New Jersey Psychologist Publication of the New Jersey Psychological Association Summer 2012 • Volume 62 • Number 3
Special Section: Forensic Psychology
PRSRT STD U.S. POSTAGE PAID TRENTON, NJ PERMIT NO. 114
e Center for Psychotherapy and Psychoanalysis of New Jersey Co-Sponsor: New Jersey Society of Clinical Social Workers New Classes begin September, 2012
e Center for Psychotherapy and Psychoanalysis of New Jersey is dedicated to the training of skillful and eﬀective psychotherapists. Contemporary psychoanalytic psychotherapy is an empirically validated treatment methodology proven to oﬀer the clinician a ﬂexible tool for treatment of a wide variety of patients. Over the last century, psychoanalysis and psychoanalytic training have evolved, integrating the best of psychotherapy approaches including those from infant research, neuroscience, attachment theory, and body-based therapies. Psychoanalytically informed treatment is, at its heart, a process by which people discover the freedom to establish an enduring capacity for satisfying relationships and genuine living. Candidates have the opportunity to form new professional networks to develop both their skills and their practices. Low-cost personal therapy and low-cost supervision are available. Referrals to candidates’ practices are available through our Psychotherapy Clinic. CEUs are available for social workers for all classes. For further information, please call 973-912-4432 or visit us online at www.cppnj.org Write us at: CPPNJ, 235 Main Street #184, Madison, NJ 07940 Licensed and license-eligible clinicians are invited to apply for admission to CPPNJ. CEU's are available for all classes and programs
http://blog.cppnj.org/ Find us on:
Public Symposia and Programs 2012-2013 October 14, 2012, 9:00 am - 12:30 pm — Dan Hill, PhD, e Integration of Attachment eory and Neurobiology: Part 1: eoretical Grounding and Clinical Applications. Lenfell Hall, FDU Florham Park, Madison 3 CEUs for social workers. November 11, 2012, 9:00 am - 12:30 pm — Nancy McWilliams, PhD, Challenges in Psychoanalytic Supervision. Lenfell Hall, FDU Florham Park, Madison. 3 CEUs for social workers.
March 16, 2013, 9:00 am - 12:30 pm — Dan Hill, PhD presents e Integration of Attachment eory and Neurobiology, Part II: Clinical Applications and Case Understanding. Lenfell Hall, FDU Florham Park, Madison. 3 CEUs for social workers. May 19, 2013, 8:30 am -4:30 pm — Phil Ringstrom, PhD presents A Relational Approach to Couples erapy - Lenfell Hall, FDU Florham Park. Social work CEU’s to be determined.
ese programs are co-sponsored by the New Jersey Society for Clinical Social Work, which provides leadership and support to clinical social workers in all practice settings. e New Jersey Society for Clinical Social Work has given voice to clinical social workers dealing with the health care industry. e organization provides outstanding continuing education programs and opportunities for collegial contact. www.njscsw.org
e New Jersey Couples erapy Training Program
New Classes in Systemic-Psychodynamic Couples erapy begin January, 2013 e ﬁrst two courses, Major Modelsn of Couples erapy and Elements of Clinical Technique, will begin in January 2013 and will be held in locations in the New Brunswick area. Current classes are held in Northern New Jersey. is eight course program oﬀers a unique multitheoretical approach including a thorough grounding in the theory of couples relationships from family systems and diverse psychoanalytic points of view. Students will have the opportunity to explore the range of contemporary approaches to couples therapy: family systems perspectives, attachment theory, Emotionally-Focused erapy, Imago Relationship erapy, Object Relations erapy, and more, as the student is provided with an opportunity to integrate and incorporate the material into their own work. e goal is to arrive at an eclectic understanding of the couple as an entity, including how each partner has a separate internal world which impacts the whole of the couple. Intensive classroom work and clinical supervision integrate readings with students' own clinical material. Interested candidates can take up to two courses before committing to the full two year program. For further information, go to www.cppnj.org, or contact Daniel Goldberg, PhD at 609-683-8000. CEUs are available for social workers for all classes.
Couples Program 110: 111: 210: 211:
Major Models of Couples Therapy Elements of Clinical Technique Advanced Psychoanalytic Perspectives on Love and Couples Therapy Advanced Clinical Technique: Use of Self and Managing Enactments
310: 311: 410: 411:
Sexuality and Intimacy in Couples Therapy Deepening Clinical Skills in Couples Therapy Advanced Topics in Couples Therapy Core Elements of Effective Couples Therapy: Integrating Models
New Jersey Psychologist Publication of the New Jersey Psychological Association
Table of Contents 2 3 5 7 12 14 15 16 17 18 21 22 24 29 37 41 44 45 48 49 51 52
Who’s Who in NJPA 2012 From the Editor President’s Message Presidential Candidates Statements Executive Director’s Report Director of Professional Affairs Report Legal Action Update Committee on Legislative Affairs (COLA) New Jersey Psychological Association of Graduate Students (NJPAGS) Ethics Update NJPA Foundation Diversity Corner Environmental News Special Section: Forensic Psychology New Members What’s New in Youth Concussion Member Awards NJPA Spring Conference Photo Gallery Sustaining Members Book Review Risk Management Program Classifieds
IMPORTANT DATES ▼ Risk Management Saturday, September 29, 2012 Woodbridge Hilton Hotel, Iselin, NJ
Adventures on the Electronic Frontier: Ethics & Risk Management in the Digital Era New Presenter
Jeffrey N. Younggren, PhD, ABPP
2012 Fall Conference October 20, 2012 Renaissance Woodbridge Hotel, Iselin, NJ
Jonathan Shedler, PhD
Who’s Who in NJPA 2012 www.PsychologyNJ.org
New Jersey Psychological Association Editorial Board Editor: Jack Aylward, EdD Associate Editor: Craig Fabrikant, PhD Herman Huber, PhD Michael Jaffe, PhD Maria Kirchner, PhD Megan Lytle, EdS Gianni Pirelli, PhD Sarah Seung-McFarland, PhD Anthony Tasso, PhD Claire Vernaleken, PhD
NJPA 2012 Executive Board President: Mathias Hagovsky, PhD President-Elect: Sean Evers, PhD Past-President: Sharon Ryan Montgomery, PsyD Treasurer: Kenneth Freundlich, PhD Secretary: Stephanie Coyne, PhD Director of Academic Affairs: Kathleen Torsney, PhD APA Council Representatives: Neil Massoth, PhD; Joseph Coyne, PhD Members-at-Large: Phyllis Bolling, PhD Jeffrey Kahn, PhD Francine Rosenberg, PsyD Milton Spett, PhD Aaron Welt, PhD Jeannine Zoppi, PhD Parliamentarian: Joseph Coyne, PhD Affiliate Caucus Chair: Jeannine Zoppi, PhD NJPAGS Rep: Krista Dettle, MA Latino/a Psychological Association of NJ Rep: Sylvia Mazzula, PhD ABPsi Rep: Phyllis Bolling, PhD
Central Office Staff Executive Director: Josephine Minardo, PsyD Administrative Director: Jane Selzer Membership & Program: Susan Beatty Communications: Christine Gurriere Administrative Assistant: Keira Boertzel-Smith Director of Professional Affairs: Barry Helfmann, PsyD
NJPA 2012 Committee & Special Interest Group Chairs Committees of the Board:
Diversity: Co-Chairs: Susan McGroarty, PhD; Deirdre Waters, PsyD Finance: Kenneth Freundlich, PhD Governance: Sharon Ryan Montgomery, PsyD Nominations & Leadership Development: Lisa Jacobs, PhD Personnel: Neil Massoth, PhD
Academic & Scientific Affairs: Ilyse O’Desky, PsyD Committee on Continuing Education: Mark Lowenthal, PsyD Committee on Legislative Affairs: Brett Biller, PsyD Conference: Jeffrey Singer, PhD Ethics: Mary Blakeslee, PhD Insurance: Jeffrey Axelbank, PsyD Membership: Anne Farrar-Anton, PhD Publications: Jack Aylward, EdD Public Education: Rosalind Dorlen, PsyD Anti-Bullying Sub-Committee: Jeannine Zoppi, PhD Healthy Workplace Sub-Committee: TBD Media Sub-Committee: Lynn Schiller, PhD Technology Committee: Aaron Welt, PhD
Special Interest Groups:
Early Career Psychologists: Co-Chairs: John Macri, PhD; J. Oni Dakhari, PsyD Forensic: Co-Chairs: Madelyn Milchman, PhD; Eileen Kohutis, PhD Health Psychology: Daniel Gallagher, PhD Neuropsychology: Carol Friedman, PhD NJPAGS: Krista Dettle, MA Co-Advisors: Dawn Gemeinhardt, PhD; Kathleen Torsney, PhD Prescriptive Authority: Co-Chairs: Bruce Banford, PsyD; Joseph Zielinski, PhD Psychology in the Schools: Thomas Massarelli, PhD Sport Psychology: Marshall Mintz, PsyD Trauma Response: Raymond Hanbury, PhD
Health Care Reform: Robert McGrath, PhD Self-Care Across the Career Spectrum: Neil Massoth, PhD
Addictive Behaviors: Raymond Hanbury, PhD Division of Child Protection & Permanency: Barry Katz, PhD LGBTQ: Jonathan Wall, PsyD
Regional Organization Presidents Bergen: Stephanie Coyne, PhD Essex-Union: Cheryl Futterman, PhD Mercer: Marta Aizenman, PhD Middlesex: Mark Weiner, PsyD Monmouth-Ocean: TBD Morris: Morgan Murray, PhD Somerset/Hunterdon: Jane Simon, PhD South Jersey: Hulon Newsome, PsyD
2012 NJP-PAC Inc. Officers
President: Robert Rosenbaum, EdD Treasurer: Pamela Foley, PhD
2012 NJPA Foundation Officers
Interim President: Ilyse O’Desky, PsyD Treasurer: Abigail Rosen Secretary: Toby Kaufman, PhD
Preparation of Manuscripts All manuscripts submitted for publication should follow APA style. Manuscripts should be edited, proofread, and ready for publication. Please prepare your manuscript in a word-processing program compatible with MS Word using Times New Roman font in 12 point type, left flush. Please submit your manuscript via e-mail to NJPA Central Office and to Jack Aylward at e-mail addresses below. Editorial Policy Articles accepted for publication will be copyrighted by the Publisher and the Publisher will have the exclusive right to publish, license, and allow others to license, the article in all languages and in all media; however, authors of articles will have the right, upon written consent of the Publisher, to freely use of their material in books or collections of readings authored by themselves. It is understood that authors will not receive remuneration for any articles submitted to or accepted by the New Jersey Psychologist. Any opinions that appear in material contributed by others are not necessarily those of the Editors, Advisors, or Publisher, nor of the particular organization with which an author is affiliated. Manuscripts should be sent to the Editor: Jack Aylward, EdD E-Mail: email@example.com or NJPA Central Office E-Mail: NJPA@PsychologyNJ.org Published by: New Jersey Psychological Association 414 Eagle Rock Avenue, Suite 211 West Orange, NJ 07052 973-243-9800 FAX: 973-243-9818 E-Mail: NJPA@PsychologyNJ.org Web: www.PsychologyNJ.org
Deadlines for Submission of Manuscripts ISSUE DATE FALL WINTER SPRING SUMMER
SUBMISSION DEADLINE August 10 November 10 February 10 May 10
New Jersey Psychologist
From the Editor
The Psychology of Class by Jack Aylward, EdD
few editorials ago, it was pointed out that the National Academy of Pediatricians raised the upper limit of what is considered to be the “teen years” to age 23. It was not clear however as to whether such a decision was based on psychological changes within this particular developmental cycle, or whether it had something to do with the dreary social and economic conditions making it difficult for young adults to survive on their own. Whatever the balance between these concerns, there has been a lot of talk of changes in parenting styles, particularly with respect to what has been alluded to as the “hovering” or “helicopter” parent. Such a reference is typically used in describing parents that, in becoming so attuned to their children’s every need, and feeling the urge to control their every move, may indeed play a part in altering the very nature of childhood. Harvard psychologist Richard Weissbourd notes “historically, parents have been concerned with things like obedience, manners, and respect for authority.” More recently, however, “we’re the first parents in history who want to be their kids’ friends.” Such an orientation can serve to undercut parental authority and interfere with otherwise normal development. In addition, such confluence could disrupt the developmental task of adolescent autonomy given that mom and dad have relied on them as a resource for companionship. What needs to be addressed in this case is “when is this about me, and when it is about you.” Separation difficulties are reflected in the huge drop in summer-camp attendance in favor of placing children in weeklong skill-based environments in order to avoid extended overnight stays. These types of camps feed the confluence by providing a constant updated stream of online photos, making sure that every picture shows a child smiling. According to author Michael Thompson however: “When kids are away from their parents, their achievements are their own.” Such independence he believes impacts positively on self-esteem, independence, and character. The lesson to be learned is that we can love and cherish our children, but we cannot make them happy. The theory seems to be that more family time is always a positive experience, although in reality it is often annoying. And, incessant praise may have the opposite effect. You don’t gain self-esteem first; you work hard, fall down, pick yourself up, try again, and eventually succeed, and then you feel good about yourself.
University of California economists Valerie and Garey Ramey figured out that somewhere between 1990 and the early 2000s, college-educated mothers were spending on average nine hours more per week with their children than their mothers had spent with them. Fathers spend an average of five more hours of time in that same regard. In addition, with the time left over, parents were often busy coordinating all sorts of extracurricular activities in a mad dash to assure getting their children into “good” colleges. Free and unstructured time or play has indeed become a rare commodity. A study of playgrounds in North Carolina found that children were 45% less active when a parent was present. As Boston College psychologist Peter Gray reminds us “free, unstructured play helps children learn how to get along well with others and control their emotions, and it also lets them develop their imagination.” Yet, since the 1950s, there has been a decline in the time American kids play independently. A study by Sandra Hofferth at the University of Maryland found that, between 1981 and 1997, American children ages six to eight spent 25% less time engaged in free play, although time in the classroom was up by 18%. Homework increased 145% and time being with parents soared up 168%. Part of the phenomena appears to be cultural. Chinese parents believe that nothing is fun until you’re good at it. And, to be good at anything you have to work at it, and believing that when left on their own, children do not want to work, gives parents the right to override such preferences. Western parents seem concerned about their children’s psyche; Chinese parents are not. Instead they assume strength in their children, not fragility, and therefore behave differently. When they demand perfect grades they do so on the belief that indeed their child can get them, and if not it is not necessarily that the child did not work hard enough. A study of 50 Western American mothers and 48 Chinese immigrant mothers found that approximately 70% of American mothers endorsed the ideas that “stressing academic success is not good for kids” and that “parents need to foster the idea that learning is fun.” Roughly 0% of the Chinese mothers felt the same way. In contrast, they believed that indeed their children have the ability to be the best, and if that does not turn out to be the case, there was a problem and that “parents were not doing their job.” On average the Chinese mothers 3
spent ten times longer than the Western mothers drilling academic activities with their children. American colleges have seen a rapid increase in referrals to campus counseling centers. At Stony Brook, for instance, nearly half the students who visit the centers are coping with serious mental illness, more than double the rate a decade ago. There are more students on medication along with more emergencies requiring immediate action. A survey by the American Counseling Association found that as much as 44% of students in counseling have severe psychological disorders, a 16% increase from 2000, while 24% are on medication, up 17% during that same time period. The most common disorders seen include depression, anxiety, suicidal thoughts, alcohol abuse, attention disorders, self-injury, and eating disorders. Suniya Luthar at Columbia University found that “the children of upper-class, highly educated parents in the Northeast are increasingly anxious and depressed.” Children with “high perfectionist strivings” were more likely to see achievement failures as personal ones.
Many of us can resonate with these issues, either in our personal lives, or in dealing with the anxieties of youngsters in our practices struggling with separation issues either moving from home to college or vise-a-versa, or from college into a very unsure and problematic economic job climate. What seems to be missing is the belief in being able to make that existential leap from environmental support to self-support. As therapists, the challenge seems to lie in the undoing of well-intended overindulgence, a problem once referred to as a “velvet steamroller,” or the experience of warm feelings while simultaneously being crushed. Such a condition gives credence to the therapeutic importance of providing as much support as necessary and as little as possible in working with such matters, an orientation that reinstates the faith in a natural human predisposition towards self-regulation. ❖ The views expressed in the editorial are those of the editor, with support of the NJPA editorial board, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of NJPA leadership or staff.
The Publication Committee of NJPA is seeking out new members interested in joining the editorial board of the New Jersey Psychologist. Responsibilities include quarterly meetings, occasional participation as a liaison editor for special sections, editing input, and working with other committee members in contributing ideas and suggestions for maintaining and advancing the professional image and intellectual integrity of the literary flagship of the New Jersey Psychological Association. For further information, contact either Christine Gurriere at Central Office at NJPAcg@PsychologyNJ.org or editor Jack Aylward at firstname.lastname@example.org
NJPA Proudly Unveils Our Mission Who We Are
For over 75 years, NJPA has been a proven leader in strengthening political outreach and advocating for the needs and interests of NJ psychologists in order to make a difference in the profession and how it impacts those we serve. Through the years, NJPA has continued to be instrumental in protecting patient privacy, maintaining the standards of practice, and educating the public about the important role of psychology in health, mental health, and ongoing wellness. Nearly 2,000 members strong and a long history of successful advocacy on behalf of NJ psychologists and the public interest, NJPA is recognized as one of the strongest state psychological associations in the country.
Our New Mission Statement
NJPA's newly adopted mission statement is shorter than the previous mission statement and much more succinct, as mission statements should be, according to our strategic planning model. In addition to this new mission, the executive board also developed four new goals that will lead us on our new path. Here more about strategic planning in upcoming articles.
"Promoting the Professional Interests of Psychologists to Better Serve the People of NJ."
• Zealously advocate for the interests of psychologists. • Effectively communicate the value of NJPA. • Provide professional development for members.
• Provide a professional community for NJ psychologists. New Jersey Psychologist
NJPA: PlANNING FOr OUr FUTUre HeAlTH by Mathias Hagovsky, PhD Private Practice, Livingston
y now, all members have received my letter regarding the status of our legal action that outlined our reasons for the recent “Direct Request” to each member for a $100 contribution (or more). Please know that the decision to make such a request is truly a difficult one, but one that ultimately comes from the hearts of leadership and is meant solely to sustain the strong and healthy pulse of NJPA. Thank you for all the support you have given and will, hopefully, continue to give, to our very worthwhile legal efforts to stand up against insurance company abuses. At the same time, we continue to make great strides in the process of “power walking” NJPA toward greater efficiency, transparency, and viability. At the full-day strategic planning meeting held on June 1st, your Executive Board crafted a new Mission Statement & Goals in the process of developing a strategic plan aimed at stronger advocacy for members, broader representation of all New Jersey psychologists, and greater outreach efforts to ensure our viability for generations to come. (Please see the announcement on opposite page.) Essentially, a strategic plan should be reviewed and revised every few years, with most non-profit organizations doing so every three to five years. The purpose is to ensure that the organization is continuing on a path of viability, and is focusing its efforts on what is representative of its membership. Our strategic planning meeting began with a thorough definition of who represents NJPA’s “primary customers” (New Jersey psychologists), and who our “supporting customers” are (those we serve and who serve us). We also explored what our customers need and value, and how to better identify, appeal to, and articulate how NJPA can meet those needs and attract those customers. Next, we looked for ways to promote and evaluate the results of our efforts, to ensure what we do can be consistent with the goals of the organization. Finally, we constructed objectives, that are in line with the mission statement, values, and goals of the association, keeping in mind: where our past has led us, where we are now, and where we wish to go. As you might imagine, this is a daunting, but essential task for any organization, and yet I cannot tell you how proud I am of everyone who participated and worked hard on your behalf. To that end, I would like to thank all who participated in the focus groups and online surveys, those who planned the day – most especially our Executive Director, Dr. Josephine Minardo and Administrative Assistant, Keira Boertzel-Smith – and Drs. Michael Gerson and Shawn McCall, our facilitators, Summer 2012
who donated their time and expertise toward making the day a true success. You should probably know that your board members volunteered 12 consecutive hours of hard work and attention to make this happen! Perhaps most striking to me was the consistent message gleaned from focus group and survey data that what everyone already appreciates most about NJPA, and wants us to continue, is our “zealous advocacy” for New Jersey psychologists. I can tell you this message was heard loud and clear by the board, and led to the commitment to enliven all our efforts under this banner going forward. Of course, this means we will have to make many decisions about how to proceed most effectively, and some of those will be very challenging to be sure. Our future efforts must, therefore, be exposed to this light and, as such, be subject to its effects. What should we continue to do and can we do it better? What should we discontinue or adjust? What should we be doing that we have not yet done and needs to be done? Leadership is currently working on developing more descriptive objectives to meet our new goals. The Executive Director/Director of Professional Affairs transition has been approved by the board and is already under way, hopefully completed by mid-2013. This should result in well-defined roles for the ED and Central Office staff, resulting in our inner workings becoming even more efficient. Dr. Joseph Coyne was just elected to fill the second NJPA seat for APA Council Representative, a “second” seat made possible, as you may recall, from a very concerted NJPA grass roots effort to get us to use our votes more wisely. The Committee on Legislative Affairs (COLA) is working tirelessly on no fewer than three important bills including RxP, judicial review, and mandatory CE for psychologists. Although I am aware that there may be different opinions among members regarding mandatory CE, I would like to remind all of us that psychologists are the only licensed professionals in New Jersey without this professional standard, and if we are to “zealously” promote our image to the public, it will be increasingly difficult to do so as this missing piece becomes more glaring. So far, I see 2012 as having been an exciting and challenging year for NJPA. I am happy to report that leadership and the board are immensely committed to the task, and proud to work hard on your behalf. That’s just good news for all of us. Have a great summer. ❖ 5
New Jersey Psychologist
President Candidate’s Statement
President Candidate’s Statement by Anne Farrar-Anton, PhD
eventeen years ago, I graduated college, packed up my belongings, got into my car, left Michigan, and headed to New Jersey. This was a pivotal time in my life as I came out here with one goal - to earn my doctorate in psychology. Although the mid-west had great academic training, I came here to attend Seton Hall because I wanted to learn how to be a psychologist, not just how to learn to do research on being a psychologist. My training allowed me to learn the value of the scientist-practitioner model and how to blend the science and the art of psychology. I did not think I would be sitting here at this very moment thinking about what to write as I ask for your support in my bid for president of NJPA; but here I am, and writing this has served as a life review. I have truly grown up in this wonderful state organization. My first exposure to NJPA was one of the biannual conferences in Morristown where I knew no one. I was wholeheartedly welcomed by the membership and soon began my journey in the organization. I become a member of what was then called the “Student Affiliate Committee.” What an amazing group of people. I eventually became the co-chair, the chair, and, after graduation, I stayed involved as a mentor. A few of us graduates helped develop the Early Career Psychologist group to respond to the needs of recent graduates and those working toward licensure. Simultaneously, I was asked to join the NJPA Executive Board as the Student/ECP Representative. I also had the opportunity to take part in the Program (Co-Chair), Legislative Affairs (Secretary), Council on Continuing Education, and Diversity Committees. In addition, I had the remarkable opportunity to attend the State Leadership Conference as the first ECP from NJ through the full financial support by the APA (1 of 10 delegates). I had the pleasure of participating in meetings with national leaders and never feeling that I was looked down upon because of being younger or, at that time, not having the same years of experience as some of the other state leaders. It was clear that I brought something new, unique, fresh, and needed. I felt valued and I was heard. During these years, I had remained significantly involved with my county affiliate, serving as a board member for many years. When I first attended their meeting as a student, I asked if I could join the association. Why did I need to ask? At the time, the organization’s name was the Bergen County Association of Licensed Psychologists. Soon thereafter, the organizaSummer 2012
tion changed its name to the Bergen County Psychological Association, a much more inclusive name, and I pride myself on playing a contributing role in this organization’s name change. I was elected by the membership and served three years as Member-at-Large for NJPA where I expanded my involvement by becoming chair of the Personnel Committee and working firsthand with the Central Office staff, along with other board member responsibilities. As I completed my tenure on the board, I sought to remain involved and joined the Membership Committee, later becoming its chair, the position I currently hold. These roles and leadership positions collectively have provided me with the knowledge and the capabilities needed to serve as your president. For those members who don’t know me, let me stop for a second before I go on and state that I work full time at Hackensack University Medical Center (Tomorrows Children’s Institute) where I work with the most amazing children suffering from cancer or a significant blood disorder. I have the privilege of helping them and their families face life-threating illness. I value working in a medical center, within a multidisciplinary team. I respect my social work colleagues, child life specialists/creative arts therapists, educational liaisons, and the many medical professionals who assist in every way. We are truly a team and we all have our expertise, that is invaluable to our patients. I am also an adjunct professor at Fairleigh Dickinson University where I teach for both the Schools of Psychology and Education. This keeps me involved, always evolving, and in line with my personal motto of always being a “lifelong learner.” As a counseling psychologist, I am trained to look at individuals’ strengths and weaknesses, improving upon the strengths and taking appropriate measures to eliminate weaknesses. I think this is a great model for a leader within NJPA because we, like our clients, do so many great things, and can always strive to do better. When people ask me why I spend so much time and energy volunteering within NJPA, my answer always is “no one has a right to complain or critique unless and until they are willing to effect change.” NJPA does a great job of representing and protecting our profession, but there is always more that we can do; for example, we are at a pivotal point with our insurance lawsuit; we are looking to expand the scope of practice for prescription privilege for those with the additional and necessary training. I have seen so much accomplished 7
and I am eager to see where the next movements are in our future. I want to be a part of it. I want to help advocate for our membership, and I want to lead our membership into the next unfolding chapter of our wonderful profession. My focus within NJPA has never been narrow; I have been involved in many areas of the organization during my 17-year tenure across my developmental process. I am not running for president so I can focus on one particular platform, but I look to NJPA as having the responsibility to focus on the field of psychology as a whole for NJ psychologists. We should have an overall focus on issues that are important to our profession: protecting our field, expanding our scope of practice
to increase the tools available in our toolbox, focus on our membership needs, infusion of diversity, leadership pipeline, and to continue our comprehensive programming. I am proud to be an active member of NJPA, look forward to seeing where NJPA will be 20, 30, 40 years from now! I encourage our membership to consider me as their advocate and as a leader who will tirelessly hear their concerns and help advance NJPA to an even better place! I would be honored to serve the membership as its president, and I ask that you consider me as a viable, experienced, and accomplished candidate for same. ❖
The NJPA 2013 Slate
Online voting will commence on 09/04/12 PreSIDeNT-eleCT MeMBer-AT-lArGe
Anne Farrar-Anton, PhD Jeffrey Singer, PhD
Stephanie Coyne, PhD Pamela Foley, PhD
(Nominated by Membership) Sheryl Pipe, PhD Aaron Welt, PhD
(Nominated by Affiliates) Hulon Newsome, PsyD
GUIDelINeS FOr CAMPAIGNS FOr NJPA OFFICe Nominations & leadership Development (N&lD) Committee 1. All candidates are encouraged to conduct their campaigns in a manner that is positive and respectful towards their opponents. 2. All candidates shall refrain from utilizing any means or resources that create an unfair advantage over another candidate, including, but not limited to: a. Establishing a campaign website b. Paying for advertisements c. Campaigning or electioneering on other public forums (e.g. other professional listservs or websites, etc.). 3. Campaigning by the candidate, or electioneering by any member on behalf of any candidate, on any NJPA listserv or other public forum, is strictly prohibited. 4. Each candidate running for any NJPA office will be invited to prepare a public statement that will be available to all members on the website, and in electronic and print publications, as appropriate. 5. NJPA will hold a telephonic member call-in (“Meet the Candidates”) during which all candidates running for the office of NJPA president will have the opportunity to make a public statement and address questions directly from members. This will allow candidates and NJPA members to interact directly and in real time so members can become more informed voters. This call-in will be recorded and posted on the NJPA website as a podcast for those members who were unable to join the meeting. This meeting will be the only time it is permissible to use a public forum to promote one’s candidacy. It is recommended this meeting take place shortly before voting commences (early September), at a mutually agreed upon time with all candidates. 6. Voting will be open from approximately mid-September through mid-October. 7. Candidates will be permitted to campaign privately beginning the month prior to voting (August). Private campaigning shall be limited to personal messages to individuals via written, verbal, or electronic means. All candidates are expected to use good judgment when contacting other members and to limit the number of contacts to potential supporters. If any candidate wishes to utilize any means of campaigning beyond those stated, they must obtain specific approval to do so by the Nominations and Leadership Development Committee. 8. All candidates and supporters are expected to remain respectful and courteous at all times. Untruthful, misleading, or disparaging statements against other candidates are strictly prohibited. Approved by NJPA Executive Board 6/1/2012 8
New Jersey Psychologist
President Candidate’s Statement
President Candidate’s Statement effective, Informed, Collaborative by Jeffrey Singer, PhD
have been actively involved with NJPA since 1988, when I became a member of the Student Affiliate Committee (SAC; that later evolved into NJPAGS), serving as a student observer to the Committee on Legislative Affairs (COLA) during a time when it was rare for a student’s involvement to go beyond SAC membership. For the next 24 years, being involved with NJPA has been a constant. Upon full membership, I served on COLA and was COLA secretary. I have been a member of the Colleague Assistance Committee (when it was called the Impaired Psychologist Committee and then Psychologist Peer Support), as well as the Conference Committee for many years. In the pre-email days, when my children needed me around in more tangible ways, I still wanted to serve NJPA in some manner and was a telephone chain Grassroots Captain. In addition to my present involvement with the Forensic Interest Group, I am currently the chair of the Conference Committee after completing a busy three-year term as a Member-at-Large to NJPA’s Executive Board from 2008-2011. At the affiliate level, I am a relatively recent member of the Morris County Psychological Association. However, I am a long time member of the Essex-Union County Association of Psychologists (EUCAP). I served on EUCAP’s executive board for eight years in various roles as treasurer, Internet chair, EUCAP representative to NJPA executive board, EUCAP representative to NJPA Affiliate Caucus, and EUCAP Member-atLarge. I am also a proud EUCAP past- president, having served as EUCAP president in 2008. My record of commitment and dedication to NJPA, and to the practice of professional psychology, is clear and strong. During my tenure as EUCAP president, we launched the successful initiative of “What Can EUCAP Do For You?” aimed at making the organization even more welcoming and accessible. We constructively influenced the EUCAP organizational culture, passed a new set of by-laws, changed our name (from the Society of Psychologists in Private Practice) to better represent our group composition, launched a website, offered compelling programming, and increased networking opportunities. As ex-officio, I have consulted as needed to the current EUCAP Board. As your NJPA president-elect, my core-organizing principle would remain as it always was: placing the best interests of Summer 2012
NJPA at the forefront. I strive to make decisions that are consistent with NJPA’s mission and implement our strategic plan. To effectively accomplish these challenging goals, I actively encourage colleagues with diverse viewpoints to become engaged in the process. As an effective and involved leader, I believe it is most important to facilitate a team process to reach common goals and celebrate our achievements together. As a leader, I aim to be sensitive to the nuances and complexities of cooperatively reaching short- and long-term goals by listening to various sides of an issue, integrating different perspectives, and making a reasoned decision that appreciates the “big picture” without getting stuck in minutiae. When circumstances do not allow for such reflection, I can think fast on my feet to accommodate the situation. I enthusiastically support NJPA’s current initiatives, including the insurance lawsuits and pursuit of prescriptive authority, and hope to see these undertakings through to successful completion. My presidential initiatives would be to develop a Leadership Institute to provide opportunities for members to cultivate their own leadership potential and thereby establish a robust leadership pipeline. Additionally, I plan to build upon the sense of our membership feeling connected with each other to further enhance NJPA as a vital and inclusive association. With nearly 25 years of NJPA organizational experience, I have learned to appreciate the connections between the executive board, standing committees, special interest groups, and affiliates. This has led to building and maintaining wonderful collegial, as well as influential, instructive mentoring, relationships. Through the advent of social media and listserv exchanges, these links are now more complex than ever, with a potential synergistic effect not previously achievable. There is a tremendous amount of talent and skill in our membership that I would like to inspire. This aspiration can be realized by keeping the focus of NJPA leadership on the needs of its members. As president-elect my priority will be working together to answer, “What Can NJPA Do For You?.” My goal is that the legacy of my administration will be one of effective, informed, and collaborative leadership, wherein NJPA’s members become part of enhancing the practice of professional psychology. ❖
Pioneering New Jersey Psychologist Celebrates 100th Birthday Pioneering New Jersey psychologist robert D. Weitz, PhD, now living in Boca Raton, Florida, celebrated his 100th birthday on July 9, 2012. Bob was instrumental in numerous movements within psychology over his illustrious career. I had the good fortune of buying Bob’s practice in the 1970s and had the privilege to work closely with him for several years. Indeed, the sale of the practice became the subject of a series of articles we co-authored in Psychotherapy and Private Practice; the journal that Bob edited for ten years. Many younger psychologists may not be aware of his contributions. Bob headed a group of seven psychologists, who embarked on a twenty year effort to create a Psychology Licensing Act in New Jersey. When the law was finally passed, the committee members were given license numbers one-seven. Since they decided to assign the numbers alphabetically, Bob was assigned license number seven. Bob was also the founding inspiration and first Acting Dean of the Graduate School of Applied and Professional Psychology (GSAPP) at Rutgers. Not many remember that, at one point, there was talk that it would become an affiliate of the New Jersey Medical School, but due to opposition from our psychiatry colleagues, Rutgers became its home. Not content to rest on his laurels, after retiring to Florida, he founded Florida’s first PsyD program, originally based at Nova University. Bob was also the driving force behind the Association of Psychologists in Private Practice, a moderately sized group of clinical psychologists centered on the East Coast. Within a few years, it evolved into Division 42; Psychologists in Independent Practice of the American Psychological Association and became its largest division. Bob conducted a successful practice in Teaneck, New Jersey for many years. There he lived with his wife Ruth who died several years ago. His daughter Betty was a nurse until she succumbed to cancer. His son William is a successful military and forensic psychologist while his son Steven is an attorney. I could share numerous anecdotes about Bob; a dynamo who did so much for his profession. He remains as sharp as a tack, physically healthy, and enjoying his “Golden Years.” Hats off to a man who exemplifies professional psychology at its best. Richard M. Samuels, PhD
New Jersey Psychologist
Executive Director’s Report
eXAMINING WHO We Are: Strategic Planning Survey results by Josephine S. Minardo, PsyD, Executive Director
DATA FrOM 2011 PrACTICe SUrVeY Demographics: 77% over age 50; < 15% age 45 or under 55% female; 45% male 92% Caucasian; 8% Black, Latino, Asian
Membership in NJPA: 64% members 16+ yrs. 33% members 26+ yrs.
licensure/Degree: 96% licensed 63% PhDs; 25% PsyDs; 9% EdDs
Independent Practitioners: 77% solo practice /shared office space 15% group practice
Institutional Practitioners: 11% academic position 11% school setting 8% hospital 8% college counseling 4% outpatient 40% “other”
Main Activities in Primary Work Setting: 76% Therapy 4% Administration 2.3% Teaching 7.5% Other
Involvement with Insurance: 44% managed care; 56% not managed care
Type of remuneration: 67% private insurance; 26% self-pay 18% Medicare; 12% government programs
n June 1st, the NJPA Executive Board took some bold steps toward developing a new strategic plan. Confident in the “Drucker” model we had chosen, based on the work of Peter F. Drucker, the renowned expert in organizational management, we proceeded to examine very closely who our “customer” is and what our customer values. These are two of the five essential questions Drucker implores organizations to ask themselves, and they were questions we really wanted answers to. Consequently, in advance of the strategic planning meeting, we decided we should really find out what our current customers, NJPA members, and our prospective customers, non-members, think about NJPA as an organization. To do this, we collected survey data and ambitiously embarked on the brave new challenge of conducting virtual focus groups—a relatively pioneering way to get customer feedback. On the day of the meeting, I provided the board with the information gleaned from these endeavors in my “Executive Summary,” part of which I am sharing here with all our members. Before presenting data about what our customers valued, it was important to get a sense of who our customer was. Since all current and emerging psychologists are essentially our customer, either presently, or, we hope, at some point in the future, it was essential to learn more about the demographic. As I write this, there are presently 3,210 licensed psychologists in New Jersey, with approximately 100+ new licensees joining the ranks every year. By comparison, there are 1,639 licensed psychologists in NJPA, representing 83% of NJPA total membership (1,975) and about 51% of all licensees in NJ. Not bad! In fact, it is quite good, considering that, on average, most state psychological associations across the country capture only approximately 33% of licensed psychologists. To examine our customer, and the potential for growth a little further, I looked at the number of early career psychologists (ECPs) that I am defining as psychologists within seven years of licensure (for this purpose). There are approximately 385 licensed ECPs in NJ who were licensed 2005 or later, representing 12% of total licensees in NJ. There are approximately 260 licensed ECPs in NJPA which represents 15.8% of the total number of NJPA licensed members (1,639). If you tally NJPA ECP members, in the aggregate, including both licensed and post-doctoral (non-licensed) psychologists, there are approximately 328, or 16.6% of total NJPA membership, representing an almost even, or slightly higher proportion of our membership, than the proportion of the total licensee pool in NJ. This is good news, albeit not entirely statistically significant. However, the even better news is that we are capturing about 68% of all the licensed ECPs in the state (260/385). That bodes incredibly well for the future, as long as we hold on to them…that is where the challenge lies. To get a better sense of who our 83% licensed psychologists are, demographically, I turned to the recent 2011 practice survey conducted by our Director of Professional Affairs, Dr. Barry Helfmann. As 96% of those who responded to this survey were licensed psychologists, it is reasonable to look to this data set. Some of those statistics are shown to the left. Survey results: There were 278 respondents to the strategic planning survey—224 or 81% were members, 30 or 11% were former members, and 22 or 8%, were non-members. Not surprisingly, the majority, also 224 or 81% of the respondents, were licensed psychologists, 24 or 8.7% were ECPs, 19 or 7% were students, 2 or 0.7% were non-licensed non-ECPs, and 7 or 2.5% were “other.” Practicing psychologists acNew Jersey Psychologist
counted for 220 or 80%, while 16 or 5.8% were part-time practice/part-time academic psychologist, 8 or 3% were strictly academic psychologists, 3 or 1% were Industrial/Organizational (I/O) psychologists, and 29 or 10.5% endorsed “other.” We asked few but important questions directed specifically towards members, and non-members, respectively. For each question, text analysis was performed on all answers and words that appeared most frequently were clustered into “word clouds.” Then, for each frequently used word, or “word of interest,” each individual response was analyzed to reveal “main themes” according to each word of interest. Each of the questions and main themes for “words of interest” are described below. Current members were asked: “What can NJPA do to be better?” Main Themes: ■ Think – respondent expressing what they “think” (predominantly positive: e.g. “I think you’re doing a great job”), or not able to “think” of anything specific ■ Conferences – live video stream/ archive of conferences, offer conferences in other parts of state, make conferences more affordable ■ Continue – expressing areas where respondents would like NJPA to continue “good” work: e.g. strong advocacy, listserv, communication w/members, website enhancement, diversity/inclusiveness, outreach, focus on insurance issues ■ Insurance – mix of: keep fighting insurance issues, provide members health insurance options, more information about dealing with insurance networks ■ Organization – mostly mention generically; as interchangeable word for “NJPA;” some comments that we are a “strong” organization ■ Programs – mostly interchangeable with “conferences” but also: mentoring program, more programs outside conferences, rotate when (Sabbath observance)/where programs held, get better “A-list” speakers, expand focus of content beyond private practice issues, current offerings not sufficient Summer 2012
Current members were asked: “Where is NJPA falling short?” Main Themes: ■ Conferences – cannot attend on Saturdays because of Sabbath; requests for specific content (school psychology issues, more on working with children, substance use); too expensive; more for advanced practitioners; move to Central or South NJ; move location around; too psychoanalytic; not enough on research; feel too much like “in-crowd” only ■ Issues – mostly used generically w/varied applicability (e.g. do more to address “post-doc issues,” “academic issues,” “payment issues;” “disproportionate concern with legal issues” ■ Think – used mostly generically and mostly positive ■ Focus – too much focus on Northern NJ and insurance; not enough focus on practice expansion, CBT, evidence-based interventions, innetwork issues Non-members were asked: “Why aren’t you a member of NJPA?” Main Themes: ■ Cost – dues too expensive/not worthwhile/limited value/not relevant for cost; cost prohibitive; too expensive to belong to all (APA, NJPA, local, specialty orgs.) ■ Membership – almost identical to above; membership fees: too high, keep rising, not worthwhile, etc. ■ Practice – (mixed responses) too much or not enough focus on practice issues; some responses on providing different fees for those in P/T practice ■ Benefit – not sure what benefits are; don’t see benefit, mixed feelings about benefits; little benefit Non-members were asked: “How can we better meet Non-Member needs?” Main Themes: ■ Offer – requests that NJPA offer: online programs, practice enhancement/marketing/business of practice/technology/evidence based treatment/children & adolescent issues, workshops, networking,
mentoring, discussion groups, free membership for students ALL RESPONDENTS WERE ASKED: “Please share any other thoughts, feelings or opinions you have about NJPA and where you feel we should be heading.” Main Themes: ■ Practice – not fully meaningful; used generically and very broadly but also: positive about NJPA response to callers on practice issues, NJPA should: expand/protect practice, represent members not in private practice, too much focus on psychoanalytic & private practice protect ■ Insurance – (mixed) positive accolades on dealing with insurance issues; too much focus on insurance; listserv too heavily focused on insurance; dominance by those who do not accept insurance; more communication with insurance companies ■ Meetings – virtual meetings, member online access to board meetings, change location of meetings; meeting members’ needs; more about conferences: diversify meeting locations and dates ■ Support – mostly accolades for NJPA’s support of psychologists and support by central office staff (when calling in); used broadly but mostly positive. As you can see we learned a great deal about what both current members, and prospective members (non-members), want from NJPA. Our focus group data, though not as large a sample size, was very rich, and also helpful. Details will be discussed in the next issue of the NJ Psychologist. Utilizing information from our stakeholders to inform NJPA’s strategic plan was seen as vital to ensuring we continue on our path to making this organization truly member-driven and member-focused. We are definitely on our way… ❖
Director of Professional Affairs Report
Change by Barry Helfmann, PsyD
hange is very often in the forefront of our professional work. We frequently challenge our patients to look at themselves in ways that require interpersonal and intrapsychic change. This is often met with fear, resistance, and confusion about how to accept it as necessary. As psychologists, we are not immune from our own necessity to change. Of course, not all change is for the better. One only has to follow the developments in mental health care over the last number of years to demonstrate how much change has occurred. We have faced intrusions in privacy, violations of our Peer Review Law, TRFs, and the very strong forces in attempting to manage how we practice. Over the next 12 months there will be significant changes in personnel at the NJPA Central Office. Specifically, I will be reducing my time to one day per week beginning June 30, 2012. Therefore, I will be taking calls only on Mondays. However, our insurance committee members have been trained to begin to take some of the insurance calls by members. I will be leaving my role as Director of Professional Affairs (DPA) on June 30, 2013. Over the next year, I will be transitioning with our Executive Director (ED), Josephine Minardo, PsyD, who will assume both the ED and DPA positions. Both Josephine and I will work out the logistics to insure members’ needs are adequately attended to. As a result, there will be a new position of “office/business manager” whose primary responsibilities will include the administrative duties currently carried out by the ED. Over the past few years, the organization has been assessing, re-
MARK YOUR CALENDAR
Barry W. Klein, Psy.D.
Risk Management Program
Child, Adolescent, Adult, Family PDD, Autism, Asperger’s Syndrome, ADHD Behavior Problems, Parenting, School Consultation, Supervision
September 29, 2012 Woodbridge Hilton Hotel
Adventures on the Electronic Frontier: Ethics & Risk Management in the Digital Era
evaluating, and restructuring the administrative roles of the office staff in order to determine the most efficient and effective means to carry out the administrative duties of the association. These are changes that the organization feels are necessary to undertake and will be more fully developed over the next year. As with our patients, such change can appear challenging. Over the last seven and a half years, I have enjoyed my work as DPA greatly. Averaging almost 1000 calls per year has afforded me the opportunity to speak with psychologists throughout our state on a variety of issues affecting professional practice. I will continue to be a full-time, private practice psychologist, as I have been for the last 35 years. I will not be retiring from active practice at all. I will also go back to volunteer status beginning July 1, 2013, as I had been for almost 30 years before I became DPA in September 2005. Of course, who can ignore the impact of our four law suits and all they have meant to the public as well as the field of psychology. NJPA continues to be a leader amongst state psychological associations in terms of advocacy. Our legal actions have ramifications nationally and have been actively supported by APA. In many ways, I have received a post -doctoral education that could never be duplicated anywhere else. I will certainly continue with my involvement in these law suits. We have come way too far to have anyone not finish what we started. I look forward to see how these changes proceed as we all enter a new phase in our organization. ❖
68 Essex Street Millburn, NJ 07041 973.376.8890 NJ Lic 4204
915 West End Ave. Ste 1A New York, NY 10025 917.692.1281 NY Lic 8960
New Jersey Psychologist
legal Action Update from the NJPA Director of Professional Affairs, Barry Helfmann, PsyD On April 3, 2012, the Supreme Court of New Jersey granted Horizon’s and Magellan’s request for leave to appeal and referred the case back to the Appellate Division for consideration. This does not mean that Horizon and Magellan will win on appeal. The Supreme Court’s decision means only that they believe Horizon and Magellan should be allowed to appeal, but did not address the merits of any such appeal. We want to make certain that members understand that this latest decision is only about whether Horizon and Magellan can file an appeal to Judge Klein’s ruling in November 2011 that denied their motion to dismiss our case, and held that NJPA and the patient plaintiffs indeed have standing to bring this legal action. Accordingly, this appeal will not involve reviewing the merits of the case. Judge Klein is an intelligent, well-respected judge who issued a thorough and well-reasoned opinion. We believe that when appellate judges take the time, as Judge Klein did, to review the facts and the legal arguments presented, that they will likewise conclude that the law supports our position. We also believe that even if the Appellate Division disagrees with Judge Klein on NJPA’s standing to pursue this issue, the case would still be able to proceed through the individual plaintiffs. If this were to happen, there are still ways that NJPA could participate indirectly in the case. We remain confident, however, that NJPA’s standing to participate in the action will be upheld on appeal. Because this case is before the appellate court on a motion for leave to appeal, it is supposed to receive scheduling preferences over other cases. The case will likely be set for oral arguments sometime between September and December. The Appellate Division generally issues its decisions within four to eight weeks after oral arguments, but there is no fixed schedule and some cases take much longer before a decision is issued. We hope to be pleasantly surprised that the case will proceed much faster than stated. Prior to the Supreme Court’s order allowing leave to appeal, we were proceeding with the discovery phase. We have issued requests for document production, interrogatories, and requests for admissions to Horizon and Magellan. In return, Horizon and Magellan have issued requests for document production and interrogatories to NJPA and the individual plaintiffs. We are, therefore, well underway in the process of document production and interrogatories. A protective order providing protections for confidential information, including the individual plaintiffs’ health records, has been entered by Judge Klein. Assuming we prevail on appeal, once we are back in the lower court, we will be in a position to immediately resume discovery. NJPA has also consulted with APA legal counsel on these recent developments and we are encouraged by their response. They indicated that what we are experiencing is not unusual. In fact, we were advised that in APA’s experience with litigation against Horizon in Florida, Horizon filed several motions and appealed each one, but did not prevail on any them. We need to make sure we can adequately fund this case to a positive conclusion and return to Judge Klein’s courtroom to continue prosecuting this litigation, culminating with a ruling from Judge Klein on the merits of our declaratory judgment action. Our victory will preclude Horizon and Magellan from continuing to demand intrusive patient information to meet medical necessity. Therefore, we have made a direct request of every NJPA member for $100; this includes all of our members who have already generously contributed to this cause, and all those who may not yet have contributed. DONATE NOW! Scan this convenient QR code with your smart phone or mobile device and donate through our secure site. We are confident that by every member sharing equally in this litigation support, we will be fully funded to bring this case to a successful conclusion. Please make a note in the comment box on the payment form that you are supporting the legal action through the “DIRECT REQUEST.” Thank you for your support! Sincerely,
Barry Helfmann, PsyD NJPA Director of Professional Affairs
The Legislative Agenda
The legislative Cycle by Brett Biller, PsyD Chair, COLA
ow! So where to begin?! As we move into the lazy days of summer things are heating up here at COLA. We have been busy monitoring and advocating for psychology in New Jersey and the community we serve. It has been an exciting time as we have seen movement and support for several of our ongoing initiative efforts. I am excited to provide brief updates regarding several bills that have received much attention. As many of you may be aware, NJPA has been involved in supporting a bill (A2419/S137) that if passed, would allow prescriptive privileges to psychologists who complete specific and appropriate training. Assembly bill A2419 has been receiving much needed support from legislators and on March 10, 2012 was heard for discussion in the NJ Assembly’s Regulated Professions Committee that provided an opportunity for interested parties to offer testimony regarding the bill. Several NJPA members, including Sean Evers, PhD, Virginia Waters, PhD, and Robert McGrath, PhD were accompanied by our Executive Director, Josephine Minardo, PsyD, and Governmental Affairs Agent, John Torok, at the hearing. The team provided insightful and well-supported information that appeared to be well received by the members of the committee. Effort is ongoing to educate legislators regarding the benefit psychologists can have to the members of our community who are unable to readily access medications that would enhance their functioning. If you are interested in learning more about assisting in these efforts, please reach out to the NJPA Committee for Prescriptive Authority by contacting the Chair, Joseph Zielinski – email@example.com, to learn how! Another bill that has been “on the move” is A2289 that, if passed, would provide some protection from frivolous complaints brought against court appointed psychologists. The bill’s intent is to provide judiciary review (by the presiding judge) on the merit of any allegations brought against psychologists. Preventing groundless complaints from moving forward will save psychologists and the legal system time, effort, and resources. NJPA member and COLA Past Chair, Rob Rosenbaum, EdD has provided testimony to the Assembly committee on multiple occasions, including most recently on May 21, 2012. On each occasion, Dr. Rosenbaum has done a wonderful job educating the legislators and answering their questions regarding the benefits of A2289. The feedback provided by legislators has been positive as they appear to support the position maintained by NJPA. Although some amendments to the bill are expected, and have been introduced, we are hopeful the bill will soon be brought up for a vote in the Assembly and appropriately modified in the Senate. A newer bill, A3023 proposed in the Assembly, will have a direct impact on the NJPA membership by legislating continuing education (CE) requirements for licensed psychologists. This bill appears to be among a “package” of bills cur16
rently being proposed by domestic violence advocacy groups attempting to strengthen protections for women and families. While NJPA was not involved in the development of A3023, we learned that the bill specifically requires four CE credits in topics related to domestic violence, offering some insights into the origin of the bill that moved very quickly in the legislature. Bill A3023 was initially heard in committee on June 7, 2012 for discussion purposes only. NJPA, through our Governmental Affairs Agent, John Torok, reached out to the legislative sponsors of the bill to discuss its foundation and intent. Thankfully, the legislators appear willing to work with NJPA in developing parameters to the bill that would be most prudent for our practice. COLA will be reviewing the bill and identifying positive and negative aspects of the current language. Please note that the bill is in its infancy and we will have opportunities to work with the sponsors to influence the language of the bill. It is important to understand that having an influence on A3023 will ensure that, if the bill is passed, the established requirements will benefit the practice of psychology. The Association of State Provincial Psychology Boards (ASPPB) has recently issued model guidelines for continuing professional development (CDP) that include several diverse evidence-based activities that qualify for CE, beyond just traditional workshops, such as peer consultation, professional service, academic instruction, and publications; it also allows for self-directed learning across different mediums such as online education. Many changes are occurring on multiple levels with regard to continuing education for psychologists and NJPA is actively examining how best to handle this CE bill that remains a work in progress. We will continue to provide updates to the membership regarding the bills progress as it moves forward. As is apparent with the aforementioned bills, NJPA has been fortunate to have built positive relationships with several state legislators that have afforded us the opportunity to influence bills that directly impact our daily practice. While many believe “money talks,”…“it’s not what you know but who you know” is also a meaningful sentiment when attempting to influence legislative agendas. As I have mentioned in each of my prior articles, NJPA will be most successful with the assistance of members throughout the state. We would like to encourage members to make opportunities to reach out to their local representatives in the state legislature. If you already have a relationship with a legislator, please let us know how we can be of assistance in working with you to educate your legislator on how NJPA can assist them and their constituents. If you are not yet familiar with your legislators, but are interested in reaching out, let’s work together to form that relationship. As psychologists, we have much to offer our legislators and their constituents. Through outreach and education of our legislators, we will have a greater opportunity to serve our communities, while also forming lasting relationships that, in turn, will ensure the ongoing expansion and utility of our practice. Wishing each of you a pleasant and enjoyable summer! ❖ New Jersey Psychologist
New Jersey Psychological Association of Graduate Students (NJPAGS)
On the Importance of Mentorship by Krista Dettle, MA Seton Hall University
ithout a doubt, graduate school is a vitally formative period for psychologists-in-training. Knowledge is constantly available through classes and advisors, supervisors and externships, internships and fellowships…but what about mentorships? How exactly do we go about pursuing that voluntary, mutually agreeable, and selfselected interaction in which the more experienced psychologists lend us their expertise in the form of mentorship? Finding appropriate and willing mentors in professional psychology can be a challenge. As a result, many psychology graduate students are never mentored (Johnson, 2002). Thankfully, since its inception in 2006, NJPAGS has provided for the needs of graduate students through the creation of original programs. As graduate student leadership continues to flourish, it has become evident that provision of a formal opportunity for collegial, non-supervisory mentorship would be beneficial for the organization and its members. Seeing that mentoring programs have been successfully established in organizations such as the New York State Psychological Association and Ohio Psychological Association, NJPAGS has been preparing to launch a similar program, inviting NJPA members to serve as mentors. A committee consisting of NJPAGS members Stacie Shivers, Lori Magda, MA, and Alexandra Stratyner plans to oversee the maintenance of the program, including eligibility and the matching of participants via an online application. Every attempt will be made to match mentors and mentees based on requested areas of interests and/or theoretical orientation. Gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, ability status, and/or spiritual belief preferences will also be accommodated whenever possible. Once a match has been made, each of the participants will be informed by a committee member of such, after which mentors/mentees will be responsible for making initial contact with one another. Pairs can then determine their own arrangements for contact, such as e-mail, Skype, phone, or in person meeting. Today’s students are the future of our field and, given the bulk of professional psychology regulations that occur at the state level, strong NJPA leadership and effective advocacy are critical in preserving and protecting professional psychology. “Licensure for psychologists, inclusion of psychological services in Medicare, mental health parity, prescription privileges for psychologists, equitable treatment of psychologists in hospital practice, and remediation of managed care Summer 2012
abuses—none of these achievements could have been accomplished without psychology leaders educated and trained in advocacy for the profession of psychology” (Burney et al., 2009). Undoubtedly, mentoring students at the state level will help develop tomorrow’s leaders of our professional community, thus increasing the effectiveness of our state association in continuing this pivotal work. Since mentors provide guidance, support, and encouragement, and serve as role models, mentors and mentees together can collaborate on professional goals while simultaneously enhancing self-awareness, self-efficacy, and job satisfaction. Mentoring relationships certainly serve to benefit the mentees’ professional identity development, yet as mental healthcare professionals, we understand that the relationship also helps mentors to expand and to grow as well. Without question, mentorship can join NJPA and NJPAGS members closer together in sharing the goal of promoting the practice of psychology!! For more information on this up and coming program, please contact NJPAS Chair, Krista Dettle, MA at DettleK@optonline.net. ❖ references Burney, J., Celeste, B. L., Johnson, J., Klein, N. C., Nordal, K. C., & Portnoy, S. M. (2009). Mentoring professional psychologists: Programs for career development, advocacy, and diversity. Professional Psychology: Research And Practice, 40(3), 292-298. Johnson, B. (2002). The intentional mentor: Strategies for the practice of mentoring. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33, 88 –96. OFFICE HOURS BY APPOINTMENT
SANDRA H. WULACH, MD PSYCHIATRY
28 Millburn Avenue Suite 6 Springfield, NJ 07081 Phone: 973-467-1773
75 Oak Street Ridgewood, NJ 07450 Phone: 201-447-1773
From Telephone To Twitter: The ethical Delivery Of Mental Health Services by NJPA Ethics Education and Resource Committee Members: Herman Huber, PhD, Mary Blakeslee, PhD, Resa Fogel, PhD, Kenneth Freundlich, PhD, Lisa Greenberg, PhD, Marilyn Lyga, PhD, Laura Richardson, PhD, Diane Schaupp, PhD, Ronald Silikovitz, PhD E-mail, Skype, texting, Facebook, FaceTime, Twitter, patient portals, online testing, and apps - these evolving and increasingly pervasive forms of communication and interactive technology create not only more opportunities within our practices, but also exposure to new ethical challenges. This presentation by the Ethics Education and Resource Committee (EERC), on April 21, 2012 at the NJPA Spring Conference, discussed the use of different technological modalities of communication and the potential conflicts with the ethical practice of psychotherapy, assessment, and general communication with patients. Interactive discussion with the audience provided opportunities to better understand the challenges of this new and quickly growing aspect of practice, including how we as clinicians protect our own privacy in a more transparent age of social media. INTrODUCTION r. Kenneth Freundlich introduced the presentations by noting how the pace of communication technology has quickened tremendously over the past century. Considering the time it took for radio, then TV, then the Internet, then Facebook, then Twitter to evolve and penetrate the culture, we see a remarkable increase in speed. This has resulted in what Prensky (2001) has called a divide between Digital Natives and Digital Immigrants, those who have grown up in the technology and those who immigrate to it later. While natives are completely comfortable, immigrants often speak with an “accent,” betraying their discomfort in the technology.
FrOM TelePHONe TO TeXT AND e-MAIl In this presentation, Drs. Resa Fogel, Diane Schaupp, and Ronald Silikovitz noted that even telephones created ethi18
cal concerns when they were first used. How much more is the case now with fax machines, cell phones, and e-mail (Internet) capabilities. Even cell phones are capable of sending and receiving texts. Are we as psychologists ready to integrate e-mails and texting into our practice? What are the ethical and professional issues? Ethical principles help us do the right thing for the right reason regarding texting and e-mails. Ethical principles may at times conflict with one another resulting in ambiguity and uncertainty as to what to do. Using e-mail and Texting with Patients For Treatment E-mail is used to communicate with patients, colleagues, insurance companies, and attorneys, among others. Some psychologists use e-mail and texting for scheduling purposes while some use them between sessions to monitor and reinforce patient progress. Some use e-mail and texting to engage in discussion with patients involving substantive treatment issues and experiences. The advantages of e-mail and texting are meaningful. They may powerfully reinforce homework assignments given to patients. They can be an effective way of extending and improving relationships with patients and bridging the gap between sessions. They can also be useful to immediately help a patient cope, and even avoid or mitigate a potential crisis. ethical Guidelines and Issues (APA Ethics Code 2010) 2.01–Boundaries of competence of the therapist and patient to use e-mail and texting: Remember that texts and emails can be retrieved even when deleted (e.g., Rutgers – Tyler Clementi case). 2.02–Providing services in emergencies: What is an emergency? At such times, what is the most effective mode
of communication? 4.01–Maintaining confidentiality: Encrypt and password-protect texts and emails. Take steps to prevent others from viewing texts and e-mails to and from patients. 4.02–Discussing the limits of confidentiality: Discuss in advance the limits of confidentiality, even with encrypting and password protection. 3.10–Informed consent: Discuss with the patient in advance, obtain and document informed consent. Patient may be willing to compromise confidentiality in exchange for possible benefits of texting and e-mail communications. 6.01–Record keeping: Note the importance of encrypting or password-protection of emails between patients and practitioners, as well as in the patient record. It is important to discuss with patient in advance your policy about maintenance of electronic records. Document in the record the patient’s informed consent. FACeTIMe: WHAT’S WrONG WITH THIS PICTUre? This presentation, by Drs. Mary Blakeslee and Lisa Greenberg, asked members to consider whether or not they want to be on the web and some of the ethical issues involved in conducting therapy using a webcam. Some dilemmas concern fears about patients intruding on providers’ personal time, loss of privacy, and how to preserve confidentiality. Regulations and guidelines governing these activities are evolving, and at present, NJ does not have specific regulations. APA has a task force working on guidelines. There are no CPT codes for therapy conducted on the Internet, though Medicare has modifiers. Web therapy does not have widespread approval or authorization by insurance companies and “Place of Service” doesn’t include therapy via the web. New Jersey Psychologist
Medicare approves some web sessions in rural areas (not in NJ) with specific guidelines. Some private insurers will approve web sessions with prior authorization. The VA approves some use of web sessions. Some additional ethical considerations involve the competency of both the psychologist and the patient in using the technology and confidentiality. Skype, iChat, FaceTime and other programs can be secured, provided both computers have appropriate software, encryption (HIPAA specified), up-to-date virus protection, and safe passwords. But, clients need to understand issues of confidentiality with the particular modality used. Disclosure about the limitations of Internet therapy is important also, such as the possibility of interruption or disconnection, time delay in audio, likelihood of rejection by insurance companies for payment, and how to plan for handling emergencies. Keep in mind that licensing laws in the state where you practice and where the client resides at the time services are rendered may govern your actions. Considerations in using the webcam for therapy include the fact that there is little research that addresses the efficacy of web therapy vs. face to face. However, sometimes using the web is the only available means, such as with clients in rural areas or clients with disabilities. But, there are differences between the webcam and face to face. There are also concerns about the rationale for using a webcam. Some questions to ask include whether this is being done for necessity or convenience, and whether this is the best care for this particular patient (compared to making a referral to a therapist in the patient’s new locale). So, use web therapy thoughtfully. Consider reasoning it out with a colleague, make sure it’s in the patient’s best interests (not yours), and do it ethically. THe eTHICS OF PSYCHOlOGICAl ASSeSSMeNT In this presentation by Drs. Ken Freundlich and Herm Huber, several important ethical principles were highlighted and the dilemmas associated with online/computerized assessment were discussed. Recent years have seen various modes of online assessment Summer 2012
come into existence, including laptops, Netbooks, iPads, patient portals, and Internet-based testing. There are literally thousands of tests available for online use today. Compare this to the dozen or so tests that many of us learned in graduate school. ethical Principles and related Dilemmas (APA, 2010) 9.01 (a) “Psychologists base the opinions contained in their recommendations, reports, … on information and techniques sufficient to substantiate their findings.” 9.02 (a) “Psychologists use assessment instruments whose validity and reliability have been established for use with members of the population tested.” Dilemmas include how we verify identity of the person being assessed, how we understand the effects of the conditions and context of testing, how we deal with the loss of observation during testing, and the loss of privacy. How do we understand the non-standardized testing environment and how do we keep up with validity issues of the multitude of tests now available? Can we be certain enough that a computerized or online version of a test is equivalent to the paper and pencil version on which the test based its norms? Do we get easily seduced by the computer? Do we maintain clinical judgment and use multiple sources of information when we relate our findings? 9.06 “…Psychologists take into account the purpose of the assessment as well as the various test factors, test-taking abilities, and other characteristics of the person being assessed, such as situational, personal, linguistic, and cultural differences….” Dilemmas confronted include whether we understand the nature of regional differences that patients may bring to the situation when they are assessed in remote regions of the country. Are there age differences that affect outcomes, since younger people and older ones may approach online testing differently? Are there differences in how people behave in a Skype/FaceTime interview compared to in-personal assessments? 9.09 (b) “Psychologists select scoring and interpretation services (includ-
ing automated services) on the basis of evidence of the validity of the program and procedures as well as on other appropriate considerations.” Dilemmas include how to choose among the thousands of tests now available. Has our threshold of validity been lowered due to the extreme ease of the availability of tests? Are we more likely to be content with the face validity of tests, enhanced by the electronic medium? iPhone apps (e.g., “Pocket Psychtest”) are now available allowing for unprecedented ease and simplicity of administration – does this lull us into acceptance of tests we would never before have found acceptable? 9.11 “…Psychologists make reasonable efforts to maintain the integrity and security of test materials….” Dilemmas about test security involve what precautions we take to insure test integrity. We need to be aware that our patients can use various electronic means to copy the test questions. We need to deal with potential problems such as patients using screen shots, print outs of questions, iPhone photos, and copy and paste operations. WeBSITeS, FACeBOOK, TWITTer, lINKeDIN, BlOGS, AND APPS This presentation by Drs. Marilyn Lyga and Laura Richardson detailed the complicated issues surrounding psychologists’ use of social media. Psychologists and their clients are using many relatively new technologies in both professional and personal contexts. These new technologies are changing the amount of information that people are making public as well as the opportunities for a multitude of inadvertent and unintentional contacts with clients that have previously been rare. Psychologists are urged to consider how to account for these contacts within their professional theoretical perspectives and ethical practices. If you want to get some idea what you currently disclose publicly, you may want to “Google” yourself. In one study, researchers examined the top 20 Google hits for physicians (Mostaghimi, Crotty, and Landon, 2010). The study revealed that 93.6% of physicians had personal or professional websites, 92.8% of those had professional information available 19
Ethics Update online, 32.4% had personal information available online, 10.8% used Facebook on which 10% indicated their hobbies, 9.6% showed charitable donations, and 8.8% showed family information. This is way more information than most psychologists intend to share with the public. Professional websites are the most basic form of communication in the digital world. They can provide static basic contact information, information about a practice, its location(s), services provided, education, and training. More sophisticated sites provide forms to download and fill out, resources, and links. Generally, ethical issues related to websites have to do with the accuracy of the information provided. Websites tend to be static with a mostly one-way conveyance of information from the psychologist to the public and potential clients. Facebook is inherently interactive technology. Facebook use is ubiquitous and it has more than 800 million users. There is a good chance that at least some of your clients are on Facebook. While you may be on Facebook as an individual, you can also create a business ‘page’ that users can ‘like.’ Using Facebook as an individual can be problematic, as you may disclose personal information via posts, pictures, and your friend list. An APA Monitor (Martin July/Aug 2010) interview with Stephen Behnke recommends educating yourself about privacy settings so that you can set them up effectively. You may want to think about your position on whether you accept friend requests from students, clients, professors, and others involved in your professional life and reflect it in your therapy agreement. Informed consent and privacy are concerns with Facebook and other social media. A client who ‘likes’ your professional page can reveal that he or she is a client. They may ask for an appointment on your professional page or post something private. They may post something nasty about you or write a glowing (unsolicited) recommendation. You may consider the expected interactivity of your Facebook page in your informed consent or initial client meeting. Psychologists may be tempted to Google or look at the Facebook page of a client. This may compromise your objectivity. A blog is a series of posts the public can view and respond to. A blog can 20
be personal or professional and can be linked to automatically post to Facebook, Twitter, or your website. Psychologists need to be aware about privacy and personal disclosure concerns on blogs. Everything in a blog is in the public domain, and all of your entries as well as other peoples’ comments are public. When you allow dialog, you may create an unintended, public interaction with a client. An example of difficulties psychologists may encounter is stating a political opinion on a personal blog that the client sees that is the opposite of his or her opinion. Further, if you give details in a clinical example on your blog, the client might see it and assume that the content is from his or her own case. Twitter is similar to a blog, except it is a searchable database of 140 character “Tweets” used by 100 million people daily. People who might never see your web page may more easily search the Twitter database to find your Tweets. Unlike a Facebook user, the Twitter user exerts little control over the reach of their content. Each Twitter user has a network that grows as other users ‘follow’ them. Twitter accounts can be personal or professional. There is no expectation of an ability to ensure privacy on Twitter. LinkedIn operates the world’s largest professional network on the Internet with more than 135 million members in over 200 countries and territories. LinkedIn is different from Facebook in that all profiles are professional ones and all networks are professional networks. Psychologists who use LinkedIn face the same ethical issues as if they were using other social media. However, because LinkedIn automatically branches your network to connections’ connections, you may end up with unintentional links including clients. It may be helpful to consider what guidelines for LinkedIn will be appropriate for your practice. Apps are programs that are free or lowcost (i.e., $1.99) and are targeted to smart phones and tablet computers. Examples include mood managers, CBT applications, money trackers, and games. Some apps will make data available online for you and/or your doctor. However, apps do not always encrypt data and each app has its own terms and conditions. Apple has a central review of their iTunes apps, but does not evaluate HIPAA compliance
or encryption. Many apps are designed to share your data based on user settings (i.e., with your Facebook friends, or email contacts). If you track your mood data, your blood sugar data, or your account balances on an app, the data may not be as private as you expect. For example, National Public Radio recently reported that music app Pandora tracks users’ location without their knowledge. Apps have great promise as low-cost software solutions to help support clients, but their privacy controls are often unclear or difficult to decipher. There are some steps psychologists can take to help them practice ethically within the current complex technological climate: 1) review your informed consent and ensure that you have considered potential social media issues; 2) learn the technology – technological competence is critical to making educated decisions about what to use and how to ethically fit technology into your practice; 3) periodically Google yourself to see what information is available about you personally and professionally. Audience questions and comments after the presentations centered on the potential patient abuse of e-mail, and the escalating risks as things go awry when patients are out of state and nonconventional methods of communication are used. Comments were also made regarding the increasing ability of patients to read up on nearly any test, possibly invalidating results. Methods of e-mail encryption comments indicated that Kolmes (2010) has discussed these issue and provides help in this regard. Members also commented that the NJPA listserv is a helpful resource, as is the NJPA Ethics and Education Resource Committee. ❖ references
Kolmes, K. (2010). Don’t get caught in the web: Avoiding sticky ethical issues on the Internet. Division I Briefings: The Journal of the California Psychological Association Division of Professional Practice, November 2010, 172, pp. 9-11. Mostaghimi, A., Crotty, B. H., & Landon, B. E. (2010). The availability and nature of physician information on the internet. Journal Of General Internal Medicine, 25(11), 1152-1156. doi:10.1007/s11606010-1425-7. Prensky, Marc (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon. MCB University Press, Vol. 9 No. 5. New Jersey Psychologist
Community Psychology in the real World: The rutgers Somerset Counseling Program by Nancy Boyd-Franklin, PhD
ommunity psychology is an exciting and challenging field. Since 2010, through the generous support of the New Jersey Psychological Association Foundation (NJPAF) and its members, two of our doctoral students have received funding and training each year in this exciting field through their participation in the Rutgers Somerset Counseling Program. I would like to share the story of the evolution of this program as well as our most recent community interventions. The challenges facing children and adolescents in today’s schools and communities can be overwhelming and can result in many mental health concerns. With this in mind, Dr. Brenna Bry and I started the Rutgers Somerset Counseling Program almost 20 years ago. As professors at the Graduate School of Applied and Professional Psychology (GSAPP) at Rutgers University, we shared our school’s commitment to training psychologists to work with underserved populations and to become community psychologists who could effectively work with clients from a wide range of multicultural and socioeconomic backgrounds. The Rutgers Somerset Counseling Program is a school and community-based mental health resource for at-risk adolescents based in the Franklin Middle School in Somerset, NJ. Each year, a team of GSAPP doctoral students provides clinical intervention and treatment to seventh and eighth grade students referred by their guidance counselors and teachers and identified as at-risk for violence in the school and community, gang involvement, mental health concerns, behavioral issues, academic failure, drug and alcohol abuse, and teenage pregnancy. Many of these adolescents come from poor or workingclass ethnic minority families. The common theme for many of these students has been their involvement in fighting Summer 2012
and other forms of violence in the school and the community. With this in mind, this program provides two main service components: school-based violence prevention groups and individual counseling, accompanied by a small number of students served through family counseling. In addition, this program provides a unique opportunity for our doctoral students in both our clinical and school psychology programs to be exposed to challenging real world treatment issues such as suicidality, duty to report in situations such as child abuse, gang-related community violence, post suicide and homicide interventions, along with many other forms of crisis intervention. In 1993, when we started the program, the community had a number of youths who were at-risk for violence and gang involvement. In fact, 14 young men (ages 12-14) were expelled from the middle school for violence in the school. These students and their families became the first clients in our program. This was also a special opportunity for our doctoral students to learn to do culturally competent treatment with African American and Latino youths and their families. Through our partnership with Reverend Dr. DeForest B. Soaries, Jr., the pastor of the First Baptist Church in Somerset, New Jersey, they also had a first-hand view of the important role of the black church in the community. Since these young men were expelled from the middle school, this pastor offered the church as the site for an alternative school for these youths. During this time, the killing of a young African American male in the community led this pastor to take the leadership in developing a Gang Summit that many of our doctoral students attended. Throughout the years, the Rutgers Somerset Counseling Program has continued to provide opportunities for GSAPP doctoral students to
learn effective treatment interventions and to function as an outreach option to underserved communities in addressing the real-world problems that ethnic minority youth experience. In many ways, 2011-2012 has been a déjà vu experience for our program. Although violence and gang involvement have been ongoing issues, this year it was clear that gang recruitment of younger boys and girls is an increasing problem for the youth in this community. In response to these concerns, the doctoral students in our program have learned to provide effective clinical services for these adolescents and to participate in a number of community interventions that have occurred. They have also been able to discuss the challenges that their young clients face in terms of school and community violence in their group supervision sessions. Through this experience, our GSAPP doctoral students have had a rare opportunity to be involved in multisystemic community interventions that included not only these adolescents, the school, and the families, but also the juvenile justice authorities, the police, the black church, community agencies, and other concerned individuals. The Rutgers Somerset Counseling Program provides a parallel process of empowerment for both these at-risk youth and our doctoral level counselors. When many of the at-risk students begin the counseling process in our program, they often believe that they do not have a choice as whether or not to engage in fighting or gangs. This program empowers them to recognize that they can make a difference in the level of fighting in their school and community. Similarly, it also brings community psychology alive for our doctoral students by empowering them to make a difference in the lives of their clients. They carry this experience with them throughout their careers. ❖ 21
Marriage equality: Strictly Social or Purely Psychological? By Peter J. Economou, PhD & Phyllis Bolling, PhD NJPA Committee on Diversity
Introduction arriage equality is an issue of discussion across many facets of our culture and is in the forefront of current politics. Recently, President Obama became the first president of the US to support same sex marriage following North Carolina’s vote to deny same sex partners equality of marriage. The American Psychological Association (APA) has taken an active role in addressing marriage equality for same-sex couples for a number of years, as indicated by its 2004 statement titled “Sexual Orientation & Marriage” (APA, 2004), and in a policy statement in 2007 titled, “Resolution on Opposing Discriminatory Legislation & Initiatives Aimed at Lesbian, Gay & Bisexual Persons” (APA, 2007), as well as their 2011 publication, “Resolution on Marriage Equality for Same-Sex Couples” (APA, 2011). The APA’s statements and resolutions highlight support of marriage equality by referencing no basis for discrimination against same-sex couples in marriage rights, opposing discriminatory legislation and initiatives against lesbian, gay, and bisexual people, and in providing information on empirical data that addresses the detrimental impact of discrimination and prejudice based on sexual orientation. The APA has concluded that such experiences significantly affect the psychological, physical, social, and economic well-being and resolve that “the American Psychological Association supports full marriage equality for same-sex couples” (APA, 2011). The APA has also stated that, “The denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples, therefore, adversely affects the health and well-being of the individuals involved, as well as their families and friends” (Herdt & Kertzner, 2006). Marriage equality is a topic that has been under discussion within NJPA’s Diversity Committee whereby we have recognized that there is potentially ten percent of the general population (i.e., the LGBT population) at risk for subsequent psychological and physical harm. Additionally, many state psychological organizations, including Ohio, Minnesota, California, New York, North Carolina, Washington, Illinois, and Massachusetts, have supported marriage equality. Given the above, it is clear that this is a very critical and sensitive issue, and one causing much harm to many of our clients and colleagues. However, is this a social or a psychological issue as in “the chicken or the egg”, “nature vs. nurture,” “black or white?” Throughout psychological education and training, including developmental and theory courses, as well as pathological and heredity studies, the conclusion often reached is that it is “a
little bit of both.” Essentially, one begins to notice that there are not two sides to a coin, but in fact, there are three (i.e., top, bottom, and the side). Psychological Well-Being and Gay Marriage. The right to marry is typically understood to be an inalienable right for adults in a democratic society. However, it is a right that could be safely assumed by only heterosexuals in the US until 2004 when the legislative battle for gay and lesbian couples’ right to marry was initiated in Massachusetts and passed legislation. Since Massachusetts ruled that it was unconstitutional to deny gay men and lesbians the right to marry, other states have joined (e.g., Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, & DC). LGBT couples are subject to the stress involved in the process of fighting for equal rights. Fingerhut, Riggle & Rostosky (2011) reported that the scant research on anti-gay ballot initiatives and psychological wellbeing has been addressed primarily from the perspective of minority stress. Minority stress is defined as “the chronic stress that accompanies a stigmatized social status such as LGB or transgender” (p. 230). They note that increased rates of psychological distress are related to aspects of minority stress. Rostosky and Riggle (2011) found that the denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples is a specific example of minority stress directly affecting the psychological health and wellbeing of LGBTQ-identified individuals. They noted further that: “As a particularly insidious minority stressor, marriage inequality permeates the social context of same-sex intimate relationships and affects LGBTQ-identified individuals and their same-sex partners at the macro (legal, policy), meso (local, community), and micro (individual, couple, family) levels of the social environment” (p. 958). To date, few studies have explored the psychological impact of legislative and religious restrictions on marriage on gay and lesbian couples. One study showed that the LGBT individuals living in states where a marriage amendment was passed, limiting marriage to one man and one woman, reported higher levels of minority stress and higher levels of psychological distress than the LGBT individuals living in states without such amendments (Rosotsky, Riggle, Horne & Miller, 2009). Conversely, other studies (Kurdek, 2004; Oswald, 2002) indicated that the possibility of marriage or a civil union were protective factors for relationship resilience. Kurdek (2004) found that the protective factors that marriage offers include: access to spousal benefits from Social Security benefits, veterans’ health and New Jersey Psychologist
life insurance programs, hospital visitation rights, the ability to make medical decisions for partners, and exemption from state inheritance taxes. These are factors not granted to same-sex couples in committed and long-term relationships. Discord in a marriage has correlated with higher cardiovascular risk and increased stress levels (Smith, Thomson, Offen, & Malone, 2008). These findings could only be duplicated for the LGBT couples when researchers investigated relationship quality, since the vast majority of the LGBT couples are denied the right to marry. Some researchers found that marriage correlates with higher levels of trust and relationship security (Otis, Rostosky, Riggle, & Hamlin, 2006; Powers, Pietromonaco, Gunlicks, & Sayer, 2006). To that, the Rosotsky, et al. (2009) study might suggest that LGBT individuals denied the right to marry report lower levels of trust, compared to those allowed to marry. Being married may provide a sense of stability and increased trust between partners, as some research has shown. Mohr and Fassinger (2000) pointed out the need for more empirical research regarding same-sex marriage. Conclusion. Marriage equality is both a psychological and a social issue. Although the primary tenets of our training in traditional psychology may not have directly addressed issues that relate to social justice in our society, as psychologists, such matters have an impact on our work and our discipline. Research has consistently shown that the stigmatization of sexual orientation places LGBT individuals at higher risk of experiencing distress and adverse psychological outcomes (Peplau & Fingerhut, 2007). In addition, ethical principles of the APA “Guidelines for Providers of Psychological Services to Ethnic, Linguistic, and Culturally Diverse Populations” (2002) indicate that “Psychologists consider the impact of adverse social, environmental, and political factors in assessing problems and designing interventions” and “…attend to as well as work to eliminate biases, prejudices and discriminatory practices” and urges us to avoid discrimination and unjust practices. Marriage equality is as much of a psychological issue as those studied in other areas of psychology relating to social justice such as community functioning, multicultural psychology, and the psychology of women (e.g. prejudice, conformity, and discrimination, and health care reform). It is due to the psychological effects suffered by individuals due to such life experiences (e.g., denial of marriage) that motivate us, as psychologists, to advocate for such causes; precisely an interaction between the social and the psychological. ❖ references American Psychological Association. (2002). Guidelines for Providers of Psychological Services to Ethnic, Linguistic and Culturally Diverse Populations. Retrieved from http://www. apa.org/pi/oema/guide.html>. Summer 2012
American Psychological Association (2004). Sexual Orientation and Marriage. <http://www.apa.org/about/policy/marriage.aspx>. American Psychological Association. (2007). Resolution on Opposing Discriminatory Legislation & Initiatives Aimed at Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Persons. Retrieved from <http:// www.apa.org/about/policy/discriminatory-legislation. aspx>. American Psychological Association. (2011). Resolution on Marriage Equality for Same-Sex Couples. Retrieved from <http://www.apa.org/about/policy/same-sex.aspx>. Fingerhut, A. W., Riggle, E. D. B. & Rostosky, S. S. (2011). Same-sex marriage: The social and psychological implications of policy and debates. Journal of Social Issues, 67(2), 225-241. Herdt, G., & Kertzner, R. (2006). I do, but I can’t: The impact of marriage denial on the mental health and sexual citizenship of lesbians and gay men in the United States. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 3(1), 33-49. Kurdek, L. A. (2004). Are gay and lesbian cohabitating couples really different from heterosexual married couples? Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(4), 880. Mohr, J., & Fassinger, R. (2000). Measuring dimensions of lesbian and gay male experience. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 33(2), 66. Oswald, R. F. (2002). Resilience within the family networks of lesbians and gay men: Intentionally and redefinition. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 374. Otis, M. D., Rostosky, S. S., Riggle, E. D. B., & Hamrin, R. (2006). Stress and relationship quality in same-sex couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23(1), 81. Peplau, L. A., & Fingerhut, A. W. (2007). The close relationships of lesbians and gay men. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 405-424. Powers, S. I., Pietromonaco, P. R., Gunlicks, M., & Sayer, A. (2006). Dating couples’ attachment styles and patterns of cortisol reactivity in response to relationship conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(4), 613-628. Rostosky, S. S. and Riggle, E. D. B. (2011). Marriage equality for same-sex couples: Counseling psychologists as social change agents. The Counseling Psychologist, 39(7), 956-972. Rosotsky, S. S., Riggle, E.D. B., Horne, S. G., & Miller, A. D. (2009). Marriage amendments and psychological distress in lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) adults. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56(1), 56-66. Smith, E. A., Thomson, K., Offen, N., & Malone, R. E. (2008). “If you know you exist, its just marketing poison”: Meanings of tobacco industry targeting in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community. American Journal of Public Health, 98(6), 996. 23
Keep Moratorium on Delaware river Drilling Place and extend Nationwide By Jenny Vickers, Communications Coordinator, New Jersey Environmental Federation, NJ Chapter of Clean Water Action
Editor’s Note: The following article by Jenny Vickers was inadvertently left out of the special section: Environmental Hazards: Implications for Mental Health and Healthcare appearing in Spring 2012 New Jersey Psychologist (Vol. 62, #2). As mentioned in that issue’s editorial, we will be keeping our readership up-to-date on other environmental matters affecting mental health issues. Dr. Susan Wolf has provided us with such additional data presented at the end of the following article.
Although industry representatives claim hydraulic fracturing is safe and will push the US towards energy independence and economic renewal, water contamination from fracking could be threatening the health of thousands of people.
ydraulic fracturing (“fracking”), the latest method of drilling for natural gas, involves injecting millions of gallons of freshwater, sand, and chemicals into underground rock formations to unlock the natural gas they contain. Domestic natural gas production has been booming as a result, but opponents believe the practice is contaminating air and groundwater, causing serious health effects. For years, the industry has insisted fracking is safe and groundwater is unaffected. However, in early December 2011 the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) released its first report linking fracking to water contamination. The report identified fracking as the source of poisons, including the carcinogen benzene, in the groundwater of a central Wyoming community. The report is the first to analyze multiple, on-theground samples to determine the impact of fracking on underground water resources in areas of oil and gas development. The report is a draft of a comprehensive USEPA study that is expected to be finalized in 2014. Environmentalists have long pointed out the dangers fracking poses to both above and below-ground bodies of water. And, scores of residents near gas drilling sites are concerned about fracking’s impacts on their drinking water and health. Despite the industry’s insistence on fracking’s safety, concerns also prompted the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC), a federal/interstate government agency responsible for managing water resources within the Delaware River Basin, to cancel a vote on whether to allow fracking in the Delaware River Basin, a source of drinking water for 15 million people. This is the second time that the DRBC has delayed a vote on the issue, marking a turning point in the heated public debate over the safety of shale gas development. Opponents applauded the delay, requesting that the commission under24
take a cumulative impact analysis of drilling in the Delaware River basin before allowing the industry to sink wells into the gas-rich Marcellus Shale that underlies it. The Marcellus Shale is one of the world’s biggest reserves of natural gas, and is estimated to contain enough gas to meet total national needs of the cleaner-burning fuel for 20 years or more. Natural gas has existed in the Marcellus Shale and other regions of the US for millions and millions of years. It was not until recently that drillers developed a new technique for drilling that has enabled the exploitation of vast domestic reserves of shale gas. This type of fracking, called slickwater hydraulic fracturing with horizontal drilling, is considered an experimental method of drilling for natural gas that has never been fully investigated for its effects on human health and the environment. Industry believes this innovative technology will help to reduce US dependence on foreign oil and cut greenhouse gas emissions while creating thousands of jobs. Job creation and energy independence is a good thing, but not in the name of contaminating drinking water or making families sick. Residents of Pavillion, WY, where the USEPA study took place, have long said their drinking water stinks of chemicals and is giving them health problems. Health officials last year recommended that they not drink their water and ventilate their bathrooms while showering. Some residents living near gas wells in Pennsylvania – where the industry has spent billions of dollars drilling almost 4,000 Marcellus Shale wells since 2008 — blame the industry for health complaints ranging from headaches and nausea to arsenic poisoning and neurological problems. In Amwell, PA residents living near a gas-drilling site believe fracking pollution has caused poisoned water, sick kids, and dead/deformed animals. According to a New York Times story, doctors found high levels of carcinogens along with heavy metals like arsenic after conducting blood tests on a family experiencing illness. In the town of Dimock, PA, 13 water wells were contaminated with methane (one of them New Jersey Psychologist
blew up), and the gas company, Cabot Oil & Gas, had to financially compensate residents and construct a pipeline to bring in clean water. In Allentown, PA, a 2004 gas explosion killed three people, including a baby. Despite these incidences, the natural gas industry is propelling forward. A new IHS Global Insight study found that shale gas production supported more than 600,000 jobs in 2010, a number that is projected to grow to nearly 870,000 million by 2015, while contributing more than $118 billion in GDP. As we move forward with this development, we have to make sure we are protecting public resources and health. But this may seem nearly impossible considering the fracking industry currently operates in a regulatory void. Thanks to a loophole in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that exempted hydraulic fracturing from regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), drillers inject fracking fluid containing toxic chemicals into the ground without ever having to disclose what chemicals they use. However, studies on samples of well sites indicate that the fluid contains: • Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene (BTEX) • Radioactive elements including radium, barium, strontium, and uranium • Heavy metals including lead and arsenic • High levels of mineral salts such as bromides and chlorides Long-term exposure to such chemicals have been linked in scientific studies to serious health consequences including cancer, drowsiness, dizziness, rapid heart rate, headache, tremors, vomiting, irritation of the stomach, convulsions, and even death. In addition, a recent congressional investigation found that 32 million gallons of diesel fuel have been illegally injected into the ground as a fracking chemical in 19 different states from 2005 to 2009. Diesel fuel is believed to be particularly damaging to water supplies, and because of this, remains the only fracking chemical still regulated under the SDWA. The drilling boom has also left the air in Wyoming, Texas, Oklahoma and other remote areas cloaked in smog and hazardous air pollutants. This is because the fracking process releases massive amounts of particulates and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that combine to form ozone and smog. VOCs—like benzene and formaldehyde—have been linked to severe health effects including respiratory and immune disorders and cancer. Astoundingly, the fracking industry is also exempt from the federal Clean Air Act that means they don’t have to control their air pollution as carefully as larger industrial sources – even though the cumulative air pollution from all of these thousands of wells are far greater than individual ‘major sources.’ In the drilling-rich Upper Green River Basin of Wyoming, ozone levels reached 124 parts per billion in March 2011. That’s well over the federal safety standard and worse than air pollution in Los Angeles. Summer 2012
According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, in Garfield County Colorado, 460 gas wells released more than 30 tons of benzene, a known carcinogen. That amount is nearly 20 times more benzene that is released by a giant industrial oil refinery in Denver, yet none of the 460 oil and gas wells is subject to the major source emission standards under the Clean Air Act. The bottom line is this: the discovery of new gas resources shouldn’t come at the expense of public health and our environment, no matter how many jobs are created. While gas drilling has been halted in the Delaware River Basin, the vote could be rescheduled and fracking is still devastating communities in the Marcellus Shale and gas drilling areas nationwide. The USEPA study is a step in the right direction; however, we shouldn’t have to wait until the report is finalized to hold the gas industry accountable to fracking threats. Lawmakers should institute a nationwide moratorium on fracking until the process is proven safe. Other states have done it, including Maryland, New York, and even New Jersey—it’s time for others to follow. Tell lawmakers it is important to support job creation efforts, but not in the name of destroying drinking water and making people sick. ❖ Jenny Vickers is the Communications Coordinator for the NJ Environmental Federation, the NJ Chapter of Clean Water Action, an organization that has been fighting for more than 36 years to protect our water, the health of our families from toxics and environmental injustices, as well as make democracy work. <www.cleanwateraction.org/njef> references
American Petroleum Institute Website. (2009). Hydraulic Fracturing: Questions and Answers. Retrieved from <http://www.api.org/ policy/exploration/hydraulicfracturing/questions_answers.cfm>. Armendariz, Al (2009). Emissions from Natural Gas Production in the Barnett Shale Area and Opportunities for Cost-Effective Improvements. Dallas, Texas: Southern Methodist University. Retrieved from <http://www.edf.org/documents/9235_Barnett_ Shale_Report.pdf>. Bateman, Christopher. (2010). A Colossal Fracking Mess. Vanity Fair. Retrieved from <http://www.vanityfair.com/business/features/ 2010/06/fracking-in-pennsylvania-201006>. Centers for Disease Control (2006). Facts about Benzene: Fact Sheet. Retrieved from <http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/benzene/basics/ facts.asp>. Chesapeake Energy. (2011). Hydraulic Fracturing Facts. Retrieved from <http://www.hydraulicfracturing.com/Pages/information. aspx>. Environmental Working Group. (2009). Free Pass for Oil and Gas: Environmental Protections Rolled Back as Western Drilling Surges: Oil and Gas Industry Exemptions. Retrieved from <http://www.ewg.org/ reports/Free-Pass-for-Oil-and-Gas/Oil-and-Gas-Industry-Exemptions>. Gerace, Frank (2011). DRBC cancels fracking meeting after DE announces “no” vote. WDEL. Retrieved from <http://www.wdel.com/ story.php?id=38954>. Grizwold, Eliza (2011). The Fracturing of Pennsylvania. New York Times. Retrieved from <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/ magazine/fracking-amwell-township.html?pagewanted=all>.
Earthworks. (2007). The Oil and Gas Industry’s Exclusions and Exemptions to Major Environmental Statutes. Retrieved from <http://www. earthworksaction.org/files/publications/PetroleumExemptions1c. pdf?pubs/PetroleumExemptions1c.pdf>. Harper, John A. (2008). The Marcellus shale – An old ‘new’ gas reservoir in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Geology 38, No. 1, 2–12. Harris, Gardiner (2011). Government Says 2 Common Materials Pose Risk of Cancer. New York Times. Retrieved from <http:// www.nytimes.com/2011/06/11/health/11cancer.html>. Retrieved 2011-06-11. IHS. (2011). The Economic and Employment Contributions of Shale Gas in the US. Retreived from <http://www.ihs.com/info/ecc/a/ shale-gas-jobs-report.aspx>. Kock, Wendy (2011). Wyoming’s smog exceeds Los Angeles’ due to gas drilling. USA Today. Retrieved from <http://content.usatoday.com/ communities/greenhouse/post/2011/03/wyomings-smog-exceedslos-angeles-due-to-gas-drilling/1>. Mahoney, Melissa (2011). Toxic fracking fluids revealed in Congressional report. Smart Planet. Retrieved from <http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/intelligent-energy/toxic-fracking-fluids-revealed-in-congressional-report/5698>. Mendell, M. J. (2007). Indoor residential chemical emissions as risk factors for respiratory and allergic effects in children: A review. Indoor Air, 17(4), 259-277. MSNBC. (2011). 5 dead after massive Pa. gas blast. Retrieved from <http://www.msnbc.msncom/id/41503700/ns/us_newslife/t/deadafter-massive-pa-gas-blast/>. National Toxicology Program. (2011). Report On Carcinogens -Twelfth Edition - 2011. Retrieved from <http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/ twelfth/roc12.pdf>.
Natural Resources Defense Council. (2007). Drilling Down. Retrieved from <http://www.nrdc.org/land/use/down/down.pdf>. Penn Environment. (2011). Marcullus Shale Stories. Retrieved from <http://www.pennenvironment.org/marcellus-shale-videos>. Pinto, Joseph (2009). Atmospheric Chemistry: Wyoming winter smog. Nature Geoscience 2, No. 2, 88–89. Urbina, Ian (2011). E.P.A. Struggles to Regulate Natural Gas Industry. The New York Times. Retrieved from <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/ 02/27/us/27gas.html?_r=3&ref=earth>. US Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Office of Oil and Gas. (1993). Drilling Sideways -- A Review of Horizontal Well Technology and Its Domestic Application. Retrieved from <http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/ analysis_publications/drilling_sideways_well_technology/pdf/ tr0565.pdf>. US Environmental Protection Agency. (2011). EPA -- An Introduction to Indoor Air Quality Pollutants and Sources of Indoor Air Pollution Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). Retrieved from <http:// www.epa.gov/iaq/voc.html>. US Environmental Protection Agency. (2011). EPA Submits Draft Hydraulic Fracturing Study Plan to Independent Scientists for Review / The draft plan is open to public comment: News Release. Retrieved from <http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress. nsf/d0cf6618525a9efb85257359003fb69d/26195e235a35cb38 85257831005fd9cd!OpenDocument>. US Environmental Protection Agency. (2011). Hydraulic Fracturing. Retrieved from <http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/ class2/hydraulicfracturing/index.cfm>.
environmental Updates By Jenny Vickers, Communications Coordinator, NJ Environmental Federation, NJ Chapter of Clean Water Action, Clean Water Fund
The New Jersey Legislature has introduced the Frack Wastewater Ban Bill (S253/A575) to prohibit the treatment, discharge, disposal, or storage of fracking wastewater in New Jersey. The bill has bi-partisan support, passing the NJ Assembly and NJ Senate Environment Committee in June. NJ Environmental Federation is now working with legislators to ensure this important drinking water legislation passes a full floor vote in the Senate and Assembly. The US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is currently developing permitting guidance for hydraulic fracturing operations using diesel. The guidance will be the first federal policy focused on protecting drinking water sources from hydraulic fracturing. NJ Environmental Federation and Clean Water Action are calling on the USEPA to ban the use of diesel in hydraulic fracturing. Injecting diesel underground is problematic because of the toxic chemicals it contains, especially the “BTEX” compounds. “BTEX” refers to benzene, tolulene, ethylbenzene, and xylene. These chemicals are linked to numerous adverse health effects including cancer, kidney and liver problems, and nervous system damage. They are toxic 26
at very low levels and are soluble in water that is of particular concern when injecting them into the ground in proximity to underground sources of drinking water. In addition, the Department of Energy Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (SEAB) Shale Gas Subcommittee found that, in light of these risks and the available alternatives, “there is no technical or economic reason to use diesel as a stimulating fluid.” [Natural Gas Subcommittee, First 90-day interim report, (August 18, 2011), <http://www.shalegas.energy.gov/ resources/081811_90_day_report_final.pdf> If use of diesel in hydraulic fracturing is not banned, the USEPA should publish final Guidance and initiate formal rulemaking to put in place the strictest possible requirements in order to protect underground sources of drinking water. Overall, taking action to control the use of diesel in hydraulic fracturing is an important step but is not enough. Hydraulic fracturing operations that do not use diesel should not be exempt from the Safe Drinking Water Act. NJ Environmental Federation and Clean Water Action will continue to support legislation to remove this exemption. ❖ New Jersey Psychologist
Global Climate Change Will Increase Anxiety, Fear and Depression New Study Details Psychological Impacts of Climate Change By Tony Iallonardo
he impact of global climate change on Americans’ mental health has been largely ignored, even though the incidence of mental and social disorders will rise steeply if climate change is not curtailed, adding significant costs to the already $317 billion in annual mental health care expenditures and lost productivity in the US, concludes a major new study. “The greatest public costs could come from ignoring the effects,” the report concludes. Because extreme weather events and disasters will be more severe and more frequent, the US will see a rise in illnesses like depressive and anxiety disorders, post-traumatic stress, substance abuse, suicide, and violence. The Psychological Effects of Global Warming on the United States and Why the U.S. Mental Health Care System Is Not Adequately Prepared, authored by Kevin J. Coyle, JD, and Lise Van Susteren, MD, is the report of a March 2009 forum of health, and science and academic leaders from around the country. A majority of Americans, around 220 million, are likely to experience direct adverse effects, including psychological distress from climate-related events, especially vulnerable people like children and the elderly and the 60 million or one in four with pre-existing mental health conditions. “The consequences of failing to address climate change are quite serious for our economy, for our natural resources and for our psychological well-being. This ground-breaking study fills in a significant gap and highlights how failing to address climate change will bring more mental distress and disorders,” said Dr. Lise Van Susteren, MD, forensic psychiatrist and National Wildlife Federation board member. Scientists increasingly link natural disasters and extreme weather events to a warming planet. With 50 percent of Americans living in coastal regions and 70 percent in cities prone Summer 2012
to heat waves and major inland cities located along rivers that will swell, most Americans are vulnerable. Economic sectors like agriculture, forest products and tourism could be disrupted, stressing families. Climate change will destabilize more countries that could draw the US military into more conflicts abroad and exact a heavier psychological toll on troops and their families. The nation’s mental health system is not prepared, the study asserts. It recommends, among other steps: • strengthening training of emergency managers and disaster responders on the psychological reactions to disasters; • producing a rigorous estimate of the cost of addressing psychological effects of climate change versus the cost of ignoring them; • developing a new discipline of study and practice; • forming mental health incident response teams. The authors challenge mental health professionals to teach the public about climate change’s effects. “The toll of climate change on our natural resources is well documented. This authoritative study sheds light on how climate change will affect the national psyche and calls on governments at every level to respond,” said Kevin Coyle, NWF Vice President for Education and Training. Find more information at http://bit.ly/GLT815 or scan the QR code with your smart phone or mobile device. ❖
Member News Christine Baker, PhD was awarded the Soroptimist Ruby Award: For Women Helping Women at an awards dinner on May 16, 2012 and the annual Live Your Dream Awards Event held at the Essex County Country Club in West Orange. This award recognizes and honors women who have worked to improve the lives of women and girls through their professional and/or volunteer work. Dr. Baker is the Director of the Family Life Education Center at Newark Beth Israel Medical Center where they have established an innovative and interactive, bilingual online teen education center about the dangers of interpersonal, partner, or dating violence and offers an accompanying support group. Soroptimist International of Suburban Essex is part of Soroptimist International of the Americas and is a cause-related philanthropic federation of clubs improving the lives of women and girls through social and economic empowerment. John Clabby, PhD was promoted to full Clinical Professor at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in the Department of Family Medicine and Community Health and also in the Department of Psychiatry effective July 1, 2012. Dr. Clabby authored the book Two Minute Talks to Improve Psychological and Behavioral Health that was published by Radcliffe Publishing in 2011. rosalind Dorlen, PsyD had her original painting entitled “The Boathouse at Echo Lake” featured on the cover of the May/June issue of the American Psychologist, the journal of the American Psychological Association. Echo Lake, near her home in New Jersey, is a place Dr. Dorlen spent much time with her sister Holly, who died of cancer in 2009, and continues to visit often. About 30 years ago, Dorlen began art lessons at the Center for Visual Arts in NJ and found in it a passion. Dorlen has been in independent practice as a psychologist in Summit for 35 years and is on the staff of Overlook Medical Center and a faculty member of the Center for Psychotherapy and Psychoanalysis of New Jersey. ruth lijtmaer, PhD presented the paper: “How Steven Mitchell’s legacy influenced my work as an immigrant analyst” in the panel: “Relational Perspectives on Immigrant Subjectivity” at the International Association for Relational Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy (IARPP) conference held on March 1-4, 2012 in New York City. Dr. Lijtmaer also presented the paper “Dancing with politics in the consulting room” in the panel: “New Frontiers in Psychodynamic Psychiatry” at the 56th Annual Meeting American Academy of Psychoanalysis and Dynamic Psychiatry (AAPDP) held on May 4-5, 2012 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Frank J. Sileo, PhD will have his fourth children’s book published this August by Magination Press. Magination Press is the children’s book division of the American Psychological Association who publish a wide variety of self-help books for children and the adults in their lives. The book is called Sally Sore Loser: A Story about Winning and Losing. It is a 32 page, fully illustrated book about a young girl Sally who loves to be first at everything! She is first in line at school. She is first out the door at recess. She is first at dinner finishing her mac ‘n’ cheese! Unfortunately, Sally dislikes losing and this can lead to hot tempers and hurt feelings. She even gets the nickname “Sally Sore Loser” from her classmates at school. With the help of her teacher and her mom, Sally learns that the rules for being a good winner and a good loser, and that the most important thing is having fun. The book contains a Note to Parents which assists parents in understanding the importance of good sportsmanship and how to foster it in their children. The book is geared for parents, therapists, coaches, teachers and other individuals who work with children in competitive arenas or work with children who have a difficult time losing.
New Jersey Psychologist
Introduction to Special Section
Forensic Psychology By Gianni Pirelli, PhD, Guest Editor
he field of forensic psychology is often thought of as a relatively new area of psychology despite its significant history. Although formally recognized as a specialty area by the American Psychological Association only one decade ago, its roots were formed over 100 years ago by Hugo Munsterberg in his book On the Witness Stand (1908). The development of the field followed a course of many fits and starts, but psychologists became a mainstay in the legal arena approximately 50 years ago when the courts began welcoming psychologists’ expert opinions (see Jenkins v. United States, 1962). Since that time, numerous associations, professional journals, and training programs in forensic psychology and psychology and law have been developed. As such, there are now many roles for psychologists who wish to practice in this area that will be addressed in this special section. Three additional articles are presented in this special section: Training in Forensic Psychology (James Wulach, PhD, JD); Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology and Best Practices in Forensic Mental Health Assessment (Patricia A. Zapf, PhD); and Some Current Issues in Forensic Practice: Deception and Lying, Traditional and Specialized Tests, and Crime-Scene Analysis (Louis B. Schlesinger, PhD, ABPP). In his article, Dr. Wulach outlines the training opportunities for those interested in practicing forensic psychology. Dr. Zapf then discusses the newly enacted Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology (SGFP) as well as the recently completed 20-volume series, Best Practices in Forensic Mental Health Assessment. Finally, Dr. Schlesinger addresses three contemporary areas relevant to the practice of forensic psychology. roles of Forensic Psychologists There are numerous areas in the field of forensic psychology in which psychologists may participate. These include, but are not limited to criminal matters, civil matters, expert testimony, and consultation, academia, and research. Each of these areas is discussed in the sections that follow. Criminal Matters Three criminal matters in which psychologists often engage in pertain to criminal competencies, criminal responsibility, and criminal sentencing. Criminal Competencies: Competency to stand trial evaluations are the most commonly conducted criminal-forensic Summer 2012
evaluations in the United States, as approximately 60,000 such evaluations are conducted annually (Bonnie & Grisso, 2000). The principle in Western jurisprudence that a defendant must be competent to stand trial is rooted in English common law dating back to the 14th century (Roesch & Golding, 1980). The right to be competent to stand trial has been recognized by American courts since the early 19th century (United States v. Lawrence, 1835) and has been recognized as a constitutional guarantee and a necessary component of our criminal justice system (Drope v. Missouri, 1975; Youtsey v. United States, 1899). The current legal standard for competency to stand trial in the United States was set forth in Dusky v. United States (1960). In Dusky, the court held that a defendant must be able to consult with his or her attorney with a “reasonable degree of rational understanding” and possess a “rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him” (p. 402). As such, psychologists conducting competency to stand trial evaluations must determine if a defendant has a mental illness or disability that affects his or her competence-related abilities (i.e., understanding, appreciation, reasoning). Furthermore, in some jurisdictions, psychologists are asked to provide an opinion as to the likelihood that a defendant’s competence can be restored. Competency to stand trial evaluations are pre-trial evaluations that regard an individual’s mental state at the present time and, therefore, they may be conducted in inpatient or outpatient settings; however, most are conducted in inpatient settings, such as correctional or psychiatric facilities. Other less commonly conducted criminal competency evaluations include competency to waive Miranda rights, confess, plead guilty, waive the right to counsel (i.e., proceed pro se), testify, and be executed. Criminal responsibility: Criminal responsibility or “insanity” evaluations pertain to a defendant’s mental state at the time of the offense. The principle that a defendant must be considered responsible, that his or her behavior was a product of free will, dates back to Hebrew law. Two basic elements of a crime must be proved in a legal proceeding: actus reus (guilty act) and mens rea (guilty mind). Assessment of an individual’s mental state at the time of the offense is associated with the mens rea element. Prior to the mid-19th century tests of insanity included: the “good and evil” test; the “wild beast” test; and the “right and wrong” test. However, the first formal criminal responsibility standard was the M’Naughten rule that derived 29
Introduction to Special Section from the 1843 English case of Daniel M’Naughten. The standard requires that it must be proved that, at the time of the offense, the defendant was “laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or, if he did know it, that he did not know what he was doing was wrong” (M’Naughten’s Case, p. 722). This standard continues to be employed in the United States and, in fact, it is the standard used in New Jersey. Other jurisdictions employ various insanity standards, such as the irresistible impulse test, the Durham standard or Product rule, the American Law Institute (ALI) standard, and the Insanity Defense Reform Act (IDRA) standard. Regardless of the particular standard employed, psychologists conducting insanity evaluations are generally tasked with determining if a defendant’s mental illness significantly impacted his or her ability to appreciate the wrongfulness of the actions engaged in at the time of the offense. Criminal Sentencing: Psychologists are occasionally called upon to conduct evaluations of defendants at the post-trial stage of a judicial proceeding; namely, to address sentencingrelated considerations. In this regard, psychologists are typically asked to provide opinions pertaining to aggravating and/ or mitigating factors related to the defendant and the offense committed. Such factors often regard the defendant’s psychosocial and mental health histories, such as history of trauma or abuse and the duration and severity of a mental illness and responsiveness to treatment, risk of engaging in future violence, and factors related to the commission of the crime in question. Criminal sentencing evaluations are often conducted during the guilt phase of capital (i.e., death penalty) cases. Civil Matters Five areas in the civil arena in which psychologists often become involved are: civil commitment; law enforcement; child custody; personal injury; and discrimination and harassment in employment. Civil Commitment: In most jurisdictions, evaluations conducted by psychiatrists and mental health screeners are primarily utilized when the initial decision to civilly commit an individual is made; however, psychologists often partake in the civil commitment process at some point. Specifically, psychologists may conduct violence and/or sexual risk assessments, that are frequently relied upon when the extended civil commitment of an individual is being considered. Prior to the 1990s, the term “prediction of dangerousness” was used to describe what is now referred to as violence risk assessment. While legal statutes continue to use the term “dangerousness,” mental health professionals now utilize the term “violence risk.” This represented a substantive change with respect to the focus and goals of the evaluation. As Heilbrun (2009) articulated, “dangerousness” consists of at least three components (i.e., risk factors, harm, and risk level), whereas “risk assessment” assumes the delineation of these components. Furthermore, utilization of the term dangerousness leads one to make dichotomous decisions about a patient 30
(dangerous versus not dangerous), whereas risk assessment facilitates a wide-ranging decision-making process, such as determining level of risk to be low, moderate, or high. By identifying risk and protective factors, psychologists make appraisals of risk and delineate factors associated with risk reduction and management efforts. Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) evaluations have also become a common evaluation conducted by psychologists when sex offenders who complete their prison terms are being considered for (indefinite) involuntary civil commitment (see Kansas v. Hendricks, 1997). law enforcement: Psychologists’ involvement in law enforcement-related endeavors has expanded over the past three decades. Initially, psychologists primarily engaged in the selection of police recruits; however, psychologists now frequently engage in the training and evaluation of officers. Officer selection typically includes interviewing applicants and administering measures developed to assess their intellectual and personality functioning. Psychologists are also often called upon to participate in the training of officers as it pertains to mental health-related matters. For instance, it has become commonplace for police academies and other law enforcement agencies to incorporate classes on developing communication skills with community members as well as appropriately interfacing with emotionally disturbed persons (EDPs) in the community. Psychologists also conduct fitness-for-duty evaluations to determine if officers are suitable to return to the workplace. Such evaluations are typically requested when an officer displays emotional or behavioral instability, either as a result of personal problems he or she is experiencing or following a critical incident (e.g., engaging in a shootout or experiencing another traumatic incident on the job). Child Custody: Child custody evaluations are considered to be one of the most challenging types of forensic evaluations due to the numerous parties and issues involved. Specifically, evaluators must assess both parents or guardians and the child or children involved with respect to their behaviors, capacities, interests, and needs. As such, the scope of the evaluation is broader and more inclusive than most types of forensic evaluations. Furthermore, psychologists are often subjected to ethics complaints as well as lawsuits due to the contentious nature inherent to this area of practice. Factors frequently considered in these evaluations are parenting capacity, custody arrangements, and the placement of siblings. In addition to conducting interviews and psychological assessment with the parents and the child or children, psychologists often engage in the direct observation of the parent-child interactions, and incorporate collateral information when possible. Personal Injury: Most jurisdictions allow one party (plaintiff) to sue another party (defendant) for psychological damages incurred as a result of a particular wrongdoing, whereby the outcome of the lawsuit would be monetary compensation. The primary focus of a personal injury evaluation is to provide a comparison of the plaintiff’s psychological functioning before and after the event in question. The specific type of psychological evaluation conducted is dependent on the type New Jersey Psychologist
Introduction to Special Section of damage that is alleged. For example, assessment of a plaintiff’s cognitive, personality, or neuropsychological functioning may be assessed. Regardless of the specific type of evaluation conducted, the psychologist is tasked with determining the following: the plaintiff’s baseline level of functioning; the nature and severity of the incident experienced; the plaintiff’s level of functioning since the incident; the likely cause of the damage; and the plaintiff’s prognosis. Discrimination and Harassment in employment: The Civil Rights Act of 1964 identified race, sex, religion, and national origin as discrimination criteria. Additional laws have since been adopted in the United States to address discrimination and harassment-related matters (e.g., the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act). These matters are often outside of the purview of psychologists, as they tend to be solely legal in nature; however, psychologists may become involved in such cases when the alleged discrimination or harassment has resulted in significant psychological consequences, particularly when claimants seek workers compensation or unemployment benefits. The scope of psychological evaluations in this area essentially addresses the veracity of the allegation, the reason the alleged event occurred, and an assessment of the effects of the event on the plaintiff. expert Testimony As noted earlier in this article, psychologists were first formally welcomed to provide expert testimony in legal matters following the 1962 ruling of Jenkins v. United States. Amicus briefs were set forth by both the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association to address the issue of allowing psychological testimony in judicial proceedings. The American Psychological Association argued in favor of allowing such testimony, whereas the American Psychiatric Association argued against the qualification of psychologists as experts in the diagnosis or treatment mental illness because they were not medical doctors. Ultimately, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals held that psychologists were not necessarily barred from proffering testimony vis-à-vis mental illness simply because they were not medical doctors. Today, psychologists frequently provide expert testimony in a variety of legal matters and a relatively extensive literature exists to guide those engaging in such (see Brodsky, 1991, 1999, 2004; Dvoskin & Guy, 2008; Ewing, 2003, 2008; Tsushima & Anderson, 1996; Ziskin & Faust, 1995). Expert testimony may be offered in cases whereby the psychologist has conducted an evaluation and he or she is asked to testify on the basis of the conclusions drawn, as well as in cases requiring a subject-matter expert (e.g., false confessions, eyewitness testimony). Psychologists are also often called to testify on other matters in which he or she has taken part. For example, psychotherapists may be subpoenaed to testify in their clients’ cases; however, it is essential for psychologists to understand and convey the distinction between lay witnesses and expert witnesses in such matters. Although a psychologist may become involved with a legal proceeding in any given Summer 2012
case or situation in which he or she engages, a psychologist would not be considered an expert witness unless that role was clearly defined in advance within the parameters of ethical and practice standards. Consultation, Academia, and research Psychologists often provide consultation to a variety of agencies, including civil service departments, correctional systems, and hospitals. Consultation in this regard may be a result of proactive measures taken by these agencies or following lawsuits or other legal mandates imposed upon them (e.g., monitorships). In addition, attorneys may hire psychologists to provide trial and/or jury consultation to assist in legal cases. Furthermore, psychological associations frequently engage in public policy-related efforts, such as the American Psychological Association’s drafting of amicus briefs or the efforts of the New Jersey Psychological Association’s Committee on Legislative Affairs (COLA) to monitor mental health-related law in the state. There are numerous opportunities for psychologists who wish to engage in academic and/or research endeavors. As Dr. Wulach outlines in his article in this Special Section, numerous academic institutions have developed programs in forensic psychology or have incorporated forensic concentrations, specializations, or courses in their curriculum. Those interested in forensic teaching and training may be affiliated with a number of different academic departments and programs (e.g., psychology, criminal justice, law), or they may become faculty members at medical schools. Although academicians as well as clinicians may conduct research in the field, research institutes have also become a place of employment for those interested in conducting forensic research (e.g., Vera Institute of Justice in New York). ❖ GIANNI PIRELLI, PhD is a licensed psychologist in New Jersey and New York, and a Staff Clinical Psychologist 3 on a Forensic Unit at Greystone Park Psychiatric Hospital (GPPH) in Morris Plains, New Jersey. references Bonnie, R. J., & Grisso, T. (2000). Adjudicative competence and youthful offenders. In: T. Grisso & R. G. Schwartz, (Eds.), Youth on trial: A developmental perspective on juvenile justice (pp. 73-103). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Brodsky, S. L. (1991). Testifying in court: Guidelines and maxims for the expert witness. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association. Brodsky, S. L. (1999). The expert expert witness: More maxims and guidelines for testifying in court. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association. Brodsky, S. L. (2004). Coping with cross-examination and other pathways to effective testimony. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association. Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (1975). Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960). 31
Introduction to Special Section Dvoskin, J. A., & Guy, L. S. (2008). On being an expert witness: It’s not about you. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 15, 202-212. Ewing, C. P. (2003). Expert testimony: Law and practice. In A.M. Goldstein (Ed.), Handbook of psychology: Forensic psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 55-66). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Ewing, C. P. (2008). Ethical expert testimony, an uneasy ‘moral adventure’: A grateful response. Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 36, 653-658. Heilbrun, K. (2009). Evaluation for risk of violence in adults. New York: Oxford University Press. Jenkins v. United States, 307 F. 2d 637 (DC Cir. 1962).
Kansas v. Hendricks 521 U.S. 346 (1997). M’Naughten’s Case, 8 Eng. Rep. 718 (1843). Roesch, R., & Golding., S. L. (1980). Competency to stand trial. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Tsushima, W. T., & Anderson, R. M., Jr. (1996). Mastering expert testimony: A courtroom handbook for mental health professionals. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. United States v. Lawrence, 26 F. Cas. 887 D.C. Cir. (1899). Youtsey v. United States, 97 F. 937, 940 (6th Cir.1899). Ziskin, J., & Faust, D. (1995). Coping with psychiatric and psychological testimony. Beverly Hills, CA: Law and Psychology Press.
Special Section: Forensic
Training in Forensic Psychology By James S. Wulach, PhD, JD1
Introduction & Overview orensic psychology refers to the application of the science and profession of psychology to law and the legal system. When the psychology licensure movement first gained traction in the 1960s, there were no formal training programs in forensic psychology, and people developed expertise by happening upon externships and jobs in forensic settings such as prisons, delinquency centers, family courts, and specialized units for committed patients in psychiatric hospitals. Those pioneering psychologists gradually gained credibility as expert witnesses in the area of competency and insanity cases, custody evaluations etc., as court decisions began to “qualify” or approve the evidence of psychologists in forensic cases; and they then became supervisors and consultants to beginning psychologists wishing to gain expertise in the field. Still today many clinical psychologists gradually enter the field of forensic psychology following licensure, through readings, continuing education seminars, and working on some cases under the intensive supervision or consultation of
Footnote 1 James Wulach is Professor of Psychology at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, CUNY. He is also in the private practice of psychology and of law, in Springfield, NJ. 32
senior forensic psychologists. However, formal training models in forensic psychology have since blossomed and now define an ever more complex and sophisticated field. Today, most large psychology departments offer an introductory undergraduate course in law and psychology. In addition, there are at least 20 programs offering master’s degrees in forensic psychology, and over 25 programs offering a doctorate in the field. There are at least five programs offering a JD-PhD or JD-PsyD. Brief descriptions and information about these programs are found in the Guide to Graduate Programs in Forensic and Legal Psychology (2007-2008), available online at <http://www.ap-ls.org/education/GraduatePrograms.php>. (See DeMatteo, 2009). The same website also lists over 60 pre-doctoral internships in forensic psychology, 16 postdoctoral fellowships in the field (Malesky & Proctor, 2012), and seven university-based certificate programs. In addition to programs at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, (described below), locally based programs include a forensic psychology master’s degree and a forensic track within the clinical psychology doctorate at Fairleigh Dickenson University, and forensic psychology Graduate Certificate Programs at Montclair State University. A Google search of “forensic psychology graduate programs New Jersey” reveals 27 programs, although almost all are online and originate in other states. New Jersey Psychologist
Special Section: Forensic Psychology The American Psychology-Law Society (AP-LS), Division 41 of the American Psychological Association, has a large and active membership of psychologists with a special interest in forensic psychology that maintains a journal and a newsletter; and members of the division provide excellent continuing education programs both during and prior to APA annual conventions, as well as at the state level. AP-LS has recently created a revised version of Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists, adopted by the APA in 2011 <www.ap-ls. org/aboutpsychlaw/SpecialtyGuidelines.php>. The APA has recognized forensic psychology as a concentration for over ten years, and the American Board of Professional Psychology (ABPP) offers board certification in Forensic Psychology. (See <http://www.abfp.com/certification.asp>). Other organizations offer a â€œdiplomateâ€? status as well, although the quality of such varies widely (Golding, 2005). ABPP also provides an excellent reading list for those interested in studying for certification that is available online at the same website, and can serve as an overview of the literature in the field. This literature includes: readings in the general areas of expert evaluation and testimony in the courts; civil commitment; civil competency; personal injury; disability; discrimination; child custody; child abuse and neglect; criminal competency and responsibility; juvenile justice; death penalty; forensic treatment; risk assessment; jury behavior and decision-making; and eyewitness testimony. Articles on forensic psychology issues flourish in APA and other journals, and there are a number of other prominent journals that specialize in the forensic area, such as Law and Human Behavior, Behavioral Sciences and the Law, Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, and the International Journal of Forensic Mental Health. There are many outstanding volumes and book series in forensic psychology. Three excellent synopses of the field are found in The Handbook of Forensic Psychology, 3rd Edition (Weiner & Hess, 2006); Psychological Evaluation for the Courts, Third Edition (Melton, Petrila, Poythress, & Slobogin, C 2007); and Forensic Psychology: Handbook of Psychology, Vol. 11 I (Goldstein & Weiner, 2003). Heilbrun and Brooks (2010) have recently written a significant article describing past developments and future directions in forensic psychology. Consequently, a truly focused student who decides to take an introductory college course in forensic psychology, then chooses a doctoral program that specializes in the field, with a corresponding forensic externship, and perhaps a postdoctoral fellowship, and proceeds to involvement in Division 41 and strives towards an ABPP specialization in forensic psychology, will be at the cusp of the best training current forensic psychology has to offer. Absent that, those New Jersey psychologists who want to develop a forensic focus may begin with the above readings, membership in Division 41, CE courses at APA and NJPA, and consider individualized consultation and supervision from a well-trained forensic psychologist should they should become involved in cases with forenSummer 2012
sic aspects. (In over 15 states, other than New Jersey, there are formalized legal requirements for certification to practice in the forensic psychology area). Forensic Program Developments: The John Jay College experience As a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, CUNY since 1980, I have often been involved in forensic psychology education and program development illustrating aspects of the changing field of forensic psychology education. In 1978, an undergraduate major in forensic psychology had just been established, along with an MA Program in Forensic Psychology. The psychology department had only three people who had forensic psychology case experience, and most of the 20 professors had postdoctoral training in psychoanalysis and psychotherapy from NYU and the Postgraduate Center for Mental Health. The 42-credit MA Program offered 13 courses per semester, most oriented towards clinical psychology, such as psychopathology and psychotherapy with a few specialized courses in Psychology of Criminal Behavior, Psychology of the Victim, Family Violence and the Family Courts, and Law & Psychology. However, beginning in the 1980s, the burgeoning academic and professional influence of AP-LS (APA, Division 41), combined with popular mass excitement from novels and movies featuring characters such as Hannibal Lecter in The Red Dragon and Silence of the Lambs; and later television shows such as The Profiler, resulted in a huge increase of interest in forensic psychology as a possible career choice. As a result, the MA Program in Forensic Psychology expanded to 35 full-time professors most of whom had specialized training and experience in law and psychology. As a result, new courses became available such as Violence and Aggression, Treatment and Rehabilitation of the Offender, Evaluation and Treatment of the Juvenile Offender, Social Science Evidence in Court, Social Psychology of the Legal System, The Evaluation and Treatment of the Sex Offender, Mental Health Issues in Policing, Eyewitness Identification, Ethical Issues in Forensic Mental Health, Criminal Forensic Assessment, Empirical Profiling Methods, Empirical Crime Scene Analysis, and Personality and Profiles of the Homicidal Offender. Based upon the success of the John Jay MA Program in Forensic Psychology, and in recognition of the burgeoning field, a CUNY Forensic Psychology PhD program was approved in 2001, and was registered as a NY clinical psychology training program. The original faculty consisted of both clinical psychologists, as well as experimental social psychologists specializing in eyewitness identification, jury selection, and outcomes. It soon became apparent that the two groups conceptualized very different program and teaching models, resulting in a decision to formally split into two subprograms, yet sharing of some courses. Thus, the forensic clinical program consists of 90 credits, plus an internship year and a doctoral dissertation, since the program needs to combine all the required elements for clinical licensure on top of forensic spe33
Special Section: Forensic Psychology cialization. However, the experimental program is 60 credits, emphasizes research courses primarily with an assortment of electives, and focuses on early individual mentoring of the doctoral dissertation. A major New York licensing law change in 2003 negatively impacted the MA Program in Forensic Psychology by prohibiting MA psychologists from practicing as clinicians in social service agencies in New York State (unlike the regulations in New Jersey), and instead licensing mental health counselors. As an alternative, many psychology MA Programs throughout New York, including at John Jay College and throughout CUNY, developed alternative licensable mental health counseling MA programs, the one at John Jay being the first forensic mental health counseling program in the country in 2008. The program is a 60-credit sequence of courses covering required standard courses in counseling, plus overlapping forensic electives with the forensic psychology MA program. Consequently, students maintain the option of choosing the counseling MA for a terminal clinical degree, or the traditional non-licensable forensic psychology MA that now emphasizes a thesis track in preparation for doctoral studies, and also now includes a dual-degree MA-JD option (below). By 2009, it became apparent that a number of individuals, who had already achieved their MA (or PhD), desired to obtain a further formal focus in forensic psychology other than through the ABPP status in Forensic Psychology that requires psychology licensure, 1000 hours of forensic psychology experience, and a detailed written and oral examination. Thus, the Postgraduate Certificate in Forensic Psychology was created at John Jay College permitting social workers, counselors, and psychologists to take 18 credits of coursework in existing forensic MA classes, grouped around concentration themes, including psychological assessment, expert testimony, family violence and victims, counseling and psychotherapy, and research. The synergistic effect is to embed trained clinicians into many courses, while providing them with the opportunity to retrain with a forensic focus, and to emerge with a credential that can help in further career enhancement. â€˘ A final development at John Jay College, launched in 2011, is the creation of a dual-degree MA-JD program in forensic psychology and law, in combination with New York Law School (NYLS). NYLS, nationally recognized for its innovative and intensive Mental Health Disability Law track, is under the leadership of Michael Perlin, Esq. The focus of the dual-degree program is on training attorneys and policymakers who have a solid foundation in forensic psychology, and who advocate for the mentally disabled. It allows students to graduate within four years, by counting overlapping credits from both schools. Summary During the last 30 years, the field of forensic psychology has become recognized as a prominent specialization 34
within psychology. From the original scattered hands-on experience of a few practitioners, training has blossomed into formal programs in over 20 MA programs, 25 doctoral programs, post-doctoral certification through ABPP, numerous prominent journals, and Division 41 of the APA. The case example above of program developments at John Jay College, reflecting the creation of the undergraduate major in forensic psychology, the MA and doctoral degrees in the same field, the emergence of the MA in forensic mental health counseling, the postgraduate certificate program, and the dual-degree MA-JD program reflect the growth of forensic psychology training during this time period. â?– James Wulach is Professor of Psychology at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, CUNY. He is also in the private practice of psychology and of law, in Springfield, NJ. references American Board of Professional Psychology (ABPP). Application retrieved May 12, 2012 from <http://www.abfp.com/ certification.asp>. Committee on the Revision of the Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology. (2011, August). Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists. Retrieved May 14, 2012, from <http://www.ap-ls.org/aboutpsychlaw/SpecialtyGuidelines.php>. DeMatteo, D., Marczyk, G., Krauss, D., & Burl, J. (2009). Educational and training models in forensic psychology. Training and Education in Professional Psychology. 3, 184-191. Golding, S. (2005). Forensic Psychology- Education, training and certification. In Encyclopedia of Forensic and Legal Medicine. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Press, 246-350. Goldstein, A. & Weiner, I. (2003). Handbook of Psychology, Vol. 11: Forensic Psychology: Hoboken, NJ: J. Wiley. Guide to Graduate Programs in Forensic and Legal Psychology (2007-2008), Retrieved May 10, 2012, from <http:// www.ap-ls.org/education/GraduatePrograms.php>. Heilbrun, K. & Brooks, S. (2010). Forensic psychology and forensic science: A proposed agenda for the next decade. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16, 219-253. Malesky, L., & Proctor, S. (2012). Training experiences essential for obtaining a forensic psychology postdoctoral fellowship. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 12, 163-172. Melton, G., Petrila, J., Poythress, N., & Slobogin, C. (2007). Psychological Evaluation for the Courts. A handbook for mental health professionals and lawyers (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford. Weiner, I. & Hess, A. (eds. 2006). The Handbook of Forensic Psychology (3rd ed.). 9 Hoboken, NJ: J. Wiley.
New Jersey Psychologist
Special Section: Forensic Psychology
Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology and Best Practices in Forensic Mental Health Assessment by Patricia A. Zapf, PhD Associate Professor, John Jay College of Criminal Justice (CUNY)
he past year has seen a number of advances in the field of forensic psychology, with two worth specific mention: the adoption of new guidelines for forensic psychology and the completion of a 20-book series on best practices in forensic mental health assessment. This brief section will provide some relevant information on each; however, the reader is encouraged to seek out both of these important and relevant resources.
Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology On August 3, 2011 the APA Council of Representatives adopted the newly revised Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology (SGFP). The Guidelines were first developed by the Committee on Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists and published in 1991 in Law and Human Behavior, the official journal of APA’s Division 41, the American Psychology-Law Society (AP-LS). In 2002, AP-LS and the American Academy of Forensic Psychology (AAFP) established the Committee for the Revision of the Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology, consisting of two representatives from each organization as well as a chair and a liaison from APA’s Division 42 (Psychologists in Independent Practice): Sol Fulero, PhD, JD (AP-LS); Stephen Golding, PhD, ABPP (AAFP); Lisa Piechowski, PhD, ABPP (AAFP); Christina Studebaker, PhD (AP-LS); Randy Otto, PhD, ABPP (Chair); and Jeffrey Younggren, PhD, ABPP (Div. 42). This committee worked on the revisions from 2002 to 2011 and posted no less than seven drafts of the revised guidelines for review and comment, in accordance with APA Rule 30.08 and the APA policy document Criteria for the Development and Evaluation of Practice Guidelines. Both the American Psychology-Law Society and the American Academy of Forensic Psychology have approved the new Guidelines. The final approved Guidelines are currently available online on the websites of all three organizations (APA, AP-LS, AAFP) and the official version of the Guidelines is to be published in the American Psychologist later this year. The reader is encouraged to go online and obtain a copy of these new Guidelines. The new Guidelines are intended for use by psychologists when engaged in the practice of forensic psychology, broadly defined to include professional practice by any psychologist Summer 2012
working within any sub-discipline of psychology who applies technical, scientific, or specialized knowledge of psychology to the law to assist in addressing legal, contractual, or administrative matters. Thus, the Guidelines apply to all psychologists who are involved in any aspect of forensic work, whether or not the psychologist identifies as a “forensic psychologist,” and are applicable on the basis of the service provided in the case at hand rather than the practitioner’s typical area of practice or expertise. The Guidelines are informed by the APA’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (2002), are aspirational in nature, and are not intended to be exhaustive or mandatory. The Guidelines are intended to facilitate a high level of practice by psychologists and the continued development of the profession. The goals of the Guidelines are fourfold and include: improving the quality of forensic psychological services; enhancing the practice of and facilitating the systematic development of forensic psychology; encouraging a high level of quality in professional practice; and encouraging forensic practitioners to acknowledge and respect the right of those they serve (SGFP, in press). The Guidelines consist of an introduction and 11 sections, each with numerous sub-sections. The sections include: Responsibilities; Competence; Diligence; Relationships; Fees; Informed Consent, Notification and Assent; Conflicts in Practice; Privacy, Confidentiality, and Privilege; Methods and Procedures; Assessment; and Professional and Other Public Communications. Relevant subsections are included in parenthesis in the following paragraphs. responsibilities: Forensic practitioners are encouraged to act with integrity (1.01), impartiality and fairness (1.02), and avoid ethical conflicts of interest (1.03). “When a conflict of interest is determined to be manageable, continuing services are provided and documented in a way to manage the conflict, maintain accountability, and preserve the trust of relevant others” (SGFP, in press, Standard 1.03). Competence: Forensic practitioners are expected to practice within their scope of competence (2.01), are responsible for gaining and maintaining competence (2.02), and for accurately representing their competencies (2.03). In addition, they are expected to possess adequate knowledge regarding the legal system and the legal rights of in35
Special Section: Forensic Psychology
dividuals (2.04), knowledge of the scientific foundation for opinions and testimony (2.05), and knowledge of the scientific foundation for teaching and research (2.06). The Guidelines require that forensic practitioners consider the impact of personal beliefs and experience (2.07), appreciate individual and group differences (2.08), and ensure appropriate use of services and products (2.09) by making “reasonable efforts to guard against misuse of their services and exercise professional discretion in addressing such misuses” (SGFP, in press, Standard 2.09). Diligence: Forensic practitioners are encouraged to use diligence in their provision of services (3.01), responsiveness (3.02), communication (3.03), and termination of services (3.04). relationships: Forensic practitioners are expected to “recognize that relationships are established with those who retain their services and those with whom they interact” (SGFP, in press, Section 4). Forensic psychologists have responsibilities to retaining parties (4.01), and for recognizing the potential conflicts of interest involved in multiple relationships (4.02) and with respect to the provision of emergency mental health services to forensic examinees (4.03). Fees: Section 5 of the Guidelines provides information regarding the determination of fees (5.01), fee arrangements (5.02), and pro bono services (5.03). Informed consent, notification, and assent: Forensic practitioners “strive to inform service recipients about the nature and parameters of the services to be provided,” including timing and substance (6.01), communication with those seeking to retain a forensic practitioner (6.02), communication with forensic examinees (6.03), communication with collateral sources of information (6.04), and communication in research contexts (6.05) (SGFP, in press, Section 6). Conflicts in practice: The Guidelines provide information regarding conflicts with legal authority (7.01), conflicts with organizational demands (7.02), and resolving ethical issues with fellow professionals (7.03). Privacy, confidentiality, and privilege: Section 8 of the Guidelines provides guidance with respect to the release of information (8.01), access to information (8.02), acquiring collateral and third party information (8.03), the use of care materials in teaching, continuing education, and other scholarly activities (8.04). Methods and procedures: This section of the Guidelines deals with the use of appropriate methods (9.01), the use of multiple sources of information (9.02), and opinions regarding persons not examined (9.03). “When conducting a record review or providing consultation or supervision that does not warrant an individual examination, forensic practitioners seek to identify the sources of information on which they are basing their opinions and recommendations, including any substantial limitations to their opinions and recommendations (SGFP, in press, Section 9.03). Assessment: Section 10, one of the most substantial sections of the Guidelines, provides information and guidance regarding the focus on legally relevant factors (10.01), the 36
selection and use of assessment procedures (10.02), the appreciation of individual differences (10.03), consideration of assessment settings (10.04), provision of assessment feedback (10.05), documentation and compilation of data considered (10.06), provision of documentation (10.07), and recordkeeping (10.08). Professional and other public communications: In the second-most substantial section of the Guidelines, information is presented regarding various types of communications, including accuracy, fairness, and the avoidance of deception (11.01), differentiating observations, inferences, and conclusions (11.02), disclosing sources of information and bases of opinions (11.03), comprehensive and accurate presentation of opinions in reports and testimony (11.04), commenting upon other professionals and participants in legal proceedings (11.05), out of court statements (11.06), and commenting upon legal proceedings (11.07). Any professional who is involved in the provision of psychological services (broadly defined) to assist in matters of law (also broadly defined) is encouraged to obtain a copy of the new Guidelines and become familiar with this document. Although these Guidelines are not intended to serve as a basis for disciplinary action, they certainly represent what are considered to be appropriate and ethical practices in the provision of psychological services in a forensic context. Best practices in forensic psychology would include knowledge of and familiarity with these Guidelines. Best Practices in Forensic Mental Health Assessment In addition to the new Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology, another resource that forensic practitioners should become familiar with is a new book series, published by Oxford University Press, and edited by Kirk Heilbrun, Tom Grisso, and Alan Goldstein—Best Practices in Forensic Mental Health Assessment. The Best Practices series consist of 20 books, each of which highlights the best practices within a specific domain of forensic mental health assessment. These books are targeted towards the forensic practitioner and are authored by high-profile professionals within the field of forensic psychology. Each book is around 200 pages in length, priced at $35.00, and written in a user-friendly format with case law and best practices highlighted throughout. The first book in the series, Foundations of Forensic Mental Health Assessment, is authored by the series editors (Heilbrun, Grisso, & Goldstein) and includes an overview of the series as well as the principles of forensic mental health assessment. The other 19 books are divided into three sets of titles: criminal, civil, and juvenile and family titles. Each book in the series consists of seven chapters that cover both the foundation and the application of best practices in the relevant area of forensic mental health assessment. The foundational chapters cover the legal context (Chapter 1), forensic mental health concepts (Chapter 2), and empirical foundations and limits (Chapter 3). The application chapters cover the assessment procedures including, preparation for the evaluation New Jersey Psychologist
Special Section: Forensic Psychology
(Chapter 4), data collection (Chapter 5), interpretation (Chapter 6), and report writing and testimony (Chapter 7). Criminal titles: The Best Practices series includes eight criminal titles, including: Evaluation of Competence to Stand Trial (by Patricia Zapf & Ronald Roesch); Evaluation of Criminal Responsibility (by Ira Packer); Evaluating Capacity to Waive Miranda Rights (by Alan Goldstein and Naomi Goldstein); Evaluation of Sexually Violent Predators (by Philip Witt and Mary Alice Conroy); Evaluation for Risk of Violence in Adults (by Kirk Heilbrun); Evaluation for Capital Sentencing (by Mark Cunningham); Eyewitness Identification (by Brian Cutler & Margaret Kovera); and Jury Selection (by Margaret Kovera & Brian Cutler). Civil titles: The Best Practices series includes six titles that deal with civil issues, including: Evaluation of Capacity to Consent to Treatment and Research (by Scott Kim); Evaluation for Guardianship (by Eric Drogin & Curtis Barrett); Evaluation for Personal Injury Claims (by Andrew Kane & Joel Dvoskin); Evaluation for Civil Commitment (by Debra Pinals & Douglas Mossman); Evaluation for Workplace Discrimination and Harassment (by Jane Goodman-Delahunty & William Foote); and Evaluation of Workplace Disability (by Lis a Pie chowski). Juvenile and family titles: There are five titles that make up the juvenile and family section of the Best Practices series, including: Evaluation for Child Custody (by Geri Fuhrmann & Robert Zibbell); Evaluation of Juveniles’ Competence to Stand Trial (by Ivan Kruh & Thomas Grisso); Evaluation for
Risk of Violence in Juveniles (by Robert Hoge & D. A. Andrews); Evaluation of Parenting Capacity in Child Protection (by Karen Budd, Mary Connell, & Jennifer Clark); and Evaluation for Disposition and Transfer of Juvenile Offenders (by Randy Salekin). The series has been well received and provides useful, hand-on, empirically based information regarding best practices in the various domains of forensic mental health assessment. Forensic practitioners are encouraged to understand and utilize the best practices set out in these “user manuals” as more and more courts are expecting experts to be versed in what the field considers to be best practices. In addition to this Best Practices series targeted towards mental health professionals, Roesch and Zapf have also compiled an edited Handbook, targeted towards legal professionals, wherein each of the Best Practices book authors has distilled the most important and relevant information for legal professionals into a chapter. Legal professionals are being encouraged to become knowledgeable about what to expect of mental health professionals who they engage to provide forensic mental health assessment. These two resources provide a foundation of information regarding what is expected of forensic practitioners within the domain of forensic mental health assessment. Mental health professionals who do not become familiar with the Best Practices series risk falling out of step with the current standard of practice in the field of forensic psychology. ❖
NJPA WELCOMES OUR NEWEST MEMBERS! New Members George Asfendis, PsyD David Bailey, PsyD Jon Belford, PsyD Alicia Camlibel, PhD Joseph Cooper, PsyD Sharon Craig, PhD Lidia Dengelegi-Abrams, PhD Steven Feinstein, EdD Mary Fox, PhD Ashley Gorman, PhD Harry Green, PsyD Alan Groveman, PhD Ricky Hornblass, PhD Jamila Irons-Johnson, PsyD Tara Kakaty, PsyD Cheryl Kleefeld, PhD Cristina Laurita, PhD Bradford Lerman, PsyD Lorna Myers, PhD Kathryn Parkerton, PsyD Rachel Mahoney Rengifo, PhD Summer 2012
Douglas Samuels, PhD Marc Steinberg, PhD Nina Stolzenberg, PhD Joseph Taravella, PhD Linda Taylor, PhD Cydney Terreri, PhD Sheryl Thailer, PhD Mario Tommasi, PhD Milton Villafane, PhD Christina Walters, PsyD Elizabeth Watson, PhD Amy Woods, PsyD Ellen Zeitchik, PsyD Student Members Angela Almeida Danielle Auslander, MS William Benson Daniel Braman Melissa Braunstein, MS Alyssa Bressler, MA Mariela Cajiga Robin Dean, MA
Renny Eapen David Goldstein, EdS, MA Alex Harsha Atara Hiller, PsyM Jeffrey Kapica Jennifer Kehoe, MA Blake Kirschner, MS Sara Markowitz Christina Ortiz Eugene Palatianos Sara Teta Associate Member Alyssa Dretchen-Serapiglia, EdS, MA emeritus Carol Bruskin, PhD Senior Members Judith Ackerman, PhD Wandz Costanzo, PsyD Joseph Toto, PhD
Special Section: Forensic Psychology
Some Current Issues In Forensic Practice: Deception And lying, Traditional And Specialized Tests, And Crime-Scene Analysis by Louis B. Schlesinger, PhD, Professor of Forensic Psychology John Jay College of Criminal Justice Diplomate in Forensic Psychology American Board of Professional Psychology
he practice of forensic psychology has changed dramatically over the past 40 years. In the 1970s, a psychologist could get involved in a forensic case only if invited to do so by a psychiatrist, and usually only for psychological testing. But as professional psychology grew in stature, psychologists became more and more welcomed in the courtroom, and by the end of the 1990s, psychologists were beginning to dominate forensic practice. In fact, an editorial (Norko, 2000) in the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law (APPL) Newsletter referenced Dr. Larry Faulkner’s 1999 presidential address entitled “The survival of forensic psychiatry.” And, in the same newsletter, the chair of APPL’s private practice committee, Dr. Steven Berger (2000), stated that “an old topic which continues its rampage is competition from psychologists . . .” (p. 18). But forensic psychologists cannot be complacent with just having increased practice-business opportunities. As the specialty develops, practice patterns and standards need to develop as well, and with an increased level of sophistication. Three current issues that require thought and discussion come to mind: the assessment of deception and lying; the use of traditional and specialized tests, and the analysis of crime scene-behavior.
DeCePTION AND lYING Psychologists have made a significant contribution by devising some very effective tests for detecting deception, such as Rogers, Bagby, and Dicken’s (1992) Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms, Miller’s (2001) Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test (M-FAST), and Tombaugh’s (1996) Test of Memory Malingering. But the issue of deception is more involved than just documenting the feigning of psychotic symptoms or cognitive loss on tests. Most forensic practitioners have been trained clinically and, for the most part, clinical psychologists have been taught to accept their patients’ self-reports as valid because they are coming for help and assistance. But in forensic practice, the traditional clinical/therapeutic approach used with patients is not applicable. In forensic practice, the subjects are not voluntarily coming for help; instead, they 38
are being referred because they are the subject of some type of litigation. Accordingly, there is an inherent motive to be deceptive in direct and indirect ways--and not only with respect to feigning psychotic symptoms or cognitive/ intellectual deficit. The subject of direct lying by a litigant is rarely expressed explicitly in the psychological literature. For example, Melton, Petrilia, Poythress, and Slobogin (1997) discuss distinctions between a forensic and a therapeutic assessment. These authors do refer to “. . . conscious and intentional distortion . . .” (p. 42), but they do not directly say what they mean, which is, forensic subjects often lie. Direct lying, when confronted with wrongdoing, is nothing new. In fact, it is a fundamental part of human nature--so fundamental that it is described in Genesis (4: 4-9), in the Cain-Abel slaying. Although many psychologists have difficulty speaking of defendants (or patients) “lying,” in many forensic cases they do lie and the forensic psychologist must be aware of this deception and get over his/her discomfort in directly discussing the topic. In a clinical/therapeutic evaluation, psychologists generally rely on what the patient has told them. But in a forensic assessment, self-report is problematical; therefore, the psychologist must become thoroughly familiar with the facts of the case as presented in the legal discovery (e.g., police reports, witness statements, medical examiner’s reports, etc.). Although the litigant’s description of events is certainly important, it has to be reconciled with the discovery, and in all too many forensic assessments, this is just not done. Psychologists are almost always provided with the discovery– and they say they are aware of its contents when questioned– but their knowledge of the content of the discovery is not always evident. For instance, in a study of the use of third party (corroborative) data in forensic evaluations, Heilbrun, Rosenfeld, Warren, and Collins (1994) found that a majority of assessors said that they did use such fact-based information, but their reports did not demonstrate how this information was used, if at all. And much too frequently, notwithstanding their claims of awareness of the facts as contained in the discovery, some psychologists’ testimony indicates that their understanding of the facts comes solely from what the litigant New Jersey Psychologist
Special Section: Forensic Psychology
told them, in other words, they revert to the typical way clinical psychologists get information from their patients. The following case is illustrative: CASe 1 A 31-year-old male attacked and stabbed to death a 25 year old male following a dispute over a relationship with a woman. The defendant told the evaluating psychologist that he acted in self-defense, that the victim had attacked him. Somehow this statement became the basis of a diminished capacity defense. However, at least three witnesses said the defendant was neither attacked first, nor provoked; rather, he came to the crime scene with a hidden weapon and pulled it out once he came close to the victim. In addition, several other individuals said the defendant told them that he had planned to kill the victim and explained the basis of his anger. Unfortunately, the first time the evaluating psychologist learned of these facts was in court. The discovery had been supplied to him and he said that he had read it, but obviously he did not use that information in formulating his opinion, and relied solely on what the defendant told him. TrADITIONAl AND SPeCIAlIZeD FOreNSIC TeSTS Since psychological testing has been a part of psychologists’ identity for years, it is not surprising that psychologists have developed specialized tests that can be utilized in a forensic setting. However, in the rush to embrace specialized forensic tests, some psychologists have too quickly dismissed traditional testing. For example, Melton et al., (1997) argue that traditional psychological tests are generally unnecessary for three reasons: (1) the tests have not been developed or validated to address specific legal questions; (2) the tests represent a compilation of characteristics found in groups of individuals so that results may not apply to the particular individual being assessed; and (3) testing typically taps current psychological functioning while legal questions usually relate to a defendant’s psychological functioning at a prior time. These criticisms seem misplaced. For example, although traditional psychological tests were not developed to address specific legal questions, they can certainly help understand the individual being assessed; therefore, the results can increase the examiner’s ability to offer an accurate psycho-legal opinion. In fact, Heilbrun (1992) notes that underlying psychological problems, not initially detected through a clinical interview, can sometimes be detected through testing. Melton, et al., (1997) believe that testing has little value because of the use of aggregate data is way off base. The purpose of testing is to use aggregate data in the establishment of standards and norms in order to compare one person (the subject of the evaluation) with others on various characteristics. And although some tests do tap current functioning–that is a direct concern in some forensic evaluations--other tests assess stable traits and characteristics. The problem is not the use of traditional tests Summer 2012
(or for that matter specialized forensic tests), but rather how the tests are used. But there is a significant problem with the use of specialized forensic tests, such as tests to assess an individual’s competency to stand trial, competency to waive Miranda rights, or to evaluate state of mind. Notwithstanding the popularity of specialized forensic tests, they must be used with caution! For example, specialized tests to determine a defendant’s appreciation of his Miranda rights (e.g., Grisso, 1998) typically utilize a Miranda warning–including vocabulary and reasoning–that the subject has to explain. However, many jurisdictions, such as New Jersey, do not use just one Miranda warning. In fact, numerous--perhaps even close to a hundred–different Miranda forms are used in New Jersey. And when the matter goes to court, the judge is going to rely on the defendant’s ability to understand the Miranda warning that was read at the time of arrest, not his/her understanding of a Miranda warning used on a test that almost always differs from the one on which he was Mirandized. The same applies to competency to proceed. New Jersey has a very specific competency to proceed statute, whereas a test, such as the Evaluation of Competency to Stand Trial-Revised (Rogers, Tillbrook & Sewell, 2004), may not include every element in New Jersey’s statute. If elements are left out, the forensic examiner is of little use to the court mainly because he or she relied only on the specialized test. Using tests with norms and numbers seems to add validity to one’s testimony that would seem to be the main reason many psychologists use these tests. But it really does not add validity; it gives only the appearance of increased validity. If the forensic psychologist decides to use specialized forensic tests, he/she should do so only in a supplemental way. CrIMe-SCeNe ANAlYSIS Psychologists are rarely trained in the analysis of crime scene behavior even though crime scene activity is pure behavioral science. The lack of such training may be a reason why many psychologists are uncomfortable utilizing legal discovery that includes crime scene behavior and dynamics. But forensic psychologists need to develop these skills. One example of the importance of crime scene behavior is the issue of staging–the offender’s alteration of the crime scene in order to re-direct the investigation. Staging often occurs in homicides where there was a relationship, or connection, between offender and victim, and the offender views himself or herself as a logical suspect. If there is evidence of crime scene staging, such behavior speaks directly to issues of intellectual capacity and intent. The following case is illustrative: CASe 2 A 34-year-old male strangled his wife to death after an argument, triggered by her unfaithfulness. After killing her, he removed her clothing, placed her in the bathtub, turned the water on, called the police, and said that his wife had 39
Special Section: Forensic Psychology
accidentally drowned while taking a bath. The defense expert in this case concluded, based primarily on testing, that the defendant was mentally retarded and could not form intent. But notwithstanding the defendant’s deception on the tests he was given, his life pattern–and adaptive functioning– were totally inconsistent with intellectual disability. And, most importantly, the very act of crime scene staging that involved his attempt to re-direct the criminal investigation, demonstrates an intellectual capacity above that of mental retardation, as well as a clear capacity to form intent. COMMeNT Psychologists are welcomed in the courtroom and routinely testify in all sorts of legal matters. But psychologists need to go beyond knowledge of legal standards and legal tests— something that has been stressed in forensic training over the past twenty years–and go back to their roots as behavioral scientists. Psychologists are in court because of their expertise in underlying psychopathological disorders and their expertise in criminal behavior. Psychologists are not in the courtroom to function as lawyers (even if they have a law degree); nor are they there to report on what the “research shows” with respect to various legal issues. Psychologists’ fundamental role is to apply their knowledge of psychopathology and criminal behavior to a legal standard in order to offer an informed opinion. Psychologists would be well advised to develop a more clinically sophisticated approach to forensic assessment in order to be of further help to the court and to advance our understanding of criminal behavior. ❖
references Berger, S.H. (2000). Managed legal care with psychologists. American Academy of Psychiatry and Law Newsletter, 25, 18. Grisso, T. (1998). Instruments for assessing understanding & appreciation of Miranda rights. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press. Heilbrun, K. (1992). The role of psychological testing in forensic assessment. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 257-272. Heilbrun, K., Rosenfeld, B., Warren, J., & Collins, S. (1994). The use of third party information in forensic assessment: A two-state comparison. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 22, 399-406. Melton, G.B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N.G., & Slobogin, L. (1997). Psychological evaluations for the court (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press. Miller, H.A. (2001). Miller’s forensic assessment of symptoms test (M-FAST). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Norko, M.A. (2000). 1999 Presidential Address, Dr. Faulkner: The survival of forensic psychiatry. American Academy of Psychiatry and Law Newsletter, 25, 1-2. Rogers, R., Bagby, R.M., & Dickens, S.E. (1992). Structured interview of reported symptoms: Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Rogers, R., Tillbrook, C.E., & Sewell, K.W. (2004). Evaluation of competency to stand trial – Revised, and professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Tombaugh, T.N. (1996). Test of memory malingering – TOMM. N.Y.: Multi-Health System.
Congratulations! Joseph Coyne, PhD APA Council Representative Dr. Coyne, elected by NJPA/APA members, joins Neil Massoth, PhD as our 2nd representative to APA Council.
New Jersey Psychologist
What’s New in Youth Concussion by Natalie K. Sandel, BS & Rosemarie Scolaro Moser, PhD Sports Concussion Center of New Jersey RSM Psychology Center, LLC Lawrenceville, NJ
oncussion is now considered at an epidemic level among youth athletes. The vulnerability of youth brains to the enduring effects of concussion has caused mental health practitioners, schools, and legislators alike to focus their attention on developing and implementing stringent guidelines for handling youth sports concussion (Schatz & Moser, 2011). Approximately 40 states now have pending or passed sports concussion legislation. The State of New Jersey has been an avid supporter for the protection of concussed athletes and is the eleventh state to have passed such legislation, in December 2010, outlining the proper course of action for identifying and managing concussion among grade-school students. This law went into effect in September 2011, yet many school systems are still playing catch up in their implementation of the law. The current law requires all athletes, grades K-12 involved in interscholastic sports, who are suspected of having a concussion to be removed immediately from play and not returned until given written clearance from a physician with training in sports concussion. Other points of the law require parent informed consent regarding youth athletes’ risk of concussion, training of school personnel, and the development of a formal policy and procedure by each school. Although this law is very wellintentioned, the reality is that there are few physicians who are trained in sports concussion or neurocognitive assessment of sports concussion. More recently, Pennsylvania passed legislation with a broader scope that included psychologists with neuropsychological training as capable of providing written clearance to return to sports. Importantly, in December 2011 there was a movement through legislative amendment to likewise broaden the NJ sports concussion law. With youth sports participation at all-time high, psychologists should expect a greater number of student athletes requiring concussion care. Regardless of involvement in making return-to-play decisions, psychologists may find adolescents in their offices presenting with emotional and behavioral symptoms that could possibly be linked to a prior concussion. With the pervasiveness of this injury and stricter state policies on how to manage it, psychologists are advised to become familiar with sports concussion. Prevalence Sports concussion is one of the most common head injuries Summer 2012
among athletes. An alarming 1.6 to 3.8 million traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) that occur each year are related to sporting events (Langlois, Rutland-Brown, & Wald, 2006). Concussion occurs at all levels of sport and is prevalent in both contact (e.g., football) and non-contact (e.g., volleyball) sports. In a sample of 223 high school athletes, 63% reported a history of a previous concussion (Moser, Schatz, & Jordan, 2005). With athletes beginning their sports careers at an early age and participating in multiple sports year round, youth sports participation has risen dramatically. Increased exposure to sporting events places athletes at a greater risk of sustaining a concussion. Between 1997 and 2007, the number of children seen in emergency rooms (ERs) for sports-related concussion doubled indicating youth athletes are reporting more concussions (Bakhos, Lockhard, Myers, & Linakis, 2010). Definition and Description A concussion is any alteration in mental status as a result of head injury. It is defined as, “a transitory, complex pathophysiological process affecting the brain, induced by biomechanical forces” (McCrory et al., 2009, p. 76). To sustain a concussion, an athlete does not need to take a direct hit to the head. Many concussions result from accelerationdeceleration forces (i.e., whiplash) or rotational forces that result in the shaking of the brain within the skull. This “shaking” sets off a cascade of events that leaves the brain in a state of neurometabolic crisis. The trauma induces extreme ionic shifts, impaired neurotransmission, decreased cerebral blood flow (CBF), and a disequilibrium between energy metabolism and production. This cascade of events can take from minutes to days to occur and therefore, some athletes may not experience concussion symptoms until days after the injury (Giza & Hovda, 2001). During this neurometabolic crisis, the brain is much more vulnerable to catastrophic injury, such as Second Impact Syndrome (SIS), should a second hit occur. SIS can cause immediate neurologic damage or death in youth. This is why it is important for team personnel to pay close attention to hits to the head and immediately remove any players suspected of having a concussion. The motto commonly used is, “When in doubt, sit them out.” Common symptoms associated with concussion include memory problems (i.e., amnesia), difficulty concentrating, feeling mentally “foggy,” balance problems, headache, 41
What’s New increased emotionality, and visual or sleep disturbances. Not all athletes experience all of these symptoms. Concussion is a highly individualized injury and the only symptom necessary for diagnosis is an altered mental state. Contrary to popular belief, loss of consciousness (LOC) is not required for concussion diagnosis and does not necessarily indicate severity of concussion. Amnesia immediately before (retrograde) or after (anterograde) the injury may be a better predictor of concussion severity (Cantu, 2001). Assessment of Concussion Prior to the advent of neurocognitive testing, team and medical personnel relied heavily on athletes’ self-report of symptoms for concussion diagnosis and management. This practice has been widely criticized in the literature due to athletes’ tendency to underreport symptoms (Sandel, Lovell, Kegel, Collins, & Kontos, In Press). Current best practices for return-to-play decisions, as outlined by the 3rd International Conference on Concussion in Sport (McCrory et al., 2009), now include objective neurocognitive testing because of the value it adds in distinguishing concussed from non-concussed athletes (Fazio, Lovell, Pardini, & Collins, 2007; Van Kampen, Lovell, Pardini, Collins, & Fu, 2006). Neurocognitive testing typically assesses memory, mental flexibility, processing speed, attention, and concentration. Many athletes undergo baseline neurocognitive testing prior to the start of their athletic season to serve as a tool for comparison to post concussion testing should the athlete sustain a future concussion. A common test currently being used by most schools as well as amateur and professional teams is the Immediate Postconcussion Assessment and Cognitive Testing (ImPACT) test (Schatz, Pardini, Lovell, Collins, & Podell, 2005; Schatz & Zillmer, 2003). ImPACT is a brief, computerized, online test that can be administered individually or in group settings. Concussion Management Some athletes experience persistent concussion symptoms for weeks or months post-injury. This prolonged recovery from concussion is known as Post-Concussion Syndrome (PCS) and is characterized by mental slowness, fatigue, headache, memory problems, and irritability. Poorly managed PCS can lead to myriad difficulties for the athlete including a general decline in academic performance, constant mental fatigue, and behavioral changes (e.g., low frustration tolerance, excessive anxiety, and persistent sadness). These changes may cause the athlete to experience weakened self-confidence and mood shifts that could potentially lead to further psychopathology. Athletes with a history of multiple concussions may additionally experience lasting changes in cognitive status. High school athletes with a history of multiple concussions were found to have long-term difficulties in attention and concentration and reported a greater number of physical, cognitive, and emotional symptoms at baseline when compared to athletes who had sustained one or no previous 42
concussions (Moser & Schatz, 2002; Schatz, Moser, Covassin, & Karpf, 2011). To prevent further complication after injury, it is recommended that team personnel and practitioners address a concussion immediately. Early psychoeducation and intervention has shown to be helpful in reducing the severity of symptoms (Iverson, 2005). Immediately following a concussion, athletes should experience complete mental and physical rest to allow the brain to restore itself to homeostasis (Moser et al., 2007). This rest period seems to be one of the most beneficial factors in reducing symptoms and the length of time required for recovery (Moser, Glatts, & Schatz, Manuscript in Review). Complete rest is especially important for youth athletes, who may have a greater vulnerability to concussion and a longer recovery period than adults (Field, Collins, Lovell, & Maroon, 2003; Pellman, Lovell, Viano, & Casson, 2006). During rest, athletes may need to stay home from school, abstain from homework, reading, texting, computers, or visually intense stimuli, sleep more than usual, and refrain from any physical activity (McCrory et al., 2009). The amount of rest needed depends on the severity of the injury and the athletes’ symptoms. To return to play, an athlete must feel fully recovered (i.e., report no symptoms) and neurocognitive testing must be stabilized or returned to baseline. Athletes should also undergo exertional testing and a graduated exercise plan with an athletic trainer to ensure symptoms do not resume when the athlete participates in physical activity (McCrory et al., 2009). Implications for the Psychologist As already noted above, youth with a history of multiple concussions can suffer from a variety of cognitive, physical, and emotional symptoms that are related to brain changes. The recent research of McKee et al. (2009) at Boston University’s Center for Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE) has revealed that even 18-year-old football players may experience brain cell death or dementia similar to that of boxers. Such was the case of Owen Thomas, a freshman at the University of Pennsylvania, who uncharacteristically and unexpectedly committed suicide, and had never been formally diagnosed with a concussion (ESPN.com, 2010). Some students present with an abrupt onset of attention or academic difficulties that can be mistakenly identified as an undiagnosed learning or attentional disorder when in fact the student may be experiencing a post concussive syndrome as the result of a hard hit in soccer the previous school term. Then, there are students who have experienced too many concussions and are no longer permitted to return to their contact sport. For them, this means giving up their close friends, their peer group, and the sport they love. It means missing the championship game or the chance for a collegiate scholarship. It is not uncommon for these students to experience depression, acting out and oppositional behavior, noncompliance with medical advice, and possible suicidal ideation and attempt. In all of these situations, psychological interventions are necessary and an informed, educated psychologist is key to successful outcomes. New Jersey Psychologist
What’s New Psychologists may also adopt other roles in concussion management, such as implementation and oversight of baseline and post-concussion testing programs. At this time, most of these programs are managed by the athletic trainers and schools nurses in the educational system. However, these tests are neurocognitive in nature and should ideally be supervised by a professional with formal experience in neuropsychological testing. As such, school psychologists would do well to become involved in these programs to aid in proper test administration and interpretation. Issues such as test profile invalidity and complicating factors of ADHD and learning disorders affecting baseline test scores can be addressed by psychological knowledge of cognitive processes. In addition, psychologists have much to offer in transitioning the student back to school and cognitive activity. Concussion is a brain injury, but it typically resolves. During the recovery period, students need advocacy and academic accommodations that are customized to the severity and symptoms of their concussion. Some students may need a week off from school, then ease into half days, then to full days. Since rest includes time off from tests and homework, and possibly an extended medical leave, alternate educational plans will need to be formulated so that the students can demonstrate competency without having to make up all the assignments. Knowledge and expertise in the use of 504 plans for youth concussion is essential. resources Websites such as those sponsored by the Brain Injury Alliance (Formerly Association) of New Jersey <www.sportsconcussion. com> and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC; <http://www.cdc.gov/concussion/HeadsUp/youth.html>) provide comprehensive information about youth sports concussion as well as educational opportunities. A great website for both parents and professionals is <www.MomsTeam.com> sponsored by a nonprofit organization and dedicated to youth sports. The site provides numerous up-to-date articles on all aspects of the youth sports concussion issue from basic knowledge to academic accommodations, testing issues, and the latest research findings. In addition, the authors of this article provide a website with sports concussion resources <www.sportsconcussionNJ.com>. Sports concussion is a major mental health issue among adolescents, and psychologists play an important role in helping youth overcome this injury. The adoption of new concussion policies in state legislation and the high prevalence of the injury among youth athletes have increased the pressure on psychologists to be educated on how to properly identify and manage concussion. Improper treatment of concussion can lead to long-term cognitive impairments, academic difficulties, and emotional and behavioral changes. As such, it is the responsibility of psychologists to use their expertise in mental health to keep youth athletes safe by staying upto-date with current research and policies surrounding sports concussion. ❖ Summer 2012
Bakhos, L.L., Lockhart, G.R., Myers, R., & Linakis J.G. (2010). Emergency department visits for concussion in young child athletes. Pediatrics, 126(3), e550-e556. doi: peds.2009-3101 [pii]10.1542/peds.2009-3101. Cantu, R. C. (2001). Posttraumatic retrograde and anterograde amnesia: pathophysiology and implications in grading and safe return to play. Journal of Athletic Training, 36(3): 244-248. ESPN.com News Service (September 14, 2010). Penn’s Owen Thomas had CTE. http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5569329. Fazio, V. C., Lovell, M.R., Pardini, J. E., & Collins, M.W. (2007). The relation between post concussion symptoms and neuro-cognitive performance in concussed athletes. Journal of Neuro-Rehabilitation, 22(3), 207-216. Field, M., Collins, M.W., Lovell, M.R., & Maroon, J. (2003). Does age play a role in recovery from sports-related concussion? A comparison of high school and collegiate athletes. Journal of Pediatrics, 142(5), 546-553. Giza, C. C. & Hovda, D. A. (2001). The neurometabolic cascade of concussion. Journal of Athletic Training, 36(3): 228–235. Iverson, G.L. (2005). Outcome from mild traumatic brain injury. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 18(3), 301-317. Langlois, J. A., Rutland-Brown, W., & Wald, M. M. (2006). The epidemiology and impact of traumatic brain injury: a brief over-view. The Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 21(5), 375-378. McCrory, P., Meeuwisse, W., Johnston, K., Dvorak, J., Aubry, M., Molloy, M., & Cantu, R. (2009). Consensus statement on concussion in sport: the 3rd international conference on concussion in sport held in Zurich, Nov. 2008. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 43, 76-84. Mckee, A.C., Cantu, R.C., Nowinski, C.J., Hedley-Whyte, E.T., Gavett, B.E., Budson, A.E., Santini, V.E., Lee, H., Kubilus, C.A., & Stern, R.A. (2009). Chronic traumatic encephalopathy in athletes: progressive taupathy following repetitive head injury. Journal of Neuropathology & Experimental Neurology, 68(7), 709-735. Moser, R.S., Glatts, C. & Schatz, P. (In Press). Efficacy of immediate and delayed cognitive and physical rest for treatment of sports-related concussion. Moser, R.S. & Schatz, P. (2002). Enduring effects of concussion in youth athletes. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 17(1), 91-100. Moser, R.S., Schatz, P., & Jordan, B.D. (2005). Prolonged effects of concussion in high school athletes. Neurosurgery, 57(2), 300-306. Moser, R.S., Iverson, G., Echemendia, R., Lovell, M., Schatz, P., Webbe, F., Ruff, R., Barth, J., et al. (2007). NAN Position Paper: Neuropsychological evaluation in the diagnosis and management of sports-related concussion. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 22, 909-916. Pellman, E.J., Lovell, M.R., Viano, D.C., & Casson, I.R. (2006). Concussion in professional football: recovery of NFL and high school athletes assessed by computerized neuropsychological testing–part 12. Neurosurgery, 58(2), 263-274. Sandel, N.K., Lovell, M.R., Kegel, N.E., Collins, M.W., & Kontos, A.P. (In Press). The relationship of symptoms and neurocognitive performance to perceptions of recovery from concussion among adolescent athletes, Applied Neuropsychology. Schatz, P. & Moser, R.S. (2011). Current issues in pediatric sports concussion. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 25(6), 1042-1057. Schatz, P., Moser, R.S., Covassin, T., & Karpf, R. (2011). Early indicators of enduring symptoms in high school athletes with multiple previous concussions. Neurosurgery, 68(6), 1562-1567. Schatz, P., Pardini, J.E., Lovell, M.R., Collins, M.W., & Podell, K. (2005). Sensitivity and specificity of the ImPACT test battery for concussion in athletes. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 21(1), 91-99. Schatz, P. & Zillmer, E.A. (2003). Computer-based assessment of sportsrelated concussion. Applied Neuropsychology, 10(1), 42-47. Van Kampen, D.A., Lovell, M.R., Pardini, J.E., Collins, M.W., & Fu, F.H. (2006). The “value added” of neurocognitive testing after sports-related concussion. The American Journal of Sports Medicine, 34(10), 1630-1635.
NJPA Member Awards
NJPA Member Awards We know that there are many members out there who add value to NJPA every day. Some do so in very public ways and are well known to many, while other members, equally as valuable to us, contribute in other ways that are not so public or well-known by membership. Members provide a great deal of service to our organization in, sometimes, very thankless ways…so we want to make sure to thank them! The NJPA Member Recognition Award recognizes current members who have demonstrated an outstanding commitment to service in NJPA, in one or more areas, and who have served in ways that have made a significant positive impact on the association or its membership. Only members who have not previously received the Psychologist of the Year, or Lifetime Achievement Award, are eligible for nomination. Ordinarily 3-5 Member Recognition Awards are presented each year. Submissions due on or about March 15. Awards presented at the NJPA Spring Conference. PROCEDURES: Any member of NJPA can nominate a fellow member for this award by submitting a detailed statement (150 - 300 words) demonstrating how the nominee meets the outlined criteria and why he/she deserves this honor. Supporting documentation may be enclosed. The NJPA Membership Committee shall review all nominees and make the final determination of awardees based on how well each meets the criteria and spirit of the award.
The NJPA Psychologist of the Year Award recognizes members who have made recent distinguished contributions to NJPA in the form of outstanding service or leadership, and/or who have advanced the profession of psychology in New Jersey through demonstrated excellence in their field. Submissions due on or about June 1. Award presented at the NJPA Fall Conference. PROCEDURES: Any member of NJPA can nominate a fellow member for this award by submitting a detailed statement (350-500 words) demonstrating how the nominee meets the outlined criteria and why he/she deserves this honor. Supporting documentation may be enclosed. Nominations will be reviewed by the NJPA Nominations and Leadership Development Committee (N&LD) and a recommended slate of candidates will be presented to the NJPA Executive Board based on how well each meets the criteria and spirit of the award. Not all nominees will necessarily be included in the slate. The Executive Board makes the final determination of which candidates will be presented to NJPA membership for a vote. All NJPA members are eligible to vote for Psychologist of the Year; the awardee will be determined by which candidate receives the highest number of votes from members.
NEW! The NJPA Lifetime Achievement Award, the association’s highest honor, recognizes exceptional leadership in the form of enduring and exemplary contributions to NJPA, over a sustained period of time, which collectively, has significantly enhanced the association’s ability to positively impact the lives and careers of its membership, as well as advancing the field of psychology in New Jersey, and beyond. Submissions date and award presentation are still being determined. PROCEDURES: Any member of NJPA can nominate a fellow member for this award by submitting a detailed statement (500 words) demonstrating how the nominee meets the outlined criteria and why he/she deserves this honor. Supporting documentation may be enclosed. Nominations will be reviewed by the NJPA Nominations and Leadership Development Committee (N&LD) and a recommended slate of candidates will be presented to the NJPA Executive Board based on how well each meets the criteria and spirit of the award. Not all nominees will necessarily be included in the recommended slate. The Executive Board shall determine the final slate of candidates to be considered and shall vote by secret ballot. Only voting members of the NJPA Executive Board are eligible to vote for Lifetime Achievement Award; the awardee will be determined by which candidate has the highest number of votes by board members.
New Jersey Psychologist
Congratulations! Awards were presented to the following members by NJPA President, Mathias Hagovsky, PhD at the NJPA Spring Conference.
New Jersey Psychologist
NJPA acknowledges 2012 Sustaining Members
By advancing your level of membership to Sustaining Membership status, you have generously demonstrated your additional support of your professional association.
Rika Alper, PhD Amy Altenhaus, PhD Jeffrey Axelbank, PsyD John Aylward, EdD Thomas Barrett, PhD Lara Baskin, PhD Lauren Becker, PhD Leslie Becker-Phelps, PhD Margaret Beekman, PhD Roderick Bennett, PhD Janet Berson, PhD Mary Blakeslee, PhD Philip Bobrove, PhD Richard Brewster, PsyD Daniel Bromberg, PhD Charles Buchbauer, PhD Susan Buckley, PsyD Diane Cabush, PsyD Sidney Cohen, PhD Louise Conley, PhD John Corbisiero, PhD Joseph Coyne, PhD Stephanie Coyne, PhD Kathleen Cullina-Bessey, PsyD Richard Dauber, PhD Deborah Dawson, PsyD John Diepold, Jr, PhD Charles Dodgen, PhD Rosalind Dorlen, PsyD Michael Dribbon, PhD Lynn Egan, PsyD Donna English, PhD Susan Esquilin, PhD Anne Evers, PhD Sean Evers, PhD Brian Farran, PhD Janie Feldman, PsyD Ellen Fenster-Kuehl, PhD Resa Fogel, PhD Pamela Foley, PhD Kenneth Freundlich, PhD Thomas Frio, PhD Joseph Ganz, PhD Stephen Garbarini, PsyD David Gelber, PhD Marc Geller, PsyD
Dawn Gemeinhardt, PhD Lisabeth Gertner, PhD Leslie Gilbert, PhD Debra Gill, PhD Larry Gingold, PsyD Elizabeth Goldberg, PhD Gary Goldberg, PhD Lori Goldblatt, PsyD Wayne Goldman, PhD Lois Goorwitz, PhD Jay Gordon, PhD Ora Gourarie, PsyD Luise Gray, PsyD Lisa Greenberg, PhD Susan Grossbard, PsyD Lori Rayner Grossi, EdD Mathias Hagovsky, PhD Lawrence Hall, PhD Osna Haller, EdD Raymond Hanbury, PhD Jennifer Hanych, PhD Kelly Hargadon, PhD Steven Hartman, PhD Douglas Haymaker, PhD Gladys Hirschorn, PhD Jane Hochberg, PsyD Christine Hudson, PhD Glendessa Insabella, PhD Lisa Jacobs, PhD Thomas Johnson, EdD Nancy Just, PhD Jeffrey Kahn, PhD Robert Karlin, PhD Barry Katz, PhD Charles Katz, PhD Roberta Katz, PhD Toby Kaufman, PhD Thomas Kavanagh, PsyD Kristine Keane, PsyD Richard Kessler, PhD Joel Kleinman, PhD Deirdre Kramer, PhD David Krauss, PhD Stephen Kuwent, PsyD Phyllis Lakin, PhD
Robin Lang, PsyD Roman Lemega, PhD William Linden, PhD Neal Litinger, PhD Rebecca Loomis, PhD Mark Lowenthal, PsyD Marilyn Lyga, PhD Jonathan Mack, PsyD Stanley Mandel, EdD Phyllis Marganoff, EdD Bonnie Markham, PhD, PsyD Neil Massoth, PhD Frank McElroy, PhD John McInerney, PhD Kenneth McNiel, PhD David Mednick, PsyD Marshall Mintz, PsyD Barry Mitchell, PsyD Norine Mohle, PhD Lynn Mollick, PhD Ruth Mollod, PhD Sharon Ryan Montgomery, PsyD Leila Moore, EdD Sandra Morrow, PhD Daniel Moss, PhD Susan Neigher, PhD Cheryl Notari, PhD Denise Novaky, PhD Rose Oosting, PhD James Owen, PsyD David Panzer, PsyD Francesca Peckman, PsyD Carmen Pelaez, PsyD Mark Pesner, PhD Ann Rasmussen, PsyD John Rathauser, PhD Gina Rayfield, PhD AnnaMarie Resnikoff, PhD Mary Roberts, PhD Debra Roelke, PhD Robert Rosenbaum, EdD Barbara Rosenberg, PhD Lori Rosenberg, PsyD Gina Rudolph, PsyD Anne Rybowski, PhD
Carole Salvador, PsyD George Sanders, PhD Lynn Schiller, PhD Nancie Senet, PhD Eileen Senior, PsyD Arline Shaffer, PhD Brian Shannon, PhD Edmund Shimberg, PhD William Shinefield, PsyD Ronald Silikovitz, PhD Jeffrey Singer, PhD Jeffrey Spector, PsyD Milton Spett, PhD Ann Stainton, PhD Barbara Starr, EdD Jakob Steinberg, PhD Lois Steinberg, PhD Deana Stevens, PsyD Jeffrey Stone, PhD Ben Susswein, PhD Anthony Tasso, PhD H. Augustus Taylor, PhD Tamsen Thorpe, PhD Barbara Tocco, EdD Janine Tremblay, PhD Carol Turner, EdD Elizabeth Vergoz, PhD Claire Vernaleken, PhD Kathleen Waldron, PhD Jonathan Wall, PsyD Beth Watchman, PhD Virginia Waters, PhD Daniel Watter, EdD Mark Weiner, PsyD Ida Welsh, PhD Aaron Welt, PhD Skye Wilson, PhD Gail Winbury-Klizas, PsyD Philip Witt, PhD James Wulach, PhD, JD Michael Zampardi, PhD Stanley Zebrowski, PhD Michael Zito, PhD Jeannine Zoppi, PhD Harold Zullow, PhD
Show your support and join your colleagues by becoming a Sustaining Member! Receive free enrollment in the Referral Service, a free Membership Directory and Handbook, CE discounts, and special public recognition.
New Jersey Psychologist
The Illusion of Validity: A Review of Daniel Kahneman’s Thinking, Fast and Slow by Ben J. Susswein, PhD Author: Daniel Kahneman Publisher: Farrar, Straus and Giroux Softcover available after February 5, 2013
ast year, Daniel Kahneman was the most famous psychologist you never heard of. Although he was awarded the Nobel Prize in 2002, the first and only psychologist to have received this distinction, it was for his achievement in Economic Science, and his name was hardly a household word. With the publication of Thinking, Fast and Slow, however, all that has changed. Kahneman, the Eugene Higgins Professor of Psychology Emeritus at Princeton University, has written a best-seller that was selected as one of the ten best non-fiction books of the year by the New York Times, and he was profiled as a “brilliant but quirky professor” in Vanity Fair. Kahneman, in collaborations with Amos Tversky, who died before the Nobel Prize was awarded, has been a seminal contributor to the field of behavioral economics and decisionmaking. This branch of cognitive neuroscience has inspired a deluge of popular books (many, interestingly, with one-word titles: Blink, Nudge, Kludge, Sway). Some of those volumes celebrate the extraordinary efficiency of the almost perfect human central nervous system and the intelligence of the unconscious to make fast and frugal decisions, while others offer cautionary accounts of the human propensity for systematic error and self-delusion, believing we are right even when we’re not, strangers to ourselves, fooled by randomness, and predictably irrational, to continue this medley of book titles. Kahneman is a patriarch of the latter school of thought. Thinking, Fast and Slow is both an intellectual autobiography and a broad survey of research conducted or inspired by Kahneman and Tversky’s demonstrations of how the salience of certain information can highjack cognition. Perceptual conditions create the visual illusions that the Gestalt psychologists used to demonstrate the principles of perceptual organization, and young children assert that when water is poured from a wide short beaker into a tall and narrow one, there is “more” water. Similarly, the judgments of ostensibly intelligent adults can be skewed by presenting problems in a manner that invites producing a readily available and plausible but incorrect answer. Much cognitive activity has the immediacy of perception, rather than the more deliberate quality we often associate with conscious reasoning. Every review of Thinking, Fast and Slow has cited this example, so stop me if you’ve already heard it: Kahneman and Tversky presented this description of Linda, “thirty-one years Summer 2012
old, single, outspoken, and very bright. She majored in philosophy. As a student, she was deeply concerned with issues of discrimination and social justice, and also participated in antinuclear demonstrations.” Subjects were asked to rank a number of statements about Linda in order of their probability, including “Linda is a bank teller” and “Linda is a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement.” Which would you say is the more probable statement about Linda? Although feminist bank tellers are a subset of bank tellers, and therefore the first statement is more logically probable, the second is more intuitively plausible, and fulfills our disposition to make judgments on the basis of the sense of representativeness rather than rigor. Eighty-five percent of graduate student subjects chose the first statement as more probable. Stephen J. Gould was reported by Kahneman to have had a great deal of difficulty with the Linda question, but then he, like some of you reading this review, never got the Nobel Prize. (Full disclosure: In an informal replication study, I have taken the Linda test myself one hundred times in the past few months, and have gotten it wrong eighty five times, so I’m inclined to argue that Kahneman’s findings describe a very robust effect.) “The illusion of validity” is the subtext of all the research reported in Thinking, Fast and Slow. Kahneman attributes pervasive lapses of rationality to the operation of two complementary cognitive systems, one fast, effortless, and automatic, the other slow, effortful, and deliberate. Kahneman’s “dual process” cognitive model represents one iteration of what appears to be an emerging paradigm in cognitive neuroscience. The historical dichotomies of reason and passion, conscious and unconscious functioning, and, more recently “right” and “left” brain cognition, are being replaced by formulations that contrast “automatic” and “controlled” processing. Converging and corroborating evidence in support of a dual process model comes from clinical neuropsychology, in which increasing emphasis is being placed on the role of “executive functioning” (not explicitly addressed in Kahneman’s book, but consistent with his formulation). Effortful and deliberate thinking should, but does not always, override the easy and habitual responses when the situation requires a more reflective approach. (Consult the outstanding books by Keith Stanovich if you are interested in “dual process” models of cognition, or just speak to me after class). 49
The “automatic” cognitive system maximizes efficiency through the activation of routines that require little attention or effort (think about all the things you can think about while you are driving to work without having to think about where you are going), but can result in effortless but inappropriate actions (think about the times you got in your car to go somewhere else and found yourself driving to work). The automatic cognitive system is the 21st century unconscious, not the bizarre and repressed, but the all-too-familiar. Kahneman explicitly attributes lapses of rationality not to lust, but “laziness,” the substitution of easy questions for more difficult ones, and of the habitual for the unfamiliar. Cognitive error, from Kahneman’s perspective, isn’t so much a fault as a default.
Kahneman’s work represents a compelling argument for intellectual humility. Subjective confidence in our judgments is not an indication of their validity. We must ask the right questions that are often the difficult ones, and resist the substitution of easy, readily-answerable questions. We must be cognizant of the “fractionation” of expertise, recognizing that our ability to make accurate judgments in some areas does not imply the validity of our judgments in “wicked” environments of lower predictability. Wisdom is based in the awareness of how much we don’t know and cannot understand. ❖
JAMES S. WULACH, PhD, JD 28 MILLBURN AVENUE, SUITE 6 SPRINGFIELD, NEW JERSEY 07081 (973) 763-4588 Telephone Consultation Available ATTORNEY AT LAW Legal & Ethical Issues, State Board Matters LICENSED PSYCHOLOGIST #1299 Therapy, Supervision, Testing, Forensic, Custody Author: Law & Mental Health Profs: NJ Former President, NJ Psychological Assn. Certificate, NYU Postdoctoral Program
Share your ideas with us! Do you have an interest in a particular area in the field of psychology and are keeping up with the latest literature and research that you would like to share with your colleagues? We would like to speak to you! Consider sharing your knowledge in a submission for a future “What’s New” article. Exchange your ideas with Herman Huber at firstname.lastname@example.org.
New Jersey Psychologist
ADVENTURES ON THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER: ETHICS AND RISK MANAGEMENT IN THE DIGITAL ERA SIX CONTINUING EDUCATION CREDITS PLUS 15% DISCOUNT FOR APAIT INSUREDS FOR THE NEXT TWO POLICY YEARS! Date and Time: Saturday, September 29, 2012 8:00 AM – 9:00 AM Registration 9:00 AM – 4:30 PM Program
Location: Woodbridge Hilton Hotel Exit 131A on Garden State Parkway Iselin, NJ 08830
With expansion of the digital age, even psychologists who have no interest in providing some or all their services remotely are being confronted by issues having to do with new Internet and computer-backed technologies. Facebook, Google, cyber reviews and attacks, email, texting, Twitter, Skype, real time audio and visual technology, encryption, and computer security are impacting almost all psychologists. Many questions regarding the Internet and digital communication have arisen for psychologists and include: Can I have a Facebook page? What can I put on it? How do I secure my electronic communications? How much of my private, non-professional life and activities is appropriate to reveal to the public? How do I control access to my private and personal information? This workshop will provide those who attend with an overview of the beginnings of the evolution of regulatory policy for both psychologists interested in using telepsychology and those who are less prone to embrace this new technology. Finally, and most importantly, this cutting edge workshop will provide practitioners with a method of identifying risks and with a process for developing a risk management strategy based on the approach presented in past workshops and in the Trust publication “Assessing and Managing Risk in Psychological Practice: An Individualized Approach.” OBJECTIVES • Apply basic ethical principles to evaluate risks, benefits, and appropriateness of using various electronic communication and social networking mediums in their professional practice in a variety of situations. • Identify ethical, legal, and disciplinary trends concerning electronic communication that will allow them to anticipate, plan, and adjust their practices accordingly. • Evaluate when and how to provide remote professional services, therapeutic, and otherwise to clients in a way that minimizes disciplinary risk. • Understand, apply, and integrate the laws and legal principles governing remote practice within and between states. • Identify various kinds of professional credentials that will enable them to increase their professional mobility. • Develop amendments to their informed consent and documentation and professional consultation policies to accommodate remote practice and electronic communication. • Identify important issues regarding privacy and confidentiality created by electronic communication mediums and technologies that present risks to clients so they can clearly discuss these risks with clients who wish to utilize these technologies. • Evaluate and improve their competency to utilize electronic technology and provide remote services to their clients. • Discuss and apply specific, positive, ethically based, strategies to manage the disciplinary risks presented by remote electronic communication and professional service delivery based on documentation, consultation, informed consent, and demonstration of competency. Presenter: Jeffrey N. Younggren, PhD, ABPP, is a Fellow of the American Psychological Association and a Distinguished Member of the National Academy of Practice. He is a clinical and forensic psychologist who practices in California. He is also a Clinical Professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, School of Medicine. Dr. Younggren has served as a member and chair of the Ethics Committees of the California Psychological Association and the American Psychological Association. He consults to various licensing boards on ethics and standards of care, and he qualifies as an expert in criminal, civil, and administrative proceedings. This workshop is co-sponsored by the APAIT and NJPA. NJPA is approved by the American Psychological Association to offer continuing education for psychologists. NJPA maintains responsibility for this program and its content.
Adventures on the Electronic Frontier: Ethics & Risk Management in the Digital Age Saturday, September 29, 2012 Name: Billing Address: Phone (
Fee includes light breakfast & lunch: NJPA /PPA/NYSPA Member: $205 Non-Member: $295
Email NJPA Sustaining Member: $177.75 Student Non-Member: $160
_________________ NJPA Student Member: $120
Method of Payment: Check VISA MasterCard Discover Total ___________ Credit Card #
Expiration (Last 3 numbers on back of card)
Mail or Fax: NJPA, 414 Eagle Rock Ave, Suite 211, West Orange, NJ 07052; Fax: 973-243-9818 ● Email: NJPA@PsychologyNJ.org
Classified Ads The NJ Psychologist accepts advertising of interest to the profession. The minimum rate for Classified Ads is $69 for up to 50 words each, $5 for each additional ten words. For display ad information, visit our website at <www.PsychologyNJ.org> Acceptance of advertising does not imply endorsement by NJPA. Email inquiries to NJPAcg@PsychologyNJ.org ATTN: Christine Gurriere, or call 973-243-9800. The NJ Psychologist is mailed on or about the 10th of February, May, August and November. The journal is mailed as part of a bulk mailing, therefore delivery times may vary with local post offices.
GreAT CONFereNCe IN PHIllY THIS NOVeMBer! The International Society for Ethical Psychology and Psychiatry is holding its 2012 conference in Philadelphia on November 2-3. See our full page ad on page 13 for more information. ❖
Office/residence. Google: 26 N. Main St., Pennington, NJ. Near Princeton, I-95. Quaint 1855 Victorian in walkable downtown location, parking ample. Clients enjoy the small town and the warm, homey setting. Totally remodeled, updated, new baths, new kitchen appliances and granite countertops, in excellent condition. 609-737-0104 ❖
SPACe AVAIlABle BerGeN COUNTY Office in Glen Rock near Ridgewood – P/T or F/T therapy office. Beautiful downtown location near buses and trains. Off-street parking; Elevator. Call Jim at 201-670-0222. ❖ eAST BrUNSWICK Attractive, professional office building in desirable Williamsburg Commons. Share waiting room with psychologists. Suites available full or part time. ❖ eNGleWOOD, NJ Lovely, sunny, soundproofed office for the practice of psychotherapy/psychoanalysis. Available part-time with the potential for fulltime. Located in a quiet, private garden setting. AC, heat, utilities included. First floor, security intercom system. Available July 1. 201567-5535. ❖ FrANKlIN TOWNSHIP, SOMerSeT Part-time office available in therapist suite. Great location. Furnished with utilities included. Contact Owen Isaacs @ 732-247-2468. ❖ SOMerSeT Beautifully furnished, brand new offices in suite with common waiting room, available P/T in newly renovated medical arts building with ample parking, sharing space with multi-disciplinary mental health professionals. Potential for referrals. Convenient to Rt. 287 and major roads. Contact Rich @ 908-239-5459. ❖ SUMMIT Private professional office with shared waiting room, perfect for mental health practice, in a converted house with other mental health practitioners. Ground floor, on-site parking; short walk from train & business district; quiet residential area in prestigious Summit. Part time, Monday and Friday. Available in September. Please reply to email@example.com or 908-277-4206. ❖
IN MEMORIAM Irene Parisi, PhD NJPA Member, 28 years Cornelia Wilber, PhD NJPA Member, 40 years 52
eMPlOYMeNT OPPOrTUNITIeS lICeNSeD PSYCHOlOGIST/lICeNSeD ClINICAl SOCIAl WOrKer Scotch Plains – Part-time position is available in a growing private practice setting. Clients, space, materials, and billing provided. Enjoy a flexible schedule and competitive pay. Permit holders considered. For immediate consideration, forward resume to firstname.lastname@example.org or (908) 322-2517 (fax). ❖ lICeNSeD PSYCHOlOGIST/lICeNSeD SOCIAl WOrKer Princeton HealthCare System is currently searching for two Managers of Women’s Programs. Both Managers will begin at our Hamilton location, and one will relocate to the Moorestown facility. If you are an LCSW or licensed clinical psychologist with experience with Women’s issues, trauma/addiction, check out our Careers page at <www.princetonhcs.org>. ❖ lICeNSeD PSYCHOlOGIST - eAST BrUNSWICK At the Rhoades Psychological Group we are seeking Licensed Psychologists who would like to develop a rewarding and fulfilling full or part-time practice, with the flexibility to create your own schedule. Clients, space and billing provided, panel certification preferred but not required. At RPG our staff can also expedite the certification process with any panel you wish to be affiliated with. For more information call 908-420-6923. ❖ PSYCHOlOGIST Needed for busy practice in Ridgewood. Training in Neuropsych testing required. Both licensed clinicians and permit holders accepted. Fax CV to APS at 201-447-4377. ❖ NeUrOPSYCHOlOGY/ClINICAl PSYCHOlOGY MONMOUTH COUNTY Full/Part Time. Licensed or License Eligible Clinical Psychologists or Therapists. Neuropsychological Assessment, Biofeedback, Sports Psychology and Concussion. Flexible hours within a group private practice setting. Please email CV to NJNP12@comcast.net. ❖ IMMeDIATe OPPOrTUNITY Want to expand your practice but not have to do all the work that goes with it? Gerson, Hagovsky, Antonelli, & Altman LLC has an immediate opening for an experienced, licensed clinician to join their practice. This is a turn-key opportunity for a hard working professional to build his/her practice in a large, child and family practice setting in Livingston. Insurance panel participation preferred. Call GHAA or Matt Hagovsky at 973-994-3145. ❖ New Jersey Psychologist
Protecting You and Your Practice is Ours Whether you’re providing psychological services independently or with a group, you can be confident that Trust Sponsored Professional Liability Insurance* will be there when you need it most. The Trust Program is closely monitored by psychologists with insurance expertise and independent insurance experts to ensure that coverage is customized for the profession and keeps pace with evolving areas of practice… and risk. Program benefits include free Advocate 800 consultations, ethics and risk management continuing education seminars, premium discounts, and more.
Apply Today! Get answers, check rates, and apply for coverage at www.apait.org, or call us at 1-877-637-9700.
* Underwritten by ACE American Insurance Company, Philadelphia, PA. ACE USA is the U.S.-based retail operating division of the ACE Group headed by ACE Limited (NYSE:ACE) and rated A+ (Superior) by A.M. Best and AA- (Very Strong) by Standard & Poor’s (ratings as of July 22, 2011). Administered by Trust Risk Management Services, Inc. Policy issuance is subject to underwriting.
Psychology is your Business 7.5 x 10.indd 1
6/6/12 8:58 AM
Behavior Therapy Associates (BTA) is proud to announce that Suzanne Buchanan, Psy.D., BCBA-D and Rita Gordon, M.Ed., BCBA have joined our practice as we expand our services for those affected by an Autism Spectrum Disorder
Suzanne M. Buchanan, Psy.D., BCBA-D is a licensed psychologist (NJ#4265) and a Board Certified Behavior Analyst at the Doctoral level. She spent the last 11 years as the Clinical Director for Autism New Jersey and has extensive knowledge and experience in the areas of assessment, treatment, training, family support, and public policy. Rita F. Gordon, M.Ed., BCBA holds a Masters degree in Special Education and is a Board Certified Behavior Analyst. She has served as the Director of Douglass Outreach at The Douglass Developmental Disabilities Center at Rutgers University for 20 years and was a classroom teacher for 10 years. She originated and developed the College Support Program at Rutgers University for students with High Functioning Autism and can assist higher education facilities with the development of programs for these students. Behavior Therapy Associates’ comprehensive services include, but are not limited to: • initial evaluations & re-evaluations • functional behavior assessments • educational treatment planning • development, supervision, and consultation to home and/or school programs • independent expert program evaluations • social skills interventions • supervision of ABA therapists and prospective BCBA or BCaBA • parent training & staff training • individual and family-based counseling, support, education (including for parents and siblings)
Behavior Therapy Associates, P.A.
Towne Park Professional Center ♦ 35 Clyde Road - Suite 101 ♦ Somerset, NJ 08873 Phone: 732-873-1212 ♦ Fax: 732-873-2584 ♦ E-mail: email@example.com ♦ www.behaviortherapyassociates.com BTA provides clinical services, consultation, and training using evidence-based approaches within the context of sensitivity and compassion, while recognizing the uniqueness of each individual and setting.