 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.”