Neuropsychological assessment with lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning (LGBTQ+) individuals: Practice, education, and training survey.

Objective: We sought to describe the LGBTQ + related education, training, and clinical practice of independently licensed neuropsychologists in the United States and to identify factors that predict affirmative neuropsychological practices. We hypothesized that LGBTQ + identity, female gender, more recent training, and extent of LGBTQ + education/training would predict use of LGBTQ + practice guidelines. Method: A workgroup of clinical psychologists with experience in LGBTQ + psychology and neuropsychology developed a survey to identify personal and professional factors that predict affirmative neuropsychological testing practices. The survey was distributed through professional organizations and listservs between August and September 2021 with 118 responses meeting inclusionary criteria. Results: The majority of participants identified as heterosexual (70.3%) and cisgender (97.5%), and most (48-63%) received LGBTQ + training post-licensure. Between 19% and 32% of participants reported never completing LGBTQ + specific education. Consistent with our hypotheses, factors predicting affirmative clinical practice behaviors were LGBTQ + education/training, and personal background (sexual minority status, female/feminine gender, and years since degree). Other significant factors included prior experience with LGBTQ + patients and primary patient population (child vs. adult). Qualitative responses indicated varying values, attitudes, and knowledge regarding collection of LGBTQ + information and modification of clinical practice. Conclusions: Neuropsychologists underutilize affirming practices as evidenced by low rates of querying pronouns, knowing whether LGBTQ + health information is available at their institutions, and adjusting evaluation and feedback approaches. We provide specific training and education recommendations to increase knowledge and skills and to address beliefs about LGBTQ + health that can serve to promote affirmative neuropsychological practice.

Affirmative neuropsychological practice with transgender and gender diverse individuals and communities.

Objective: To provide guidance and resources on how to practice culturally safe and humble neuropsychology with transgender and gender diverse (TGD) individuals and communities. Methods: We gathered a multidisciplinary team of clinicians with relevant professional and/or lived experience to review pertinent literature, discuss important concepts, and identify key resources. From this process, we outline practical steps to advance gender affirmative neuropsychological practice. Results: Professional awareness and knowledge regarding how to gather context-relevant, gender identity information is critical. TGD individuals form a heterogenous group; a one-size-fits-all approach is not adequate. It is incumbent upon neuropsychologists to engage in clinical and research practices in a manner that does not perpetuate gender minority stress and trauma. Creating an open, safe environment of care requires intentionality and careful thinking to determine what information is relevant for a particular referral question. We provide recommendations and resources for neuropsychologists. Conclusion: When neuropsychologists are proactive, responsible, and intentional, they can better provide individualized, person-centered, and trauma-informed care to TGD individuals.

Apparent effect of type of compensation seeking (disability versus litigation) on performance validity test scores may be due to other factors.

Neuropsychologists use performance validity tests (PVTs; Larrabee, 2012 ) to ensure that results of testing are reflective of the test taker's true neurocognitive ability, and their use is recommended in all compensation-seeking settings. However, whether the type of compensation context (e.g., personal injury litigation versus disability seeking) impacts the nature and extent of neurocognitive symptom feigning has not been adequately investigated. PVT performance was compared in an archival data set of noncredible individuals in either a personal injury litigation (n = 163) or a disability-seeking context (n = 201). Individuals were deemed noncredible based on meeting Slick, Sherman, and Iverson's ( 1999 ) criteria including failure on at least two PVTs and a lack of congruency between their low cognitive scores and normal function in activities of daily living (ADLs). In general, disability seekers tended to perform in a less sophisticated manner than did litigants (i.e., they failed more indicators and did so more extensively). Upon further investigation, these differences were in part accounted for by type of diagnoses feigned; those seeking compensation for mental health diagnoses were more likely to feign or exaggerate a wide variety of cognitive deficits, whereas those with claimed medical diagnoses (i.e., traumatic brain injury) were more targeted in their attempts to feign and/or exaggerate neurocognitive compromise.