LPCs and SWs getting right to interpret psychological and neuropsyc tests

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
eh, i am not worried in the least.


just means there is a lot of expert witness work about to happen in montana. imagine the gold rush for properly trained people when a bunch of non-qualified people with no training in X, Y, or Z start trying to give crap opinions on all sorts of things. the amount of opportunity this work alone boggles my mind.

also: this is not going to do anything to neuropsych. A) most third party payors require a physician order for neuropsych testing. what physician in his/her right mind is going to refer to a MA level person for neuropsych? B) how the deuce would an MA bill? CPT codes specify psychologist, physician, or tech. guess which one the MA level will have to use? have fun with your $40/hr

all sorts of idiots attempt to impinge on the field. quality work will always win out.
 
PSYDR, I diasgree --it's going to KILL psychology. I am on internship here in Michigan and LPCs. M.A.s and LCSWs can all do testing over here (and master's levels can call themselves "psychologists", too). Anyway, guess who does a majority of the testing (and bills insurance for it)? Master's level people. I have a child neuropsych report on my desk from a master's level (M.A.) psychologist right now.

The montanna RxP bill was killed this year by a committee with social workers on it; the same commiittee that passed this bill out of committee. Funny they don't think we should prescribe with an additional master's but they want to do testing with one 3-hour course. The bill has passed the House and is now on its way to the Senate there. The state psychological ass'n is going to try to kill it there. It is nuts that they want to do neuropsych and psych testing with one 3-hour course in assessment.

If you're interesting in sending a contribution to fight this bill (remember, this is your future, too), here is the address of the MT Psychological Assn:

Montana Psychological; Association
36 Last Chance Gulch, Ste A
Helena, Montana 59601

Simply write on the check that this is for the fund to "fight SB-235/The Psychological Assessment Bill"
 
edieb,

huh, the entire MA level "psychologist" thing really screws things up. i was wrong.


for clinical work, this is going to screw a lot of people: psychologists and patients. someone will likely end up dying from a missed tumor.

for forensic work, it will be a boom in business after a bunch of LPCs or LMSWs attempt to do testing. happens quite frequently in child custody cases from what i hear and occasionally see. a doctoral level expert witness usually is called in and starts talking about error rates, false positives, true positives, etc and the MA ends up slaughtered on the stand because they don't have the math.
 
PSYDR said:
for forensic work, it will be a boom in business after a bunch of LPCs or LMSWs attempt to do testing. happens quite frequently in child custody cases from what i hear and occasionally see. a doctoral level expert witness usually is called in and starts talking about error rates, false positives, true positives, etc and the MA ends up slaughtered on the stand because they don't have the math.
Click to expand...
I think forensic work is safe because it is all about credentials, and doctoral level is the "standard".....it is the soft money (private pay) I'd be concerned about. Direct consumer referrals are much more liable to be influenced because they don't know any better. If it gets foothold by the insurance companies....we are in trouble.

It really is ridiculous when you consider how much training we go through to really understand the assessments, and how that is all thrown out the window.
 
Snow,

Save that talk for NAN @ new Orleans where I challenge you to a drinking/rey-o drawing contest.
 
PSYDR said:
Snow,

Save that talk for NAN @ new Orleans where I challenge you to a drinking/rey-o drawing contest.
Click to expand...

I think you should play "Wheel of WAIS". After partaking in the spirits and whatnot, you spin a wheel and compete against other professionals in various sub-tests like Block Design, Symbol Search, etc. Hilarity to ensue.
 
Take with a grain of salt.......

I just received an e-mail from someone who contacted the MPA, and they were told the APA turned down the MPA's request for legislative funding to fight this issue. The MPA is trying to raise funds on their own because they see the danger of such a bill.
 
As someone who lives in MT, I DON'T support this bill! There's too much danger in letting unqualified people do neuropsych testing. That being said, there's a huge dearth of psychologists, psychiatrists, and even other clinician here (except for in Missoula). There's only one certified neuropsychologist in the entire state (and he's an academic who practices part-time), though other clinical psychs do this testing because there's no one else.

Bill progress: http://laws.leg.mt.gov/laws09/LAW0203W$BSRV.ActionQuery?P_BLTP_BILL_TYP_CD=SB&P_BILL_NO=235&P_BILL_DFT_NO=&P_CHPT_NO=&Z_ACTION=Find&P_SBJ_DESCR=&P_SBJT_SBJ_CD=&P_LST_NM1=Murphy%2C+Terry+&P_ENTY_ID_SEQ=5182

It hasn't been scheduled for a second reading (floor vote) in House yet...
 
Last edited:
futureapppsy2 said:
As someone who lives in MT, I DON'T support this bill! There's too much danger in letting unqualified people do neuropsych testing. That being said, there's a huge dearth of psychologists, psychiatrists, and even other clinician here (except for in Missoula). There's only one certified neuropsychologist in the entire state (and he's an academic who practices part-time), though other clinical psychs do this testing because there's no one else.

Bill progress: http://laws.leg.mt.gov/laws09/LAW0203W$BSRV.ActionQuery?P_BLTP_BILL_TYP_CD=SB&P_BILL_NO=235&P_BILL_DFT_NO=&P_CHPT_NO=&Z_ACTION=Find&P_SBJ_DESCR=&P_SBJT_SBJ_CD=&P_LST_NM1=Murphy%2C+Terry+&P_ENTY_ID_SEQ=5182

It hasn't been scheduled for a second reading (floor vote) in House yet...
Click to expand...

a response from a counseling phd who trains masters level clinicians in MT on why they should not be allow to administer and interpret tests or go by the title of psychologist:

http://data.opi.mt.gov/legbills/2009/Minutes/Senate/Exhibits/phs14a08.pdf
 
Turns out doctoral psychology is not the only profession under assault.

From our medical colleagues, discussion over the proliferation of the DNP (Doctor of Nursing Practice) degree.

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=605130

Turns out there are many physicians who feel the AMA is as ineffective as psychologists believing the same about the APA.
 
Prsstnt said:
Very well written letter and makes a strong point. I am concerned about the falling economy and the role it will play in such decisions in the next few years.
Click to expand...


I would be really upset if I were paying my way through a professional program. Still I am disappointed with the legislation and feel that it's fundamentally wrong.

Mark
 
psychwhy, that is a really interesting read! Thanks for the link.
 
FWIW, I brought this up in my social policy (social work!) class today as something I was opposed to, and most of the class, including the professor, surprisingly agreed with me! The professor said that even with a clinically focused degree SWer's just aren't given or prepaid for that training! A lot of SW students seemed to equate "testing" with "diagnosis," though, which I thought was interesting/strange.
 
Jon Snow said:
"The truly scary thing is that they don't how much they don't know."
Click to expand...

Very true. It is worse in large organizations, where the administrative focus is primarily on financial gain, thus encouraging a culture of ignorance.
 
edieb said:
I have a child neuropsych report on my desk from a master's level (M.A.) psychologist right now.
Click to expand...

You've got to be f@&%ing kidding me. Even psychologists shouldn't do neuropsych testing without having had the coursework and extensive training, and we can't call ourselves neuropsychologists without following the guidelines of the Houston Conference.
 
I am in the last week of my neuropsych rotation and it made me realize how much I still need to be able to conduct an NP assessment competently. This can't be good for the field.

In fact, my rotation supervisor--a residency trained neuropsychologist--did not pass the final board certification hurdle of the oral exam. He is pretty darn good and still not board certified.
 
73BARMYPgsp said:
I am in the last week of my neuropsych rotation and it made me realize how much I still need to be able to conduct an NP assessment competently. This can't be good for the field.

In fact, my rotation supervisor--a residency trained neuropsychologist--did not pass the final board certification hurdle of the oral exam. He is pretty darn good and still not board certified.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to have my first rotation at my internship site be TBI, and from going over just that area it is a ridiculous amount of information (not only on the assessment side, but on the neuro/hard science side). Scary indeed.
 
Personally, I cannot imagine adding this layer of service to my private practice without comprehensive training. My masters program offered no training and only briefly mentioned psych assessment in a couple of classes. We spent NO time touching neuropsychological assessment. I took an 'Intro to Neuropsychological Assessment' through an extension course for kicks as I like brain sciencey stuff and was stunned at the complexity of it (as well as it's elegance). And this was an INTRO course! Needless to say, the class only reaffirmed my notion that MFTs should have no business (specifically me!)performing this level of care.

It's baffling how the MFT lawmakers have left the law open for our discipline to offer this service to our patients, as long as we're 'clinically competent'. Others in my field might find this as a victory for our discipline, retaining respect against the other psych disciplines. However, I see this as grossly unethical, if not dangerous.

Speaking for myself, I know what I don't know!
 
socialcog said:
Personally, I cannot imagine adding this layer of service to my private practice without comprehensive training. My masters program offered no training and only briefly mentioned psych assessment in a couple of classes. We spent NO time touching neuropsychological assessment. I took an 'Intro to Neuropsychological Assessment' through an extension course for kicks as I like brain sciencey stuff and was stunned at the complexity of it (as well as it's elegance). And this was an INTRO course! Needless to say, the class only reaffirmed my notion that MFTs should have no business (specifically me!)performing this level of care.

It's baffling how the MFT lawmakers have left the law open for our discipline to offer this service to our patients, as long as we're 'clinically competent'. Others in my field might find this as a victory for our discipline, retaining respect against the other psych disciplines. However, I see this as grossly unethical, if not dangerous.

Speaking for myself, I know what I don't know!
Click to expand...

Refreshing. Spoken like someone who cares more about patient care than bragging about what you are authorized to do.
 
Are their any news articles or the like on this subject? I think its pretty interesting and i agree its kind of scary. I guess it depends on what kind of education and examination is required. i'm an msw student and we don't even have a dedicated class dedicated to an introduction to neuroscience!

im interested in the rationale behind the decision...maybe they know something we don't
 
This is the type of thing that makes it very easy to understand why masters-level clinicians receive the criticism that they do...

I just can't understand, on an individual level, why someone would actually want to perform work that they have never been trained to do...Debating what amount of training is adequate is one thing, but what type of clinician attempts to do work that they are completely unfamiliar with? It's a clear violation of ethics, regardless of the legality involved.
 
Therapist4Chnge said:
I wonder if a "Life Coach" with an MS will be able to administer assessments if they say they are qualified?

Yeah..I don't see a problem.

🙄
Click to expand...

Oh Christ. I hope that at least it was stipulated that the person be licensed as an LCSW or MFT? At least with a license, someone's governing them and can be complained to...
 
I dunno, I think it's the neuropsych thing that's going to hurt them. I think the average public cares more when it seems more "medicine-y."
 
cara susanna said:
I dunno, I think it's the neuropsych thing that's going to hurt them. I think the average public cares more when it seems more "medicine-y."
Click to expand...

True, and when you're dealing with patients who've had CVAs, TBI, Alzheimer's, etc. you're more likely to have some very involved family members who are probably going to ask why someone who doesn't have the title "Dr." is telling them about their loved one's brain functioning and prognosis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
psychological testing
Replies
34
Views
2K
msc545
M
mypointlesspov
Testing and medication
Replies
27
Views
2K
smalltownpsych
smalltownpsych
P
Y'all were right--kinda
Replies
4
Views
461
smalltownpsych
smalltownpsych
R
Any Advice for someone looking to get more experience in Neuropsychological Testing?
Replies
13
Views
2K
cara susanna
cara susanna
T
Pay parity and salary negotiations
Replies
9
Views
335
PsyDuck90
P
Top