Within the psychology supervision literature, most theoretical models and practices pertain to general clinical or counseling psychology. Supervision specific to clinical neuropsychology has garnered little attention. This survey study explores supervision training, practices, and perspectives of neuropsychology supervisors. Practicing neuropsychologists were invited to participate in an online survey via listservs and email lists. Of 451 respondents, 382 provided supervision to students, interns, and/or fellows in settings such as VA medical centers (37%), university medical centers (35%), and private practice (15%). Most supervisors (84%) reported supervision was discussed in graduate school "minimally" or "not at all." Although 67% completed informal didactics or received continuing education in supervision, only 27% reported receiving training specific to neuropsychology supervision. Notably, only 39% were satisfied with their training in providing supervision and 77% indicated they would likely participate in training in providing supervision, if available at professional conferences. Results indicate that clinical neuropsychology as a specialty has paid scant attention to developing supervision models and explicit training in supervision skills. We recommend that the specialty develop models of supervision for neuropsychological practice, supervision standards and competencies, training methods in provision of supervision, and benchmark measures for supervision competencies.

Objective Marketed as a validity test that detects feigning of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), the Morel Emotional Numbing Test for PTSD (MENT) instructs examinees that PTSD may negatively affect performance on the measure. This study explored the potential that MENT performance depends on inclusion of “PTSD” in its instructions and the nature of the MENT as a performance validity versus a symptom validity test (PVT/SVT). Method 358 participants completed the MENT as a part of a clinical neuropsychological evaluation. Participants were either administered the MENT with the standard instructions (SIs) that referenced “PTSD” or revised instructions (RIs) that did not. Others were administered instructions that referenced “ADHD” rather than PTSD (AI). Comparisons were conducted on those who presented with concerns for potential traumatic-stress related symptoms (SI vs. RI-1) or attention deficit (AI vs. RI-2). Results Participants in either the SI or AI condition produced more MENT errors than those in their respective RI conditions. The relationship between MENT errors and other S/PVTs was significantly stronger in the SI: RI-1 comparison, such that errors correlated with self-reported trauma-related symptoms in the SI but not RI-1 condition. MENT failure also predicted PVT failure at nearly four times the rate of SVT failure. Conclusions Findings suggest that the MENT relies on overt reference to PTSD in its instructions, which is linked to the growing body of literature on “diagnosis threat” effects. The MENT may be considered a measure of suggestibility. Ethical considerations are discussed, as are the construct(s) measured by PVTs versus SVTs.

No abstract

No abstract