Objectives: Descriptive labels of performance test scores are a critical component of communicating outcomes of neuropsychological and psychological evaluations. Yet, no universally accepted system exists for assigning qualitative descriptors to scores in specific ranges. In addition, the definition and use of the term "impairment" lacks specificity and consensus. Consequently, test score labels and the denotation of impairment are inconsistently applied by clinicians, creating confusion among consumers of neuropsychological services, including referral sources, trainees, colleagues, and the judicial system. To reduce this confusion, experts in clinical and forensic neuropsychological and psychological assessment convened in a consensus conference at the 2018 Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology (AACN). The goals of the consensus conference were to recommend (1) a system of qualitative labels to describe results from performance-based tests with normal and non-normal distributions and (2) a definition of impairment and its application in individual case determinations. Results: The goals of the consensus conference were met resulting in specific recommendations for the application of uniform labels for performance tests and for the definition of impairment, which are described in this paper. In addition, included in this ARTICLE HISTORY

A specialty like clinical neuropsychology is shaped by its selection of trainees, educational standards, expected competencies, and the structure of its training programs. The development of individual competency in this specialty is dependent to a considerable degree on the provision of competent supervision to its trainees. In clinical neuropsychology, as in other areas of professional health-service psychology, supervision is the most frequently used method for teaching a variety of skills, including assessment, report writing, differential diagnosis, and treatment. Although much has been written about the provision of quality supervision in clinical and counseling psychology, very little published guidance is available regarding the teaching and provision of supervision in clinical neuropsychology. The primary focus of this article is to provide a framework and guidance for the development of suggested competency standards for training of neuropsychological supervisors, particularly at the residency level. In this paper we outline important components of supervision for neuropsychology trainees and suggest ways in which clinicians can prepare for supervisory roles. Similar to Falender and Shafranske (2004), we propose a competency-based approach to supervision that advocates for a science-informed, formalized, and objective process that clearly delineates the competencies required for good supervisory practice. As much as possible, supervisory competencies are related to foundational and functional competencies in professional psychology, as well as recent legislative initiatives mandating training in supervision. It is our hope that this article will foster further discussion regarding this complex topic, and eventually enhance training in clinical neuropsychology.

This study continues the development of more than 50 years of thinking about education and training in rehabilitation psychology and builds on the existing work to further advance the development of guidelines in this area. The conference developed aspirational guidelines for competency specification and measurement in rehabilitation psychology postdoctoral training (i.e., for studying the outcomes of these training programs). Structured observation of trainee competencies allows examination of actual training outcomes in relation to intended outcomes and provides a methodology for studying how program outcomes are related to program structures and processes so that program improvement can occur. Best practices in applying program evaluation research methods to the study of professional training programs are discussed.

Objective: Examine the structures, processes, and outcomes of training for rehabilitation psychology practice in the United States and Canada during 2007. Methods: Public data sources provided 947 potential training sites and programs, with 635 meeting selection criteria, from which 328 unique sites were identified. Of these, 117 sites (36%) reported providing training in rehabilitation psychology practice, and were sent a survey. Eighty percent (80%) returned the survey (n ϭ 94). Results: There were nearly equal numbers of intern and resident training sites. Of the resident training sites, 46% had a complete rehabilitation focus, and 41% had faculty with American Board of Rehabilitation Psychology (ABRP) certification. Resident training sites ranged from 73% to 100% in meeting the Patterson and Hanson (1995) training guidelines, and ranged from 7% to 100% in formally teaching the current ABRP required competencies. Discussion: Many rehabilitation patients receive psychological services from practitioners whose professional emphasis is not in rehabilitation psychology, and many trainees involved with rehabilitation populations do not receive comprehensive training in rehabilitation psychology. There is a need for increased structure in and funding of training programs for rehabilitation psychology practice.