Sweet J J, Moberg P J, Suchy Y
Evanston Hospital/Northwestern University Medical School, Evanston, IL 60201, United States of America.
Clin Neuropsychol. 2000 Feb;14(1):18-37. doi: 10.1076/1385-4046(200002)14:1;1-8;FT018.
A 21-item questionnaire previously used to survey practices and beliefs of clinical neuropsychologists (Sweet & Moberg, 1990; Sweet, Moberg, & Westergaard, 1996) was mailed in February 1999 to all ABPP Diplomates in clinical neuropsychology and a larger sample of randomly selected non-ABPP members of Division 40 (Clinical Neuropsychology) of the American Psychological Association. Results were compared with data previously collected in 1989 and 1994. Across 10 years there have been some persistent differences between neuropsychologists based on board certification status. These differences include degree of involvement in neuropsychological practice and forensic practice, involvement in research and teaching, frequency of subscribing to or regularly reading a variety of relevant journals, employment settings, use of assistants, and use of projective assessment. There are also a number of areas of shared belief and common practice. These important areas of agreement are unrelated to board certification status and are interpreted as signs of cohesiveness and maturity in the continuing evolution of the subspecialty. Shared beliefs and common practices include: appropriate field of training, type of degree, assessment philosophy, most types of information to be gathered in evaluations, and time spent per assessment. In general, the use of assistants is correlated significantly with the number of evaluations performed per month. Although sometimes viewed as exclusively providing assessment, the majority of neuropsychologists are also involved in treating patients with brain dysfunction. Survey data appear useful in characterizing and monitoring professional status and trends of clinical neuropsychology.
一份曾用于调查临床神经心理学家的实践与信念的包含21个条目的问卷(斯威特和莫伯格,1990年;斯威特、莫伯格和韦斯特加德,1996年)于1999年2月邮寄给了所有美国专业心理学委员会临床神经心理学认证的专家以及从美国心理学会第40分会(临床神经心理学)中随机抽取的更多非美国专业心理学委员会成员。结果与1989年和1994年之前收集的数据进行了比较。在10年期间,基于委员会认证状态,神经心理学家之间存在一些持续的差异。这些差异包括在神经心理学实践和法医实践中的参与程度、在研究和教学中的参与情况、订阅或定期阅读各种相关期刊的频率、工作环境、助手的使用以及投射评估的使用。也有一些共同信念和共同实践的领域。这些重要的共识领域与委员会认证状态无关,并被解释为该亚专业持续发展中凝聚力和成熟度的标志。共同信念和共同实践包括:适当的培训领域、学位类型、评估理念、评估中要收集的大多数信息类型以及每次评估所花费的时间。一般来说,助手的使用与每月进行的评估数量显著相关。尽管有时被视为专门提供评估,但大多数神经心理学家也参与治疗脑功能障碍患者。调查数据似乎有助于描述和监测临床神经心理学的专业状况和趋势。