PhD/PsyD Neuro Post Doc: Does Accreditation Matter?

[InYourHead]

I understand for the neuropsychology post-doc process, there is another match (ugh). But then there are a ton of sites who are fantastic opportunities and have withdrawn from the match. Some of these are APA-accredited and some are not.

For neuro post-docs, does it matter if they are accredited or not? How will one's future career be impacted either way? Is there anything in particular one should look for when researching these sites?

Also, any suggestions on where to find the non-match sites would be extremely helpful (e.g., peds neuro listserv, Div 40).

Thanks!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

At this point, APA accreditation at the postdoc level doesn't matter, no. What's more important is that the site adhere to Houston Conference guidelines, which is what will make you eligible for boarding. APPCN member programs are essentially guaranteed to meet ABPP's criteria; many non-APPCN programs do as well, you just may have to submit a little extra paperwork describing the training experiences.

As for the match, I support it (much like I do boarding) as a way of helping to maintain consistency in the field, and I personally believe the match is in the best interest of trainees. For non-match sites, you've already listed most of the major places I checked back when I was looking around--npsych and peds listserves, APPCN and Division 40 websites, websites of professional organizations (particularly INS, NAN, and AACN), and even the Monitor on rare occasion.

 

[WisNeuro]

AA has it right. Houston Conference guidelines are actually more rigorous than anything APA would accredit for Postdoc, so many sites don't see the point in accrediting. It's a lot different than internship. I also wholeheartedly agree with AA about the match. It's a way to ensure that you're sticking with solid programs that adhere to certain standards set by APPCN. There are some ok sites out of the match, but there are also some terrible sites, kind of a crapshoot unless you know people there.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

I personally believe the match is in the best interest of trainees.

I also wholeheartedly agree with AA about the match. It's a way to ensure that you're sticking with solid programs that adhere to certain standards set by APPCN. There are some ok sites out of the match, but there are also some terrible sites, kind of a crapshoot unless you know people there.

Just to provide a counterpoint, there are many very good sites that do not participate in the match. Also, some sites waver in their participation in the match year to year. The match provides a very organized and step-by-step approach to post docs. However, its also rigid and takes away some choice from the applicant. Adhering to the Houston Guidelines is most pertinent but APA accredition and match participation is not.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

From a site perspective the match also makes it a bit of a crapshoot to find the best research match (for the sites that are up to 50% research); I've heard this from a number of academic medical center sites.

 

[erg923]

FWIW, We recently interviewed for a neuropsychologist here at our VA. I was part of the interview panel. Psychologists who did their neuro post-doc in PPs (I saw alot of these posted on the post-doc list-serve last year) were at a notable disadvantage compared to those that had done them in institutional/academic settings with established training programs. Most of these people didn't even make it to interview stage, and the one did who was weighed down by this factor despite his obvious competence and experience.

 

[WisNeuro]

Just to provide a counterpoint, there are many very good sites that do not participate in the match. Also, some sites waver in their participation in the match year to year. The match provides a very organized and step-by-step approach to post docs. However, its also rigid and takes away some choice from the applicant. Adhering to the Houston Guidelines is most pertinent but APA accredition and match participation is not.

Oh, there are definitely some good sites out of match. But there are also a lot of sites that are very much not good. Sites where you are merely a way to fill a patient quota. The match is a way to ensure that you get a certain level of training. That being said, the match is pretty much geared towards the clinical neuropsychologist. If you want to do pure research, you are better off at a non-match site. Although there are plenty of clinical sites that do a fair amount of research. I'm at a clinical site and I'm an author on several papers, with 3-4 more in the hopper and about a dozen posters.

 

[InYourHead]

Thank you all for the replies. So you've mentioned that there are both good and bad sites out of the Match. What should I be looking for in them? Is it as simple as asking "Do you follow Houston guidelines?" (Does anyone have a link to those, btw?) Are there certain didactic or other opportunities I should be looking for as well?

 

[WisNeuro]

Thank you all for the replies. So you've mentioned that there are both good and bad sites out of the Match. What should I be looking for in them? Is it as simple as asking "Do you follow Houston guidelines?" (Does anyone have a link to those, btw?) Are there certain didactic or other opportunities I should be looking for as well?

In the out of match, I'd want to talk to someone who has been there. Someone can say that they adhere to the guidelines, but if no one is overseeing them on that, you're just taking their word for it. I'd be looking for didactics that cover a wide range of issues (e.g., neuroimaging, neuroanatomy, brain cuttings, pharmacology, etc). And, in today's world, I'd be looking for a site that has at least a small research component. Makes you much more attractive on the job market if you can do the clinical work and the research behind it.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

This is my own bias, though the difference in training between most PP options and AMC/VA is substantial. The didactic options are the biggest weakness of most PP training sites. Lunchtime lectures, symposiums, outside speakers, neurology/radiology/neurosurg/etc. dept rounds, pathology/neuroanatomy wet lab, etc. I'm not saying there aren't good PP training sites, but the lack of immersion with other disciplines can narrow the breadth of training exposure.

Conversely, with a PP, there's likely going to be the potential for a lot of training in/exposure to the business side of psychology, complete with various billing procedures and the like. So if full-time PP is your ultimate goal, then a post-doc in a PP could be beneficial in that respect.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

This is my own bias, though the difference in training between most PP options and AMC/VA is substantial. The didactic options are the biggest weakness of most PP training sites. Lunchtime lectures, symposiums, outside speakers, neurology/radiology/neurosurg/etc. dept rounds, pathology/neuroanatomy wet lab, etc. I'm not saying there aren't good PP training sites, but the lack of immersion with other disciplines can narrow the breadth of training exposure.

Very much agreed. Even in an outstanding PP setting, you likely just aren't going to be able to get the same exposure to the inter/multidisciplinary team approach and various other hospital-based resources (e.g., the grand rounds, brain cuttings, library access, etc. that T4C mentions) that you can find in a medical center.

 

[neuronic]

In the ABPP-CN board application process, individuals who have completed APPCN and/or APA accredited postdocs have a smoother application process, which I think is mainly due to easier verification of training experiences (e.g., didactics, etc.). There are a few non-match APA accredited neuro postdocs, but some do exist (e.g., Northern California VA HCS).

 

[cara susanna]

Sorry to threadjack, but with regards to VA/AMC post-docs tending to have better training, would you say that the same is true for non-neuropsych post-docs? Or is it less of an issue if your internship is at a medical center? I'm asking because there's a private practice (non-neuro) post-doc that I'd potentially be interested in if it's open next year.

 

[WisNeuro]

Sorry to threadjack, but with regards to VA/AMC post-docs tending to have better training, would you say that the same is true for non-neuropsych post-docs? Or is it less of an issue if your internship is at a medical center? I'm asking because there's a private practice (non-neuro) post-doc that I'd potentially be interested in if it's open next year.

VA postdocs are generallyou good for training because they don't need you to see a certain patient load to meet patient quotas, or get their billing done. That said, it usually offers postdocs more time to do didactics and such. Not uniformly, but it's been my experience and the same with colleagies of mine at other VAs.

 

[LETSGONYR]

In the out of match, I'd want to talk to someone who has been there. Someone can say that they adhere to the guidelines, but if no one is overseeing them on that, you're just taking their word for it. I'd be looking for didactics that cover a wide range of issues (e.g., neuroimaging, neuroanatomy, brain cuttings, pharmacology, etc). And, in today's world, I'd be looking for a site that has at least a small research component. Makes you much more attractive on the job market if you can do the clinical work and the research behind it.

Along those lines... I'd ask what former fellows are doing now. Where they got jobs, if they are board certified, etc. If previous fellows have gotten board certified, that's a good indication that the site does provide good (or sufficient) training and does adhere to the Houston guidelines.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

Sorry to threadjack, but with regards to VA/AMC post-docs tending to have better training, would you say that the same is true for non-neuropsych post-docs? Or is it less of an issue if your internship is at a medical center? I'm asking because there's a private practice (non-neuro) post-doc that I'd potentially be interested in if it's open next year.

I will be starting post doc next year, so this is a partially uninformed answer. It seems to me that post doc is very much a time where you decide what path you will be taking in your career. So, people choose post docs that best fit where you want to end up afterward. So, if its a VA, try for a VA post doc, AMC same, university, etc. These definitely are not rigid decisions and there is flexibility. But it seems that a private practice post doc is best fit for those wanting to do private practice and has least flexibility to switch to another setting. Again, I could be way off and I am sure there are plenty of opposing anecdotal data.

 

[erg923]

I think PP post-doc is most amenable/helpful to those who want to go into PP. Its so different, in many aspects, from VA, AMC, and hospital bassed positions, its portability seems relatively poor.

 

[WisNeuro]

I think PP post-doc is most amenable/helpful to those who want to go into PP. Its so different, in many aspects, from VA, AMC, and hospital bassed positions, its portability seems relatively poor.

TBH, even if a student of mine was dead set on going PP, I would still steer them towards a postdoc in an AMC/VA. It's really your last chance to get that volume of didactic experience. Sure, you could get experience in the business aspect of PP if you went that route for postdoc, but you'll get that anyway. It's much harder to make up for 2 years of quality didactic experience that is protected time.

 

[cara susanna]

Sounds like I should steer clear from PP post-docs. Thanks for the input, everyone