SLP Looking for Information Regarding Neuropsych/Counseling PhD's

[maurarae]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Hello!

I sort of found an answer to my question but would like to ask all of you to clear it up further. It appears the 3 doctoral programs you can go through to become a neuropsychologist are a Clinical Psych PhD, Clinical Psych PsyD or a Counseling PhD? This is an accurate conclusion?

Also did any of you come out from a different field? I'm an SLP and am looking into doctoral programs in other areas as I think that may be where I want my career to go.

 

[WisNeuro]

That is correct, those three degrees can all lead to a career in neuropsychology, though some paths will arguably set you up better than others. Neuropsychology is definitely a specialty where a good understanding of research, both how it is conducted, and how it is evaluated, is crucial to being a competent clinician. So, I'd definitely be looking for programs where there is a component of having to conduct your own research.

 

[IWillSurvive]

I am a graduate of a Counseling Psychology Ph.D. program and spent alot of my time in the program pursuing neuropsychology training before shifting to gero when I applied to internships. It took ALOT of extra work on my part (i.e., advocacy within my program, networking, flexibility, willingness to do extra, take a functional neuroanatomy class at another university, alot of frustration, hopes, and anxieties, etc.) to set myself up for that path. I probably could have matched to a smaller neuropsych program but not any of the bigger programs in larger cities. I know ~3-4 neuropsychologists who have a Counseling Ph.D., and I certainly believe it can be done with this degree...and want it to be easier for Counseling Psych folks because we can be very competent in that role; however, it is VERY challenging because the infrastructure in the Counseling PhD programs is often very lacking in the area of neuropsychology. Anyway, my take home message is... I would highly recommend Clinical PhD programs for neuropsychology training if that is possible for you. I have seen some Clinical PsyD's as neuropsychologists but would tend to recommend the PhD route if at all possible.

 

[R. Matey]

I am a graduate of a Counseling Psychology Ph.D. program and spent alot of my time in the program pursuing neuropsychology training before shifting to gero when I applied to internships. It took ALOT of extra work on my part (i.e., advocacy within my program, networking, flexibility, willingness to do extra, take a functional neuroanatomy class at another university, alot of frustration, hopes, and anxieties, etc.) to set myself up for that path. I probably could have matched to a smaller neuropsych program but not any of the bigger programs in larger cities. I know ~3-4 neuropsychologists who have a Counseling Ph.D., and I certainly believe it can be done with this degree...and want it to be easier for Counseling Psych folks because we can be very competent in that role; however, it is VERY challenging because the infrastructure in the Counseling PhD programs is often very lacking in the area of neuropsychology. Anyway, my take home message is... I would highly recommend Clinical PhD programs for neuropsychology training if that is possible for you. I have seen some Clinical PsyD's as neuropsychologists but would tend to recommend the PhD route if at all possible.

I really appreciated reading this. I'm also from a Ph.D. in counseling psych program (from an R1, I might add) and I can echo much of @IWillSurvive is talking about. Though I took all of the same psychology core classes with the clinical psychology folks in their department (which included a two course sequence in neuroscience/neuroanatomy and a whole bucket of stats classes), I definitely feel the distinction in certain settings. Those who went into pediatric, rehabilitation, or neuropsychology from our program basically lived at the local AMC/Hospital system. That wasn't quite as true for the clinical psych folks who mostly stayed in their own department doing research until later in their training where they did one or two externships before going on internship. I know they worked very hard to get those positions, but the path was more of a natural progression for the clinical folks. The counseling people who were living in the AMCs were making their own connections and doing their own networking since the faculty in our program didn't seem to pay the speciality areas much mind. This was huge frustration for many of us in the program.

 

[IWillSurvive]

Yup. Spot on.

 

[Justanothergrad]

Agreed on some points, disagree on others.
- Counseling tends to be viewed as less assessment strong (data doesn't really support that) and so this becomes a strong perception in neuropsych
- There are less likely to be neuro folks interest in counseling rather than clinical because, in part, some of this
- Course coverage in neuropsych is more common in clinical programs (and probably externship). This may be a function of the points above.
- Folks who are most successful in neuro spend their time in neuro/neuro-adjacent settings whenever possible.
- It comes down to who you work with and what sort of work you do during graduate school as well.


And on this note, now back to writing papers on TBI samples and PVT scales.

 

[R. Matey]

Counseling tends to be viewed as less assessment strong (data doesn't really support that) and so this becomes a strong perception in neuropsych

This has been one of the more frustrating roadblocks I've encountered thus far. Even at UCCs, we're are at very least doing LD/ADHD evaluations. How this played out during training is that we had a difficult time finding practicum sites that will give us assessment hours at all. When I would send in applications for certain rotations at certain sites, it wasn't uncommon to get no response even if I knew they took clinical people from my school. I'm persistent so I was lucky enough to get one of these coveted prac positions and ended up with a good amount of hours and integrated reports for internship, but it was a bit of a hustle. Many of my colleagues struggled to get the hours if they wanted them. I suspect this isn't quite the same experience as folks in clinical programs.

That being said, there is a grain of truth to that viewpoint. I was equally irritated by the "Devil May Care" attitude the professors and some of the students had towards assessment in my program. A common refrain from faculty is that assessment "is not a competency we emphasize." It was more common among a quarter of the students to criticize assessments rather than actually use them. I suspect this attitude played a large role in the faculty not making more of an effort to cultivate relationships with neuropsychology sites as well as students not seeking them out.

I think the larger issue is when application reviewers have 90 minutes and 100 applications. I imagine it's more difficult for counseling psychs to make it through the screening process for neuropsychology or other assessment heavy specialities.

 

[cara susanna]

My university had a counseling program as well as a clinical program and it seemed like the statistics training in the counseling program was less rigorous. Neuropsychologists need a good background in statistics.

 

[WisNeuro]

As with most answers, it depends. There are some counseling programs that do have a strong neuro training background, though they are the exception, rather than the rule. As @R. Matey stated, in many counseling programs, if you want a strong neuro application, you have to do a lot of extra work to get the experiences you will need. So, while you can get good neuro training in a counseling program, you will have a much easier road in a clinical program, on average.

 

[ClinicalABA]

I think the larger issue is when application reviewers have 90 minutes and 100 applications. I imagine it's more difficult for counseling psychs to make it through the screening process for neuropsychology or other assessment heavy specialities.

And this is the reason why the most common route is typically the best. The (admittedly anecdotal) info from the counseling psych students above sort of supports this practice.

OP- regardless of the type of program, you’d basically be starting over. Little-to-none of your SLP coursework will overlap, and none of your SLP clinical hours would count. You’re looking at, at a minimum, 4 years coursework/practicum (though 5 years seems to be standard nowadays), one year pre-doctoral internship, and 1 year post-doctoral supervised work before you’d be eligible for licensure. I’d think minimizing any hurdles should be a priority.

 

[R. Matey]

My university had a counseling program as well as a clinical program and it seemed like the statistics training in the counseling program was less rigorous. Neuropsychologists need a good background in statistics.

I had the opposite experience. Clinical students had a basic stats class and then came over to our department for more specialized stats training. We’re embedded in a larger school of education, so the stats department also trained students who would go on to work at ETS and other such testing companies.

I know what you mean though: there was choice to do either a qualitative or quantitative emphasis for our research training and a vast majority of the students took qualitative classes. I suspect this was because of some of my peers doubted their math abilities.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[R. Matey]

And this is the reason why the most common route is typically the best. The (admittedly anecdotal) info from the counseling psych students above sort of supports this practice. .

Yes, it’s totally fair to read my experience as “you’ll have a harder time if you go this way.” That’s the intention to the OP.

Not sure it justifies the practice though. In an ideal world, both specialities would receive equally rigorous training and have equal opportunities.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WisNeuro]

Yes, it’s totally fair to read my experience as “you’ll have a harder time if you go this way.” That’s the intention to the OP.

Not sure it justifies the practice though. In an ideal world, both specialities would receive equally rigorous training and have equal opportunities.

Depends on the settings. My grad uni had both types of programs, but the counseling program did not really have assessment courses. So, when those students applied for the few prac positions for neuro in the area, they were essentially locked out as they just did not have the foundational training. Why they didn't come over to our program for some of those courses, I don't know. I'm sure it varies by program quite a bit, but the gap was pretty wide in our dept.

 

[ClinicalABA]

...Not sure it justifies the practice though.

Depends on the perspective. Is the process fair (in the sense that all equally qualified applicants have the same opportunities to be considered for the positions)? Nope. Is it efficient and effective (in the sense that the placement sites fill their positions with appropriately qualified candidates, perhaps saving some time in the process)? Yep.

I'm certainly not advocating for such a policy, but it behooves perspective students to know that such policies do exist, as well as the historical and current reasons behind said policies.

 

[WisNeuro]

In terms of reviewing applications, most of us are going to favor known vs. unknown quantities.

 

[futureapppsy2]

I had the opposite experience. Clinical students had a basic stats class and then came over to our department for more specialized stats training. We’re embedded in a larger school of education, so the stats department also trained students who would go on to work at ETS and other such testing companies.

I know what you mean though: there was choice to do either a qualitative or quantitative emphasis for our research training and a vast majority of the students took qualitative classes. I suspect this was because of some of my peers doubted their math abilities.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Based on this, I think we may have gone to same university!

 

[R. Matey]

Based on this, I think we may have gone to same university!

Oh, cool! I'm curious. I'll DM you.

 

[Justanothergrad]

A common refrain from faculty is that assessment "is not a competency we emphasize." It was more common among a quarter of the students to criticize assessments rather than actually use them.

Sadly, this is a broader professional issue - particularly about the students. Look at section activity in D12, for instance. Assessment is the smallest of all the professional sections. Part of this is a pipeline problem. People don't generally come to graduate school to do assessment because, for the most part, people think of psychology and they think of treatment/therapy rather than the diagnostic process.

 

[R. Matey]

Depends on the perspective. Is the process fair (in the sense that all equally qualified applicants have the same opportunities to be considered for the positions)? Nope. Is it efficient and effective (in the sense that the placement sites fill their positions with appropriately qualified candidates, perhaps saving some time in the process)? Yep.

I'm certainly not advocating for such a policy, but it behooves perspective students to know that such policies do exist, as well as the historical and current reasons behind said policies.

Hard not to read this as "the ends justify the means," but I understand where you're coming from. I hope it's clear from what I've written that I think counseling psychology has a PR problem in certain circles, which makes it harder for well meaning and interested students to gain access to opportunities that they are likely qualified for. It's justified. I wish my program did a better job training us in assessment. I don't know what I would've done had I not spent two years learning them in AMCs. So, I get it. It's just a bummer for those of us who chose counseling psychology as a career. For myself, I had a false start as an LPC and counseling psychology was an easier transition to make than clinical psychology would've been.

 

[ClinicalABA]

Hard not to read this as "the ends justify the means,"

I don't necessarily subscribe to that view. However, I do think it is important to distinguish between what is and what should be. Potential future employers (including internship sites) engage in this practice and it works for them. If you are going down an unconventional path, It's important to recognize that, fair or not, you may have a harder time reaching the end goal. Graduate training is expensive (even fully funded programs) financially, personally, emotionally, and time-wise. If you have the option to invest in a clearer, more traditional path with less hurdles, that's what you should do. As you have pointed. the counseling program path presents more potential barriers to a neuropsych career, , so logic dictates it should be avoided if possible.

 

[R. Matey]

I don't necessarily subscribe to that view. However, I do think it is important to distinguish between what is and what should be. Potential future employers (including internship sites) engage in this practice and it works for them. If you are going down an unconventional path, It's important to recognize that, fair or not, you may have a harder time reaching the end goal. Graduate training is expensive (even fully funded programs) financially, personally, emotionally, and time-wise. If you have the option to invest in a clearer, more traditional path with less hurdles, that's what you should do. As you have pointed. the counseling program path presents more potential barriers to a neuropsych career, , so logic dictates it should be avoided if possible.

I'm trying to be nice here, but there are some logical problems in saying "This is the way that it is, therefore it's the way that it should be." I don't think there's anything wrong with pointing out a problem in a system, thinking critically about the what the solutions are, and how to implement said solutions. I agree there are problems, but I see them as being on both sides. It's unjust for counseling psychologists to be kept out of a training opportunity because of a systematic bias (you said so yourself) and it's also unjust for counseling psych students and faculty to have a careless attitude about a very important component of our profession.

I also think "you made your bed, so sleep in it" seems a bit narrow to me. After all, many hospitals advertise for both counseling and clinical psychologists for positions including neuropsychology positions. If there's any truth in advertising, it would lead any reasonable person to believe that counseling psychology is a viable path for neuropsychology. I'm happy we're talking about this though. This is information that I wish I would've had when I was on SDN five years ago and thinking of applying to Ph.D. programs in Counseling vs. Clinical Psych

 

[R. Matey]

As you have pointed. the counseling program path presents more potential barriers to a neuropsych career, , so logic dictates it should be avoided if possible.

Yes, I actually think we're in agreement more than disagreement. As far as advice to the OP goes, do clinical psych. As far as what is fair to HSPs, it would be nice to have either as real options.

 

[WisNeuro]

There are always better ways to do things, on average. Even in my city, we had two universities. If you wanted to do neuropsych, you'd be much better off if you went to my program vs the other clinical PhD. Different training and reputation. Not that it couldn't be done, just a harder road to home. I don't see this as much different.

 

[ClinicalABA]

I'm trying to be nice here, but there are some logical problems in saying "This is the way that it is, therefore it's the way that it should be."

I'll expand on my personal views- This is not the way it should be, but it is the way it is. Go into any major decision with all the facts, and make decisions based on the way it is, not the way it should be. Sounds like we agree.

In my practice (not pure neuropsych, but very much testing related) when reviewing candidates for jobs/practica/internship I am concerned with the type of program/degree to the extent that it permits HSP licensure. Otherwise, your specific training, experience, and career goals that get you to the table. That said, we only review 10-20 candidates per year for practicum and post-doc, so no need for "throw in the trash automatically" policies (other than egregious bad FSPS or diploma mills). Of the psychologists in my practice, 3/4 are Ph.D.s, (2 clinical and 1 counseling), and one is a PysD (Clinical). We alll are credentialed and trained to do basically the same thing (though, actually, my clinical Ph.D. from an R1 involved much less neuropsych related training than all of the others, so there you go!).

We very much need another HSP at my site, and would gladly hire a licensable counseling psych grad with some experience with young children and a desire for a career evaluating toddlers and pre-schoolers. We'd even train on the specific instruments we use, provide supervision, and have reduced billable requirement for the first 6-months, still paying a very competive salary. We can't find people to do the job!

 

[R. Matey]

There are always better ways to do things, on average. Even in my city, we had two universities. If you wanted to do neuropsych, you'd be much better off if you went to my program vs the other clinical PhD. Different training and reputation. Not that it couldn't be done, just a harder road to home. I don't see this as much different.

Good point. I didn’t think about that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[R. Matey]

I'll expand on my personal views- This is not the way it should be, but it is the way it is. Go into any major decision with all the facts, and make decisions based on the way it is, not the way it should be. Sounds like we agree.

In my practice (not pure neuropsych, but very much testing related) when reviewing candidates for jobs/practica/internship I am concerned with the type of program/degree to the extent that it permits HSP licensure. Otherwise, your specific training, experience, and career goals that get you to the table. That said, we only review 10-20 candidates per year for practicum and post-doc, so no need for "throw in the trash automatically" policies (other than egregious bad FSPS or diploma mills). Of the psychologists in my practice, 3/4 are Ph.D.s, (2 clinical and 1 counseling), and one is a PysD (Clinical). We alll are credentialed and trained to do basically the same thing (though, actually, my clinical Ph.D. from an R1 involved much less neuropsych related training than all of the others, so there you go!).

We very much need another HSP at my site, and would gladly hire a licensable counseling psych grad with some experience with young children and a desire for a career evaluating toddlers and pre-schoolers. We'd even train on the specific instruments we use, provide supervision, and have reduced billable requirement for the first 6-months, still paying a very competive salary. We can't find people to do the job!

I really appreciated reading this. Gives me a bit more perspective, so thanks. Yeah, it seems like we’re in agreement of our view of the field. Can things be better? Yes, but sadly it is the way that it is.

Honestly, that sounds really interesting! I’m surprised you guys can’t find more people!



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[IWillSurvive]

Depends on the settings. My grad uni had both types of programs, but the counseling program did not really have assessment courses. So, when those students applied for the few prac positions for neuro in the area, they were essentially locked out as they just did not have the foundational training. Why they didn't come over to our program for some of those courses, I don't know. I'm sure it varies by program quite a bit, but the gap was pretty wide in our dept.

At some universities, the clinical programs don't allow counseling psych students to take their classes. In both of my universities (where I received my master's and doctorate degrees), we could not take the clinical child assessment class and in both of my programs, the faculty somehow felt they weren't allowed to teach their own child assessment course. I'm curious what other folks' experience with this was?

 

[R. Matey]

At some universities, the clinical programs don't allow counseling psych students to take their classes. In both of my universities (where I received my master's and doctorate degrees), we could not take the clinical child assessment class and in both of my programs, the faculty somehow felt they weren't allowed to teach their own child assessment course. I'm curious what other folks' experience with this was?

That’s really weird.

Counseling psychs used to be kept out of the assessment courses in the clinical psych department where I went to graduate school. My understanding is that this is no longer the case. It was frustrating at the time and in spite of it I was able to get training at the local AMC. What was really dumb though is that the clinical psych department offered their own ethics course separate from us counseling/school people. The logic behind this is a great mystery to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Justanothergrad]

At some universities, the clinical programs don't allow counseling psych students to take their classes. In both of my universities (where I received my master's and doctorate degrees), we could not take the clinical child assessment class and in both of my programs, the faculty somehow felt they weren't allowed to teach their own child assessment course. I'm curious what other folks' experience with this was?

No issues at the two universities I have personal experience with (in fact, cross over is where I met many of my long term friends).

 

[R. Matey]

No issues at the two universities I have personal experience with (in fact, cross over is where I met many of my long term friends).

I wonder what extent the student experience depends on the relationship the dept faculties have with each other. Just a thought.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Justanothergrad]

I wonder what extent the student experience depends on the relationship the dept faculties have with each other. Just a thought.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm sure thats part of it at times. In my case, at one university the faculty were very close. In the other, they were not. So, I suspect that it isn't the only impacting factor. It may also relate to faculty wanting to have graduate courses 'make' without the increased load of more students for whom they are not directly responsible for training. Teaching more people means more work and it can change the dynamic of the course - assessment courses of 5 are very different from assessment courses of 15 in structure. Some are more flexible about this than others, and I understand both reasons.

I have also seen 'turf wars' about class offerings in a variety of institutions because of enrollment questions, the push for student credit hours by university administration, and faculty interest, I suspect that is related in the child assessment issue above.