The profession of neuropsychologist in Canada: Findings of a national survey

The purpose of this study was to investigate the demographic characteristics, academic training and types of professional activities of clinical neuropsychologists in Canada.

282 participants completed an online-based survey.

Respondents were women for the most part and had a mean age of 43 years. They typically had doctoral-level training (85%) and about one-quarter had postdoctoral training (23%). Nearly half (47%) had a lifespan practice, over one-third (37%) had an adults-only practice, and about one-sixth (16%) had an exclusively pediatric practice. Most worked full-time (79%). Respondents were almost evenly split three ways between those who worked in the public sector, those who worked in the private sector, and those who worked in both. The most common professional activities related to assessment (95%), although clinical supervision (43%) and rehabilitation (42%) were also quite frequent, whereas research (27%) and teaching (18%) were less so. The most common reason for referral was to determine a diagnosis (79%). Pediatric neuropsychologists worked primarily with individuals with neurodevelopmental disorders and neuropsychologists working with adult populations worked primarily with individuals with emotional disorders, acquired neuropsychological disorders (traumatic brain injury, stroke/vascular), and neurocognitive disorders (dementia).

At time of study, Canadian neuropsychologists seemed to enjoy a fairly balanced situation: Their level of training and the ratio of neuropsychologists per population were both high. However, these varied widely across Canada. This suggests that the profession and public interest would stand to gain from seeing training standardized to some extent nationwide.

What Defense Mechanisms Do Therapists Interpret In-Session?

One of the key technical guidelines outlined by psychodynamic theorists and clinicians is for therapists to interpret a patient's most prominent defenses (Greenson, 1967; Langs, 1973). However, a debate exists about what constitutes a patient's most prominent defense and which defenses therapists actually choose to interpret in-session. This study aimed to shed light on this debate by examining 35 psychotherapy sessions (18 high alliance and 17 low alliance dyads) of individuals in therapy at a university counselling center. The analysis focused on comparing the patients' most prominent defenses and the range of defenses they utilized, and the therapists' most prominent interpretation level as well as the range of interpretation level. Paired sample t-tests showed no significant mean difference between sessions with low and high alliance scores in patient defense levels (e.g., frequency and range) and therapist interpretation levels (e.g., frequency and range). Significant differences were found between the range of patient defense levels and the range of therapist interpretation levels. Correlational analyses showed no significant relationship between patient defense levels and therapist interpretation levels on both the frequency and range levels. Clinical implications of these results, and directions for future research are discussed.