National Academy of Neuropsychology: President?s address*1The Future of Neuropsychology

A survey of the perceptions and practices of faculty in clinical neuropsychology doctoral training programs: is heterogeneity the norm?

Objective: Doctoral education is a cornerstone in the training of clinical neuropsychologists. However, we know little about perceptions, practices, and needs of the faculty who oversee doctoral training in clinical neuropsychology (CN). Method: Seventy-one faculty from 45 doctoral programs providing CN training completed at least part of a survey assessing characteristics of their programs, current training practices and views, and challenges to CN doctoral training. Results: Over half of CN faculty reported having zero or only one CN colleague. CN faculty reported that the goals of CN doctoral training are research training, clinical training, and acquisition of knowledge and skills reflected in the Houston Conference Guidelines (HCG). CN faculty reported that doctoral trainees obtain more clinical hours than faculty would like and endorsed alternative clinical metrics, including competency-based ratings. CN faculty are divided about the benefits of a required two-year postdoctoral CN fellowship. Conclusions: The HCG states that specialization in CN begins at the doctoral level. CN faculty in doctoral programs are fully immersed in the early development and education of future CN researchers and practitioners. Tensions between clinical and research training in CN at the doctoral level-and student overemphasis on accruing clinical hours-might place CN at risk for failing to make research innovations necessary for our field to evolve and thrive. More CN doctoral faculty are needed to serve as mentors to students, especially for students from backgrounds that have been historically excluded and marginalized. A greater voice from CN doctoral faculty in CN governance is needed.

DSM-5: Challenging diagnostic testimony

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders' (DSM) 60-year evolution has not been particularly linear nor cumulative with respect to the process of its construction, its stated purpose, its framework, and inclusion of specific disorders. We consider DSM-5's stated purpose in light of the manual's explicit cautions and other complications encountered when presenting diagnoses in the course of psychological expert testimony under the applicable rules of evidence. This review considers the extent to which DSM-5 bears up under numerous criticisms when employed for forensic purposes and points out challenges that the expert should anticipate when offering diagnostic opinions underpinned by DSM-5 generally and by neurocognitive disorders in particular.