Numerous authors have opined that forensic activities have become more prominent within clinical neuropsychology. To investigate the merits of these claims, the entire contents of Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology (ACN), Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology (JCEN), and The Clinical Neuropsychologist (TCN) from 1990 through 2000 were reviewed and cataloged. These three journals were selected because they are the highest-ranking clinical subscription journals according to surveys of neuropsychology practitioners. Prior to rating journal content, various categories of interest were delineated and practice ratings were obtained until the two raters reached 92% agreement. Each of the raters read the journal contents and recorded content ratings for half of the journal issues under review. Results of the 8323 ratings demonstrated increases across time in the absolute numbers of articles related to forensic neuropsychology, although variable and different for each journal. Published articles that were partially or substantially forensic in nature in the three journals combined increased from 4% in 1990 to 14% in 2000. An annual peak in absolute number (n=32;16%) of forensic journal articles occurred in 1997. The most common topic of 139 articles published in ACN, JCEN, and TCN from 1990 to 2000 was malingering, which appeared in 86% of the general forensic articles. Forensic presentations at annual NAN meetings ranged from 3.9 to 11.3% (M=8%) of the convention programs, whereas within Division 40's programs at the American Psychological Association meeting, the average percentage ranged from 2.3 to 11.7% (M=6%). Results pertaining to each journal and to specific forensic topics are presented and implications of these and other results are discussed.
OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated gender disparities in some academic disciplines. This study examined the association of the pandemic with gender authorship disparities in clinical neuropsychology (CN) journals. METHOD: Author bylines of 1,018 initial manuscript submissions to four major CN journals from March 15 through September 15 of both 2019 and 2020 were coded for binary gender. Additionally, authorship of 40 articles published on pandemic-related topics (COVID-19, teleneuropsychology) across nine CN journals were coded for binary gender. RESULTS: Initial submissions to these four CN journals increased during the pandemic (+27.2%), with comparable increases in total number of authors coded as either women (+23.0%) or men (+25.4%). Neither the average percentage of women on manuscript bylines nor the proportion of women who were lead and/or corresponding authors differed significantly across time. Moreover, the representation of women as authors of pandemic-related articles did not differ from expected frequencies in the field. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that representation of women as authors of peer-reviewed manuscript submissions to some CN journals did not change during the initial months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Future studies might examine how risk and protective factors may have influenced individual differences in scientific productivity during the pandemic.
The entire contents of six neuropsychology journals (161 volumes, 612 issues) were screened to identify dual-task laterality experiments. Of 112 experiments thus identified, 45.5% provided information about sex differences. Although 23 experiments yielded at least one significant main effect or interaction involving the sex factor, only 5 outcomes represented an unambiguous sex difference in laterality. All 5 of those sex differences support the hypothesis of greater hemispheric specialization in males. The confirmatory outcomes constitute less than 10% of the informative experiments and less than 5% of the total population of experiments. These data alone do not rule out the possibility that sex differences are chance findings (Type I errors). However, when considered along with similar results from perceptual laterality data previously examined, the dual-task data fit the pattern of a small but reliable population-level sex difference in human laterality.
The entire contents of six neuropsychology journals (98 volumes, 368 issues) were screened to identify auditory laterality experiments. Of the 352 dichotic and monaural listening experiments identified, 40% provided information about sex differences. Among the 49 experiments that yielded at least one significant effect or interaction involving the sex factor, 11 outcomes met stringent criteria for sex differences in laterality. Of those 11 positive outcomes, 9 supported the hypothesis of greater hemispheric specialization in males than in females. The 9 confirmatory outcomes represent 6.4% of the informative experiments. When less stringent criteria were invoked, 21 outcomes (14.9% of the informative experiments) were found to be consistent with the differential lateralization hypothesis. The overall pattern of results is compatible with a weak population-level sex difference in hemispheric specialization.
The contents of six neuropsychology journals (161 volumes, 612 issues) were screened to identify tactile laterality experiments. Of 73 experiments identified, 40% provided information about sex differences. Seventeen experiments yielded a total of 18 sex differences, of which 4 could be interpreted in terms of the hypothesis that functional cerebral lateralization is more pronounced in males. All 4 interpretable outcomes (constituting 5.5% of the population of experiments and 13.8% of the informative experiments) were found to be consistent with the differential lateralization hypothesis. The results, in isolation, do not justify rejecting the null hypothesis. However, when considered in conjunction with findings for auditory and visual laterality studies, the present results are compatible with a weak population-level sex difference.
Abstract The entire contents of six neuropsychology journals (98 volumes, 368 issues) were screened to identify auditory laterality experiments. Of the 352 dichotic and monaural listening experiments identified, 40% provided information about sex differences. Among the 49 experiments that yielded at least one significant effect or interaction involving the sex factor, 11 outcomes met stringent criteria for sex differences in laterality. Of those 11 positive outcomes, 9 supported the hypothesis of greater hemispheric specialization in males than in females. The 9 confirmatory outcomes represent 6.4% of the informative experiments. When less stringent criteria were invoked, 21 outcomes (14.9% of the informative experiments) were found to be consistent with the differential lateralization hypothesis. The overall pattern of results is compatible with a weak population-level sex difference in hemispheric specialization.
Journal of Neuroscience and Neuropsychology is an open access, peer reviewed journal which aims to publish the articles which are related to the field of Neuroscience and Neuropsychology. The articles are reviewed by the professors who have vast experience in their field.
Journal of Aging and Neuropsychology is an online, open-access, peer-reviewed journal that publishes high-quality manuscripts that are recent advances in understanding the processes responsible and associated with aging.
Women are under-represented as authors in clinical neuropsychology journals, but they are becoming more common and their papers are cited just as frequently as men. Efforts to increase women as research mentors and sponsors may help to further close the publishing gender gap in clinical neuropsychology.
HANDBOOK OF THE PSYCHOLOGY OF RELIGION AND SPIRITUALITY, Raymond F. Paloutzian and Crystal L. Park (Eds.). NY: The Guilford Press, 2005. Pp. 590 + xvii. Cloth, npi. Reviewed by J. Harold Ellens. Dr. Paloutzian is Professor of Experimental and Social Psychology at Westmont College, past president of Division 30 of the APA, and author of Invitation to the Psychology of Religion. He edits The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion. His colleague, Dr. Park, is Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Connecticut. Like Paloutzian, she has been the president of Division 36 and is Associate Editor of Psychology and Health, as well as an editorial board member for the Journal of Clinical and Consulting Psychology and The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion. Such credentials suggest that we may expect a watershed volume in this new handbook. Our expectations are fully rewarded. This is a tour de force of scientific scholarship, skillful organization, and precise editing. The Handbook of the Psychology of Religion and Spirituality will be the definitive work on the subject for at least the next century. The editors have brought together substantive essays by 45 notable scholars, including such stellar figures as Roy F. Baumeister of Florida State, Jacob A. Beizen of the University of Amsterdam, Peter C. Hill of Rosemead, Ralph W. Hood, Jr. of the University of Tennessee, the late Bruce Hunsberger of Wilfred Laurier, Annette Mahoney of Bowling Green, Susan H. McFadden of Wisconsin (Oshkosh), Bernard Spilke of Denver (Emeritus), and Carl F. Thoresen of Stanford (Emeritus). They have organized these essays into thirty chapters in the following five sections: Foundations of the Psychology of Religion, Religion Through the Developmental Lens, Religion and Basic Psychology Subdisciplines, The Construction and Expression of Religion, and Psychology of Religion and Applied Areas. Part I has six chapters on Integrative Themes, Spirituality, Measurement, Research Methods, Psychodynamic Psychologies, and Evolutionary Psychology. Part II offers three chapters on religious and spiritual development through the life cycle from childhood to old age, and a fourth on marriage and parenting. The five chapters of the third part discuss neuropsychology and religious experience, cognitive psychologies, emotions and religion, the role of personality, and how religion, attitudes, and social behavior interrelate. The eighth chapter of Part IV focuses specifically on meaning issues, spiritual experiences, conversion and transformation, mysticism, ritual and prayer, Fundamentalism and authoritarianism, forgiveness, and morality and self control (values, virtues, and vices). Part V has seven chapters on spirituality and health, psychopathology, coping, clinical and counseling psychology, advocacy of science, violence and terrorism, and a futurist view of the integration of psychology and religion. David Meyers of Hope College, nationally known for his work in Christian perspectives on Social Psychology, and notable for his empirical studies, observed that Paloutzian and Park have assembled in this comprehensive volume a stateof-the-art review of the burgeoning psychological science of religion. From every angle, leading investigators explore religion's roots and fruits. For students and scholars of psychology-religion studies this is an absolutely essential resource. Much of the previously published work on the psychology of religion has been clinical in orientation, but this volume, as can be seen from the list of chapter subjects, treats the entire spectrum of relevant disciplines and issues relating to the empirical and philosophical science of psychology and the phenomenological and heuristic world of the data on spiritual experience. Paloutzian indicates that the driving force behind his interest in this specific area of study has been a desire to find out about the real world through the lens of psychology, particularly that aspect of real life that may be more central than others, namely, human religious experiences, practices, expectations, and behaviors. …
OBJECTIVE: The values of a field are reflected in the science it publishes. The goal of this study was to present a historical analysis of the extent to which the field of clinical neuropsychology publishes journals with titles that address culture in the context of brain function and behavior between 2010 and 2020. METHODS: Titles from articles published in 13 neuropsychology journals from 2010-2020 were collected and coded with regard to culture and multicultural content. The aims of the study were to (1) determine how often cultural or multicultural topics were represented in journal titles, (2) determine if cultural or multicultural content in neuropsychology journal publication titles increased over time, and (3) to explore other neuropsychological content that was most and least likely to appear in publications pertaining to culture or multicultural issues. RESULTS: Results indicated that titles for publications in clinical neuropsychology journals with content relevant to cultural or multicultural neuropsychology represented 1.1% to 13.4% of titles across the 13 journals. The number of cultural/multicultural titles increased over time. The number of cultural/multicultural titles per journal was not significantly correlated with the journal impact factor. Normative data were addressed significantly more often in cultural/multicultural titles versus non-cultural/multicultural titles, whereas psychiatric issues were addressed significantly less often. CONCLUSIONS: There are many actions that clinical neuropsychologists can take to increase the field's attention to the effects of culture on brain function and behavior. It is vital to update our data from 2021 to the present, given the substantial increase in awareness of social justice issues that occurred since 2020.
Computational models offer tools for exploring the nature of human cognitive processes. In connectionist, neural network, or parallel distributed processing models, information processing takes the form of cooperative and competitive interactions among many simple, neuron-like processing units. These models provide new ways of thinking about the neural basis of cognitive processes, and how disorders of brain function lead to disorders of cognition. This monograph is an expanded version of a recent issue of the journal Cognitive Neuropsychology. It presents the most comprehensive existing case study of how the effects of damage in connectionist models can replicate the detailed and diverse patterns of cognitive impairments that can arise in humans as a result of brain damage. It begins with a review of the basic methodology of cognitive neuropsychology and of other attempts at modeling neuropsychological phenomena. It then focuses on a particular form of acquired reading disorder, dyslexia, in which previously literate adults with brain damage exhibit a wide range of symptoms in pronouncing written words, the most striking of which is the production of semantic errors (e.g. reading RIVER as ocean). A series of simulations investigate the effects of damage in connectionist models that pronounce written words via their meaning. The work systematically explores each main aspect of the design of the models, identifying the basic computational properties that are responsible for the occurrence of deep dyslexia when the models are damaged. Although the investigation concerns a specific form of reading impairment, the computational principles that emerge as critical are very general ones: representation of concepts as distributed patterns of activity, encoding of knowledge in terms of weights on connections between units, interactivity between units to form stable attractors for familiar activity patterns, and greater richness of concrete vs. abstract semantics. The fact that damage to models embodying these principles and damage to the brain can produce strikingly similar behaviour supports the view that the human cognitive system operates according to similar principles.
OBJECTIVE: For decades, quantitative psychologists have recommended that authors report effect sizes to convey the magnitude and potential clinical relevance of statistical associations. However, fewer than one-third of neuropsychology articles published in the early 2000s reported effect sizes. This study re-examines the frequency and extent of effect size reporting in neuropsychology journal articles by manuscript section and over time. METHODS: A sample of 326 empirical articles were drawn from 36 randomly selected issues of six neuropsychology journals at 5-year intervals between 1995 and 2020. Four raters used a novel, reliable coding system to quantify the extent to which effect sizes were included in the major sections of all 326 articles. RESULTS: Findings showed medium-to-large increases in effect size reporting in the Methods and Results sections of neuropsychology journal articles that plateaued in recent years; however, there were only very small and nonsignificant changes in effect size reporting in the Abstract, Introduction, and Discussion sections. CONCLUSIONS: Authors in neuropsychology journals have markedly improved their effect size reporting in the core Methods and Results sections, but are still unlikely to consider these valuable metrics when motivating their study hypotheses and interpreting the conceptual and clinical implications of their findings. Recommendations are provided to encourage more widespread integration of effect sizes in neuropsychological research.
Cohen, in a now classic paper on statistical power, reviewed articles in the 1960 issue of one psychology journal and determined that the majority of studies had less than a 50-50 chance of detecting an effect that truly exists in the population, and thus of obtaining statistically significant results. Such low statistical power, Cohen concluded, was largely due to inadequate sample sizes. Subsequent reviews of research published in other experimental psychology journals found similar results. We provide a statistical power analysis of clinical neuropsychological research by reviewing a representative sample of 66 articles from the Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, the Journal of the International Neuropsychology Society, and Neuropsychology. The results show inadequate power, similar to that for experimental research, when Cohen's criterion for effect size is used. However, the results are encouraging in also showing that the field of clinical neuropsychology deals with larger effect sizes than are usually observed in experimental psychology and that the reviewed clinical neuropsychology research does have adequate power to detect these larger effect sizes. This review also reveals a prevailing failure to heed Cohen's recommendations that researchers should routinely report a priori power analyses, effect sizes and confidence intervals, and conduct fewer statistical tests.
This document is the first set of practice guidelines to be formally reviewed and endorsed by the AACN Board of Directors and published in the official journal of AACN. They have been formulated with the assumption that guidelines and standards for neuropsychological assessment and consultation are essential to professional development. As such, they are intended to facilitate the continued systematic growth of the profession of clinical neuropsychology, and to help assure a high level of professional practice. These guidelines are offered to serve members of AACN, as well as the field of clinical neuropsychology as a whole.
To assist in the identification of key professional resources for neuropsychologists, 214 Australian clinical neuropsychologists were asked to identify "essential" reference materials. Fifty members of the Australian College of Clinical Neuropsychologists returned useable surveys. Forty-three respondents provided information about which clinical neuropsychology books and journals they considered essential and why. Results showed 15 books, including 3 Australian books, and 31 journals were included in the essential reading list of at least 10% of this sample. Compared to similar previous surveys (predominantly conducted overseas and mostly over 10 years ago), the results of this survey suggest that, Australian neuropsychologists have similar views about the top ranking books and journals in clinical neuropsychology as their overseas counterparts. An exception to this general trend may be the status of reference books containing norms, which appear to be growing in perceived importance. Importantly, the results of this survey may be used to help practitioners identify key professional resources in the area of clinical neuropsychology.
Abstract American Board of Professional Psychology Diplomates in clinical neuropsychology were surveyed to identify a contemporary list of “essential readings.” Eleven of 162 books and 12 of 56 journals met the inclusion criterion of being endorsed by 15% of the respondents. These lists may be considered basic resources for advanced graduate students and postdoctoral fellows. Experienced practitioners may find the results helpful in identifying resources to consult in order to keep up with developments in the field. It is noted that in-depth familiarity with professional literature is only one of many prerequisites for competent clinical practice. Due to the dynamic nature of the field, follow-up surveys are recommended every 5 years.
Journal Article Handbook of neuropsychology (vol. 4) Get access Handbook of Neuropsychology (Vol. 4) . By F. Boller & J. Grafman , Amsterdam : Elsevier , 1991 . xiv + 383 pp. Arthur MacNeill Horton, Jr., Arthur MacNeill Horton, Jr. Associate Editor Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic PubMed Google Scholar James A. Moses, Jr., PhD James A. Moses, Jr., PhD Clinical Associate Professor, Coordinator 1Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences Stanford University School of Medicine, Psychological Assessment Unit(116B) Department of Veterans Affairs Medical CenterPalo Alto, California Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic PubMed Google Scholar Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, Volume 9, Issue 3, 1994, Pages 299–302, https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/9.3.299 Published: 01 May 1994
Journal Article THE ANATOMICAL BASIS OF CONDUCTION APHASIA Get access HANNA DAMASIO, HANNA DAMASIO Department of Neurology (Division of Behavioral Neurology and Benton Laboratory of Neuropsychology), University of Iowa College of MedicineIowa City, Iowa 52242, USA Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic PubMed Google Scholar ANTONIO R. DAMASIO ANTONIO R. DAMASIO Department of Neurology (Division of Behavioral Neurology and Benton Laboratory of Neuropsychology), University of Iowa College of MedicineIowa City, Iowa 52242, USA Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic PubMed Google Scholar Brain, Volume 103, Issue 2, June 1980, Pages 337–350, https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/103.2.337 Published: 01 June 1980 Article history Received: 19 July 1979 Published: 01 June 1980
Journal Article Handbook of neuropsychology (vol. 1) Get access Handbook of Neuropsychology (Vol. l) , Edited by F. Boller & J. Grafman , Amsterdam : Elsevier , 1988 . xvi + 442 pp. Arthur MacNeil Horton, Jr., PhD, Arthur MacNeil Horton, Jr., PhD Associate Ediotor Psych AssociatesTowson, MD Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic PubMed Google Scholar James A. Moses, Jr., PhD James A. Moses, Jr., PhD Stanford University School of Medicine and Department of Veterans Affairs Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic PubMed Google Scholar Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, Volume 8, Issue 6, 1993, Pages 557–559, https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/8.6.557 Published: 01 November 1993