Practice and Research in one career?

[Sorg1123]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I'm applying to Grad School for Fall 2007 with the intent to focus on clinical neuropsychology. Professionally I'd like do both research and practice in clinical settings. Any comments on the feasability of such career aims? Also, do any programs come to mind? Any advice is welcome!

 

[Dr.JT]

I'm applying to Grad School for Fall 2007 with the intent to focus on clinical neuropsychology. Professionally I'd like do both research and practice in clinical settings. Any comments on the feasability of such career aims? Also, do any programs come to mind? Any advice is welcome!

I am a clinical neuropsychologist working at a university medical center. I do about 70% clinical work 30% research. So I guess it is very feasible.

As for programs, I won't endorse any specific programs, but I recommend a solid Boulder model program. An advisor who is a neuropsychologist is another thing to look for. Other than that good broad clinical training and make sure they have several physiology and neuro classes to take. A med school close by where you could take a course or two would be a plus.

Some programs have a neuro specialization, but there are mixed feelings about this approach (i.e., sacrifice general clinical skills for neuro).

Check Out neuropsychologycentral.com (got to links then training) for links to specific programs.

Oh, and make sure you want to be in training for at least 7 years.

 

[Psyclops]

My advisor is a fulltime professor, doing primarily research and instruction, but still sees a client load of about 3 per week. Those he charges for on a self pay basis. In other words they pay him out of their pocket. I'm not sure how large of a load he would have time for if he wanted. Also, he isn't a neuropsychologist, I think he does little in the way of testing and assessment.

 

[NpsychPhD]

I'm applying to Grad School for Fall 2007 with the intent to focus on clinical neuropsychology. Professionally I'd like do both research and practice in clinical settings. Any comments on the feasability of such career aims? Also, do any programs come to mind? Any advice is welcome!

It is very common for neuropsychologists to do both research and clinical work. There are many different paths to neuropsychology and you will see all kinds of opinions about what works best. For me, the priorities for a program would be, in order:

APA accredited
some kind of exposure to neuropsychology
tuition remission
stipend
a formal neuropsychology track/focus
an emphasis on good general clinical skills (particularly interviewing)
some kind of research opportunity in neuropsychology
an academic medical setting
a medical neuroscience course early in your training
clinical rotations with ABPP neuropsychologists

I'm a proponent of neuropsychology training at the doctoral level. When I interviewed for internship and later residency, the questions were always about my prior neuropsychology training/knowledge. When considering PhD programs, your mentor will be as important, or more important, than what program you go to. A mentor who is active in research and the politics of neuropsychology would be a huge plus.

Good luck

 

[Neuro-Dr]

I think since 2005, you really need to go to a program with a formal track in neuropsychology. The coursework is actually more important than the advisor at this stage in the process because more and more the Houston Conference Guidelines are being adopted and this means you need to complete training in a formal setting.

Also, most of the APPCN fellowships are taking students who plan to get boarded and you will spend quite a bit of time in some sites preparing for this. Most of these sites are not going to take you seriously without solid academic training. Things are becoming much more formal in terms of NP training these days.

 

[NpsychPhD]

I think since 2005, you really need to go to a program with a formal track in neuropsychology. The coursework is actually more important than the advisor at this stage in the process because more and more the Houston Conference Guidelines are being adopted and this means you need to complete training in a formal setting.

Also, most of the APPCN fellowships are taking students who plan to get boarded and you will spend quite a bit of time in some sites preparing for this. Most of these sites are not going to take you seriously without solid academic training. Things are becoming much more formal in terms of NP training these days.

I don't think a formal track in neuropsychology is necessary. The Houston Guidelines are aspirational and emphasize internship and postdoctoral training to a greater extent (see below from the NAN website). They explicitly state that the knowledge base can be acquired in multiple ways. While a formal neuropsychology track is ideal, there are many programs without a track that offer some neuropsychology courses and have faculty members/clinical supervisors who are neuropsychologists. As far as being taken seriously for internship/postdoc, it has been my experience that publications and strong recommendations (from respected neuropsychologists) go a lot farther than anything else. In large cities (e.g. Boston, Philadelphia, New York), students at doctoral programs without neuropsychology tracks commonly work with top neuropsychologists on external rotations.

Personally, I would choose a funded position without a neuropsychology track but adequate neuropsychology resources over an unfunded program with a neuropsychology track. It is has been my experience that the length of our training and the low starting salaries are not fully appreciated by most applicants.


http://nanonline.org/content/pages/prof/houston.shtm
Doctoral education in clinical neuropsychology occurs at a regionally accredited institution. All basic aspects of the generic psychology and generic clinical cores should be completed at the doctoral level. The foundation of brain-behavior relationships should be developed to a considerable degree at this level of training. Yet, variability may occur between doctoral programs in the degree to which foundations of brain-behavior relationships and clinical neuropsychology practice are emphasized.

 

[Dr.JT]

I don't think a formal track in neuropsychology is necessary. The Houston Guidelines are aspirational and emphasize internship and postdoctoral training to a greater extent (see below from the NAN website). QUOTE]

This is 100% correct. A formal track is absolutely not necessary. We have an APPCN postdoc where I work and a formal track is sometimes a red flag for lack of well developed clinical skills. Certainly neuropsych training and coursework is required, but so is general clinical training. The Houston Guidelines are much more in line with this approach with an emphasis on greater specialized training at the postdoctoral level. The model is clinical psychologist first with a specialization in neuropsychology.

 

[Neuro-Dr]

I don't think a formal track in neuropsychology is necessary. The Houston Guidelines are aspirational and emphasize internship and postdoctoral training to a greater extent (see below from the NAN website). QUOTE]

This is 100% correct. A formal track is absolutely not necessary. We have an APPCN postdoc where I work and a formal track is sometimes a red flag for lack of well developed clinical skills. Certainly neuropsych training and coursework is required, but so is general clinical training. The Houston Guidelines are much more in line with this approach with an emphasis on greater specialized training at the postdoctoral level. The model is clinical psychologist first with a specialization in neuropsychology.

 

[Neuro-Dr]

I'm not sure I understand Jon's post. The original question was that the person was applying to graduate school next year. Doesn't that imply a doctoral program? If so, then how could the question not be taken as "should I go to a program with or without a NP track"?

As some one who is already boarded and who has sat on exec boards, I can tell you that boards do not look favorably on ad hoc education. ABCN has changed standards in 2005 and adopted the HCG as more than aspirational (although not complete). It is no longer acceptable for new students to be unable to substantiate their training in the field by expereince alone. If you read the HCG and updates, you will see that there are 4 domains, including general and clinical, are you (Jon/Dr.JT/NPsych) suggesting that those be achieved without academic supprt, I think you are not. However, the postings given are suggesting that the other two domains can be. I can tell you that is becoming increasingly untrue.

You will need to document training in an organized institution. I have seen applicants asked to return to graduate courses in neuroanatomy/neuropathology years after their degree to be eligible to sit for boards.

As to the mentor, I am not saying it is not a good idea, but I think Jon is mischaracterizing this point and it may be because he interpreted the post as a request for undergraduate programs.

You are wellcome to take all these posts and do the research yourself, but I urge you to carefully consider what I am saying. The pulse of the field is changing and the politics with it. The advise given to others when they went through is not going to be the same as for you. I am very wary of students without formal training and APPCN fellowships are no longer approved without an ABCN (although they may start allowing ABPN/ABPdN soon) as the director.

 

[Dr.JT]

I'm not sure I understand Jon's post. The original question was that the person was applying to graduate school next year. Doesn't that imply a doctoral program? If so, then how could the question not be taken as "should I go to a program with or without a NP track"?

As some one who is already boarded and who has sat on exec boards, I can tell you that boards do not look favorably on ad hoc education. ABCN has changed standards in 2005 and adopted the HCG as more than aspirational (although not complete). It is no longer acceptable for new students to be unable to substantiate their training in the field by experience alone. If you read the HCG and updates, you will see that there are 4 domains, including general and clinical, are you (Jon/Dr.JT/NPsych) suggesting that those be achieved without academic supprt, I think you are not. However, the postings given are suggesting that the other two domains can be. I can tell you that is becoming increasingly untrue.

You will need to document training in an organized institution. I have seen applicants asked to return to graduate courses in neuroanatomy/neuropathology years after their degree to be eligible to sit for boards.

As to the mentor, I am not saying it is not a good idea, but I think Jon is mischaracterizing this point and it may be because he interpreted the post as a request for undergraduate programs.

You are wellcome to take all these posts and do the research yourself, but I urge you to carefully consider what I am saying. The pulse of the field is changing and the politics with it. The advise given to others when they went through is not going to be the same as for you. I am very wary of students without formal training and APPCN fellowships are no longer approved without an ABCN (although they may start allowing ABPN/ABPdN soon) as the director.

As I said in my post, formal coursework at the graduate level is required. A formal track is not. My program did not have a formal track, but my advisor was a prominent neuropsychologist (this was relevant for research reasons) and my program offered coursework in NP as well as practicum. In addition, I took a neuroanatomy course at the med school affiliated with my program. I then completed a NP based internship and an APPCN postdoc. My credentials were accepted by ABCN on my first submission, no questions asked. Going back to the original question, "should I go to a program with or without a NP track" I stick with my original response, it does not matter as long as these other things are accounted for.

 

[Dr.JT]

I am very wary of students without formal training and APPCN fellowships are no longer approved without an ABCN (although they may start allowing ABPN/ABPdN soon) as the director.

Incidentally, I believe this is absolutely the way it should be. I am just wary of the "formal neuropsych track" since it sometimes leads to de-emphasis on general clinical training which should be the focus of grad school. But there is no question that formal training needs to occur at the grad level with greater depth at higher levels.

 

[Neuro-Dr]

Incidentally, I believe this is absolutely the way it should be. I am just wary of the "formal neuropsych track" since it sometimes leads to de-emphasis on general clinical training which should be the focus of grad school. But there is no question that formal training needs to occur at the grad level with greater depth at higher levels.

I see your point more clearly. I think my issue is that coursework can be construed as a couple of courses. It sounds as though your program covered these areas without a formal concentration/cognate/minor/track, whatever. I hope you also see my point as to the importance of the ability to document this training. I share your concern for the lack of attention that could be given to clinical areas and I think that is why ABPP adopted the model of 4 domains. I worry that a new entering grad student, needs to be clear about today's and future expectations for training. Remeber, in 2005, no warning was given to those already in grad school, on internship about these changes to the model. You and I were only accountable to the standards when we graduated. New students can read these, but it will not protect them against future changes. My advice is to stick as close to the path for as long as you can and deviate for cogent reasons, not to pick daisies.

 

[Dr.JT]

I see your point more clearly. I think my issue is that coursework can be construed as a couple of courses. It sounds as though your program covered these areas without a formal concentration/cognate/minor/track, whatever. I hope you also see my point as to the importance of the ability to document this training. I share your concern for the lack of attention that could be given to clinical areas and I think that is why ABPP adopted the model of 4 domains. I worry that a new entering grad student, needs to be clear about today's and future expectations for training. Remeber, in 2005, no warning was given to those already in grad school, on internship about these changes to the model. You and I were only accountable to the standards when we graduated. New students can read these, but it will not protect them against future changes. My advice is to stick as close to the path for as long as you can and deviate for cogent reasons, not to pick daisies.

My program had a health psych specialization with numerous psychophys courses. My advisor taught several neuropsych courses that covered neuroanatomy, neuropathology, and neuropsych testing (total of three courses in neuro, two in psychophys). Also had a year of practicum training in outpatient neuropsych. Of course things got much more in depth at post doc with weekly brain cuttings and didactics. My understanding is this would have been more than enough for someone even after 2005.

We are definitely on the same page. I think the key will be competition for post-docs that meet ABCN requirements. They will ultimately determine what degree of NP training, beyond the basics that is, that will be needed to enter the field. After all the bottom line is without this post doc, not entry to the field.