INS NYC 2024 Program

Poster	Poster Session 11 Program Schedule 02/17/2024 10:45 am - 12:00 pm Room: Shubert Complex (Posters 1-60) Poster Session 11: Cultural Neuropsychology \| Education/Training \| Professional Practice Issues Final Abstract #44 Speaking the Language: Evaluating Linguistic Barriers to Neuropsychological Services Cecily Herby, The Chicago School of Professional Psychology, Chicago, United States Kim Dell'Angela, The Chicago School of Professional Psychology, Chicago, United States Kerri Ronne, The Chicago School of Professional Psychology, Chicago, United States Category: Inclusion and Diversity/Multiculturalism Keyword 1: bilingualism/multilingualism Keyword 2: language: second/foreign Keyword 3: inclusion Objective: According to the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology (AACN), by 2050, 60% of the U.S. population will be “un-testable” with neuropsychology’s current testing resources, which are generally mono-lingual and mono-cultural. This suggests that adequate and appropriate neuropsychological services may be less accessible to non-primarily English-speaking and non-European-American patients. However, linguistic fluency, language dominance, and bilingualism have generally been excluded from standard neuropsychological training and discourse (Rivera Mindt et al., 2010). These limitations necessitate the inclusion of linguistic fluency in the discourse surrounding diversity within the field. Therefore, the current research study assessed neuropsychologists’ linguistic fluency, as well as approaches to testing patients whose preferred language is not English. Participants and Methods: The sample included 305 U.S. neuropsychologists. Data was collected via a self-report questionnaire created by the researcher for use in this study. The research assessed what languages are spoken by the respondents in their clinical practice, as well as what languages respondents can refer patients to fluent providers within their local community. The research also assessed how neuropsychologists approach evaluations with patients whose preferred language is not English. Results: The vast majority (99.3%) of the respondents reported that they speak English in their clinical practice. The second most common language that respondents feel comfortable using in their clinical practice is Spanish (9.3%), followed by ASL (2.1%). The majority (70.5%) of the respondents report that they can refer patients to Spanish-speaking providers in their local community. The next most common language, besides English, that respondents report that they can refer to fluent providers in their community was Chinese (Cantonese, Mandarin, other dialects); 25.8% of the respondents report that they are able to refer patients to providers who are fluent in Chinese. Respondents also reported how they approach neuropsychological assessments with non-primarily English-speaking patients. Among respondents, 15.2% reported that they or someone else in their practice serves as an interpreter when conducting neuropsychological assessments with non-primarily English-speaking; 49.6% reported that they utilize outside language assistance services; 7.8% reported that they ask the patient to bring a family member to serve as an interpreter; 17.2% reported that they do not accept patients whose preferred language is not English; and 61.9% reported that they refer out to another neuropsychologist who speaks the same language as the patient. Conclusions: The results of the current study indicate that there is a need for more bilingual neuropsychologists who are fluent in languages other than English. The research also suggests, that although the majority of neuropsychologists (70.5%) are able to refer patients to Spanish-speaking providers in their local community, many are unable to refer to providers who are fluent in languages besides English and Spanish. According to Rivera Mindt et al., (2010), non-standardized applications of neuropsychological instruments with non-primarily English-speaking patients are not empirically supported. However, respondents in the current study indicated that they have utilized non-standardized methods so that they did not have to turn patients away. This suggests a need for further training and guidance regarding standardized procedures for evaluating this population.

Poster

02/17/2024
10:45 am - 12:00 pm
Room: Shubert Complex (Posters 1-60)

Poster Session 11: Cultural Neuropsychology | Education/Training | Professional Practice Issues

Final Abstract #44

Speaking the Language: Evaluating Linguistic Barriers to Neuropsychological Services

Cecily Herby, The Chicago School of Professional Psychology, Chicago, United States
Kim Dell'Angela, The Chicago School of Professional Psychology, Chicago, United States
Kerri Ronne, The Chicago School of Professional Psychology, Chicago, United States

Category: Inclusion and Diversity/Multiculturalism

Keyword 1: bilingualism/multilingualism
Keyword 2: language: second/foreign
Keyword 3: inclusion

Objective:

According to the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology (AACN), by 2050, 60% of the U.S. population will be “un-testable” with neuropsychology’s current testing resources, which are generally mono-lingual and mono-cultural. This suggests that adequate and appropriate neuropsychological services may be less accessible to non-primarily English-speaking and non-European-American patients. However, linguistic fluency, language dominance, and bilingualism have generally been excluded from standard neuropsychological training and discourse (Rivera Mindt et al., 2010). These limitations necessitate the inclusion of linguistic fluency in the discourse surrounding diversity within the field. Therefore, the current research study assessed neuropsychologists’ linguistic fluency, as well as approaches to testing patients whose preferred language is not English.

Participants and Methods:

The sample included 305 U.S. neuropsychologists. Data was collected via a self-report questionnaire created by the researcher for use in this study. The research assessed what languages are spoken by the respondents in their clinical practice, as well as what languages respondents can refer patients to fluent providers within their local community. The research also assessed how neuropsychologists approach evaluations with patients whose preferred language is not English.

Results:

The vast majority (99.3%) of the respondents reported that they speak English in their clinical practice. The second most common language that respondents feel comfortable using in their clinical practice is Spanish (9.3%), followed by ASL (2.1%). The majority (70.5%) of the respondents report that they can refer patients to Spanish-speaking providers in their local community. The next most common language, besides English, that respondents report that they can refer to fluent providers in their community was Chinese (Cantonese, Mandarin, other dialects); 25.8% of the respondents report that they are able to refer patients to providers who are fluent in Chinese.

Respondents also reported how they approach neuropsychological assessments with non-primarily English-speaking patients. Among respondents, 15.2% reported that they or someone else in their practice serves as an interpreter when conducting neuropsychological assessments with non-primarily English-speaking; 49.6% reported that they utilize outside language assistance services; 7.8% reported that they ask the patient to bring a family member to serve as an interpreter; 17.2% reported that they do not accept patients whose preferred language is not English; and 61.9% reported that they refer out to another neuropsychologist who speaks the same language as the patient.

Conclusions:

The results of the current study indicate that there is a need for more bilingual neuropsychologists who are fluent in languages other than English. The research also suggests, that although the majority of neuropsychologists (70.5%) are able to refer patients to Spanish-speaking providers in their local community, many are unable to refer to providers who are fluent in languages besides English and Spanish.

According to Rivera Mindt et al., (2010), non-standardized applications of neuropsychological instruments with non-primarily English-speaking patients are not empirically supported. However, respondents in the current study indicated that they have utilized non-standardized methods so that they did not have to turn patients away. This suggests a need for further training and guidance regarding standardized procedures for evaluating this population.