Challenges and opportunities for a new era of neuropsychology training: a trainee survey study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The field of neuropsychology is undergoing notable changes, especially in the context of the Minnesota Update Conference (MNC) guidelines draft development. In late 2023, a group of neuropsychology trainee-leaders, united through the Clinical Neuropsychology Trainee Forum (CNTF), surveyed neuropsychology trainees in the United States and Canada to better understand their needs and their perception of the current training climate. METHOD: Survey items were drafted by a CNTF task force consisting of trainee-leaders from major neuropsychology organizations before being refined by four independent neuropsychologists. The survey was distributed via listservs and social media. Survey results were analyzed using frequency descriptives and analyses of variance to compare differences in responses based on demographic and training-related factors. RESULTS: = 220) were primarily female (86%), White (71%), and training in the United States (92%). More than 75% of respondents reported satisfaction with their doctoral program, internship, and/or fellowship. Similarly, 90% and 73% of the respondents, respectively, felt their opinions on the future of the field listened to and/or valued in discussions with peers and supervisors/mentors. However, only 57% of the respondents felt their opinions were valued by neuropsychology organizational leadership, and approximately 30% of the respondents agreed that trainees' opinions were valued during the MNC draft development review period. Another 40% of the respondents were uncertain about trainee perspectives being valued during the MNC process. CONCLUSIONS: Most neuropsychology trainees are satisfied with their training, yet they expressed concerns about their opinions on the future of the field being heard by neuropsychology leadership. Trainee stakeholder engagement will be important to the vitality of neuropsychology in light of anticipated MNC Guidelines. Recommendations for the field of neuropsychology to support trainees will be discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".