Search

Objective:To investigate sociodemographic characteristics, clinical and academic training, work setting and salary, clinical activities, and salary and job satisfaction among practicing neuropsychologists in four Nordic countries.Methods:890 neuropsychologists from Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden participated in an internet-based survey between December 2013 and June 2015.Results:Three-fourths (76%) of the participants were women, with a mean age of 47 years (range 24–79). In the total sample, 11% earned a PhD and 42% were approved as specialists in neuropsychology (equivalent to board certification in the U.S.). Approximately 72% worked full-time, and only 1% were unemployed. Of the participants, 66% worked in a hospital setting, and 93% had conducted neuropsychological assessments during the last year. Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, learning disability, and intellectual disability were the most common conditions seen by neuropsychologists. A mean income of 53,277 Euros was found. Neuropsychologists expressed greater job satisfaction than income satisfaction. Significant differences were found between the Nordic countries. Finnish neuropsychologists were younger and worked more hours every week. Fewer Swedish neuropsychologists had obtained specialist approval and fewer worked full-time in neuropsychology positions. Danish and Norwegian neuropsychologists earned more money than their Nordic colleagues.Conclusion:This is the first professional practice survey of Nordic neuropsychologists to provide information about sociodemographic characteristics and work setting factors. Despite the well-established guidelines for academic and clinical education, there are relevant differences between the Nordic countries. The results of the study offer guidance for refining the development of organized and highly functioning neuropsychological specialty practices in Nordic countries. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Objective: Historically, the neuropsychological test traditions of the four Nordic countries have spanned from the flexible and qualitative tradition of Luria-Christensen to the quantitative large battery approach of Halstead and Kløve-Matthews. This study reports current test use and discusses whether these traditions still influence attitudes toward test use and choice of tests., Method: The study is based on survey data from 702 Nordic neuropsychologists., Results: The average participant used 9 tests in a standard assessment, and 25 tests overall in their practice. Test use was moderated by nationality, competence level, practice profile, and by attitude toward test selection. Participants who chose their tests flexibly used fewer tests than those adhering to the flexible battery approach, but had fewer tests from which to choose. Testing patients with psychiatric disorders was associated with using more tests. IQ, memory, attention, and executive function were the domains with the largest utilization rate, while tests of motor, visual/spatial, and language were used by few. There is a lack of academic achievement tests. Screening tests played a minor role in specialized assessments, and symptom validity tests were seldom applied on a standard basis. Most tests were of Anglo-American origin., Conclusions: New test methods are implemented rapidly in the Nordic countries, but test selection is also characterized by the dominating position of established and much researched tests. The Halstead-Reitan and Luria traditions are currently weak, but national differences in size of test batteries seem to be influenced by these longstanding traditions.

Word list generation (WLG) tasks are used world wide as measures of executive function, although the tests are sensitive also to deficits in other cognitive functions. Norms derived from English-speaking samples are often used in Norway, even though the consequences of language differences are not yet been assessed. The reliability of WLG testing in Norway is increased by the norms presented in the first part of the study. The validity of WLG tests as measures of executive function is addressed in the second part, by performing a factor-analysis of neuropsychological performance in a mixed psychiatric sample. Education contributed most to performance. There were no sex-differences in overall performance. Factor analysis indicated that phonemic WLG is a more specific measure of executive function than semantic WLG. Semantic WLG correlated higher with basal processing speed, thus being more sensitive to aging. In conclusion the clinical neuropsychologist is advised to control for reduction in basal processing speed before interpreting WLG scores as specific deficits in executive function. The Norwegian norms correspond well with most comparable studies in other languages, thus failing to show any language specific effects.