NAPPP and neuropsych boarding

[50960]

American Board Of Professional Neuropsychology Affiliates With NAPPP


The Board of Directors of the American Board of Professional Neuropsychology (ABPN) through it’s college, the American College of Professional Neuropsychology (ACPN), has voted to affiliate with the National Alliance of Professional Psychology Providers. Both organizations will work together to promote and advance training and practice in professional neuropsychology. NAPPP members who qualify are welcome to apply for board certification with ABPN . Members of ABPN will have access to NAPPP's growing free CE offerings and other benefits, which ABPN will contribute to, and to a national organization that understands why specialty training must be controlled by professional psychologists. The ABPN and NAPPP recognize and encourage the pursuit of excellence in the practice of clinical neuropsychology. ABPN's primary objective is the establishment of professional standards of expertise for the practice of clinical neuropsychology. Through its credentialing and examination processes and its continuing education requirement, the ABPN offers to the medical community, the public, and to individuals who have a need for applied neuropsychological services, a process whereby well-qualified professional neuropsychologists can be identified. ABPN joins the American Board of Medical Psychology, which affiliated with NAPPP in July of this year. ABPN's web site can be accessed at http://abpn.net.


The Board of Directors of both organizations see many opportunities for practitioners as a result of the affiliation. The synergy of two professional organizations comprised of practitioners can make a big difference as we strive to take the practice of psychology back into the hands of professional, doctoral level psychologists. ABPN members will also fit nicely into the development of NAPPP's mental health delivery network now being organized under the direction of Dr. Jeff Bragman and Dr. Nick Cummings. Information on NAPPP can be found at http://nappp.org.


John Caccavale, Ph.D.
NAPPP Board of Directors

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[PsiKo]

ha! losers unite.

Losers? Why?

 

[PsyDRxPnow]

ha! losers unite.

yea, what do you mean by that?

 

[50960]

Ummm...ya I do.

 

[PsyDRxPnow]

.

 

[PsyDRxPnow]

Yes, I suppose you would. It's a shame. It is somewhat the fault of those that went the non-professional school route. They could have headed this stuff all off, but didn't. Now the cat is out of the proverbial bag and we can't catch the bugger. It's like a cancer. It just keeps growing until it kills the host. Sad, really. I don't want these people associated with neuropsychology, but there it is. I'm sure my income will drop shortly.

Do not blame others for your misfortunes, it’s just not pretty. Do your job and do it competently and you wont have to worry about the “professional schools”.

 

[Neuro-Dr]

Jon,

I think there are a couple of things to consider when forming opinions on these issues. My strong opinion is that the Assessment Board is going to join this group as well and for those that know much about this board, this reads like a who's who of psychologists. They were rejected from ABPP when they applied because there was a feeling that assessment was too much a part of other boards (like Group and Family isn't???). they will now want to seek a home under another umbrella that can aid them is gaining specialty recognition form the NR and Dept of Ed. Who is at fault?

Is ABPN, who has MacAffery, Reitan, Reynolds some of the most respected a widely published NPs in the country at fault for wanting to work with ABCN to merge the boards? Is ABCN at fault for wanting them to adhear to their standards to do so?

Is the fact that the APA is so luke warm on the idea of Prescriptive authorites to blame for the formation of NAPPP? When California loses their lawsuit and privledges are granted there because of NAPPP, who benefits?

My issue generally with your approach is that it does not reflect the type of critical thinking that aids in solving the problems endemic to psychology, but relies upon a "this is the best way because it is my way" approach to decision making. When I hear you refer to ABPNs and NAPPP, Prof Schools as losers, I begin to more fully understand the problems within our field. I think I pointed out in another posts my strong concerns about the PhD and PsyD models (through IU and ISPP) and had no response. I pointed out my support for aspects of ABPdN as well. I don't do this because I want division, but rather because the polarity that exist has been caused to a degree by ABCN and ABPP (and I am very invested in those agencies right now).

I encourage you (Jon) to add a more critical eye to your thinking through these issues or just stop posting these sound bites, because I don't feel they keep with the Ethic Guidelines we have adopted to protect the field of psychology. Or just ignore me because this is an anonymous listserve, right?

 

[Neuro-Dr]

You've seen people in a public forum refer to colleagues as "losers"
Your position is that ABCN should have grandfathered these "losers"
How many times in your posts do you think you've made comments that do not reflect the professional level on which disagreements should rest?

I'm not stating that your opinions have no merit, far from it. I do have concern for the way you share them at times. Also, I think you need to consider some of the other things that I said in that post and not just pick and choose. Your opinions on Professional Schools are waranted and potentially accurate if the trend continues. I'm not sure that is true for some of the others. This is just food for thought and we could discuss bck channel if you prefer.
P.S. I will share that I am not in NAPPP and also have some concerns

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

You see, I believe the endgame has already transpired. Professional schools and the related organizations will dominate this field. Psychology will deteriorate with regards to pay, respect, responsibility in the health arena, etc.

Jon has a point, though I think it is a bit more leaning than where I am. I believe issues people have with professional schools brings up an underlying problem in academia (psych spec) and the accredidation process......and these underlying problems CAN be addressed, but the longer we wait, the more problems it will cause.

I believe we are not adapting to the shifting knowledge basis needed to be fully competent clinicians. Couple this with the current minimum standards for accredidation (and the lack of adaption to include more bio/chem courses for ALL student, not just neuro/health), and you are opening yourself up to weaker clinicians.

I have no doubt there are clinicians who go above and beyond the academic minimums set, but those aren't the people i'm worried about. I'm worried about the group of clinicians who can skimp on by, get licensed, and then are my 'colleagues'. I don't differentiate between traditional programs, and professional schools....bc ever institution needs to hold themselves accountable for the clinicians they produce. I differentiate on the clinician's ability to be successful and competent in the field. In private practice and insulated areas....i'm sure they will do fine, but when psychology crosses into the health area....we are at a disadvantage (not all, but some).

My fear is that our field is weakened by sub-standard clinicians....regardless of where they received their education.

As for the NAPPP.....I want to support their more progressive pursuits (on a case by case basis) I think the APA needs to step up to the plate and start address more of these areas, or there is going to be yet another split in the profession.....and that isn't good for anyone involved.

-t

ps. Jon, you have some valid points (which I tried to address above), but they are clouded by your inflamatory editorials.

 

[Neuro-Dr]

I'm not sure you can use the behavior of others to justify your own. Professional debates are important and rational arguements are as well. Spelling out the reasons why something should not be done in as passionate a manner as you are able is admirable. However, remember that the ethics code requires that you protect the field of psychology. This means if a patient is in your office and you say "you saw Dr. X, that guy is a loser" this is in part what the code seeks to stop because you are acting in a way that can tarnish the field in general. If this does seem to even be in the grey area of ethics to you, then so be it. I have given you my view and you can proceed in a manner you see fit.

You do not seem to be as able to grasp the greater issue of why these conflicts have come up and systemically how they do not lead to a simple "my board is better than yours" conclusion. There is no empirical evidence that any board is better or that the mechanisms that are used by any of the ABPP boards are better from within or without. Even within medicine the certification process is very different and some only require a license and 150 of training versus a written, work sample and oral and thus no guidance can be gained there. Yet, your reference was to call another board "losers" and still I see no concerns from you.

Please check out the Assessment board and tell me if they will be losers when they joing NAPPP (as I think they will) and then answer me "why did this happen?" "Why did ABPP reject them without even a presentation?"

 

[Neuro-Dr]

I don't disagree that there should be one over-arching board, but the goal needs to be one of inclusivity so that the drive is to effect the practitioner at the 50th percentil, not the 90th as is being done. ABPP has been unwilling to do that. You said yourself that you didn't think that ABPdN should have been accepted, why?
My reply to ABPP was, please take them. Here is a board that has done everything exactly the way ABPP does and when they reached a critical mass, they applied. If ABPP wants to change the charter to allow for sub-specialties (which it should) then they can go under ABCN. I really don't care. But you can't use the arguments about process, membership and exclusivity as arguments. The discipline and the process is what is certified through ABPP, not who has the cooler people and that is a major problem. Did you look at the website for the Assessment board yet. Talk about membership. They will go elsewhere, what choice did ABPP give them?

I don't have any problem with your argument about ecological validity, but then it just comes down to someone's opinion. If you are only going to have one organizatio (i.e. APA) you better be inclusive (remember APS).

 

[Neuro-Dr]

www.assessmentpsychologyboard.org