I’m writing to call your attention to ongoing activities to organize a Summit on Education and Training of Neuropsychologists. William Perry, PhD, the current President-Elect of the National Academy of Neuropsychology, has individually undertaken this task, and has had a meeting of an Advisory Committee in the hope of bringing about such a Summit Conference.

The problem with Dr. Perry’s approach is that it is a top-down procedure – those at the top are taking it upon themselves to produce a set of regulations and requirements which will then be imposed on you. The Houston Conference (HC), which this Summit intends to build upon, was organized by a group of six persons (the Planning Committee) who defined the issues to be considered and largely determined the conclusions that were reached. The result was to require education and training achievements which were beyond those of most practicing neuropsychologists (I, personally, don’t qualify), but which serve effectively to identify deficiencies which can be used to limit our professional status and respectability – and eventually our income as practicing neuropsychologists. (I already have been questioned in court, in an attempt to impugn my competence, with regard to one of the Houston Conference recommendations.)

Dr. Perry has already set in motion procedures which, based on the persons he has nominated, probably will lead to requirements that most of us do not meet.

The answer, of course, is that we should develop criteria for education and training based on general input from the profession rather than from the requirements imposed from the top; neuropsychologists should be given the opportunity to voice their opinions. As soon as I heard about Dr. Perry’s plan, several weeks ago, I wrote to him suggesting that he develop a plan for obtaining input from the profession. He answered in generalities, but totally ignored my suggestion that the profession be heard.

We could learn a lot from mistakes in the planning and conduct of the Houston Conference.
In spite of urging from me that the membership be involved, the Houston Conference was left almost entirely in the hands of academicians and persons involved in providing training. Psychologists who were actually in practice, applying their training, were essentially ignored, despite the fact that they were the best resource for evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of the education and training that they had received. If you would like a comprehensive evaluation of the procedures used in developing the Houston Conference and the resulting conclusions, please see Reitan, Hom, Van De Voorde, Stanczak, and Wolfson (2004. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 19, 375-390). The paper can be downloaded from the Reitan Lab website (www.ReitanLabs.com), or you can write to me for a reprint.

Fairness is not necessarily a lost principle in science. When it came to the status of Pluto, astronomers were given a vote – one person, one vote. That doesn’t seem to be the way things go in neuropsychology.

There is a degree of urgency in writing to Dr. Perry. I believe the Summit is in the early stages of planning, and now is the time for us to have an influence. If you want to be informed and to have your voice be heard, write to William Perry, PhD (University of California at San Diego, 200 W. Arbor Drive, San Diego, CA 92103-8218, or wperry@ucsd.edu), the President-Elect of NAN, and to other officials. You don’t have to be a member of NAN or Division 40 to write to Dr. Perry. You are still going to be affected by the recommendations of this Summit, and deserve to know what is going on.

Please write to Dr. Perry, and encourage your colleagues to also get involved and write a letter to Dr. Perry. Persons in office are most influenced by the quantity of communications they receive on any particular issue. A few letters may not have an impact, but an outpouring of letters cannot fail to influence the direction of the proposed Summit. If we do not want a few neuropsychologists to decide these critical issues – how we will be perceived by the medical and legal community and how we will get reimbursed for our services – we must be proactive and let our opinions be heard now, before another set of guidelines is adopted and imposed on us.

Points that might considered when writing a letter to Dr. Perry:

1. As a practicing neuropsychologist, I would like to know what is being planned that may affect my livelihood.

2. Are clinical practitioners going to have a role in the Summit, or will only academicians be included?

3. How are the aims of the Summit going to be determined?

4. Who will be selected to attend the Summit? By whom will they be selected? Can I apply to be a delegate to the Summit?

5. How can I be sure my interests are being considered?

6. Can I vote on the aims, delegates, and recommendations of the Summit, or will the issues and outcome be determined without my input and then imposed on the profession?

7. When can the members of the profession expect to be informed about this? Will I hear about each step that is being taken, or will I read about the conclusions that affect me and my livelihood only after they have been determined by a small, select group?

As always, I welcome and value your comments. I would also appreciate receiving a copy of any letters that you write to Dr. Perry or other officers of NAN or Division 40.

Sincerely,

Ralph M. Reitan, PhD
 

PS. I feel sure that future communications regarding this matter will come at RalphReitan@gmail.com or contact me at Reitan Labs, POB 66080, Tucson, AZ 85728.