Announcing the AITCN Mentorship Award

Mentorship, although highly valued by its recipients, is often rarely rewarded. In recognition of the value the Association for Internship Training in Clinical Neuropsychology (AITCN) places on mentorship, the AITCN Mentorship Award was created to reward outstanding mentors from among our member programs. Awardees will have had a sustained career commitment to mentoring, a significant positive impact on their mentees’ careers, and through mentorship will have advanced patient care and/or research in the field of clinical neuropsychology.

Each year one award will be granted to a nominated mentor. The AITCN Executive Committee reserves the right to not grant the award if no suitable nominations have been submitted.

Award Criteria

The award is based on the training experiences and success of the nominee’s mentees, not the mentor’s personal career achievements. For the purpose of this award, mentoring is defined as the process of guiding, supporting, and promoting the training and career development of others. A mentor should demonstrate a commitment to and love of teaching and mentoring trainees in alignment with their particular career goals. The key roles of a mentor include, but are not limited to providing:

  • Intellectual growth and development
  • Career development
  • Nurturing of talent
  • Professional guidance
  • Advocacy for mentees
  • Positive role modeling

Eligibility Criteria

Inclusion

1. All nominees must be from an internship program with current membership in AITCN (please refer to the website at www.aitcn.org for a list of current member programs)

2. A mentor can be nominated for activity in the current (2012 – 2013) or any prior internship year.

3. Nominees of all nationalities and all countries of residence are eligible; however, all application materials must be submitted in English.

4. Nominees may include any individual providing supervision, teaching, or mentorship with a neuropsychology focus during the nominating trainee’s internship year.

5. Nominees should have a sustained record of mentoring over time.

6. Nominators must be a mentee of the nominee with personal knowledge of the nominee’s supervision and/or mentoring efforts.

Exclusion

1. Prior recipients of the AITCN Mentor Award are ineligible for future awards.

2. Members of the AITCN Executive committee are ineligible for a mentor award during their tenure.

3. Self-nominations and posthumous nominations will not be accepted.

Nomination Packages

  • Nominations will be due via e-mail no later than 5:00 p.m. (EST) on Saturday, August 31st, 2013.
  • Nominations must be submitted electronically to info@aitcn.org
  • Nominations are reviewed and scored on the following criteria: 1) intellectual growth and development, 2) career development, 3) nurturing of talent 4) professional guidance, 5) advocacy for mentees, and 6) being a role model.

Nomination packages must include the following information:

  1. The completed nomination form.
  2. The nominee’s curriculum vitae.
  3. A letter written by the nominator that summarizes the nominee’s impact on the training/career of his/her mentee.

Nomination and Selection Process

Nominations may be made by any trainee or former trainee, based on either having been mentored by the nominee or by personal observation of mentoring provided to others by the nominee. Nominators must be mentees of the nominee or have personal knowledge of the nominee’s mentoring efforts. If the winning mentor was nominated separately by multiple nominators, the book award will be presented to the nominating individual whose letter was most significant in determining the win.

Nomination packages will be forwarded to the AITCN Executive Committee for review. The final selection will be based on a consensus of the entire Executive Committee. Awardees are notified in December.

2012 – 2013 Selection Process Timeline

Nomination packages due August 31, 2013
AITCN Executive Committee meets to review applications November 2013
Winners notified December 2013
Award presented at INS February 2014

Information about this award can always be found on the “Awards” section of this website.

Article Review: Competency Benchmarks

Article Review:  “Competency Benchmarks:  A Model for Understanding and Measuring Competence in Professional Psychology Across Training Levels.”

Nadya A. Fouad, Catherine L. Grus, Robert L. Hatcher, Nadine J. Kaslow, Philinda Smith Hutchings, Michael B. Madson, Frank L. Collins, Jur., Raymond E. Crossman.

Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 2009, Vol. 3 No. 4 (Suppl.), S5 – S26.

Review by Nina Hattiangadi Thomas, Ph.D., ABPP-CN

In the article “Competency Benchmarks:  A Model for Understanding and Measuring Competence in Professional Psychology Across Training Levels” published in the journal Training and Education in Professional Psychology, the authors describe the Benchmarks Document, which outlines core foundational and functional competencies in professional psychology across three levels of professional development:  readiness for practicum, readiness for internship, and readiness for entry to practice.

Meant to serve as a resource for supervisors but also likely to be of great interest to trainees, the Competency Benchmarks Document lists core competencies and behavioral indicators in an effort to provide operational descriptions of the essential components for each level of training.

The workgroup used as a starting point the “Competency Cube” model proposed by Rodolfa, et al. (2005), in which three dimensions of competency intersect:

1.       Functional Competency Domains (e.g., Assessment / Diagnosis / Conceptualization, Intervention, Consultation…)
2.       Foundational Competency Domains (e.g. Professional Practice / Self-Assessment, Scientific Knowledge and Methods, Relationships…)
3.       Stages of Professional Development (e.g. Doctoral Education, Doctoral Internship / Residency, Post Doctoral Supervision…)

The Benchmarks Document Workgroup chose not to address the interweaving of functional and foundation competencies, and additionally focused more directly on preparing for health service practice.  The focus of the Workgroup was on operationally defining each competency.  Each competency was first defined, and then broken into its essential components, with behavioral anchors defined for each essential component that demonstrates the threshold for competent performance at that level of training.

As a result, the Workgroup defined 15 core competencies, with essential components and behavioral anchors for each essential component at the three levels of professional development (readiness for practicum, readiness for internship, and readiness for entry to practice).  They are as follows:

Core Foundational Competencies:
1.       Professionalism
2.       Reflective Practice
3.       Scientific Knowledge and Methods
4.       Relationships
5.       Individual and Cultural Diversity
6.       Ethical and Legal Standards and Policy
7.       Interdisciplinary Systems

Core Functional Competencies:
1.       Assessment
2.       Intervention
3.       Consultation
4.       Research and Evaluation
5.       Supervision
6.       Teaching
7.       Administration
8.       Advocacy

For example, for the Competency of Professionalism, the Workgroup subdivided this competency into the following essential components:

Professionalism:
a.      Integrity – Honesty, personal responsibility, and adherence to professional values
b.      Deportment
c.      Accountability
d.      Concern for the Welfare of Others
e.      Professional Identity

The essential component is further defined at each level of training, with behavioral anchors for each level of training.  For example, let’s examine the competency of Professionalism, and within that competency the essential component of Accountability.  Here are the essential components and behavioral anchors for each level of training within this essential component.

Professionalism:  Accountability

Readiness for Practicum:
Essential Component:  Accountable and reliable
Behavioral Anchors:
·         Turns in assignments in accordance with established deadlines
·         Demonstrates personal organization skills
·         Plans and organizes own workload
·         Aware of and follows policies and procedures of institution

Readiness for Internship:
Essential Component:  Consistently reliable; consistently accepts responsibility for own actions
Behavioral Anchors:
·         Completes required case documentation promptly and accurately
·         Accepts responsibility for meeting deadlines
·         Available when “on-call”
·         Acknowledges errors
·         Utilizes supervision to strengthen effectiveness of practice

Readiness for Entry to Practice:
Essential Component:  Independently accepts personal responsibility across settings and contexts
Behavioral Anchors:
·         Works to fulfill client-provider contract
·         Enhances productivity
·         Holds self accountable for and submits to external review of quality service provision

In sum, the Benchmarks Document helps to clarify the competencies trainees must have as they gain increasing levels of independence.  Operational definitions will be useful for both supervisors and trainees, in determining areas of strength and weakness and focusing training to ensure achievement of competencies appropriate to the level of training.

The full Competency Benchmarks Document is available as a pdf at the following link:  http://www.apa.org/education/grad/competency-benchmarks.pdf

Related articles of interest:

Rodolfa, E.R., Ben, R.J., Eisman, E., Nelson, P.D., Rehm, L., & Ritchie, P. (2005).  A Cube model for competency development:  Implications for psychology educators and regulators.  Professional Psychology:  Research and Practice, 36, 347 – 354.

Madan-Swain, A., Hankins, S.L., Gilliam, M.B., Ross, K., Reynolds, N., Milby, J., Schwebel, D.C.  (2012).  Applying the cube model to pediatric psychology:  development of research competency skills at the doctoral level.  Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 37 (2), 136 – 148.

Presenting a Clinical Case

by Nina Hattiangadi Thomas, Ph.D., ABPP-CN

Many times in interview situations I have asked an intern or postdoctoral applicant to briefly describe an interesting case they have seen, and have been met either with stunned silence or with a disorganized series of statements that provide little or no insight into the case conceptualization.

The ability to present a case clearly and concisely is a core skill for a neuropsychologist, and one that will be called upon many times in both training and professional practice.  Whether it is a five-minute case description in response to an interview question or a fifty-minute seminar presentation, the guidelines for case presentation are the same.  With a little preparation and practice, being called upon to present a case may be your opportunity to impress.

1.  Include relevant information

Every case description should start out with basic relevant information.  “The patient was a six-year-old female with a history of spina bifida presenting for difficulties with early reading skills…”  Many times I’ve seen an individual launch into test results, and I’ll have to back them up and ask, “How old was the patient? What was his or her medical condition?”  The results are certainly interesting and I can understand the urge to jump right to them, but a brief concise description of demographic and medical information is necessary context.

This skill will also serve you well in your professional career.  In communicating with busy medical professionals, it is always helpful to start out with, “Dear Neurologist:  As you may remember, John Smith is a 10-year-old boy seen by you over the last year for management of treatment-resistant seizures…” as opposed to stating, “I am writing to you regarding John Smith…” and forcing the physician to refer back to the medical record for context.

2.  Don’t include irrelevant information

As important as including the relevant facts is excluding the irrelevant facts.  Often individuals seem to get mired in the details of a patient’s history.  It may be important to document in the report that the patient is allergic to strawberries and once broke his pinky finger, but unless it has direct relevance to the concerns at hand or your conceptualization, these facts are best omitted in a brief case presentation.  If the patient is a typically-developing teenager whose uncle is left-handed, this information can be omitted.  If, however, the patient is a toddler with unclear hand dominance and a strong family history of left-handedness being considered for right hemispherectomy — this fact is now important.

3.  Describe brain-behavior relationships

APA Division 40 defines clinical neuropsychology as a specialty “…dedicated to enhancing the understanding of brain-behavior relationships and the application of such knowledge to human problems.”

Developing an understanding of brain-behavior relationships is at the core of training in neuropsychology, and case presentations are perfect opportunities to demonstrate this understanding.  When conceptualizing your case, be sure not to just describe the pattern of neurocognitive strengths and weaknesses, but also to make clear statements about how these strengths and weaknesses correspond (or conflict) with known medical concerns.  For example, “the patient’s weaknesses in expressive language are highly consistent with the identified left frontotemporal seizure focus.  Weaknesses in attention may be related to seizure occurrence, side effects of antiepileptic medication, or the strong family history of attention problems.”  Not all individuals will have a significant medical history or localizing concern, but if not you should be prepared to answer questions about what brain regions may be involved based on the pattern of findings.

4.  Brush up on the medical condition at hand

No one expects you to become the world’s leading expert in a given medical condition overnight, but if you know you are presenting about a particular medical condition you should at least have a familiarity with important aspects of the condition, particularly factors relevant to neuropsychological outcome.  Presenting a case of spina bifida?  Know that level of lesion, presence of hydrocephalus, and number of shunt placements / failures / revisions are all important factors for cognitive outcome, and be prepared to provide that information for your case.

5.  Don’t hunt for zebras

“When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras.”  This medical aphorism encourages individuals to consider high base rate level conditions before rare ones.  Although rare cases are certainly interesting and memorable, don’t worry if you haven’t run across one of the ten individuals with Crisponi Syndrome, or a notable case of pure word deafness.  The point of a case presentation is to inform and to demonstrate your thinking, and you can be just as successful in providing a well-formulated description of a child with learning disability as you can one with maple syrup urine disease.

6.  Don’t get defensive

Once again, the purpose of a case presentation is to demonstrate how well you can “think through a case,” and part of that involves flexibility and being able to adapt your thinking to new information.  Not to mention that, as fellow neuropsychologists, cases are all very interesting to us and we may be not so much challenging your conceptualization as we are becoming drawn into the case and thinking it through ourselves.  Try not to consider any additional questions or alternate theories posed as a criticism of your abilities.  If you presented a case of slow recovery from concussion and are asked about the role depression might play in hindering recovery — even if it didn’t occur to you before, consider it now.  Even if you may not have the information at hand, you could say, “That’s a good point.  Her mood appeared positive and her family endorsed no concerns about mood, however we do routinely administer the BASC-2 questionnaire, and therefore it might be helpful to look back at that data.”

To sum up, there’s no need to feel “on the spot” when called upon to present a case.  A little preparation in advance, and you’ll be able to demonstrate your developing skills as a neuropsychologist in training as well as in your future professional career.