Blog

  • 197. Evolution of Cognitive Assessment w/ Dr. W. Joel Schneider

    197. Evolution of Cognitive Assessment w/ Dr. W. Joel Schneider

    Would you rather read the transcript? Click here.

    “I can’t be playing around with 10 point differences as an explanation for weaknesses.”

    Dr. Joel Schneider is here talking about the evolution of cognitive theory and assessment. I’ve been reading Joel’s blog for about 10 years now, and he is not only a great writer but a deep thinker and excellent storyteller. These traits are on full display during the podcast today as Joel takes us on a journey through the philosophical and practical history of cognitive theory. Here are just a few topics that we touch on:

    • How cognitive assessment originated
    • Using assessment to benefit the individual vs. the institution
    • A compelling overview of CHC theory
    • Joel’s research with Kevin McGrew on evolving CHC theory to a more integrated model

    Cool Things Mentioned

    Featured Resource

    I am honored to partner with PAR for 2021 to bring you featured items from their catalog! Listen to each episode for specific product recommendations and links. Learn more at www.parinc.com.

    The Testing Psychologist podcast is approved for CEU’s!

    I’ve partnered with At Health to offer CE credits for podcast episodes! Visit this link to access current and past episodes available for CE credit. You can use code “TTP10” for a discount on ALL the course credits you purchase from At Health!

    Dr. W. Joel Schneider

    Dr. Schneider is an associate professor in the College of Education at Temple University and a member of the School Psychology program. He earned his doctorate in Clinical Psychology from Texas A&M University. Along with Nancy Mather, Elizabeth Lichtenberger, and Nadeen Kaufman, he wrote the Essentials of Assessment Report Writing, 2nd Edition. He writes software to help clinicians make better decisions. Broadly, his research interests are concerned with validating and improving upon current assessment practices. In particular, he focuses on understanding the structure and function of intelligence and its assessment.

    Contact Dr. Joel Schneider:

    About Dr. Jeremy Sharp

    I’m a licensed psychologist and Clinical Director at the Colorado Center for Assessment & Counseling, a private practice that I founded in 2009 and have grown to over 20 clinicians. I earned my undergraduate degree in Experimental Psychology from the University of South Carolina before getting my Master’s and PhD in Counseling Psychology from Colorado State University. These days, I specialize in psychological and neuropsychological evaluation with kids and adolescents.

    As the host of the Testing Psychologist Podcast, I provide private practice consulting for psychologists and other mental health professionals who want to start or grow psychological testing services in their practices. I live in Fort Collins, Colorado with my wife (also a therapist) and two young kids.

    Ready to grow your testing services? Click below to schedule a complimentary 30-minute pre-consulting call!

    [x_button shape=”square” size=”large” float=”none” href=”https://app.acuityscheduling.com/schedule.php?owner=13476033&appointmentType=2843005″ target=”blank” info=”none” info_place=”top” info_trigger=”hover”]Schedule Your Call[/x_button]

  • 196 Transcript

    [00:00:00] Dr. Sharp: Hello, everyone. Welcome to The Testing Psychologist podcast, the podcast where we talk all about the business and practice of psychological and neuropsychological assessment. I’m your host, Dr. Jeremy Sharp, licensed psychologist group practice owner, and private practice coach.

    Introducing ChecKIT, a one-stop-shop for testing psychologists that puts common mental health checklists in one place, saving you time and simplifying your assessment process. You can learn more at parinc.com\checkit

    All right, everyone. Hey, welcome back. Glad to have you here as always.

    Today’s episode is like mini-episodes, mini business episodes anyway. It is born from conversations with my consulting clients. Most of you know, I think that I do coaching [00:01:00] one-on-one and group coaching with testing psychologists who are trying to build their practices. And this is one of those questions that comes up a lot in my consulting sessions. And the question is, how do you make connections with potential referral sources?

    I think we all have this idea that “networking” is really important but really what does that actually look like in real life? And how do you do it without feeling slimy or awkward? Now, I don’t know that I can take away all of the awkwardness in the process especially if you are more of an introvert like myself, but the hope is that we’ll talk about a few things that might make it easier.

    So I’m going to talk about who you want to target to find referrals, I’m going to talk about what to say when you reach out to them, how to approach in-person meetings, and a little bit on getting in with physician’s offices.

    Before I jump to that conversation, I [00:02:00] want to invite any aspiring advanced practice owners to consider the Advanced Practice Mastermind from The Testing Psychologist. This is a group coaching experience that will provide support and accountability to help you get to that next level in your practice. So if you are trying to set some goals and want some help in reaching those goals in 2021, I’d love to talk with you. You can get more information at thetestingpsychologist.com/advanced and schedule a pre-group call there.

    All right. let’s jump to this discussion on reaching out to referral sources.

    [00:03:00] Okay, everybody, I’m back. I want to jump right into it. This is going to be a pretty quick and to-the-point episode. So if you don’t have a pen handy, I would grab one. And if you can’t do that, just listen this first time and it’ll be pretty short and you can go back and listen again when you can write some notes down.

    So I’m going to start just talking about who to reach out to. So we’re talking about again, in-person meetings reaching out to referral sources. I’m not talking at all about digital marketing here. That’s a whole separate deal. This is just about who do you reach out to and what do you do when you make contact with these individuals?

    So I developed this… I said developed, that’s sort of a glorification. I came up with this four-quadrant approach to who you want to reach out to. And I found that it covers a lot of bases in [00:04:00] terms of which individuals you want to connect with when you’re trying to establish referral sources.

    So the four quadrants are: 1) You want to reach out to other people who also see your clients. So this group would include, practitioners like physicians, occupational therapists, speech therapists, school psychologists, tutors, dyslexia specialists, people like that. So, other practitioners who also see your clients and provide ancillary or adjacent services to what you do.

    The second quadrant is reaching out to practitioners who do exactly what you do. So other testing the psychologist. Now, this is the one that I get the most pushback on. It seems counterintuitive, but the rationale here, and this comes from my “abundance mindset”  if you know what that means, but just the idea that [00:05:00] it’s not helpful to be in competition with one another and that building relationships with people who offer similar services is ultimately going to be more helpful for us.

    Now you’re going to run into practitioners who don’t want to connect and do have that competitive mindset. That’s fine. You can ignore them.  But hopefully, you’ll run into some folks who are willing to meet and build some relationships.

    So again, the second quadrant reaching out to practitioners who do exactly what you do because they are likely to be full and they will need referrals when they are full and they will need trusted individuals to send these testing cases to. And they might form the basis for a consultation group which I talked about I think it was last week. So that’s the second quadrant.

    The third quadrant is practitioners that you would like to refer your clients to after the evaluation. [00:06:00] Now, there is often a good bit of overlap between quadrant three in quadrant one, which you remember are practitioners who also see your clients. But if there’s anyone on here that you would refer out to after the evaluation, that’s where you want to think about that. So that would be therapists, psychiatrists, might even be people like attorneys if you do a lot of forensic work, it might be, let’s see, depending on what you do, it could be any number of other allied health professionals, dentists, even chiropractors if that’s a service you refer to. So any practitioner that you would refer your clients to after the evaluation.

    And then the fourth quadrant is just a catch-all category that allows you to just connect with people you want to connect with. So, these are [00:07:00] individuals that you either admire or you’ve heard good things about in town. They maybe are sort of big players in your community or just individuals that you think you would like to connect with.

    And I often recommend that people just do a Psychology Today search, scroll through profiles, if you see anybody that looks cool, reach out to them. You never know who is going to be a referral source for you and who you might form a relationship with just from reading through profiles. So it can be a nice surprise sometimes to find people that look interesting and just connect with them.

    So once you establish that list, and I always encourage people to try to make a list of at least 50 folks to start out with, to reach out to. So once you make that list, then there’s the question of what to say. Now, I’m a big fan of [00:08:00] email.  I do not love the idea of sending letters. I just personally throw away every letter I get or flyer or rack card or whatever from a new practitioner, but an email goes a long way while at the same time not being as intrusive as a phone call. I feel like that’s so bizarre to think about it that way, but a phone call feels a little bit intrusive these days that you’re just like putting yourself in somebody’s ear.

    So with an email, I think sending a cold email is totally fine. And it should say something along these lines. It should say something like, “Hey, I’m a new practitioner in town. And I know that been here for quite a while. I would love to buy you some coffee and hear about your experience being in private practice here in the area.” That’s simple, it’s to the point, it, [00:09:00] leaves room for the individual to say no if they want to, which is fine. But it also makes it clear that you’re willing to kind of pay for their time in a sense that you’re taking them to lunch or coffee. And it doesn’t say anything about you wanting to get referrals from them. That’s all it is. It’s pretty straightforward.

    Now, if you’re trying to reach out to a school or you actually do want to build your own referral list, then there are two variations. You can always say, “I’m a new practitioner in town. I work with kids and I’m trying to learn more about the schools in the area so I can best support my clients. Are you open to meeting with me and sharing some information about your school and the other schools around here?”

    Then there’s another variation where you might just say, “Hey, I’m a new practitioner in town or, “Hey, I just launched a practice here in town and I’m working really hard [00:10:00] to build my referral list so I can support my clients as best I can. Can I buy you lunch and just hear about your practice and what you do?”

    People sometimes get discouraged when they hear nothing or hear NO. And I just want to normalize that and say, that’s totally okay. You will get a lot of NOs. I always say like a ballpark, if you get a 5% positive response rate, that’s pretty good. Okay? So out of those 50 individuals, if you end up with 2 or 3 folks, I know this sounds totally crazy, but I like to low ball it just to set expectations low. If you end up with 2 or 3 folks that say, “Yeah, I’d love to go out” then that’s great. Take those meetings and then once you’re in those meetings, this is transitioning to our next section, you can always ask or say, “Hey, this is great to connect with you. Do you know who else should I connect with? I [00:11:00] really want to make positive relationships here in town. Who else should I contact?” And then the ball gets rolling.

    Let’s take a quick break to hear from our featured partner.

    The ChecKIT is a one-stop-shop for testing psychologists that puts common mental health checklists in one place saving you time and simplifying your assessment process. ChecKIT Products are all accessible through PARiConnect, the industry’s most reliable platform. Administration and scoring are sold in packages of 5 which can include any combination of ChecKIT products. Reports include interpretive text that you can use for your own reports. And there’s a free technical paper for each product. The current product lineup includes the PHQ-9, the GAD-7, and the LAM, and more products will be added through 2021 and into the future. Learn more at parinc.com\checkit

    [00:12:00] All right, let’s get back to the podcast.

    So as far as in-person meetings, people get super anxious about this, right? They say like, “Oh, I’m an introvert. It feels slimy. I don’t want to market myself. I don’t want to…, networking sounds gross.” So here’s the thing. If you really don’t want to do this, if you think that going and meeting with people in person will actually do more harm to your practice than good, then don’t do it. Just make peace with paying for Google ads or some other digital advertising and go about your business. That’s totally fine. Plenty of people do that. That is totally fine.

    One thing that I found though that can help reframe these interactions is again, just approaching these meetings like you are [00:13:00] building relationships. That that is it. Because that is what we are good at, right? We’re all psychologists. We all know how to ask questions. We know how to connect with people. We know how to learn about people and that’s what these meetings are. I don’t even really go into these meetings with an agenda of talking about my own practice or what I do, or getting referrals, that sort of thing.

    I just approach it like, hey, this is a new person. I get to connect with them. I get to learn about them. And hopefully, there’s some overlap in what we do and we can help one another.

    So all you have to do is ask questions. We’re good at asking questions. If you struggle with what to say to people, what to say to strangers in the beginning, there are all sorts of resources out there about how to make conversation. And I am not the expert on that at all. But you can always ask [00:14:00] if they’ve been to that spot before or some version of that, like, is this one of your favorite spots or how’d you pick this place? Something like that. You can always ask what’s good there. Like, do you like the coffee here? Do you like the food here? What should I get? you can always thank them obviously, asking how long they’ve been in practice, how long they’ve lived there, any number of things.

    There are tons of opening lines so to speak that you can use. And you don’t have to feel weird about it. Hopefully, the conversation will flow from there. And like I always say if the person you’re meeting with has any motor of social skills, they’re going to be asking you questions as well. And hopefully, the conversation will just flow. And if [00:15:00] it doesn’t, that’s a good indication that you may not want to connect with that individual and put much energy into them.

    All right. So I just want to wrap up by talking a little bit about getting into physician’s offices because physician’s offices, especially for those of us who do testing, can kind of be the Holy grail of referrals. I always say, if you get in with 1 or 2 physician practices, that can generate a lot of referrals. But it’s hard to reach physicians. They’re busy. They have very little time.

    So here’s what we want to do. One trick that has worked for our practice is, we make sure that it’s standard procedure to get a release of information from our clients for their primary care physician and then we send a thank-you fax. So this is one-page fax. It just says, “Thanks for the referral.” Or it may not even be, “Thanks for the referral.” It might just be, “Hey, [00:16:00] I just started working with one of your patients. I’ll be in touch with any relevant updates as we work together or as I complete the evaluation. Very simple. It’s really just the face sheet, but you want to make sure that it has your logo on it and it says, thank you and it has your name on it. Then you just fax it over. That’s it. And put it to the attention of the PCP.

    So we’re just building some brand recognition here and making sure that we keep our logo and name in front of these physicians. But if you want to take it a step beyond that, the gatekeeper for a lot of physician practices is someone like a referral coordinator. So this is an individual usually a social worker or master’s level clinician who coordinates the referrals for the practice and maintains the referral list and stays in touch with the providers about [00:17:00] who’s out there and what services are out there as well. Now, what you can do, you can look that referral coordinator up on the practice website. Hopefully, there’s a name and phone number. Give them a call. It might go to the front desk, it might go directly to the referral coordinator. And you can just say something like, “Hey, I’m a neuropsychologist here in town. I have worked with several of your patients already. And I’m just wondering if you have any referral needs for neuropsych testing. I’d love to talk with you about that.”

    Now, if you have not worked with several of the patients already, that’s totally okay. You can just admit that part and say, “Hey, I’m a neuropsychologist here in town. I specialize in testing kids for ADHD and Autism. And I just wanted to check in to see if you need any referrals for that kind of service. I’d love to come to talk with you.” And again, you may get no response. That’s fine. But if you [00:18:00] call around to a number of offices, somebody who’s going to bite.

    Another option for getting in with physician’s offices is talking with the office manager or the lead admin- the individual who might schedule a lunch and learns for the physicians. And you can always give that person a call. And it’s a similar line like, “Hey, I just moved to town. I’m trying to connect with physicians and establish some referrals for my clients but I’m also happy to come to a talk on any kind of mental health issue that might be relevant for your practice.” And that can sometimes get you in for lunches with physicians.

    All right. So that was a whirlwind tour of reaching out to referral sources and what to say and how to handle those meetings. The hope is that you take a few things away from this and maybe feel a little more confident in building some of those referral networks.

    And like I said at the [00:19:00] beginning, if you are an advanced practice owner and you would like to take your practice to the next level, you could check out The Testing Psychologist Advanced Practice Mastermind. The next cohort is starting June 10th, and I would love to have you in the group if it feels like a good fit. So you can go to thetesting psychologist.com/advanced and schedule a pre-group call.

    Okay, everyone. Thank you as always for listening. Spread the word if you haven’t. If you have any friends who don’t know about the podcast and do testing, I will be so grateful if you share the podcast with them and just keep bringing testing information to all those who might want it.

    Alright, stay safe. Take care. I will talk to you next time.

    [00:20:00] The information contained in this podcast and on The Testing Psychologists website are intended for informational and educational purposes only. Nothing in this podcast or on the website is intended to be a substitute for professional, psychological, psychiatric, or medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Please note that no doctor-patient relationship is formed here. And similarly, no supervisory or consultative relationship is formed between the host or guests of this podcast and listeners of this podcast. If you need the qualified advice of any mental health practitioner or medical provider, please seek one in your area. Similarly, if you need supervision on clinical matters, please find a supervisor with expertise that fits your needs.

    Click here to listen instead!

  • 196. Reaching Out to Referral Sources

    196. Reaching Out to Referral Sources

    Would you rather read the transcript? Click here.

    So many podcast episodes are born from conversations with my consulting clients. This one is no exception. I’ve been asked so many times, “How do you make connections with potential referral sources?” We’re all told that “networking” is important, but what does that actually look like in real life? (Hint: call it “building relationships” instead). This episode is all about developing connections with other professionals, schools, and physicians. Here are a few things that come up in the episode:

    • Who you want to target to find referrals
    • What to say when you reach out
    • How to approach in-person meetings
    • Getting in with physicians’ offices

    Cool Things Mentioned

    Featured Resource

    I am honored to partner with PAR for 2021 to bring you featured items from their catalog! Listen to each episode for specific product recommendations and links. Learn more at www.parinc.com.

    The Testing Psychologist podcast is approved for CEU’s!

    I’ve partnered with At Health to offer CE credits for podcast episodes! Visit this link to access current and past episodes available for CE credit. You can use code “TTP10” for a discount on ALL the course credits you purchase from At Health!

    About Dr. Jeremy Sharp

    I’m a licensed psychologist and Clinical Director at the Colorado Center for Assessment & Counseling, a private practice that I founded in 2009 and have grown to over 20 clinicians. I earned my undergraduate degree in Experimental Psychology from the University of South Carolina before getting my Master’s and PhD in Counseling Psychology from Colorado State University. These days, I specialize in psychological and neuropsychological evaluation with kids and adolescents.

    As the host of the Testing Psychologist Podcast, I provide private practice consulting for psychologists and other mental health professionals who want to start or grow psychological testing services in their practices. I live in Fort Collins, Colorado with my wife (also a therapist) and two young kids.

    Ready to grow your testing services? Click below to schedule a complimentary 30-minute pre-consulting call!

    [x_button shape=”square” size=”large” float=”none” href=”https://app.acuityscheduling.com/schedule.php?owner=13476033&appointmentType=2843005″ target=”blank” info=”none” info_place=”top” info_trigger=”hover”]Schedule Your Call[/x_button]

  • 195 Transcript

    Dr. Sharp: Hello everyone. Welcome to The Testing Psychologist podcast, the podcast where we talk all about the business and practice of psychological and neuropsychological assessment. I’m your host, Dr. Jeremy Sharp, licensed psychologist, group practice owner, and private practice coach.

    This podcast is brought to you by PAR.

    PAR offers the SPECTRA: Indices of Psychopathology, a hierarchical-dimensional look at adult psychopathology. The SPECTRA is available for paper and pencil assessment or administration and scoring via PARiConnect. Learn more at parinc.com\spectra. For a limited time, you can get one free administration and score report for the SPECTRA on PARiConnect by calling PAR at 8558564266, just mention promo code SPEC.

    Okay, everybody. Welcome back. Glad to have you here for another episode of The Testing Psychologist. Hey, today’s episode is a replay of a really good episode from way back in the beginning. This was episode 19 with Dr. Aimee Yermish, all about gifted and twice-exceptional individuals. Aimee is clearly an expert in this area.

    I’m not going to do a lengthy introduction here because this was back in the days when I was doing an introduction of the guest during the podcast interview itself, so you will hear that once I transition to the interview audio. Suffice it to say that if you have questions about assessment with gifted and twice exceptional individuals, the likelihood is that we’ll cover those things during the podcast today.

    Aimee has made a career out of working with these individuals and we talk about a number of things. We talk about how giftedness can be viewed as a cultural experience and she frames it in the way that it’s important for practitioners to be “culturally” competent with that population if you’re going to work with them. We talk about how we might tailor the feedback session and report a little bit differently for parents of gifted kids and we talk about countertransference or the potential for countertransference as far as our own feelings and thoughts around intelligence and perhaps giftedness and how that comes into the room in more of a therapeutic or interpersonal context.

    So fascinating episode. Like I said, Aimee is fantastic and many of you have probably seen her in the Facebook group. So I hope you stay tuned and enjoy this one.

    All right, without further ado, let’s transition to my conversation with Dr. Aimee Yermish.

    Hey everybody. Welcome to another episode of The Testing Psychologist podcast. My guest today is Dr. Aimee Yermish. I’m excited about our conversation today. We’re going to talk all about giftedness, twice exceptionality and how Aimee built her practice around assessment with those kids and their families.

    Aimee and I first made contact on the Minnesota Pediatric Neuropsychology Listserv, which some of you might be aware of, if not, it can be a really nice resource for conversation and discussion around neuropsychological assessment. I noticed that Aimee was pretty active on the listserv and she had so much good information to share, particularly with kids who were on the gifted spectrum or twice exceptional spectrum. And that caught my eye, so I reached out to Aimee to see if she’d be willing to come and talk with us about this kind of assessment practice. Luckily, she’d agreed.

    So let me do a little introduction, Aimee, and then we can jump into our interview. Sound good?

    Dr. Aimee: Sounds good. Thanks for inviting me.

    Dr. Sharp: Yeah, of course. Dr. Aimee Yermish is a clinical psychologist and educational therapist practicing in Stow, Massachusetts. She provides consultation, therapy, and assessment for clients who manifest giftedness or multiple exceptionality. Drawing on her analytical background as a scientist and practical background as a teacher, she focuses on building self-understanding, self-regulation, and range of choice in life. Her book on executive functioning coaching for smart people, If You’re So Smart, is in progress with Great Potential Press.

    Aimee, welcome to the show.

    Dr. Aimee: Hi, thanks so much.

    Dr. Sharp: Welcome. I’m so glad to have you. I’ve been thinking about trying to talk with you for a long time, so I’m glad we could get it together and have you here.

    Dr. Aimee: That sounds great.

    Dr. Sharp: Yeah. I think based on our previous conversations, that we have a lot that we could dive into, so I’m just going to jump right to it. Let’s talk a little bit about giftedness and maybe talk about how [00:03:00] you would define giftedness. We can start there.

    Dr. Aimee: It’s funny because that’s where everybody always starts. I did my dissertation research on the experiences gifted clients have in psychotherapy and every single one, what are you doing your work on? Oh, I’m doing the experiences of gifted clients. Oh, really, how are going to define giftedness? That was always the question.

    The entire field of giftedness research has been going around and around in circles on the definition thing forever. I think it’s a waste of time. At one point during one of these conversations, I said, okay, look, how about you define African American for me and I’ll define gifted for you.

    I was being a little cheeky about it because I was like, come on, not everything can be defined. The more I thought about it, the more I realized it’s true. We can do good research and have good clinical practice on a group, even when it has fuzzy and sometimes internally contradictory boundaries. [00:04:00] Lots of clinically important groups are like that.

    Both in my dissertation and in my clinical practice, if someone wants to come to my office, I’m not going to tell them that they’re not smart enough to hire me. People tend to self-select, but they also do typically have very good reasons to think that they or their children, I work with adults as well as children, they have good reasons to think that they’re gifted or twice exceptional and they’ve often had trouble with other practitioners or they’ve been frustrated in school or in work or in the social world in ways that are pretty typical for gifted folks.

    I have two clients who are pretty average in intelligence. They came to me because they were referred by another very happy client who said, you should work with Aimee. She’s great. I have turned down referrals for kids who are on the intellectually [00:05:00] disabled side of it because that’s an area of clinical competence I don’t have.

    The thing that it helps is, what I found in my research was it makes sense to think of giftedness more as a cultural group. Yes, you have people who are very smart, they catch on to things quickly, they learn things quickly, they learn things well. They may learn things younger or better than other people might be able to but a lot of what we’re looking at is the cultural experience of it. And so then we think about it in terms of cultural competence, just as you would with veterans or Latinos or whatever.

    Dr. Sharp: Okay, that’s fascinating. Is that a widespread belief in the field? I haven’t run across that. Are there standards of competence for working with gifted kids or anything like that?

    Dr. Aimee: Part of what came out of my dissertation work was I came up with a set of provisional clinical guidelines for clinicians who want to work with the gifted folks. Interestingly enough, I was able to base them very heavily on the, I was like, I don’t know how to write clinical guidelines, let me look at some. I looked at the guidelines for GLBTQ clients and I said, oh, this is a lot of the same issues. A lot of times, it functions culturally as a closeted minority or semi-closeted minority status.

    This goes more towards questions of therapy than assessment but when I’m thinking about why am I good at this and why is this a good niche for me, a lot of it has to do with that notion of thinking of it in terms of culture.

    Dr. Sharp: Okay. Just to maybe backtrack a little bit, that reminds me, it’d be important to probably talk about how you even became interested in this population and why this is so meaningful for you.

    Dr. Aimee: Sure. I walked backwards into it. I’m a multiple time career changer. [00:07:00] I am a grown up gifted kid myself. I’d like to say there’s two kinds of gifted families; those who are shocked to find out that their kids are gifted and those who are shocked to find out that anyone could be shocked to find out that their kids are gifted.

    I grew up in the latter kind of family where I was pretty socially isolated in a small school but my family not strongly valued education and there was a lot of support, everybody in the family is smart, there wasn’t a sense of surprise, I got a lot of support at home.

    And then when I went to a very large public high school in a good district and then eventually to MIT, I was like, oh, well, here I’m totally normal and this is great. And that’s where most of my friends and also my husband we met, when I was an undergraduate. So there’s a community.

    I trained originally to be a molecular biologist but in graduate school realized that I really [00:08:00] loved teaching far more than I loved research. I stepped back and said, you know what, I want to know why my undergraduate students don’t understand science. And so then I went into K-12 teaching. I taught biology, I taught physics, math. I started in high school and then I moved to middle school, picked up a teaching credential along the way.

    One of the schools I taught at specialized in kids with learning disabilities and ADHD. A lot of them had ADHD. I found that I really enjoyed the shared puzzle solving, how do I help this particular kid wrap their mind around this particular concept? How do I get them on board with me to try? So that was like, oh, this is cool.

    And then I taught at a school that specialized in gifted kids. And that brought up a whole new set of challenges. I had a lot of opportunity to be creative as a teacher and to enjoy middle schoolers. People always go, oh, you [00:09:00] poor dear, you taught middle school, what happened? Did you get last choice?

    I’m like, no, middle schoolers are great. It’s all about niches. And for me, those young adolescents are, they have energy, they’re a little nutsy. So much is happening for them psychologically. There’s a lot of leverage. They’re trying to figure out who am I and developmentally, they start to want grownup help who aren’t their parents. So being able as both a teacher and a clinician, to do the object relations work of being an attachment figure outside the family who can say, hey, I can help you here, let’s walk together, that’s rewarding for me.

    I eventually got tired of politics in school and so I went into private practice as a tutor. I could teach AP Biology and AP Calculus [00:10:00] and do it for kids with LDs. So that was a little specialized niche all by itself.

    I got interested in testing and I took this certificate in educational therapy. It was not represented accurately to me when I took it. It was basically Boston Process Approach Neuropsychological Evaluation and Remediation specific to learning disabilities. So that’s how I got into testing.

    And then over time, my clients got more and more unusual, more kids with psychological disorders, more kids with autism spectrum disorders, with trauma and kids who needed official diagnoses, which I couldn’t make. They needed a big doctor person to come in for their special education advocacy.

    What was happening was, I was finding that I had to turn away more and more kids where I’d say, I can’t do what you need and at the same time, I had nobody to turn them [00:11:00] towards. So that’s what got me back into graduate school. I became a psychologist.

    Part of what I liked about graduate school was that I was able to, I went to a professional school, which’s now called William James college, Massachusetts School of Professional Psychology was name at the time. They allowed me to tailor my clinical work to what I wanted to learn and also to do my dissertation work on, as I said, the topic that I was interested in.

    My dissertation is free on my website. People read it. I will talk more about marketing later, but I have to tell you, having paid the extra $40 to ProQuest for the right to put my own dissertation up on my own website has paid off enormously because people read it and they go, oh, you get it.

    Dr. Sharp: She gets it.

    Dr. Aimee: And that’s [00:12:00] the thing, is that in the clinical where the gifted clients often say, well, we have to find therapists who get it, and most of them don’t.

    Dr. Sharp: I was going to say, it sounds like that’s particularly important for this population because you have folks who actually would read a dissertation before coming to see you, right?

    Dr. Aimee: Yes. It’s a qualitative dissertation. It’s very conversational. And the thing is that within the gifted community, people say, oh, you have to find a therapist who gets it and a lot of them don’t. A lot of people have had very bad experiences. A lot of people have a wonderful experience too, but they’ve had very bad experiences.

    The problem is when I would explain this to clinicians, so often the response I would get was, well, there’s nothing to get. They’re all a bunch of narcissists who think they’re all so special.

    Dr. Sharp: Oh, goodness.

    Dr. Aimee: And the harshness of that. I was like, oh, little [00:13:00] unprocessed countertransference match. That was part of the thing, was realizing that, because a lot of the people who would say this were obviously themselves very intelligent, but it was like, this is part of that sense of you have to be comfortable with yourself. So yeah, people read it and they go, oh, this person gets it. I want to work with her.

    Dr. Sharp: It’s funny, you had to think of that as an aspect of marketing in your practice, but I could totally see that. It’s an extended version of your biography that people […].

    Dr. Aimee: And it’s also a service in and of itself. Sometimes I get thank you notes from people who write and they go, thank you so much for putting that. It was validating to know that I wasn’t the only person who had experienced these things. They don’t need therapy, they don’t need anything, they’re just [00:14:00] sending me a note.

    Sometimes, at the urging of a friend, I put a tip jar there and occasionally somebody puts money in the tip jar. It’s because she said, I can’t believe you’re putting it out there for free, and I’m like, because I want to offer it, I want people to hear that they’re not alone. That their experiences are not, they’re not the only one. So there is this.

    And part of this, there is this sense of mission for me. This isn’t just like, oh yeah, gifted people, they’re cash cows. No, this is actually much more a sense of purpose for me as a clinician.

    Dr. Sharp: Oh, sure. It seems clear this is your life. This is what you’ve experienced personally and have managed to wrap it around in a professional way too. I think that is so important. I’ve talked on this podcast a fair bit about how testing a lot of people, I get these [00:15:00] questions of like, oh, how do I start testing my practice? What are the codes? How do I bill?

    You got to walk that back and say, what do you really like to do and what are you passionate about? Because otherwise, it’s going to get real tough when you’re sitting down to write those 10, 15, 20-page reports and you don’t have that motivation to do it.

    Dr. Aimee: Oh, yeah. I think every neuropsychologist I’ve ever talked to, we all go, oh God, the reports.

    Dr. Sharp: Sure. Oh gosh.

    Dr. Aimee: I’m sure we’ll get to this later in the hour about report writing for different clients, its own ball of wax, but if you’re going to be doing that work, you’ve got to. I think most people I know who have a niche area have some personal connection with it. You have to have metabolized that. You can’t be like, okay, I have to do this and I have to fix this.

    If you’ve got too much of a drivenness, then [00:16:00] you’re working out your personal needs with the clients. I think you need to have done your own work so that that’s not what, you’re doing it for the clients, not for yourself, but to have it be this very authentic outgrowth of this is a population that I love to work with and a kind of work that I love to do. People can tell, and it’s easier for them then to hear you when you have to say things that are hard for them to know that there’s trust.

    Dr. Sharp: Oh, that’s so important. I think you nailed it. Trust is the word. So let me maybe use that and transition a bit, did you go straight into private practice doing assessment and testing after graduate school then?

    Dr. Aimee: Yeah, what had happened was I had had my educational therapy practice [00:17:00] where I was mostly doing, let’s say, glorified tutoring, special education consultation and advocacy with that. I did some intelligence testing. I did some LD testing, fairly limited in that because I needed to stay on the right side of the law. So I had been doing that.

    And then over the course of my training, while I was in graduate school, I still maintained that practice. From a time perspective, I had to prioritize graduate school, but I continued to see clients as much as I could squeeze them in and to stay involved with the community and to continue doing all of the things that I had been doing that had built the educational therapy work. I continued to do those things.

    And then as I became progressively more legal, as I [00:18:00] became more able to do the things that I wanted to do and that I was now competent to do, during my postdoc phase, I had an agreement with one of my former internship sites where I was then on staff as an employee. What happened was that people would come and they would come to me and I’d say, well, I can’t legally do this assessment, but I can have you go over to the clinic with me and I will be your assessor.

    So the clinic was making money and I was making money and they were getting me to do their assessment and I was getting appropriate supervision. It was a win-win all the way around. It was a great experience for me. And then once I was independently licensed, then I started working independently.

    It took a little bit to grow but it [00:19:00] grew quite quickly because it already existed and because of the, I don’t know what it would have been like had I not had the previous experience. I think it would have taken a little longer to establish myself.

    Dr. Sharp: That makes sense. That is a natural extension of the work that you were already doing. It sounds like you were getting some of those calls beforehand in the tutoring practice but you rightfully said, no, I can’t do this but once you had your degree, it’s like, okay, yeah, the market is open.

    I know we had some conversations earlier about insurance and cash pay and that sort of thing, have you ever taken insurance with these assessments?

    Dr. Aimee: No.

    Dr. Sharp: No. Okay.

    Dr. Aimee: No. It was funny because one of my motivations was, oh, I would love to go and be a licensed professional and then I’ll be able to take insurance and then more people will be able to afford my services. And then I saw the dark underbelly of [00:20:00] the insurance system and I saw how little they pay for assessments and I went, I can’t feed my family on that.

    I am basically a cash only practice. I do offer some pro bono work. There are times where somebody will call up and I’m like, all right, I can. If I choose to slide my scale or to offer pro bono stuff, I will do that but basically, it’s cash only. What I’ve done instead is I offer a range of services and that includes free information that is high quality, useful, take it to the bank, use it. You don’t need to pay me for it.

    Information on my website and the blog that I don’t know… if I write up, oh, here’s the things that I usually recommend for people as far as how to help your middle schooler or your high schooler organize their stuff and get their homework done. [00:21:00] Well, that stuff’s for free on my blog. People call me and I say, you can do that for free.

    And then I have a range of other services so that it’s not just the multi-thousand dollar assessments. There’s a range. I’m very clear with people around let’s find a service that works for you.

    Dr. Sharp: So let’s say that someone calls and they want to go forward with an assessment and you’ve deemed that to be appropriate, how do you structure the pricing for that?

    Dr. Aimee: What I do is I usually have them fill out a developmental history first. A lot of my clients have been assessed before, some of them many times. They’re often a lot of single discipline assessments or the schools have done, there’s a lot of little things and everybody’s like the blind men seeing the elephant that they’ve got, everybody’s got a little piece of the [00:22:00] picture.

    I know, a lot of those kids are on the autism spectrum. That’s the most common when I see the giant pile of stuff. I know here’s where we’re going but I’m looking at the complexity of the case, I’m looking at what do we already know? What can I figure out so that I can try to create?

    I don’t use the same testing plan for every kid so I plan out an approximate testing plan. I think, okay, how much time am I going to need for this? And then I quote people a flat fee up front. I’ll give them options. I’ll say, if you’d like me to include testing for dyslexia, then that’s how much it is. I’ll let them pick and choose.

    I’m very collaborative with the client around defining what are the referral question? What do you already know? What do you suspect? Who’s the audience? If you need me to make this clear so that you can advocate for an IEP, [00:23:00] that’s a different set of clarity than if I’m working with a homeschooler who says, I need to know the answer but I don’t need to be able to prove it to anybody else.

    And also what was in the range of services is needed, sometimes it’s just a consultation. They just come in for two hours. There’s no testing. I play with the kid. We talk, we have fun. I talk with the parent at the same time and I can give them a lot of the same advice for a lot less money. So I give them their options.

    Obviously, there’s richer information when I test and more certainty. I frequently with consultations, I don’t make a diagnosis but some people don’t want the evaluation in part because they don’t want the diagnosis. I try to lay out their options but I quote them a flat fee and the reason I do that is because I know some people like to work hourly; the problem is with gifted kids, some of them go [00:24:00] for a really long time into those tests. And with the WISC, you can’t adjust the start points. It takes forever.

    I’m very nice because I’m like, I’m really sorry, I have to give you these really easy questions first, just bear with me, it’ll get more interesting soon. They’ll keep going and a lot of gifted folks are perfectionists and persistent and they will work really hard.

    I used to do it hourly and I would tell people, okay, this testing, it’s typically four hours of testing and then I had this one mom where I told her it was going to be four hours of testing and the kid took six. I felt horrible because people need to be able to budget. And so I said, I don’t want this to ever feel like a bait and switch. There’s a flat [00:25:00] fee that includes everything I’m going to do, that includes feedback, the report, more conversations. I am extremely generous with my time because I want them to feel that they’ve gotten their questions answered.

    Dr. Sharp: Got you.

    Dr. Aimee: And so I just sit there and I go, all right, I set up, I say, this is what, this is going to be for this. I tell them, I don’t want to be in a position of having to come back to you in the middle of the testing to say, oh, actually, I want to do something else.

    Dr. Sharp: So how do you structure that just from a business perspective? How does that flat fee correspond or not correspond to your hourly rate and how do you come up with that budgeting for all these factors?

    Dr. Aimee: Some of it is related to my hourly rate. There is no way I could charge for the hourly time I spend writing reports, I just can’t. And that’s my perfectionism and I don’t believe in punishing other people for my perfectionism.

    [00:26:00] A lot of it is based on what’s the going rate around here. I do charge a bit more than the going rate around here, but not ridiculously much more. In any time you’re setting prices for any service, it doesn’t matter what industry you’re in, it comes down to a question of what value do I provide and what do I feel comfortable being paid for this? Is it so much that I can’t look at myself in the mirror? Is it so little that I resent it?

    I end up with an approximate that most of them come out and around the same point, but it really is this sense of, I know how much work this is going to involve and here’s what I think is a fair price. If somebody says, I can’t afford that, then I go, okay, let’s talk about a different service that you could afford. [00:27:00] In some cases, for some services, I’ll say, well, then I think you should go to somebody else because it’ll be less good service but it’ll answer your question. I am enthusiastic about recommending my colleagues.

    Dr. Sharp: Got you. Just a nuts and bolts question, are you doing all of this during, you call it a consultation, but is that like an intake interview? Do people fill out that developmental questionnaire ahead of time and then you talk with them on the phone before they even come in or how does that work when you’re deciding with them what’s the best?

    Dr. Aimee: I started doing the consultations as almost a diversionary service. The thing is that I’m only one person and I’m a perfectionist writer myself, the limiting reagent was how many reports can I write? And that’s a piece of business decision around, is [00:28:00] there a way I can hire an assistant of some kind who could help me, who would still do the quality work? I haven’t figured that out yet. That’s not something I’ve solved right now but I would get way more people asking for testing than I could possibly test.

    And very often what I would see is, I know what I’m going to tell them. I would look at the history and I go, I already know what this is going to probably be. I know what to tell them, maybe not in as much detail, maybe not as perfect as I could do it if I actually had all the testing data. But if I know that a kid is clearly struggling with social cognition, then I actually already know what I’m going to recommend for them for a lot of things. And once I meet the kid, I get a lot more information just from meeting them.

    So it was partially because I don’t have the bandwidth and partially because it lets [00:29:00] me serve more people and save them money and stuff. If somebody comes in and they say, I know that I want to do an assessment, then what I do is I have them fill out the developmental history and send me all of that pile of paperwork, every previous test, current special education records if you’ve got them, current school records if you’ve got them. And then I usually say, anything else you think would help orient me.

    I do say all prior evaluations even if you think they weren’t very good or you disagree with them because people will try to edit what they give me. I’ve seen that. I’ve been on both sides of that coin where people have edited or wanted to suppress or edit my report and then give it to somebody else. I’m like, I’m not going to edit my reports in any case.

    So I’m getting this pile of paper on the person. [00:30:00] Usually within that, I can say, okay, if they know they want an assessment, I will be able to figure out from that what I want to do. And so I’ll be able to give them a quote, we can schedule the assessment directly. They’ll come in and I orient the kid and I do an assessment and then we do feedback pretty typically.

    I can tell you a little bit more about that process but it’s more when I’m trying to do the consultation to head off the need for assessment. There’s a lot of mythology in the gifted community around, well, you’re a bad parent if you haven’t had your kid tested. And I’m like, no, you don’t need to get your kids tested, you test when you have a question that testing will answer and when you have an audience that’s interested in the answer.

    A lot of what I’m doing is educating them about, you don’t have to do testing if you don’t want to or if you don’t need to. Sometimes the consult is as a [00:31:00] prelude to maybe doing testing. So then that’s part of the question that we’re doing in the consultation is figuring out whether they now know what to do or whether they do want to have an evaluation. What’ll happen is they filled out all the paper beforehand.

    I always tell people it’s not strictly required, but I do find that it lets people give me a lot of information quickly so that we can make best use of our time together. I read faster than they talk so it’s better if I already know that stuff.

    I do do consults over video chat also and there’s obviously, I’m not going to play with the kid. But for testing, I’ll be playing with the kid and I’m taking notes on how they do playing board games or what they’re doing in the sand tray or whatever, that ends up getting rolled into the evaluation report [00:32:00] if they go forward with it.

    I’m trying to help them. I’m trying to answer their questions. They’re getting a chance to scope me out. I’m getting a chance to scope them out. There’s definitely trying to get a sense of personal fit. Sometimes I will get a really strong sense that this family is not ready to hear the news.

    Dr. Sharp: Interesting. What might give you that impression?

    Dr. Aimee: They’ll be very explicit about it. Oh, we don’t really believe in diagnosis or we don’t want our child to be labeled. We don’t want that. And I have answers for those things. I believe them. I talk about it. I believe that self-knowledge is always better than not. Once you know something about yourself, you can then decide what to do with it.

    Dr. Sharp: I would agree.

    Dr. Aimee: These are the same answers I would give, these are not gifted specific answers. Although gifted clients can often do really well with that self-knowledge. [00:33:00] It becomes then part of the grist for your problem solving. Oh, well, here’s what I’m really good at and here’s what’s harder for me, I’m going to approach this difficult task.

    The labeling thing, I say that the issue is that everybody’s always being labeled. What we’re working for is labels that are accurate and compassionate. When a kid is rude or thoughtless or a jerk or what, I’d much rather be able to explain why this kid is having trouble managing the expectations of the social world or whatever.

    I try to work with them around that but sometimes it’s very clear that they’re not comfortable with that or what they really want is a much more limited assessment that is not designed to be diagnostic. They want something that’s more aimed for advocacy [00:34:00] purposes and it’s more focused on identifying strengths.

    I write in the report that this was not designed as a diagnostic assessment and can’t answer a diagnostic question. That’s fine. I try to be clear with them that if you come in for a multi-day full neuropsychological assessment, the usual practice in that is that in that report, I am either going to make a diagnosis and explain why I’ve made it or I’m going to explain very clearly why I think no diagnosis is warranted.

    Usually if you’re in a situation where you’re thinking about a full assessment, that’s a large investment of time and money, usually there’s a problem so there’s usually going to be something diagnosable. So sometimes what it is, is that they’re able to get the help that they need. They’re able to take in the idea of, for instance, the kids with the autism spectrum disorders are probably the hardest in terms of getting [00:35:00] families on board. I could spend a whole hour talking about that.

    Dr. Sharp: Can I jump in there real quick? Because I would imagine some people might be saying, and I’m thinking, is there truly any relevant or documented comorbidity between giftedness and autism spectrum?

    Dr. Aimee: The issue is that the autism spectrum is very broad. It’s not even a single spectrum, it’s a large multi-dimensional space. I don’t think there’s any support for the idea that giftedness causes autism. Sometimes what you’ll see is that kids who are quite bright when they’re very young and they’re autistic, and they learn to read early, and they read and they score, so they gather lots of [00:36:00] information, and they score very high on measures of crystallized intelligence because they’re five and most of the kids in the norming sample don’t have access to the sources of information they do.

    As soon as you’ll get these very high scores on IQ tests at quite young ages with autistic kids where it’ll tail off if you see the same kid come back. Remember, I’m often seeing reports where I’m seeing, oh, here’s the report from when they were five, here’s the report from when they were 10, here now they’re 15, now it’s your turn and I’ll see changes over time. Sometimes those scores hold up, sometimes they don’t.

    One of the common experiences that a lot of gifted folks have is social isolation and social mismatch. You’re the normal kid, you’re going to school, school’s not built for you. Most kids have the experience of going to school and [00:37:00] having lots of kids around who are basically like them and having most of the things the teachers ask you to do to be reasonably challenging but doable. That’s what schools is for most people.

    For a lot of gifted kids, there’s nobody around who’s like you and of course, schools often systematically isolate them. They parcel them out as thinly as possible across all classrooms. Research suggests putting them together in clusters, it’s actually better for all the kids and it gives them friends. It gives them a group that’s easier to make friends with, gives the teacher a constituency, so it’s not just like the one kid.

    That’s again, topic for another podcast, but so a lot of gifted kids have limited access to the peer groups and the peer experiences that allow them to develop social skills. So a lot of times people think that a kid [00:38:00] who’s really smart must be on the spectrum because they’re a little bit geeky and they have deep passionate interests that are not necessarily typical for children their age or they’re extremely articulate. They have very big vocabularies and they are more comfortable working with older people or even with adults. And so these are features of giftedness that can masquerade as autistic stuff.

    There are also sometimes features of autism and so I don’t think that it is true that gifted people are more likely to be autistic or autistic people are more likely to be gifted. But it’s certainly of the things I see, when people come into my office with a lot of distress, the main things I see are autism spectrum disorders, ADHD, learning disabilities, anxiety disorders, mood disorders.

    Everything else in its normal thing, I’ve worked [00:39:00] with kids who are developing psychosis and things like that, but those are rare because that’s rare. It’s mostly the more common stuff.

    Dr. Sharp: Got you. Okay. I want to get into the nuances of testing with gifted kids but I do want to ask one question about, it seems clear that you have a really busy practice to the point that you’re using your intake as a diversion, which is funny.

    Dr. Aimee: I know. I have to find some way to find an associate, but there’s so much around, I need to find somebody who would be able to do what I do.

    Dr. Sharp: Sure. Oh gosh, I know that challenge. Let me ask you then about marketing or whatever you might call marketing. How did you build such a busy practice?

    Let’s take a quick break to hear from our featured partner.

    The SPECTRA: Indices of Psychopathology provides a hierarchical-dimensional look at adult psychopathology.

    Decades of research into psychiatric disorders have shown that most diagnoses can be integrated into a few broad dimensions. The SPECTRA measures 12 clinically important constructs of depression, anxiety, social anxiety, post-traumatic stress, alcohol problems, severe aggression, antisocial behavior, drug problems, psychosis, paranoid ideation, manic activation, and grandiose ideation, and organizes them into the three higher-order psychopathological SPECTRA of Internalizing, Externalizing, and Reality Impairing.

    These scores provide a quick assessment of the overall burden of an individual’s psychiatric illness, also known as the P-factor. The SPECTRA is available for paper and pencil assessment or administration and scoring via PARiConnect, PAR’s online assessment platform. Learn more at parinc.com\spectra.

    And for a limited time, get one free administration and score report for the SPECTRA on PARiConnect by calling PAR at 8558564266 and mention promo code SPEC.

    All right, let’s get back to the podcast.

    Dr. Aimee: It’s funny, I don’t market per se. I’m very much part of the online gifted community. There used to be a number of mailing lists, they’re less active now in the day of Facebook. There’s now very active stuff on Facebook. It doesn’t have the same intimacy as it used to be but I am very much part of the community.

    I’m a participant observer. I present at conferences that are aimed at parents of gifted kids as well as for my professional colleagues. I answer questions. Honestly, the way I built my practice first was just by hanging out in mailing lists, this was before social media and being knowledgeable and helpful in answering people’s questions and doing it out in public.

    And the people would be like, oh is it okay if I ask you to, I’d like to pay you for some of your time, are you willing to do that? I’m like, yes, [00:41:00] that’s what I do for a living. The vibe when I’m doing it is not, oh, but if you come in for a consult with me, then I’ll answer your question. I don’t do that.

    If I’m going to answer somebody’s question in public, I’m answering somebody’s question in public with the full knowledge that I’m giving something away. What it’s doing is it’s letting people see how I think. So people who see how I think, then say, oh, I’d like to work with her.

    The most useful thing I do is I do public speaking. I always joke, I used to do public speaking six times a day for hostile audiences because I taught middle school. They will let you know if you’re boring. So what I learned how to do and I make funny PowerPoints. I’m good at that.

    I found that by giving talks in places where [00:42:00] parents, I include adult work too, but places where people who might be interested in hiring me might hang out. For instance, at MIT, there is a weekend once a year where high school students come from literally all over. They get like 2,500 kids coming from all over the place. And like anybody in the community teaches anything for free, if it’s $40 for the whole weekend for the kid, it’s ridiculously cheap.

    So the kids are in this giant learning playground. There’s no rules about who can come, but it attracts curious smart people. And so now we have all their parents who are now hanging around with nothing to do. So the organizers set up a little parent program. I always speak at that parent program.

    Dr. Sharp: Oh, okay. That’s perfect.

    Dr. Aimee: It’s perfect. I always tell us, put me before lunch because what’s going to happen is that I’m going to give my talk and then people are not going to stop [00:43:00] asking me questions. And so put me before the lunch break so that then we have time.

    And then I usually end up just sitting out in the parent lounge area for hours afterward. People are continuing to ask me questions. I am so essentially doing what I do in public and letting people see how I think, letting people see how I approach cases and they’re getting to see me as a person.

    Dr. Sharp: Absolutely.

    Dr. Aimee: It’s great because it’s always been, by being part of the community, that has also really helped me that I can tell you when I was in dissertation how:

    a) I had no trouble getting subjects.

    b) I had people chilling for me. I provided posts to Facebook, oh my God, another 3000 words. They’d be like, hey, go, go.

    It’s like the kid from the small rural village who goes off to college to become a doctor and then comes back and sets [00:44:00] up a medical clinic for the community. It’s been part of why it works. So I think that marketing is very much being out there, being helpful and knowledgeable, letting people see how I do it, how I think.

    I am a member of the appropriate professional and parent organizations and so for instance, my state association for gifted education, I talked to them and I said, you guys should have a professional membership. They said, really? I said, yes, I would happily pay you more money every year for the right to have a listing on your website as a professional member. They’re not endorsing me, they’re just saying I’m a member and I’m a professional and I’m on their website. I have the same thing with [00:45:00] SENG.

    That means that people who are looking for an evaluator, and they go, oh, gifted, Massachusetts, let me see what I find, they find me. I also have nice relationships with, there are a few schools around here that require IQ testing for admissions. That’s very easy testing. And so I’m on their web pages too. But mostly it’s word of mouth being part of the community, that’s where it goes.

    Dr. Sharp: Just thinking about specifics, are there any particular conferences or websites or groups that you would recommend for anybody else who is interested in getting into this community?

    Dr. Aimee: What I would recommend is if you go to the blog that I never have a chance to update, part is because I’ve been working on writing the book, I write long blog posts and it’s too much. It was like I’d write something, I go, [00:46:00] oh, I should put this out where people can see it. So that’s what the blog is. I had two sticky posts there. One of them is called, oh no, my kid might be gifted, where do I start?

    Dr. Sharp: Oh, perfect. Okay.

    Dr. Aimee: I update the post rather than posting new things. I just go, oh, there’s a new edition of this. I’ll put that up there. And that gives good stuff.

    I don’t know if the misdiagnosis book saying is called Supporting the Emotional Needs of the Gifted. That’s a really good organization. It’s primarily for families and gifted people themselves, but there are professionals in it. Again, you can be a professional member. I think you do have to establish that you’re not just some carpetbagger. I have to say, people are often very suspicious around that; [00:47:00] Who are you?

    I go to the SENG conference. There’s a New England Conference on Gifted and Talented, whenever it occurs, I present at it. Locally, we have a little tiny thing happening this weekend called Beyond IQ. It’s mostly like a family reunion more than anything else.

    Essentially, I’m a member of the National Association for Gifted Children. You identify with the things. I’m also connected with the Davidson Institute for Talent Development. They serve kids who are at 3 standard deviations above the mean. I’ve done seminars for them. I’ve presented at their annual conference.

    They’re actually going again this summer. They have an annual gathering and they’ve invited me as a speaker. It’s a win-win. They get a great talk for their people and I get to be in front of people who don’t know me yet.

    Dr. Sharp: Sure. That’s [00:48:00] fantastic. Thanks for those resources. We’ll put all of those into the show notes so that folks can check those out when they are ready. So let’s transition, you’ve been so generous with your time. I really want to …

    Dr. Aimee: I talk too much, but yeah.

    Dr. Sharp: well, this is all good. You have a lot of valuable things to say, so this works well. Let’s transition into the actual assessment process. I would imagine people are really curious. Does assessment with gifted kids differ from other kids in terms of measures you might choose, the process of testing, how do you approach that?

    Dr. Aimee: Sure. Some of it has to do with managing anxiety because sometimes they’re coming in because I want to get my kid into the following school. So there’s often a lot of parental anxiety. I have had to warn parents, do not go looking for how do I [00:49:00] do test preparation. I tell the parents, the only preparation you’re allowed to do, and I want you to do this, a kid has to have a good night’s sleep and a good breakfast the morning of and the parent needs to relax as well because the kids can read the parental anxiety and then the kid’s going to get anxious. So there’s a lot of stuff around that.

    Sometimes, a lot of parents will say, oh, let’s go to take the kid to my friend and we’ll play some games with them. The gifted kids usually can tell that you’re lying to them. Why are you so anxious that I have a good night’s sleep before we go play with your friend? I don’t get it. They’re not dumb.

    It’s funny, I remember one particular case where the parent insisted I was not allowed to use the Word test.

    [00:50:00] And you know what, it was a mistake because the kid was more anxious because she didn’t know what was going on. Why is this so serious if we’re playing games? Why can’t we agree to change the rules of the game, if it’s a game?

    I think the problem is they also start worrying what’s wrong with me. No matter what’s going on, these are kids who crave knowing and it’s a different experience. So I am very honest with them. I say, I am a psychologist.

    If it’s a little kid and they don’t know what a psychologist is, I say, I’m a thoughts and feelings doctor. I help people who are frustrated in school. I think about what’s the kid’s reason for referral. I help people who are really bored in school, or I help people who are trying to have more friends. Whatever it is that the kid would identify as their reason for referral.

    I try to solicit that when I’m talking [00:51:00] with kids. What would you like to know about yourself? Recently, I was sitting with a parent and the parent had pretty typical, we’re pretty sure we know what the diagnosis is, but we need updated testing and we’re trying to get guidance on where to put the kid in school.

    And the kid says to me, I want the following career. I’m not going to say it because I don’t want to be mad, but here’s the career I want. It’s a little bit impractical but not totally. I said, this career, I can tell you, I want to be a race car driver.

    Dr. Sharp: No.

    Dr. Aimee: I said, okay, well, being the actual driver might be unrealistic because very few people can have that and he understood me. But then I said, but we can think together and we absolutely can use the testing to help you think about what you can do now in school that might help you get a job in the larger field of race car stuff. Maybe you’re going to end up [00:52:00] as an engineer, maybe as a broadcaster, maybe as a mechanic, there’s lots of things and the testing will help us figure out how to help direct you now that might help you.

    I said, that’s actually a really good reason for referral. It can really help. And that also helps bring the kid into the process because if you don’t get them in on the game, oppositional kids don’t test or you don’t validate it, and that’s true for everybody. So I do that.

    The other thing I have to really do is I have to normalize for kids the experience of what testing is going to be like, because a lot of these kids, first I explain, we’re going to do lots and lots of different things. I talk with them. If they play sports or music or something, I’ll say, oh, how is this sport different from that in terms of what you have to be good at. You have to run fast or jump high or if you’re really strong, or you can go all day. [00:53:00] Sports are different.

    Different kids have different strengths and weaknesses so I’m going to normalize that we’re going to do lots of different testing and some things are going to be really easy for you, and some things are going to be really hard for you. And that’s okay. These are kids who normally don’t get anything wrong in school very commonly.

    The other thing I have to explain to them that the tests work on the Goldilocks Principle. It’s going to start really easy and then it’s going to get harder and harder and then it’s going to get too hard. And it’s okay that it’s going to get too hard. It’s okay that you’re going to get things wrong. That’s my job, is to find the things you can’t do.

    And I tell them, I say, these tests are normed all the way up for big kids or adults or whatever. I say that I guarantee you there are going to be things that I ask you to do that you don’t know how to do. And that’s okay and that’s good.

    I give them a little bit of a quiz, as long as I keep asking you to do things, you’re probably [00:54:00] doing better than you think you are. One mistake doesn’t end it so I want you to stay in there with me. I don’t know silly answers when it’s too easy. Give me good effort when it’s hard and that’s okay but I need to give them that normalized thing.

    Sometimes when the kid is particularly anxious, I’ll use that consultation beforehand so they can meet me, that’s why we’re doing a consultation ahead of time, it lets them play with me. It lets them be okay. She’s not from the black lagoon or something like that. It lets me do some play-based evaluation.

    I don’t find that most gifted kids do not do well on do I get to earn stickers by doing subtest. Some of them do, it’s not particularly motivating. The thing that tends to motivate them is the idea that we’re going to learn something about you and I’m going to include them [00:55:00] in the process. I often do create a checklist so that they can, okay, I’ll write the things I’m going to do that day and then we’ll check them off so they can see where we’re going.

    Sometimes gifted kids have trouble accepting the the role of the authority, like I’m setting the rules here now and you’re not. I will tell them, I have to follow the rules of the test too, because I can’t … Sometimes they’ll try to control the book, try to try to turn the pages and things like that. Sometimes they don’t, they want to look at my side of the easel.

    I think a lot of kids do that and it’s anxiety. I want to see the answers. Maybe you’ll tell me the answers. I try to give the kids as much autonomy as I can. Every once in a while, I’ll get a kid who wants to make a test for me and I let them do that. That’s fine.

    I [00:56:00] want them to understand what we’re doing and to understand that the failures that they’re going to experience are totally fine and normal. It’s information. It’s not like at school where you generally know everything.

    Dr. Sharp: I think that’s so important yet to normalize that because I think most people come into it thinking, oh, this is a test, I can maybe get 100%. I’m going to be graded. And just to say like, hey, this isn’t

    how it works.

    Dr. Aimee: Not how it works. Sometimes kids will have done a thing in science class where they get a piece of tin foil and they have to make a boat. I used to talk about building balsa wood bridges and then you would find out which bridge was the strongest by seeing how much weight it could hold, but the problem is with that you end up crushing the bridge. And I said, I know that’s not a nice image.

    Because I talked about the tinfoil boat and if we wanted to know which boat could hold the most weight, then we’re going to keep putting pennies in all the boats and we’re going to see which one sinks first [00:57:00] and then we know, oh, it can hold that many pennies minus one. It doesn’t mean the boat was a bad boat, it means that that’s how many pennies it could hold before it sank.

    Dr. Sharp: That makes sense.

    Dr. Aimee: It’s something that kids have often seen something like that. I try to leverage their curiosity.

    Dr. Sharp: Good. You have to enroll them in such a lengthy process, I think.

    Dr. Aimee: Yeah.

    Dr. Sharp: So then once you get into it, what measures are you selecting? We got standard, Wechsler scales, are there different measures that are better for gifted kids or?

    Dr. Aimee: It’s an interesting thing. A part of what I’m looking at is who’s the audience. Generally, if it’s school admission stuff, most of the private schools want the Wechsler. So I’ll do that. The Wechsler is a fine test. I like the new edition because the splitting up of fluid reasoning away from visual-spatial, [00:58:00] both fits better with research and also tends to be more relevant.

    I’ll often see kids where they’re very strong in fluid reasoning and their visual-spatial is good but nothing fabulous and I like to be able to see those as two separate factors.

    Dr. Sharp: Hey, can I ask you? Sorry to interrupt you. I’m just very curious, I like to get people’s perspectives. How do you explain how fluid reasoning is relevant in everyday life to parents?

    Dr. Aimee: I usually talk about it in terms, I say intelligence is made up of a lot of different things but one of the biggest splits, this is actually how I usually start my feedback sessions, is between stuff you know, and your ability to figure out new things. Stuff you know and familiar situations for most of the time with the gifted kids, the verbal Comprehension Index is usually functions more as a crystallized intelligence. It’s [00:59:00] measuring their experience in the world.

    So fluid reasoning is about coming into a new situation, figuring out what to do when you’re not sure what to do. I also talk about how the two intertwine because one of the best things to have when you’re coming into a novel situation is to have a good pile of existing knowledge about, oh, but other problems similar to this were solved this way, so that’s crystallized intelligence about problem-solving.

    And when you’re trying to learn something new, you’re trying to build your crystallized intelligence focusing on how does this fit in with what I already know, how do I connect this, how to make sense, that’s a problem-solving technique. So they tend to intertwine, but I think of it in terms of figuring out what to do when you don’t know what to do.

    [01:00:00] Dr. Sharp: Okay. Thanks for indulging me there. I was just curious. That’s something that I think about sometimes, so measure selection.

    Dr. Aimee: The other thing I happen to like about the Wechsler, if I think that autism spectrum disorder is on the table as part of the differential, I usually do the whole test minus the reading stuff at the end but the balance between the information and the comprehension subtest, often with the gifted kids on the autism spectrum, we will see 18 on information and nine on comprehension. You see a huge split between those two subtests because it represents the difference between book learning and social learning.

    Dr. Sharp: Sure.

    Dr. Aimee: It doesn’t prove anything by itself, but a lot of times I’m looking for like, oh, I just need a little, sometimes if I’ve used a different IQ measure, I’ll often just do those two subtests as a [01:01:00] supplemental piece.

    I really like the DAS. I like it better than the Wechsler for a lot of things. I like the fact that the fluid reasoning tasks are not confounded with time, with speed.

    Dr. Sharp: Oh my gosh.

    Dr. Aimee: It gives you time to think. I like the fact that I can put the start point anywhere I want to, I don’t have to do the easy stuff. In fact, you can administer stuff out of level. Some stuff has to be administered, so if I have a four-year-old, there are some five-year-old stuff I can give them and there are still norms for it. If I have a five-year-old or if I have a gifted five-year-old on the Wechsler, they’re on the WPPSI, which means they’re going to ceiling stuff and I’m going to have ceiling effects. It’s a big issue.

    Whereas on the DAS, I can give them the school-age battery [01:02:00] which is designed for six and up, but it has norms for five-year-olds. Sometimes the cute things with the little pictures for the little kids is actually confusing and they’re like, why are you telling me this? Whereas the stuff that says Scott Squares and Circles on it, is easier for that. They’re like, oh, okay. I see what you want me to do. You want to figure out the rule. Oh, I can figure out the rule. So I like the DAS a lot.

    I don’t care for the Stanford-Binet. I find that it doesn’t have enough granularity because there’s just not enough items at any given level and the instructions are very confusing in some places for the kids. I’m like, I don’t want this to be about, could you understand the instructions?

    Dr. Sharp: Oh, of course.

    Dr. Aimee: I’ve used other tests, mostly I use the DAS and the WISC. Those are my favorites. And then I use the [01:03:00] Woodcock-Johnson, not as an overall IQ measure, but it is my best source of little diagnostic bits and pieces in the cognitive realm.

    And then I use all the same things you would use for a lot of other stuff. If I’m doing dyslexia, I’m going to be using like a CTOPP and a PAT and a GORT and things like that. I’m going to be using stuff that’s aimed at the particular question I’m asking.

    The biggest issue that I have is that most tests of social cognition are much too easy for the gifted kids and they just ace them no matter how much trouble they’re having. The thing that I’ve found thus far that has been the most sensitive has been the Social Language Development Test. It has picture items and verbal items, and a lot of times the kids can answer the verbal items reasonably correctly.

    Although they might have trouble with the, well, I can know the right thing to [01:04:00] say in a social situation as long as it doesn’t upset me but when you’re actually asking them to look at pictures and say, what’s this person thinking and why, it’s often much harder for them.

    Sometimes that also gives me a source of very clear information I can show to a parent. I can show them a picture. There’s one item on SLDT that has this kid who looks furious and he’s got his hand up in the universal stop, get away from me gesture. If I show that to the parent and I say, I want you to know your kid looked at this picture and he said, I’m five years old. It’s vivid.

    Dr. Sharp: That’s so big.

    Dr. Aimee: They can see that. They go, okay, that kid is not correctly interpreting social signals. There’s two pictures on that test that adults in these scolding [01:05:00] things, like they’re warning you, like it’s the teacher giving you the look. I can show them, I say, if this kid can’t understand what this look means, they’re going to get in trouble a lot because they got the warning, but they didn’t see the warning. So they don’t know why they’re getting in trouble, but the teacher thinks she warned them. I like that test in particular.

    I have heard really good things about the RESCA and I haven’t gotten it yet.

    Dr. Sharp: Oh yeah, I’ve seen that one going around on the listserv as well.

    Dr. Aimee: It’s being discussed. I’m likely to check that out. A lot of what I’m looking for, for the gifted kids in the neuropsychological realm is I’m looking for difficult tasks. I don’t get as much information out of something like Trails and Verbal Fluency. I usually administer them because they’re easy and fast and stuff, but oftentimes, they don’t give me a whole lot. But tests like the Tower of Hanoi or the Tower Test on the D-KEFS, [01:06:00] the tower on the D-KEFS is great because I can watch them try to learn from experience.

    Dr. Sharp: Yeah, sure.

    Dr. Aimee: It starts with, can they figure things out? How do they approach it? Do they just dive right in and do 100,000,000 moves? It gives me a sense of how they are, similarly, the Sorting Task, what do they do when they run out of easy answers?

    A lot of times it’s the qualitative stuff. With gifted kids, it’s often hard to find tasks that are actually hard for them. Frequently, even in their areas of most profound weakness, twice-exceptional kids will give you average scores because nobody told them they’re supposed to do badly on it. So they’re compensating. They’re doing everything they can to try to get the answer and they can muddle through.

    Dr. Sharp: So you’re looking at scores that are in the average range or maybe even above [01:07:00] average technically but still are significant weaknesses for these kids and have to be mindful of.

    Dr. Aimee: Yeah. I care much more about the within-kid differences. And that also is reflected in their grades. That sometimes the kids, they’ll be like, well, but he’s getting B’s in reading, I don’t know what the problem is. The school’s like, well, he’s getting B’s in reading. I’m like, well, yes, but he can barely read. It’s taking an immense amount of effort. This is not fluent, comfortable reading.

    Oftentimes, that becomes a thing that’s a little more sensitive because they can do it if you give them time but if you force them to do it immediately, they have a harder time.

    Dr. Sharp: That’s tough. Yes. So once you have all of those results, then I am curious, just to wrap the process, how do you structure the feedback session and write the report? Do [01:08:00] those differ with gifted kids versus neurotypical kids?

    Dr. Aimee: Yeah, one of the big things where I don’t know that many people do this for more typically average intelligence kids, I virtually always include kids in the feedback process.

    Dr. Sharp: Okay, at all ages?

    Dr. Aimee: Yeah, I can explain the normal curve to a smart four-year-old. They don’t understand it as well as their parents do. They’re usually curious, they want to know. What I always explain to parents is, it’s like sex, I don’t want them to get their information on the street. I want them to get their information from me because I’m a reliable source.

    Sometimes parents don’t want me to give numbers during the feedback session, and I’ll respect that because I don’t want the kid to go to school and go, I got a 137 on my IQ. I will talk with kids [01:09:00] about how do you talk with people about this and how not. It’s like bragging about your income, we don’t do that.

    But even pretty young kids, what I usually explain is I say, well, for anything we ask you to do, there’s going to be lots of different things that affect how well you can do on it and some of that is who your parents are and what you had for breakfast that morning and what I had for breakfast that morning. So there’s going to be lots of different things that affect it.

    Most of the time, the things that help you about counterbalance the things that hurt you and so you end up in the middle. And sometimes, it’s more unusual, you have more things that help you and other things that hurt you and so then that gives me the hand-wavy explanation of why a normal curve looks like it does.

    I draw a normal curve and I put little smiley faces on the normal curve to say, okay, so when we’re in the world of knowing things, you do a lot better than most kids and I draw a little [01:10:00] smiley face up here. And over here, when it comes to keeping track of what you’re thinking about and holding lots of information in your head at once, you’re much more like most kids there, or that’s a lot harder for you and I put the smiley face someplace else. I build up this color-coded thing so that they can see the score splits. When I have that kind of a split, we’ll say, oh, and I try to tie it to their experience.

    People who have this often have the feeling of I feel like I have all these ideas and I can’t remember them all. And the kid will go, oh yeah. I’m like, well, that’s where we saw that on that score. So I’m trying to tie it to them.

    The language, we’re going to keep it nonjudgmental. You know a lot of stuff, here’s what’s harder for you. It can be hard for you to do easy things quickly without getting bogged down. I go back to the kid’s reason for referral.

    A [01:11:00] part of why I want to keep the kids in this is because if we don’t tell them, besides the fact that they’re going to get information off the internet or their friends or whatever, they’re going to get a lot of wisdom, they will tend to assume there’s something deeply wrong with them. There’s a lot of shame.

    If there is something that’s diagnosably wrong, I want to be able to frame that in terms of, it’s not a death sentence, it’s this year’s, here’s what are the good aspects of this. Here’s what are the more troublesome aspects of this. Here’s how you can use your strengths to compensate for your weaknesses. Here are some things you can do to help yourself.

    I have to get to report writing. The other thing is that I leave a ton of feedback at a time. If it’s just an uncomplicated IQ test, I will allot an hour but if it goes a little over, I won’t get upset. If it’s a full evaluation, [01:12:00] I try to get it done in two hours, but sometimes parents aren’t done. Sometimes they’re not done, especially if there’s a developmental diagnosis on the table.

    Gifted kids tend to have gifted parents and they are also used to knowing a lot and understanding a lot. They don’t want me to just say, here’s the answer. They want to know, how’d you get there? What exactly was that test? No, that can’t be right.

    Usually, I don’t get outright arguments, but I get a lot of curiosity, a lot of debate. I accept that asking questions, it’s how I learned. I ask a lot of questions when I’m a student too. So I don’t get upset by the lots of questions. I’m like, I need to prove my case. I need to show them the data.

    Oftentimes I’ll pull out the rag. I’ll show them, I say, here, this is the Rey complex figure. And they go, that’s a complex figure. I say, yes, that’s a complex figure. And [01:13:00] I say, what do you notice about it? They’ll tell me different things. I’ll say, okay, so now I’m going to show you, first thing I asked you to do was to copy it. And I’ll say, we noticed and they’ll see like, wow, the kid missed a lot of the important details even though it was right in front of them or wow, they’re seeing all the pieces, but they don’t see how it all fits together.

    If I had only one traditional neuropsychological test, the Rey would be the thing. I find that it usually gives me a lot of information. I hate to say this in front of a lot of neuropsychologists, but the Rorschach is my favorite of tests. It gives me a ton of useful information. It’s really good. You can hate on me for it if you want, but it’s very helpful. I would never diagnose anything on the basis of the Rorschach alone, but it gives very rich information.

    To go back to Rey, I’ll show them, they’ll be able to see, wow, this kid can see all these details, but they don’t see how they [01:14:00] fit together. I can also use that to build empathy. For a lot of folks with autism, it’s like every detail in the world is exactly as important as every other detail in the world. And that makes them really observant, but it also gets them overwhelmed.

    It’s hard for them to fit it into a coherent whole, and you can see that here. They can see that on the thing. And then I can show them the recall copies. I say, and here’s what they internalized from it when I asked them to do it from memory. You’ll see details randomly scattered on the page or whatever, or the kid with ADHD where they’ve got the basic idea, but everything’s just missing and it’s very sloppy. The point is I show the parents primary data so that they can see where I’m coming from.

    There’s a lot of family therapy [01:15:00] involved. There’s often oh yeah, my brother’s just like that too, or my spouse is just like that, or I’m just like that. I think that’s certainly not specific to gifted kids but doing that family work around acceptance is important.

    My number one rule is, I don’t want my reports to be used as fish wrap. If they’re rejecting the report, if they go, I paid all this money and she’s wrong, then I haven’t been able to help this person. So I do try to accept that it’s going to take longer. I want them to feel that they’ve had their questions answered.

    Sometimes they’ll send me emails later with other questions. What I do is I take notes during feedback and I make a point of making whatever I told them, I make sure I incorporate those questions into the report as well and make sure that that information goes in. [01:16:00] It’s long but it’s worth it because ultimately, if I’ve gone to all this trouble to do the report and then they don’t believe me, then I’m not helping anybody.

    Dr. Sharp: Right. Believing comes through educating and just walking them through. I don’t know about you, Aimee, but I find those feedback sessions fun if somebody is asking nuanced questions like what’s the difference between rote memory and working memory? Why can they do this but not that? That’s fun for me. I’m like, okay, we can talk about this.

    Dr. Aimee: I’m trying to tie it to their everyday experience too. What’s always amazing is when I’ll tell them something like, oh, I’ve noticed that you come up with a million ideas but then you struggle to get them all out before you’ve forgotten them. And they go, how did you [01:17:00] know? It was something they hadn’t told me. If they had noticed it and crystallized it, they probably would have told me but they didn’t realize it.

    And so I’m able to show them things and then they go, oh yeah, that is like me, or that is like my kid, that explains it. And so I’m helping them build. I always say, I do diagnosis because the universe demands diagnosis, but I care about case formulation. I want to build a coherent understanding; why does this person have the dilemmas and struggles they do? What can we do about it?

    The goal is for it to be really empowering. A lot of times, it helps people build compassion for themselves and for their kids and it helps them build a sense of hope that I’m not stupid. Kids tend to globalize because people tend to globalize. [01:18:00] It’s like, you’re not stupid at all. Here are the things that you’re super good at and here are the things that are a lot harder for you. And it is normal to not be good at everything.

    Here’s why you like the things you like and here’s why the things that are hard for you are hard for you, and here’s what you can do. Ideally, it’s a joyful process. It’s not always, it can be hard.

    Dr. Sharp: Of course.

    Dr. Aimee: Is a grieving process often. There’s that sense of the death of the ideal child in mind.

    Dr. Sharp: Oh yeah. Of course.

    Dr. Aimee: I’m a therapist in addition to it. I know that some people who do testing, they’re testers. That’s what they like. I’m a therapist at heart. In some cases for adults, I’ll do a formal therapeutic assessment where the [01:19:00] report writing looks completely different. Are you familiar with Steven Finn’s work?

    Dr. Sharp: Yeah, I interviewed a psychologist, Dr. Megan Warner, who’s also over on the East Coast. She’s over near Yale. We did a whole episode on therapeutic assessment, I think it was episode 10.

    Dr. Aimee: I think both formal therapeutic assessments where you’re going towards a letter or a personal fable or something like that, I love doing that with people, folks because you can leverage somebody’s imagination, develop a story.

    For a lot of the adults who come in, it’s like, I can’t keep a job. What is wrong with me? Or I’m struggling to deal with personal dilemmas. My father is dying or whatever, the things that people deal with and using the testing as an extended therapeutic session. Having them join in the process of interpretation with [01:20:00] you, it’s really good for them. It leverages their strengths.

    They’ll often come up with ideas that, oh, I’m not really sure. I might have an idea but I’m not really sure and they’ll go, no, it’s this. I’m like, oh, yes, now I see it. I do share the process as much as I can with them.

    Even when I’m going to be writing a formal report because there’s an audience out there or I need to, I still try to keep to the idea of keeping them as a partner in the process.

    Dr. Sharp: I think that’s a great perspective just to have with assessment in general. It’s strength based and you’re trying to enroll the person and ultimately they’re the ones who benefit, hopefully. Well, this is great, Aimee. I feel like we have packed so much helpful information.

    Dr. Aimee: I talk too much.

    Dr. Sharp: No, this is fantastic. You basically walked us through from start to finish how [01:21:00] to develop and run and the structure of practice aimed at gifted and twice-exceptional kids and young adults, of course. This is amazing.

    Dr. Aimee: And adults. There are people out there who do a lot of work with adults. I have adults in my therapy case where I have quite a number of adults.

    Dr. Sharp: Well, it’s a needed service. It sounds like you’re doing a great job.

    Dr. Aimee: Yeah. It’s one of my goals in life is to teach more people. One of the other sticky things on my blog is, I was helped to find a therapist for a gifted client and people write to me, do you know anybody in lower Townsville? And I’m like, no, I don’t. I would love to have a broader network of people who are culturally competent with this group both for therapy and for testing and do a good job.

    Dr. Sharp: Just to bring it full [01:22:00] circle, we started talking about how working with gifted individuals is maybe a cultural competence and it helps to view it that way. Do you have any parting words or resources for psychologists who might want to learn more about working with gifted individuals or testing with gifted individuals, anything like that?

    Dr. Aimee: I think there’s two things. One is, I mentioned that, oh no, my kid might be gifted. That’ll enter you into a lot of the main resources; go to Hoagies’ website, see what’s going on. There’s part of that you need to educate yourself.

    There is a book, they’ve just had a new edition of it called The Misdiagnosis and Dual Diagnosis of Gifted Individuals. It’s a lot of clinical lore, but it’s quite useful in orienting because there are issues with overdiagnosis, underdiagnosis, and misdiagnosis.

    There’s a lot of [01:23:00] times where people want to explain away very pathological behavior on the logic that, oh, that must be because they’re so smart. There’s times where we don’t see how much they’re struggling because they’re so smart and they’re working hard at it, and there are times where we misattribute.

    So like I got this one little boy. He was adorable. Both of his parents had doctorates in mathematics and he had memorized the entire public transit schedule of the Greater Boston area.

    Dr. Sharp: Oh, goodness.

    Dr. Aimee: Okay. You’re, the kid must be on the spectrum. I always use memorizing train schedules as the everybody’s idea of what autism is, like, oh yeah, that’s what they do. And I said, most of them don’t do that. This one did.

    I tested him and I played with him and I talked to him, no, he was a little boy who lives in the big city and his parents don’t own a car. [01:24:00] It was interesting and it became like this fun family thing and he really does love public transit. It’s really interesting. Maybe he’ll become a civil engineer or something like that or a city planner or something someday.

    It was just interesting and fun. It gets him out in the world and it orients him, I feel safe. I know what bus that is that’s coming because it’s this time of day and I’m on this street, so I know what bus that is. Both in how he interacted with me and how he did on the various tests, I was like, no, he is just anxious. It had more of an OCD flavor than autism stuff.

    So people will miss, that’s the kind of thing where somebody would take that and go, oh, well, obviously, and you’re like, no. So it’s really important to be aware that you can make mistakes in all those directions. That book’s a good place. It is written for clinicians.

    [01:25:00] Steven Feifer has some stuff. The AP does have a book on the psychology of giftedness. Most of the stuff is focused around kids in school with adjustment disorders.

    The other piece that I would want to say is most of the psychologists that I know are pretty smart. You have to be pretty smart to get into the field, especially if you like doing testing because to do the coursework to do that, to do the training to do that, so chances are good that you are smart yourself. I think it’s important to work through what that has meant to you and to get comfortable within yourself.

    When I think of it in terms of cultural development, we talk about the notion of developing a multicultural self.

    To really know, what is this to me? I see myself [01:26:00] as an ambassador between these two cultures. The problem is that what you have, it’s just like anything else, what you haven’t metabolized, what you haven’t processed, you’re going to act out.

    When people talk to me about painful experiences that they’ve had, it often has that flare of somebody trying to cut you down a notch, you’re not so smart, you’re trying to stop being so oppositional, you think you know everything or whatever. And so you need to get comfortable with your own intelligence and accept what it means to you, what it’s been.

    It may have affected your life, it may not have affected your life. How it feels to know that there are people out there, no matter who you are, I guarantee you there are people who are smarter than you, and there are people who are better than you at everything and what that’s like? Because if you haven’t thought it through, you will act it out with your clients, and that’s not okay. [01:27:00] It’s just like any other countertransference reaction.

    Dr. Sharp: Yeah, but one that we don’t talk about. This is literally the first time I’ve heard anyone mention that as an identity to be aware of as you’re working with folks. I think that’s super valuable. My brain is spinning, all these experiences over the year, okay. This is great.

    Well, Aimee, I so appreciate all the time that you spent with me this morning and I think that people are going to find this really helpful.

    Dr. Aimee: I’m glad. It was great fun.

    Dr. Sharp: Good. If folks want to get in touch with you or follow up for any reason; what’s the best way to contact you?

    Dr. Aimee: Usually email. My website is www.davincilearning.org. My email is aimee@davincilearning.org. [01:28:00] That’s usually the easiest way to set things up. I do consultations, for quick questions, I often answer them and if people want me to sit down and do a consult with a case with you, we do that hourly. I do that too.

    Sometimes people are struggling with that, oh, I’ve got this tricky, not sure what to do with, I’m happy to help out with those because very often it is a pattern that I’ve seen, you may not have seen it a lot because this is who I work with, I probably have seen that pattern before.

    Dr. Sharp: Great. That sounds awesome. We’ll put all that information in the show notes too, so that folks can get in touch with you if they want to. Well, thank you again. This is great. I really appreciate your time, Aimee.

    Dr. Aimee: Great. Thank you.

    Dr. Sharp: Take care. Okay, y’all. Thanks so much for checking out that episode with Aimee Yermish. Lots of links in the show notes. I’m just struck by how this content though it is, gosh, at this point, probably over four years old still holds true. There’s a lot of relevance and I hope that you took a lot away from that episode.

    We are headed into the springtime. I hope you are all doing well, getting those vaccines, if you’re choosing to do so and having a little hope there might be a light at the end of the tunnel. I will be back with you, of course, with a business episode next week or this Thursday rather, and invite you to tune in for that.

    If you have not subscribed to the podcast, I would invite you to do so. You can do that easily in iTunes, in Spotify, it is follow. So look for that button and the more people that do that, the easier it is to spread the word and that’s always a good thing, to get folks talking about testing and listening about testing if they’re in the field. So thank you so much. Take care. I’ll see you next time.

    Information contained in this podcast and on The Testing Psychologist website are intended for informational and educational purposes only. Nothing in this podcast or on the website is intended to be a substitute for professional psychological psychiatric or medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment.

    Please note that no doctor-patient relationship is formed here. Similarly, no supervisory or consultative relationship is formed between the host or guests of this podcast and listeners of this podcast. If you need the qualified advice of any mental health practitioner or medical provider, please seek one in your area. Similarly, if you need supervision on clinical matters, please find a supervisor with expertise that fits your needs.

    Click here to listen instead!

  • 195. Assessment for Gifted and Twice Exceptional Individuals with Dr. Aimee Yermish (Replay)

    195. Assessment for Gifted and Twice Exceptional Individuals with Dr. Aimee Yermish (Replay)

    Would you rather read the transcript? Click here.

    As a grown up gifted kid herself, Dr. Aimee Yermish definitely “gets it.” She coupled her lifetime of personal experience with a doctorate in psychology to build a highly successful practice working primarily with gifted and twice exceptional individuals. Here are just a few things I learned while talking to Aimee:

    • Giftedness can be viewed as a cultural experience, and it is important for practitioners to be culturally competent with this population
    • Gifted kids often have gifted parents who really appreciate longer feedback sessions and detailed reports so that they can understand your thinking
    • Smart psychologists have to do their own work around being smart, or it will come out as countertransference

    Cool Things Mentioned in This Episode

    Featured Resource

    I am honored to partner with PAR for 2021 to bring you featured items from their catalog! Listen to each episode for specific product recommendations and links. Learn more at www.parinc.com.

    The Testing Psychologist podcast is approved for CEU’s!

    I’ve partnered with At Health to offer CE credits for podcast episodes! Visit this link to access current and past episodes available for CE credit. You can use code “TTP10” for a discount on ALL the course credits you purchase from At Health!

    About Dr. Aimee Yermish

    Dr. Aimee Yermish

    Aimee Yermish, PsyD is a clinical psychologist and educational therapist practicing in Stow, Massachusetts. She provides consultation, therapy, and assessment for clients who manifest giftedness or multiple exceptionality. Drawing on her analytical background as a scientist and practical background as a teacher, she focuses on building self-understanding, self-regulation, and range of choice in life. Her book on executive functioning coaching for smart people, “If You’re So Smart,” is in progress with Great Potential Press. You can reach Aimee at aimee@davincilearning.org

    About Dr. Jeremy Sharp

    I’m a licensed psychologist and Clinical Director at the Colorado Center for Assessment & Counseling, a private practice that I founded in 2009 and have grown to over 20 clinicians. I earned my undergraduate degree in Experimental Psychology from the University of South Carolina before getting my Master’s and PhD in Counseling Psychology from Colorado State University. These days, I specialize in psychological and neuropsychological evaluation with kids and adolescents.

    As the host of the Testing Psychologist Podcast, I provide private practice consulting for psychologists and other mental health professionals who want to start or grow psychological testing services in their practices. I live in Fort Collins, Colorado with my wife (also a therapist) and two young kids.

    Ready to grow your testing services? Click below to schedule a complimentary 30-minute pre-consulting call!

    [x_button shape=”square” size=”large” float=”none” href=”https://app.acuityscheduling.com/schedule.php?owner=13476033&appointmentType=2843005″ target=”blank” info=”none” info_place=”top” info_trigger=”hover”]Schedule Your Call[/x_button]

  • 194. Establishing a Consultation Group

    194. Establishing a Consultation Group

    Would you rather read the transcript? Click here.

    Today’s episode is an attempt to answer a question that I get a lot from consulting clients and the Facebook group: how do you find a consultation group as a post-graduate clinician? I’ve benefited greatly from a few consultation groups over the years, and I recommend joining a consultation group as one of the pillars of building a practice. Here are a few things I talk about in the episode:

    • Why join a consultation group
    • Types of consultation groups
    • How to find a consultation group
    • Ways to structure the consultation group

    Cool Things Mentioned

    Featured Resource

    I am honored to partner with PAR for 2021 to bring you featured items from their catalog! Listen to each episode for specific product recommendations and links. Learn more at www.parinc.com.

    The Testing Psychologist podcast is approved for CEU’s!

    I’ve partnered with At Health to offer CE credits for podcast episodes! Visit this link to access current and past episodes available for CE credit. You can use code “TTP10” for a discount on ALL the course credits you purchase from At Health!

    About Dr. Jeremy Sharp

    I’m a licensed psychologist and Clinical Director at the Colorado Center for Assessment & Counseling, a private practice that I founded in 2009 and have grown to over 20 clinicians. I earned my undergraduate degree in Experimental Psychology from the University of South Carolina before getting my Master’s and PhD in Counseling Psychology from Colorado State University. These days, I specialize in psychological and neuropsychological evaluation with kids and adolescents.

    As the host of the Testing Psychologist Podcast, I provide private practice consulting for psychologists and other mental health professionals who want to start or grow psychological testing services in their practices. I live in Fort Collins, Colorado with my wife (also a therapist) and two young kids.

    Ready to grow your testing services? Click below to schedule a complimentary 30-minute pre-consulting call!

    [x_button shape=”square” size=”large” float=”none” href=”https://app.acuityscheduling.com/schedule.php?owner=13476033&appointmentType=2843005″ target=”blank” info=”none” info_place=”top” info_trigger=”hover”]Schedule Your Call[/x_button]

  • 194 Transcript

    [00:00:00] Dr. Sharp: Hello, everyone. Welcome to The Testing Psychologist podcast, the podcast where we talk all about the business and practice of psychological and neuropsychological assessment. I’m your host, Dr. Jeremy Sharp, licensed psychologist, group practice owner, and private practice coach.

    PAR has a number of remote testing tools that will help you stay safe during social distancing times. Measures include the RIST-2, the RAIT, the TOGRA, the IGT2, and the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test®. Learn more at parinc.com\remote.

    All right, everyone. Here we are again. Thanks for joining me today for another business episode. Today’s episode is all about answering a question that I get a lot from consulting clients, and something I hear a lot in the Facebook group, which is, how do you find and [00:01:00] establish a consultation group as a post-graduate clinician?

    So, I’ve had the good fortune of being in a number of consultation groups both in-person and remote over the past 10 or 12 years. They’ve really been instrumental to my emotional health, and practice health, business, getting referrals, and just having support. It’s really, really valuable. So, I want to talk through some ideas about establishing and running your own consultation group.

    A few things that I get into are: why join a consultation group in the first place, the different types of consultation groups, how to find a consultation group, ways to structure the consultation group, and a few other things. So, if any of that sounds interesting, this could be a good episode for you.

    [00:02:00] Additionally, if you are an advanced practice owner or a practice owner that would like to move into the advanced stage, my Advanced Practice Mastermind is starting on June 10th for the next cohort.

    This is a small group coaching experience where we will provide accountability and support to help you reach goals in your practice. So, this could be things like hiring or hiring more. It could be streamlining your schedule and balancing your time. Cutting back on being overwhelmed. It could be developing additional streams of income. Any number of other things.

    So, if you have mastered the initial stage of practice and now really want to dial it in, this could be a great option for you. You can get more information and schedule a pre-group call at thetestingpsychologists.com/advanced.

    All right, let’s get to talking about consultation groups.

    [00:03:00] Okay, everyone. Let’s just dive right into it. On these business episodes, I don’t beat around the bush too much. I want to just get into the material so that you can learn a little bit and hopefully take away a few things. So, all about a consultation group.

    Now, here’s where I started with this. I was fortunate enough early in my career. So I’m talking within a year of going out in private practice, which was within a year of getting licensed. So very early career. I had the good fortune to end up in not just one but [00:04:00] two consultation groups. And both of those groups, even though I eventually stopped attending these groups a few years ago, both of those groups really helped form the foundation of my referral base. And I continue to get a number of referrals from members in both of those groups. And not just that, but I’ve been able to maintain really solid relationships with individuals in both of those groups over the years as well.

    So, I think that those things go hand in hand. When you have positive relationships with your peers in town, that tends to relate well to getting referrals from those peers as well.

    A consultation group really served a number of purposes for me in the beginning. It was just providing support and collegiality and [00:05:00] helping keep all of us sane while we were building our practices and just bounce ideas off one another. And, of course, the clinical support was fantastic as well.

    So, I’m a big believer in the power of consultation groups. And I want to share a little bit about that whole process here with you today.

    I’ve touched on this already and maybe this is obvious, but when you think about why you might want to join a consultation group, there are really three components that I think of.

    One is the clinical support. I think that clinical support is one of the main reasons that people seek out a consultation group.  Ideally, you would find a group of other testing clinicians because at least from the clinical standpoint, that’s where we need the most support and collaboration.

    And ultimately I will say this, [00:06:00] my consultation groups were not specifically focused on testing. The members in the group were not solely testing clinicians. And this was ultimately what led me to leave those groups because as I zeroed in on testing, which happened relatively quickly in private practice, it became more and more obvious that if I needed clinical support, that’s what I wanted to be talking about.

    Now, what made it really tough, and I honestly stayed in these groups I think longer than it was clinically relevant was just the relationships.

    So, the second reason that a lot of folks will get into a consultation group is for emotional support. When I say emotional support, I just mean a consultation group can help you feel less isolated, help you feel more connected, and it can also really help with just that anxiety of [00:07:00] liability in private practice.

    I think a lot of us if we’ve worked in agencies, we get really used to walking down the hall and consulting with people. And when that safety net gets taken away, it does feel quite vulnerable in private practice when you run up against situations that are challenging and you don’t necessarily have someone to turn to. So having that consultation group is great from a clinical perspective, but really just knowing that you have that safety net and that you have some backup if you run into tricky clinical issues can be very helpful.

    Now, the third component that I think about that I’ve alluded to already is building relationships not just for marketing, but marketing is a nice byproduct of building relationships with folks. And anyone who has listened to the podcast for a while knows that for me, I don’t really think of these interactions as [00:08:00] networking or marketing. It’s always about building relationships. But the two tend to go hand in hand like I said. 

    So this is the third piece that I think really helps with a consultation group or as a way that a consultation group can support you and be beneficial is just to help you build relationships and again develop not just referral sources for your own practice, but referral sources for you to send people to whenever you have that need.

    So, those are just a few reasons why you might join a consultation group. Hopefully, we’re all on the same page with that. I think they can be very beneficial.

    Now, there are a number of types of consultation groups. And I’m really just going to be talking about clinical consultation. Business can often come up, but really I’m thinking more from a clinical perspective.

    There are a number of types of groups that [00:09:00] might be out there. You might look for a group that is comprised solely of testing clinicians. You might look for a group that is solely therapists. The groups that I was in were mixed. Some folks doing testing, some folks doing therapy, eventually got to the point where I was the only one doing testing and that got a little tougher.

    There are certainly other factors that you can take into account when you’re looking for a group. So, it could be gender-specific. It could be culturally specific. You can look at the frequency. There are groups out there that meet weekly, bi-monthly, monthly, quarterly. They might last an hour, an hour and a half, two hours.

    There are a ton of options when you’re thinking about the type of [00:10:00] consultation group that you are looking for. So, just know that there is really something to fit everyone. And one piece that I haven’t mentioned here is that you can find one that’s in person or remote especially these days.

    So the question that comes up a lot around consultation groups is just where to find them, especially for testing folks. And so, I’ll start with the in-person options and then move to the more remote options which have cropped up certainly over the last year or so during the pandemic, which has been amazing to see people come together like that. But there are a bunch of in-person options too.

    Now, if you’re in a bigger community, this is going to be easier, of course, especially if you’re only looking for testing clinicians. You’re going to have a bigger pool to draw from in a larger community or a city. So, if you live in a place where there are [00:11:00] enough testing clinicians to form a consultation group, then you can email those members directly. You can post on your local Facebook group. You can post on a local listserv if you’re in a bigger Metro area where there are likely to be a number of listserv members who live near you.

    So, there are several options for trying to reach out and find potential members for your consultation group. And I always recommend, if you’re really looking for the consultation group to be a primary source of marketing or referrals for you, then staying local is the way to go. And it might take a little bit longer especially if you’re in a smaller area or less populated area, but it can be really helpful for again, referrals and relationships.

    Now, if you’re open to the [00:12:00] remote option, then things open up quite a bit. And this is one place that The Testing Psychologist Community on Facebook, I think has really stepped up and become a resource for folks. I’ve seen several consultation groups form in the Facebook community. These individuals meet remotely. And I’ve seen all sorts of formats. And it’s frankly been pretty humbling and just impressive to see how many consultation groups have formed and folks have connected through the Facebook community and continue to meet regularly.

    So, if you’re not a member of The Testing Psychologist Community on Facebook, I would certainly invite you to join and search for a consultation group there.

    Let’s take a quick break to hear from our featured partner.

    Keeping your clients safe while [00:13:00] serving them during the pandemic is so important. But how do you do this? PAR’s remote testing tools allow you to maintain social distancing while you’re doing testing. A dedicated remote version of the popular RIAS 2 and RIST 2 enables you to assess for intelligence, and downloadable remote testing guidelines are available for the RAIT, TOGRA the IGT-2, and the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test.

    Watch a video that walks you step-by-step through remote testing and access more than 130 e-manuals that allow you to retrieve product information without going into your office. Plus, nearly 90 products are available on PARiConnect- the industry’s most reliable online assessment platform. Learn more at parinc.com\remote.

    All right, let’s get back to the podcast.

    There are also national listservs. So [00:14:00] something like the PED-NPSY listserv or division-specific listservs. I’m sure you can put messages on the listservs and try to solicit members for a consultation group or see if you can join an existing consultation group.

    And there are plenty of other practice-oriented groups on Facebook. I think that as far as testing clinicians, there are really only two groups that that might be relevant. There are certainly some school psychology groups, but The Testing Psychologist Community has quite a few assessment clinicians who might be open to a remote consultation group. So, lots of options. And deciding whether you want to do it in-person or remote is one of your first choices to make.

    Now, let’s say that you have decided you want to do a consultation group [00:15:00] and you still need to develop some structure and some guidelines and some guard rails or a framework for this consultation group.

    Now, if you’re the one that is starting the group, this becomes a lot more important.

    So, thinking about running a consultation group, that was really where we’re at now. So one of the first things that you want to think about is the membership of the group- not just what kind of clinicians will be in the group, whether it’s testing or therapy or both, but what level of experience do you want? Do you want people who are all at the same level of experience or do you want some combination of mentoring and learning between the members? I personally have seen it work in both in both cases.

    It really just depends on what you want because [00:16:00] I think we know that as far as learning new material or learning a skill, there’s some information out there to suggest that you do best when there are three levels of learning. You basically need a peer who is at your same level, you need a teacher or someone who is better than you, and you need a student or someone who is maybe less skilled than yourself. And when you have all three of those individuals, that really maximizes personal growth and development. So if you’re able to craft a group with all three levels where each member is getting at least two of those three levels, that can be a really magical situation.

    Now, the downside of that is [00:17:00] if everyone is not kind of invested in that model, then you can end up with folks feeling resentful. This often goes in the direction of the more experienced folks can feel resentful that they are kind of volunteering time and energy and not necessarily taking much away from the group. So that’s something to watch out for. But on the flip side, if you have folks that are all at the same level of experience, it can sometimes make it hard to feel challenged or feel like you are contributing to the group or mentoring someone. So, it’s really just about what you prefer, what you want in this group. You get to be the architect of the group. Both can work, but you need to think through it before you start reaching out for members.

    On the flip side, if you are finding groups, this is a good question to ask. What level of experience are people at? [00:18:00] And this might be just years in the field or certain specialties, things like that.

    Now, continuing on with structure that you want to think about with a group like this, the biggest one I think is, well, actually, there are a lot of “biggest” things to think about when you’re developing a group. One is how to spend group time. So, do you divide it up evenly? Do you use a timer? I’ve been in groups that use timers, which feels a little too rigid for me, but that was born from some difficulty allocating time appropriately. Do you use a hot seat model, which is what I do in my own mastermind groups where certain people get spots each week, and it’s [00:19:00] a prescribed amount of time for each of those individuals. Do you set an agenda at the beginning and just roll with it and see where it ends up?

    I would recommend even if you have a pretty loose structure that you set an agenda and have someone who’s in charge of moving the agenda along. And to me, this really also plays into the group norms.

    So, I found that it can be really helpful if you just say at the beginning, “Hey, we’re all responsible for keeping one another on track and in check. And we’re also personally responsible for letting others know when we’ve gotten what we needed” because what I found is, clinicians get together, they can talk about cases really forever. And unless the speaker says, “Hey, I’ve gotten what I’ve needed. I’m [00:20:00] good. We can move on.” It’s really hard to cut off that discussion and make space for other people.

    So, my recommendation is to set an agenda of some sort and set some group norms that when the individual gets their question answered or gets the support they need that they are also responsible for saying, “Okay, I’m good.” So how to spend group time is important.

    Another important piece to consider is commitment. So are you going to run this group as a cohort model where people join the group and then the group is closed and those members are expected to come every time, or are you doing more of a drop-in group where people can come and go, it’s a little looser? I think the trade-off there is safety and security in the group, right? If people are dropping in and out, it I think makes it a lot tougher to be [00:21:00] vulnerable and really go deep in a consultation group. And that’s fine, but it depends on what you want.

    The groups that I’ve seen that have felt just most personally valuable for me have been closed groups where membership was set pretty early on and everyone was expected to be there each week. And we showed up and we supported one another and it created an environment of safety and a place where we could be vulnerable.

    Now, another component that you want to think about is, is there an identified leader for the group or is it peer-led? Most of the time, I think these groups are peer-led. However, at the same time, I think you do need someone, like I said, in each group, it might not be the same person every time, but you need someone who is in charge of keeping things on the rails.

    Another piece you want to talk about is safety and confidentiality [00:22:00] in a consultation group.

    It might go without saying that everything stays confidential, but you don’t know. You want to make that explicit.

    And another factor that you want to keep in mind when you’re forming a group like this is how big of a group you want. I think that, again, this relates back to what kind of environment and what kind of relationships are you trying to create. I think it is tougher with a larger group to really guarantee safety and security and closeness.

    And so for me, the ideal size for a group like that is 6 to 8 people. Where, especially if you’re just meeting for an hour, 6 to 8 is plenty in terms of people getting their needs met and having time to talk about what they want to talk about, and also small enough that [00:23:00] people can trust one another, but yet not large enough that there are cliques that necessarily formed within the group which might not be a bad thing that can happen. But yeah, I have enough training in group dynamics to be very conscious of sub-grouping and cohesion and things like that. So, a 6 to 8 person consultation group has worked really well in the past.

    So, those are just a few components of a consultation group that you want to consider when you are certainly forming the group. And then, on the other side, if you’re looking for a group, you definitely want to ask these questions to have a good idea of what you’re getting into.

    All right. So this was just a little primer on consultation groups. I hope you’re walking away with the idea that a [00:24:00] consultation group could be helpful for you. Like I said, I’ve found them incredibly helpful, and have heard many stories from colleagues about how helpful they can be.

    So there will be some resources in the show notes. If you want to look up anything that I mentioned, any of those listservs or communities, particularly in terms of searching for a remote consultation group, but give it some thought. Consultation is super helpful. And most of the time these groups are all since there’s no leader and they’re kind of peer-led, there’s no charge. And that’s amazing. In a world where we can often pay for clinical consultation, a peer-led group can be a real asset.

    Okay, thanks for listening. As always, like I said at the beginning, if this has gotten you fired up about joining a group and you would like a structured group with some coaching and true accountability, [00:25:00] you might check out The Testing Psychologist Advanced Practice Mastermind. You can get more information about that at thetestingpsychologists.com/advanced. You can schedule a pre-group call and we’ll figure out if it’s a good fit for you. Our next cohort starts June 10th. It is a closed group. And I would love to talk with you to see if it would be a good fit for you.

    Okay, take care. I’ll be back with you next Monday.

    The information contained in this podcast and on The Testing Psychologist website are intended for informational and educational purposes only. Nothing in this podcast or on the website is intended to be a substitute for professional, [00:26:00] psychological, psychiatric, or medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment.

    Please note that no doctor-patient relationship is formed here. And similarly, no supervisory or consultative relationship is formed between the host or guests of this podcast and listeners of this podcast. If you need the qualified advice of any mental health practitioner or medical provider, please seek one in your area. Similarly, if you need supervision on clinical matters, please find a supervisor with an expertise that fits your needs.

    Click here to listen instead!

  • 193. Masterclass: Reading & Executive Functioning w/ Dr. Steve Feifer

    193. Masterclass: Reading & Executive Functioning w/ Dr. Steve Feifer

    Would you rather read the transcript? Click here.

    Welcome to another Masterclass episode! If you missed the first one with Dr. Stephanie Nelson, definitely check that one out. Today my guest is Dr. Steve Feifer, developer of the Feifer family of academic measures. We’re talking all about reading disorders and executive functioning. The format for today’s Masterclass is a bit different than last time, however. Instead of Dr. Feifer presenting his own case, he is providing “live consultation” on two of my own cases. (Note: any identifying information was removed from the data, and demographic information was changed appropriately). You can find the data that we discuss as a download in the Cool Things Mentioned section.

    As always, let me know what you think of the Masterclass format. Hope you enjoy!

    Cool Things Mentioned

    Featured Resource

    I am honored to partner with PAR for 2021 to bring you featured items from their catalog! Listen to each episode for specific product recommendations and links. Learn more at www.parinc.com.

    The Testing Psychologist podcast is approved for CEU’s!

    I’ve partnered with At Health to offer CE credits for podcast episodes! Visit this link to access current and past episodes available for CE credit. You can use code “TTP10” for a discount on ALL the course credits you purchase from At Health!

    Dr. Steven Feifer

    Dr. Steven G. Feifer, D. Ed., ABSNP is an internationally renowned speaker and author in the field of learning disabilities, and has authored eight books on learning and emotional disorders in children. He has more than 20 years of experience as a school psychologist and is dually certified in school neuropsychology. Dr. Feifer has been the recipient of numerous awards including the Maryland School Psychologist of the Year in 2008, and the 2009 National School Psychologist of the Year by the National Association of School Psychologists. Dr. Feifer currently assesses children at the Monocacy Neurodevelopmental Center in Frederick, MD, and remains a popular presenter at state and national conferences. He has authored three tests on diagnosing learning disabilities in children, all of which are published by PAR.

    Contact Dr. Steven Feifer:

    About Dr. Jeremy Sharp

    I’m a licensed psychologist and Clinical Director at the Colorado Center for Assessment & Counseling, a private practice that I founded in 2009 and have grown to over 20 clinicians. I earned my undergraduate degree in Experimental Psychology from the University of South Carolina before getting my Master’s and PhD in Counseling Psychology from Colorado State University. These days, I specialize in psychological and neuropsychological evaluation with kids and adolescents.

    As the host of the Testing Psychologist Podcast, I provide private practice consulting for psychologists and other mental health professionals who want to start or grow psychological testing services in their practices. I live in Fort Collins, Colorado with my wife (also a therapist) and two young kids.

    Ready to grow your testing services? Click below to schedule a complimentary 30-minute pre-consulting call!

    [x_button shape=”square” size=”large” float=”none” href=”https://app.acuityscheduling.com/schedule.php?owner=13476033&appointmentType=2843005″ target=”blank” info=”none” info_place=”top” info_trigger=”hover”]Schedule Your Call[/x_button]

  • 193 Transcript

    Dr. Sharp: Hello, everyone. Welcome to The Testing Psychologist Podcast, the podcast where we talk all about the business and practice of psychological and neuropsychological assessment. I’m your host, Dr. Jeremy Sharp, licensed psychologist, group practice owner, and private practice coach. 

    This episode is brought to you by PAR. The Feifer Assessment of Writing examines why students may struggle with writing. The FAW and the FAW screening form are available on PARiConect, PAR’s online assessment platform. Learn more at parinc.com\faw

    All right, everyone. Welcome back to the Testing Psychologist.

    Hey, today’s episode is another masterclass episode. The last one with Dr. Stephanie Nelson from a few months ago was wildly popular. And we’re back for another masterclass this time with Dr. Steve Feifer who you have likely heard of. He has done so much in our field. I’ll save the bio for just a little bit later, but if you haven’t heard of Steve, I will certainly acquaint you with his many accomplishments here in just a bit.

    Steve is going to be talking with us all about reading disorders and executive functioning. The format for this masterclass is going to be a little bit different than the last one where Dr. Nelson presented her own case and I provided commentary and questions. This time we’re flipping the script a little bit such that I am bringing two cases to the episode and Steve is looking through the data and providing some commentary himself and suggestions for different considerations and how we might interpret the data on a couple of these cases. Just know that all demographic information is changed appropriately to protect client confidentiality. So everything is meant to be relatively anonymous.

    We do talk fairly deeply about the scores and you can download a document that has the score report for both cases if you want to follow along and have a little bit more insight into what we’re talking about here. Or if like me, you are not a great auditory learner and you need to be looking at something to really bring it to life, then that document is downloadable from the show notes.

    One cool thing about this episode that I want to mention is that Dr. Feifer and PAR are generously donating a free test kit of the Feifer Assessment of Reading. All you have to do to be entered to win that free test kit is go to thetestingpsychologist.com/far enter your information and you will automatically be entered to win a free kit of the Feifer Assessment of Reading.

    Now, just in case you are not familiar with Steve and his work, let me tell you a little bit about him.

    Steve is an internationally renowned speaker and author in the field of learning disabilities. He’s authored eight books on learning and emotional disorders in children. He has more than 20 years of experience as a school psychologist and is duly certified in School Neuropsychology. He’s been the recipient of numerous awards including the Maryland School Psychologist of the year in 2008 and the 2009 National School Psychologist of the year by the National Association of School Psychologists.

    Dr. Feifer currently assesses kids at the Monocacy Neurodevelopmental Center in Frederick, Maryland, and remains a popular presenter at State National Conferences. He has authored three tests on diagnosing learning disabilities in kids all of which are published by PAR. And what his bio does not say is that he has also authored a recent measure just assessing trauma in kids related to the pandemic. So that is out there as well.

    Steve has really done it all and he’s a great guy to boot. So I am thrilled to have him on for our masterclass today. 

    Before we jump to the episode, I want to extend an invitation to any practice owners who are trying to grow their practice or take it to that next level. You might want to consider the Testing Psychologist Advanced Practice Mastermind Group. It’s going to be starting June 10th for our next cohort. And this is a group coaching experience where you’ll get some accountability and guidance and coaching around taking your practice to that next level. 

    So it might be about hiring or streamlining your processes or thinking big reaching some of those big ideas that you have not been able to put into place. And we love to support you in that. You can get more information at thetestingpsychologists.com/advanced and also book a pre-group call there. 

    All right, let’s jump to my conversation with Dr. Steve Feifer.

    Dr. Sharp: Hey, Steve. Welcome back to the podcast. 

    Dr. Feifer: Hey, Jeremy, it’s been two years. Great to be back with you.

    Dr. Sharp: Yeah, I can’t believe that just came out of your mouth. It’s been two years, yeah. It seems like just yesterday but it’s been a long time. 

    Dr. Feifer: And the world sure has changed since we’ve last spoken.

    Dr. Sharp: What! What do you mean? Just Kidding.

    Dr. Feifer: Just a little bit.

    Dr. Sharp: I know. Yeah, it’s been wild. I know we were just talking about our kids finally getting back to school and getting vaccinated. Maybe there’s a light at the end of the tunnel here soon.

    Dr. Feifer: I sure hope so. But I really appreciated your podcasts. I think it has helped many psychologists stay connected during this time of really feeling displaced. This is one way we’ve all been able to connect and join together. So I really appreciate your efforts, especially during this pandemic. 

    Dr. Sharp: Well, thanks. That means a lot. Yeah, it’s been good for me actually. I mean, it has been isolating and it’s been really cool to have this as a touchstone and continue to connect with the audience and stay in touch with the work that we’re doing. That’s important.

    Well, I am excited about our conversation here today. So this is I think what will be the 2nd Masterclass that we have done on the podcast. The intent, of course, is to do one per quarter. And I am honored that you are here. You are truly a master in many ways. I’m excited to be able to bounce some ideas off of you here. So, yeah, go ahead.

    Dr. Feifer: Well, I’m looking forward to our discussion as well and an opportunity to do a deep dive into some cases that we’re going to take a look at this time for the first time and go from there. 

    Dr. Sharp: Yes. And I’ll say publicly, I know I mentioned in the introduction how this is a little bit of a different format than the last Masterclass, which is more of a case presentation. This time we are doing more just kind of on the fly almost consultation. So thank you for being willing to do something like that and just wing it. But I trust that we’re going to have a great discussion. So I’m excited. 

    Well, here we go. So let’s jump into case 1.

    And again, before I totally get into this, I want to remind everyone there will be a download in the show notes with all of these scores. So you will have access to this material if you want to go back and check it out.

    So case number one, the reason that I wanted to talk through this case and a thread for all of our cases is going to be a reading disorder/dyslexia?

    That’s the theme I think for all of these cases. But the first case was interesting for me because this is an older teenage boy, 16 or 17 years old. The family came looking for Accommodations for Standardized Tests. So ACT/SAT. There is a history of a reading disorder diagnosis from early elementary school. Those records were not available, unfortunately. They were kind of spotty. So I wasn’t able to get any scores from testing in elementary school or anything like that.

    But the reason this was interesting to me is that a quick glance through the results that we [00:09:00] have here would suggest that maybe there’s not a whole lot going on and it’s hard to look for or find a reading disorder here. And there were two other components that we may get into in terms of his anxiety and perfectionism. But that’s the overview for the case here. And I will let you jump in with any reflections, any thoughts, any questions from the data that you have in front of you here.

    Dr. Feifer: Sure. So taking a look at Paul and it looks like he’s 16 years old. And has a  WISC, and the first thing that sort of jumps out is I believe that 16 years is about the top of the age limit for the WISC. You’re kind of in no man’s land here. Do I go down to the WISC or do I hang in there with the WISC? Of course, one of the advantages of staying with the WISC is if this student had had that previously a triennial a few years ago, you can compare previous scores.

    The first thing as we look at data, the first rule of thumb to me is, what is our conceptual orientation? Are we looking at this data through the traditional lens of a school psychologist of I need to find discrepancies, I live for discrepancies, where’re discrepancies in scores. Am I focused more on an RTI model? Well, I don’t put as much value in this data. How he responded to reading instruction and reading intervention. I mean, he’s been identified since grade school. He’s had a lot of interventions. Maybe you’re not finding anything because the interventions have worked and that’s the RTI perspective.

    Dr. Sharp: Yes.

    Dr. Feifer: But you and I both have a little bit of a neuro-psychology vent on our brains in how we look at data. And that’s really, for me, the only way I know how to look at data. So I’m going to take it a little bit from that brain behavioral perspective with the WISC. And to a neuropsychologist, we’re not the biggest fans of the General Ability Index (GAI).

    As a school psychologist, I loved it. Why? Because I could throw away data and come to a more proper conclusion about IQ. And in this case, my goal is to get the IQ as high as possible because if I can get that IQ as high as possible by throwing away data that I don’t like, well, then there’s more chance of a discrepancy and we can continue services.

    I’ve lived in that world for many years.

    From the neuro-psych perspective,  the first thing I look at is there’s a big difference here between Visual Spatial, which is 102, and Fluid Reasoning, which is 85. That’s like a standard deviation difference. And a lot of people have always asked this. And so, what is the difference between Visual Spatial, is it the same thing?

    But with Fluid Reasoning, there’s more of an application of knowledge from a concept. You’re applying a rule. And the visual specialist that part of the whole relationship. When we see the fluid reasoning is down in this case compared to visual-spatial almost better than a standard deviation, the first thing that jumps to mind is I wonder if there are some executive functioning issues, some difficulties with the application of a rule-bound or symbolic type of reasoning or problem-solving because there’s a difference in those two scores.

    We also see the processing speed is lower. And did you mention in the intro that anxiety might be in the background a little bit?

    Dr. Sharp: Yeah. So this is a kid who has a long history of, I call it anxiety but really to put a fine point, it’s more like perfectionism. So this is the kid who would let’s say, like get sick before swim practice because he would just drive himself nuts knowing that he wanted to do his best at all times, works very slowly across the board but also at the same time, very meticulous and organized. So that’s just a little bit of insight into the anxiety/perfectionism for this kiddo. 

    Dr. Feifer: So maybe not a great surprise is that processing speed was probably if I can guess, sacrificing. Sacrificing speed for anxiety or something or speed for accuracy-trying to make sure he’s very accurate. Doesn’t want to make a mistake. So maybe the processing speed was indeed caused by anxiety. 

    Dr. Sharp: Yep. I would agree with that. Hey, before we go forward though, could I ask you a question?

    Dr. Feifer: Absolutely. 

    Dr. Sharp: And this is totally in the service for my own knowledge but for the audience too, I’m guessing other people might want to know. Can you spell out that connection again, between the low fluid reasoning and executive functioning? I know the words you said, fluid reasoning is the application of these rules to a more abstract task but can you articulate how exactly that’s overlapping with executive functioning?

    Dr. Feifer: Yeah, for those who have given the WISC, you know that there’s not a lot of difference between this visual-spatial and the fluid reasoning index. And if you look it up in the manual, fluid reasoning is the application of the rule. And that’s really tying in with more to me, the frontal lobes of the brain. And at 16 years old, the frontal lobes are definitely the last region of the brain to myelinate to comfortable develop. Maybe the analogy is, let’s say in a little bit of academics if I’m doing a math problem, executive functions are going to really allow me to know what to do when. So for example word problems usually the actual mathematics is really straightforward, but it’s figuring out what to do when, it’s understanding what rule to apply in a particular situation, the application of a rule.

    And that’s the way I look at a little bit of a connection between fluid reasoning and in this case, executive functioning. But all we’re looking at here is page one of data so we’re just kind of throwing out some general hypotheses to be confirmed or denied as we slowly bring in more data. But that’s what’s in the back of my mind just looking at, for starters, that collection of scores, and then the connection that you made between anxiety and processing speed, and we’ll see how that plays out as well. 

    Dr. Sharp: Great. I like how you phrased that. We’re just taking in data right now. We’re just seeing how it lands, maybe formulating a guess or two but we’ve got a lot more to work through. 

    Dr. Feifer: We have a lot more to work through it. One of the things that I think it’s important for the psychologists listening in particular and I used to tell this with my students, especially with the younger psychologist, and tell me if you felt this way, I certainly did. When I was in my younger days starting out my career, I approached data not always from the most objective manner. I approached data thinking I have to find something wrong with this student. If I don’t find something wrong here, I’m not doing my job.

    And there’s a tendency the moment we see differences in scores, I got something, I got something here because I think we’re prying to always want to find some potential disability. We don’t work because we’re so heightened that we don’t want to not do our jobs correctly. We have in our minds the way to do our jobs is always find something. And it took me a while in my career to figure out that it’s still okay to say it looks okay to me. I’m not sure I see a problem here. It takes a little confidence I think to be able to say that. I don’t know how you feel about that. 

    Dr. Sharp: Yeah, I totally agree. We could go down a rabbit hole just on that concept, but yeah, to suffice to say I definitely because I feel like… this is all I’ll say about it …I feel like when we go down that path then it sort of edifies the work that we’re doing. Like, I’m doing something here. I can help this family because I found what’s wrong. And those two are related rightfully or not. 

    Dr. Feifer: Exactly. We had a term for this way back in my day called compassionate coding. Our hearts are in the right place. We’re trying because we have equated our minds if we find something wrong, we can get the student’s help. I’m a helper. That’s why I’m a psychologist. I want to help kids. And it takes a while I think to get to a confidence level. To realize that not all tests are perfect. They all have their strengths and weaknesses. Don’t take everything at face value. There is something called the standard error of measurement for a reason. And as we flip the page and take in more data, we’ll see where that takes us. 

    Dr. Sharp: Great. Well, as we move along just for the listeners who may not have the material in front of them. So like Steve said, VSI was at 102, the fluid reasoning 85, processing speed was at 75 and the other two were in the average range. So come out to a full-scale of 85 and a GAI of 89, if that’s interesting to anyone. So let’s continue. 

    Dr. Feifer: Well again, if you look at the achievement data, if you are a person who’s coming at this from a slow discrepancy standpoint, you look at the achievement data and the total reading composite score was 95.

    Dr. Sharp: Right.

    Dr. Feifer:  How could that be? The IQ is 85. How could you be stronger than your IQ? You are exceeding your potential and that right is an error [00:19:00] speaks to a bit of the ridiculousness of that discrepancy model and thinking that IQ represents some form of potential. The reading is 95 and most of the reading scores look pretty solid. And not knowing much on the history other than you had mentioned, he got the services since elementary school. It looks like everything is really within that average range if I’m not missing anything. Here’s one thing that’s below average. We have a score of 89. Oh my goodness. At 89, that was an oral reading fluency that we’ve already established.

    Now, oral reading, I asked you, is there anything more anxiety-provoking in school than oral reading? Reading out loud in front of everybody else, especially in this case, coming to your office and reading to a stranger out loud. Not that this is a dreadful score but that’s the only thing unless I’m missing something here that I saw slip into the low average range and it was only an 89. 

    Dr. Sharp: Nope. I think you are right on.

    And just for context, everybody, we did the WIAT-III. So that’s what we’re looking at. But yeah, all those reading scores are in the average range except for 89.

    So let me ask you, actually. Now, this is the beauty of a discussion like this. We can go in all sorts of directions. I’m sure people are asking out there, well, what about this IQ thing? How do you make sense of that from your training and experience? So IQ is an 85 but yet most of the academic scores are way higher than that. What does that mean to you?

    Dr. Feifer: Well, a number of things. First of all, I don’t think we should look at IQ representing attention. I think that’s a misnomer. I talk quite a bit about the opposite also happens quite a bit with reading as well. For anyone who’s worked with an autistic population, you might see kids with what I call the opposite of dyslexia and that’s hyperlexia.

    In other words, IQ is incredibly low 45, 50, 55 yet they’re reading. Well, how was that possible? Their reading is a 90 but their IQ is so low is hyperlexia being opposite dyslexia? And what this suggests is it’s not a perfect one to correspondence between IQ and reading.

    In fact, when you look at the phonological interpreting only, the ability to just code, the ability to crush the words. If you go back to a lot of Wechsler research, you could go 30 years to research. You’re not going to see from a neuropsychological standpoint, a whole lot of correlation between the coding and ability. This is one of the reasons in my estimation we should not be using IQ scores have to be in the average range in order to determine disabilities with kids. It’s not that hot and dry. But I think here’s a perfect case where IQ 85. What brought this student perhaps down on the IQ to get an 85, those particular abilities have absolutely nothing to do with reading.

    So I think it just shows that in this case, what are you supposed to say? Oh, they’re exceeding their potential. That doesn’t even make sense when you say something like that. 

    Dr. Sharp: Fair enough.  I like this.

    Dr. Feifer: I’ve sort of talked around the question a little bit without getting too technical. But basically, from a neuropsychological standpoint, a lot of reading and decoding is in the temporal lobes of the brain. Where is IQ in the brain, we’re not even sure, probably inferior parietal lobes. But it represents other areas than what we’re looking at here with reading. It’s not a one-to-one correspondence. 

    Dr. Sharp: Got it. Thanks for indulging that question. Okay, so we have these largely average academic scores, especially in reading.

    Dr. Feifer:  And math is not bad at all overall, but when we dive into the math a little bit, for those who can’t see the math composite was 89, but you dive into the scores you should see that the numeric operations, the straight problem solving 86, not that great but the math problem solving was 95. Normally that suggests a decent conceptual understanding of math but execution may be a little shaky there. 

    And I’m wondering, we could certainly make the case if this is a student who had reading intervention in the past, maybe hasn’t had a whole lot of math intervention. I don’t know why the numeric operations weren’t specifically was tripping the student up. Was it with fractions or decimals or just division that might’ve brought that score down a little bit?

    Dr. Sharp: That’s a good question. Yeah, I don’t have that right at my fingertips. I would have to go back and look at why that was so low or lower than the math problem-solving score. The interesting thing about this kid is they would say that math is a strength. I think that a story within the family is that reading is the weakness, math is the strength but yet from the scores, it was the opposite. 

    Dr. Feifer: Yeah. The scores are all over the map. As I look further with math in that you have addition and subtraction pretty low and multiplications are higher. And one of the things that I get, I think your indulgence to interject our FAM test is a diagnostic processing test of mathematics. And what are the things we do with addition, subtraction, multiplication division with them is we have a straight speed test. You have one minute ready, set, go, answer as many problems as you can.

    And then back towards the latter portions of the test, we have addition, subtraction, multiplication, division knowledge, where the answers are already provided for you and you have to determine, fill in the blank. If 7 + _ = 12, fill in the blank. And the reason we do that is to try to tease out. A lot of kids try to memorize their way through math. And they might do really well on fluency tests but when you get into the knowledge or conceptual understanding, they just fall apart.

    Or vice versa, a lot of our language-based learning disabled kids conceptually get math. Like this student conceptually gets math, but the numeric operations were all over the math. And sometimes that reflects just well retrieval or anxiety or something else getting in the way. It allows us to tease that out in perhaps the way that WIAT not quite can do. It’s a pretty much straight math test but there’s a lot of inconsistency there. We’re not quite sure why but we do know that there’s underlying anxiety here. And there is something about math that brings out anxiety in all of us. And that could have been a factor that led to some of the inconsistency for maths.

    Dr. Sharp: Sure. Okay. So as we continue moving through the data.

    Dr. Feifer:  Well, looks like you gave a CTOPP. I’m going to guess maybe is 16 years old pretty much the top of the age range for the CTOPP?

    Dr. Sharp:  Let’s see. I think the CTOPP may go to, is it 24? I’ll have to look it up. I think it is a little bit higher though. 

    Dr. Feifer: Well, not that high. We have a very good performance on the CTOPP with the exception of some of the Rapid Symbol Naming. Again, processing speed once down on the [00:27:00] WISC, anxiety- a student who consistently is sacrificing speed for accuracy so might be a low score here on Rapid Symbol Naming but could have gotten them all right. He just worked at a very slow pace. And that seems to be a little bit part of what we’re seeing. 

    Dr. Sharp: Yeah, I think that’s true. He was very accurate but slow. 

    Dr. Feifer: And your final education tests? One of my favorites, the KTEA-3 for Written Expression. Wow! 123. I’m knocking that one out of the ballpark. I like it. And for those who have been given the KTEA-3 with writing, I’m sure you’ve used a number of writing tests. I like how they go through the little story booklet. I think it’s really clever that they work all the way through that.

    Dr. Sharp: We definitely prefer the KTEA-3 to the WIAT writing. That’s for sure. 

    Dr. Feifer: So you just love scoring the essay on WIAT, huh?   

    Dr. Sharp: So hard to give that up. No.

    Dr. Feifer: Yes. So writing looks really good. And it’s funny, this is really set up as these scores are being laid out as really a bit of a neuro-psych assessment. In other words, it wasn’t just IQ and achievement. You’ve got data on executive functioning coming up and then 8-year social-emotional. I know a lot of people were asking, well, what is the difference between a psychological assessment and a neuropsychological assessment then?

    I remember Cecil Reynolds talking about that once and I loved his answer. And he basically said, the person interpreting the data. That’s the difference. Not necessarily the specific test that you’re given. I thought that was good. It is in this case, executive functioning, at least on the  Conners Continuous Performance Test which more attention, more focus, those elements that executive function as opposed to perhaps high-level decision-making, symbolic reasoning aspects of executive functioning. At least of the Conners, everything looks great.

    Delis-Kaplan, the D-KEFS which we taught that for years, that test is getting a little age on it. I’m hearing that they might be reissuing that this year. Have you heard about that? 

    Dr. Sharp: Yeah, are you talking about the D-KEFS 2.0? 

    Dr. Feifer: Yeah. Is that the one that’s going to be on the iPad version, right?

    Dr. Sharp: Yeah. I’m excited for it. I think this is one of the first tests that I know of that truly was standardized over digital administration. I’m curious to see what that looks like. 

    Dr. Feifer: Yeah. I want to say the D-KEFS norm was, let’s say 2007 off the top of my head. I’m sure people are chiming in their house, no, it was 2009. But here we are in 2021, it’s got a little bit of age on it but still the scores on the color, word, interference test, it’s more of a response in that Inhibition type of test, not bad. Your lowest score was 7. I guess for me, I’m not really too worked up over that. The BRIEF-2, an excellent instrument looking at a host of executive functioning. Can I ask on the BRIEF-2 who completed this? Was this a teacher or parent? Do you recall? 

    Dr. Sharp: This was a parent.

    Dr. Feifer:  Interesting because two things stand out. The Emotional Regulation Index is kind of high. So the parent completing that and basically suggesting, I don’t know what the behavior. We’re about to get to the school behavior, but perhaps the student keeps it pretty buttoned up all day at school and comes home and lets mom and dad have it which is not terribly unusual for anxious kids who don’t want to make a scene in school but that Emotional Regulation Index was kind of higher.

    Dr. Sharp:  True. Now a lot of that came from the Shift scale, right? So kind of that cognitive flexibility component. So for me, that is really tapping into, okay, this is someone who is a little bit rigid, a little bit inflexible, in my mind at least, it kind of dovetails with the meticulousness and perfectionism. That might be a reach but that’s one thing I’m picking up from that high score on the Shift scale. I don’t know what you think about that? 

    Dr. Feifer: I think you’re spot on because as we look between the numbers, that is a good point. Emotional control was high but that shift was super duper high. So maybe getting stuck with separating and shift, a bit stressed out the low […]. I’m with you. Also, mom and dad have some issues with the organizational component, a little bit of planning and organizing at home. And then I believe the last scale… was the last scale BASC-3?  

    Dr. Sharp: Yes, that’s right.  And just to say, sorry, before we jumped to the BASC, you tell me what you think but when I see that elevation on the plan-organized scale of the BRIEF-2 that calls back to the difficulties with fluid reasoning a little bit. It’s like laying out appropriate steps, getting from point A to point B, being able to devise a path, and then follow that path. So I don’t know if that’s in the same ballpark as you were saying, like applying rules or figuring out how to make sense of some of that abstract chaos on fluid reasoning. 

    Dr. Feifer: Sure. I mean, at the end of the day, it’s kind of maybe some inefficiency there. 

    Dr. Sharp: Sure. That’s a good way to put it.

    Dr. Feifer:  Quick scale of the scores on the BASC-3 and nothing really jumping out. A whole lot on the internalizing art. Look at page two here and obviously, what really stands out on the BASC-3 is the anxiety. And I’m sorry, Jeremy, was this the teacher who filled this one out? 

    Dr. Sharp: No, sorry, this was parents as well. So this was an eval that happened over the summer. So we do not have teacher data available.

    Dr. Feifer: Where is the date? It’s nice coming through. Do you know if this is a student perhaps getting any counseling or any either accommodations interventions or seeing someone?

    Dr. Sharp: He is not. At least from a psychotherapy perspective, at school, he’s had an IEP 0504 since elementary school that provides extra time. So he’s been accommodated in the school environment.

    Dr. Feifer:  Got it. So if we were to sum up the data for case 1 here, to be honest, this is a reevaluation. My mindset personally is a little different from a reevaluation and an initial eval. One of the things really look at and put a lot of emphasis on the re-evaluation is basically how are they doing academically irrespective of whatever IQ score we have out there. Somebody down the line had previously established reading disorder with the student, they’ve had interventions, how are they doing? How have they responded? This is a student who is asked for accommodations as par of this evaluations for SAT.

    The overall academic scores to me look fairly solid on the client. You have two that might dip into the below-average range. However, it’s hard to say there is a learning disability jumping off-page as much as if you begin to connect the dots, you have an underlying current of anxiety. It seems to lead to a few consistencies of learning, some slowness in learning. And according to the parent at home, they’re certainly seeing anxiety. And this shift you had brought up is getting stuck or separated. If this were an initial evaluation I think it’d be a tall order and say where’s the learning disability?

    Dr. Sharp: I agree.

     Dr. Feifer: Let’s say that we can put some accommodations in place but it seems like maybe they’re… I’m sensing more social-emotional accommodations might be more beneficial than a specific academic intervention. 

    Dr. Sharp: Yeah, I’m with you. I think it was a tough cell, especially in the consideration of accommodations on the ACT. It was a really tough cell to go down the path of a learning disorder or learning disability. And I ended up pinning this on the anxiety and trying to build a case around that for the accommodations. 

    Dr. Feifer: Great minds think alike. Yes, that sounds very appropriate.  Moving forward, just the other thought that comes to mind, a lot of times when you’re trying to come up with accommodations for ACTs, that kind of thing. What is the accommodation that every single student wants? Wartime.

    The dominos fall like this; being under the gun, not being able to manage time which is an executive functioning issue in my opinion but it’s also influenced by anxiety. Not being able to manage a time that in and of itself, it’s the sanction. So, I mean, you look up at the clock and you’ve got five minutes to go and you’ve got 30 more questions and you hit the panic button. The more anxious we become the more that impacts our competence of managing working memory, anxiety, and working memory never go hand in hand nor does anxiety and executive functioning, or maybe a better way, a better term, I always thought the term executive functioning is rather vague and nebulous. It leads to indecisive decision-making. That’s a multiple-choice test. Should I go with B or C? Oh gosh, I can’t decide. Just very indecisive in the approach.

    What I find is that a lot of times with the ACT board, if we’re going this route of what time, they want to see more fluency-based measures. A reading fluency measure, a writing fluency measure, a math fluency measure. And what I liked about this evaluation is I think you’re able to capture a lot of that with the WIAT as well as what I really liked is you built processing in here and you gave a CTOPP. You looked at some elements of processing.

    I think the biggest issue facing all psychologists and diagnosticians at this point in time is the referrals that you are getting right now. You’re going to have students who might be a little bit below grade level, right? You’ve got a big decision to make. Are they below grade level because of a budding learning disability or in this case, maybe a bit of anxiety or a social initial issue? Is this a COVID casualty. Is this a result of the last year: I’ve been displaced from school, I don’t have a great internet connection. My teachers aren’t really… they’re still learning how to give remote instruction.

    There’s a lot of factors that have interrupted the continuity of learning over the last year. And that is a huge question we all have to face and deal with. A nd just taking lower achievement at face value and saying must be a learning disability is a huge leap. The way to answer that question is to me, you have to demonstrate some psychological processing issue is getting in the way of learning. 

    What do I mean by processing way reading? Is it a phonics issue? An orthographic issue,? Is it a retrieval issue? Is it a working memory issue? Is it a language? We have to have some element of processing giving the way to lead us into that learning disability direction. Otherwise just looking at that sheet that’s in between 85 and 90. Wow, isn’t everybody going to be impacted in this pandemic world by just straight achievement tests with no processing?

    And I think for me, that’s the approach I’ve taken to try to read that out. I don’t know, in your clinic I’m sure that’s a discussion you’ve had with much of your staff is how do we make that difference? 

    Dr. Sharp: Let’s take a quick break to hear from our featured partner.

    Feifer Assessment of Writing™ or FAW is a comprehensive test of written expression that examines why students may struggle with writing. It joins the FAR and the FAM to complete the Feifer Family of diagnostic achievement test batteries, all of which examine subtypes of learning disabilities using a brain–behavior perspective.  The FAW can identify the possibility of dysgraphia as well well as the specific subtype. Also available is the FAW screening forms which can be completed in 20 minutes or less. Both the FAW and the FAW screening form are available on PARiConnect, PAR’s online assessment platform allowing you to get results even faster. Learn more at parinc.com\faw

    All right, let’s get back to the podcast.

    Dr. Sharp: Yeah, that’s a really good point. Gosh, I feel like we talked about this quite a bit. I have also found though that with the ACT and other standardized MCAT, whatever, they really want that nuanced data. It’s not enough to just say the score is low or even there’s a history of this area being low. You really have to get in and demonstrate it. So I like that you are making that distinction and say like, Hey, especially in these cases where there are accommodations at stake on a standardized test, you have to fill out your battery a little bit and make sure to explain exactly what’s underlying these difficulties. So I’m right with you.

    Now, looking back, is there anything that you would have added or done differently in this battery to get more information, of course, acknowledging that you have an entire suite of academic tests that are amazing, right? So there’s that. Are there other measures that you would administer instead to get at different aspects of functioning here?

    Dr. Feifer:  Yeah, so not a lot. Normally if I’m doing KTEA or […]  like you, I’m seeing pretty average scores here. I can’t really justify them giving a FAR. FAR is a diagnostic reading assessment looking at subtypes of dyslexia. We’re getting into all the neurocognitive processes that support reading. But if the net result of reading is pretty average, and I’m seeing that by your scores here, I don’t see a real need to jump in that direction.

    Our newest test to father the writing test was just released, great timing releasing a test during a pandemic, but just released. It looks into three subtypes of writing, whether it’s a network issue or more of a cognitive linguistic issue. I just can’t formulate my thoughts up here and put them down on the paper here or is the issue more the third subtype- I can say, look, you’re really dyslexic. And if you look at the definition of dyslexia, especially by The International Dyslexia Association, guess what? It doesn’t just impact reading. It impacts spelling and writing as well. In other words, is it just a spillover of your dyslexia? That’s what we’re trying to determine.

    But going by your scores, believe it or not. I don’t think I would have followed up. I don’t think there would have been a need. I think that would have been over-testing. So one test that comes to mind, we could have used maybe the FAM if you want to really get at the mathematics test to get at some of the why of you have a lot of inconsistencies in the math performance even if your overall score was very respectful, 89. I mean, that’s not quite shattering. Maybe the FAM. But the one test that I really liked for students to this age, when I have more of a social-emotional question is, I really like the PAI which is the…

    Dr. Sharp: Is it Personality Assessment Inventory?

    Dr. Feifer: ersonality Assessment Inventory, yes. We got it. I really liked the PAI a lot. It would drill into the anxiety component as well as other social-emotional components but it would really delve into the anxiety component and look at the different subtypes of anxiety. Is it more affective? Is it more physiological- shaking, flushing, that kind of thing? More behavioral?

    I really liked the PAI, of course ,the lawn is great too. It’s really the dealer’s choice. I think all of these are phenomenal tests. So what I find myself doing similar rating scales as you, and if the BASC is coming up a little significant anxiety or depression or something, and I want to do a little deeper dive perhaps have a PAI to go more in that direction. But from a cognitive battery, looking pretty solid here. 

    Dr. Sharp: Okay. 

    Dr. Feifer: We can certainly suggest other tests but I think we have to be mindful. I’m just very cautious about over-testing just for the sake of testing. 

    Dr. Sharp: That’s fair. Well, I’m glad you brought that up. We did do a PAI. I didn’t send that data. And the only thing that emerged from that, the only elevation was the obsessive-compulsive dimension of that anxiety scale. So it’s not anxiety, it’s ARD.

    Dr. Feifer:  Anxiety-Related Disorder?

    Dr. Sharp:  There you go. Yeah. So that was the only elevation across all of the sub-scales. So to me, it was just more evidence pushing in this perfectionism/anxiety/rigidity direction.

    Dr. Feifer: This is a student who’s going to get the acco… It seems to be, it might be a bit of a stretch to get accommodation. 

    Dr. Sharp: It is a stretch.  Yeah. You’re asking all the right questions. So we submitted the application. The initial was denied and then had to appeal it. And I think we’re still waiting to hear back from the appeal. So there you go. You nailed it. 

    Dr. Feifer: Here we go. Okay. I don’t think I added anything that you were not already one step ahead of me on that. 

    Dr. Sharp: Hey, this is great though. Of course, it’s validating, right? But the way you got there though is different, honestly. Like the way you were thinking through it, it was very valuable to hear what was running through your mind as compared to mine.

    Dr. Feifer: Well, I like your battery. I know that there’s a lot of different approaches hence the name of our podcast here, The Testing Psychologists, the different theoretical approaches for testing, and there’s many out there who probably follow a rigid kind of CHC approach and want to tap fluid reasoning and crystallized knowledge and long-term memory and short-term memory and processing speed and short-term and hit all of these domains.

    For me, it’s whatever path gets you to the proper destination. That’s the path I want you to take. It doesn’t have to be my path. But hopefully, it gets you to the right destination which was the conclusion you made and the recommendations you have. Me personally, I shy a little bit away from that CHC approach. Not that we don’t want to look at underlying processes, that is the main thing. We have to be mindful of time. We have to be mindful of expense. We have to be mindful let’s just look at the main attributes of this referral question. And as we began to look at those main attributes, it actually put us more in a social-emotional direction which CHC doesn’t necessarily go there. So the fact that we didn’t do it, we stopped where we did and then jumped over into that social-emotional piece, I thought that was very appropriate. I would follow in the same footsteps.

    Dr. Sharp: I appreciate that. Okay. Well, let’s see if we can squeeze in a second case here before we wrap up.

    Dr. Feifer: Sure.

    Dr. Sharp: So just to set the stage a little bit. This case is a 7 or 8-year-old girl, self-referred, nothing significant from say medical history or family background, anything like that. But parents were concerned about a learning disorder and, or inattention disorder. So that is just a brief summary of the background. Similar battery. For listeners, we’re going to run through a WISC, a WIAT, KTEA, a CTOPP. And then with her, we actually did a little bit more a CDLT and a little bit more of the D-KEFS. So we will walk our way through this and see what pops out. 

    Dr. Feifer: Well, starting with the WISC, nothing could be more solid. For those of you who don’t have access to the data right now, it’s a full-scale 99, that’s it. And all of the impact scores right in the average range with a bit of a strength for this particular case in the fluid reasoning. In our first case, that was a bit of a weakness.  But again, I could go on hours about IQ testing, which I’m not going to do, but when I look at it, this is an initial evaluation. And when I look at IQ, I’m looking at two things. Does the student have to meets a certain threshold? They have a certain threshold of intelligence in terms to handle the day-to-day pacing that the curriculum or those. I don’t care if their IQ is 85 and it’s 99, that doesn’t really concern me.

    Now you got me. Oh, what if their IQ 73? You got me there. You need a minimum threshold. It’s going to be really hard to keep pace. If the IQ testing can give us some good insight about the strengths and the weaknesses as a problem solver? Absolutely. And in this case, everything was average clearly meets that threshold. Yes, she was referred because we’re getting into some hiccups with learning. So, we will take a look and focus a little bit on the learning issue. And it looks like the WIAT was given. And in this case, we have reading composites of each.

    So I know what everyone is saying right now. Okay. We’re done here. IQ 99, reading composite 82. I can get a two-digit subtraction here. I can figure out there’s a 17 point difference. Must have a learning disorder, okay? And in all respects your probably right, however, not necessarily. Again, as I mentioned before and I’m going to give it a cheap in test and if I see readings low, I’m going to follow it up in this case with the FAR. Not just because I’m the test author. Well, yes, because of the test author. No, because it is important to be a 2021 psychologist. To not stop our evaluation as at the point of looks like they’re going to qualify. You got a 17 point discrepancy here. It looks like you’re qualified.

    To be a 2021 psychologist, we need to go to the finish line. And that finish line is not necessarily stopping until they qualify but it’s taking that next step further and saying, what exactly is the issue? More importantly, the finish line is interventions. How does our data lead to better interventions?

    So what the FAR is going to do is it’s not a traditional achievement test. That’s what a WIAT or KTEA. It’s going to be more diagnostic. And I really want to put a shout-out to both the CTOPP which you used and I think it’s a wonderful test. That’s just supported the test. And also the PAL-II, which is Virginia test. I think those two really opened the door for me, and they really were the first to try to get into that diagnostic aspect of academic learning, and hence allowed us to develop and walk through that door and develop a diagnostic achievement test where the goal is not to say so much where you are on the curriculum, but try to explain why you’re there. And if we can explain why you’re there, I think it puts us in a much better position to take it to the finish line and offer interventions.

    So what’s the FAR, in this case, going to do? Is the reading low because of a phonics issue or decoding issue? We look at four aspects of reading. Well, is it is low or because of the literacy and pacing issue, is it low because of a combination of both- we call that our mixed dyslexia index, or is the actual mechanical side of reading just fine? The problem is you can’t answer the 10 questions in the back of the chapter as more of a comprehension issue.

    At least at this age, I like the fact that a CTOPP was given because a CTOPP is going to answer one of those questions. And that is, is the problem with reading all of that phonics issue or it more of a speed issue? I’m fast-forwarding, just a drop but as I look at your… we’ll back and look at the other academics. But as I look at the CTOPP scores from Nemic awareness was 88.

    All right. We’re getting there, but the Elision score of academic awareness was very low. Elision again, Hey, Bobby say the word snack, snack. Say it again without the month.

    What do you have? So Elision is a high-level Phonemic Awareness Subtest where you have to strategically manipulate sounds within a word and reconfigure them to come up with a new word. That’s a little different than a boat. What is a boat start with? That’s more of a lower-level phonemic skill. So phonemic awareness is coming, but we’re not there yet.

    Processing and we don’t do this on the FAR, only the CTOPP does this. It gives you a chronological memory score that’s so insightful. You yield that but what stands out on the CTOPP is Rapid Naming was at 60. And what we know about dyslexia especially in the language is, we’re screening dyslexia, we’re looking at not just lower scores and phonemic scores, but also that rapid naming- how quickly can you look at a visual stimulus and define a verbal tag to that? For the neuropsych, this is out there. You know what we’re talking about- the ventral stream with the brain, looking at an object and assigning a tag. This was really low. I’m going to ask the question. Did she have anxiety issues like the first case we had that could have tripped up the speed here? 

    Dr. Sharp: No, certainly not to the same degree. I don’t remember her having really significant anxiety at all.

    Dr. Feifer:  It certainly didn’t look that way on the WISC. The WISC process speed was super solid.

    Dr. Sharp:  uh-hum. That’s right? Yeah. She’s a little more easygoing, actually. A lot more easygoing. 

    Dr. Feifer: Yeah, so 60 on a rapid symbolic naming, not good. 

    Dr. Sharp: It’s notable. Yeah. 

    Dr. Feifer: So that that’s a big red flag in that we have some phonics issues and we have that rapid. So we’re really, I think building a bit of a case here for dyslexia. And some might say, look, this is all overkill. Why are you dieting down to this level? You already know there’s a 17 point discrepancy between IQ. And the answer is, as a psychologist, where do you put your finish line? And if your finish line is I could qualify them, then yes, you’re done. But if your finish line is, what are we going to do about this? Because you and I know one of the habits our schools get into is running the same intervention for every student. The reading issue. I always say specificity with assessment will lead to the specificity with intervention. And if we’re going that IEP direction, I think that’s what that I is supposed to stand for. Individualized. Yeah, that’s it.

    Another way is specificity. And that’s why if Jeremy’s taking this to the next level, what exactly, where exactly is the reading breakdown. I think this CTOPP is really yielding quite a bit of information. That authenticity aspect, as well as some of the higher-level Phonological Awareness skills, that the Elision subtest is pretty low.

    Dr. Sharp: Great. So let me, Steve, I’m going to jump in just real quick. And just being mindful of time, I wonder ..and maybe it’s a spoiler that the rest of the data I think is largely unremarkable, say for some elevated scores on the BRIEF and some trouble on the continuous performance test. So we have some indications of executive functioning concerns. 

    Dr. Feifer: I may be tempted to take that attention was an issue. Was that a referral question? 

    Dr. Sharp: It was, yes. 

    Dr. Feifer: Yeah, and as I am jumping ahead to work, with inattention, if I can throw out a test or two that really light, most of us when we get into attention in a non-pandemic time, I think the best measure is to go into the classroom and do an observation. Where we are now is […] a lot on rating scales. Well, it’s hard to do a teacher rating scale when you’ve only worked with the student on zoom for the last year. I don’t know how relevant that is and how you guys get around that. 

    Dr. Sharp: No, it’s really challenging. We’ve had very few teachers who have really been willing to fill out rating scales. They just don’t know the answer. They don’t know the student well enough to complete all of those questions like that. So, yeah, we’ve been doing a lot more just teacher interviews. A little brief. Like, what’s your impression of the student? How are they doing online? But even that there’s an asterisk I think besides every evaluation where we’re doing in this context, just because we don’t know. It’s like to be determined, you know.

    Dr. Feifer:  Yeah. And it’s like trying to do an evaluation with one hand tied behind your back. You just don’t have that information. So what are we left with? Well, we can certainly do a parent rating scale. We actually use a test called the teach. Teach is the test that everyday attention for children, which is a little different from a checklist. The checklist we are looking at more behavioral aspects of attention. The teach is really an innovative test. That’s where to look at the cognitive aspects, your ability to sustain your attention, select attention, shifted attention.

    It’s a hybrid test. Half of it is really on a computer and the other half is more paper pencil. It’s put out by Pearson. I know what everybody is saying and you’re exactly right. It was normed in the UK. I’d take that up with Pearson. They tell you attention is attention. It doesn’t matter. But I can tell you from an innovative and just a creative test it teaches a lot of fun to give and students seem to enjoy that very much.

    And I think we’re going to have to… whether it’s that Cecil Reynolds has a new test called the RIT that looks at response inhibition. There are sub-tests on the NAPSI to look at ambition as well as the D-KEFS, but she’s probably a little young for the D-KEFS. I think what this calls for during these times we find ourselves in is we’re going to have to be a little more aggressive and trying to directly measure attention because we just cannot elaborate its scores.

    Dr. Sharp: That’s interesting. Okay. So you’re falling back on more of these in-office measures and maybe just a good interview, but really the in-office measures compared to the behavior checklist?

    Dr. Feifer: Combination of both. And I like the fact that you still try to get some information from the teacher through an informal interview. I think that’s smart as opposed to just discounting that teacher completely. Look, I know we’re psychologists, but I like to use the term we’re cognitive detectives and we have to just go to the source and gather as much data and clues as we can. It was a crime that’s been committed. That crime is student underachievement and we are trying to solve that mystery.

    And we gather as much data as we can. I just think in this case, if possible, take those rating scales for what they’re worth at this point in time and even your own observations, I think it’s okay Jeremy that sometimes school psychologists are afraid. If you can’t put a number to it, then I can’t use it. I think your clinical instincts and observations, they’re pretty sharp. Don’t be afraid to use those as well. 

    Dr. Sharp: I like that. So let me go back before we wrap up here. And first of all, I’ll just say thank you for jumping in and winging it with unfamiliar data and almost zero background information and so forth. This was great.

    You mentioned this whole idea of tailoring the reading intervention to the specific concerns, right? So how do you present that to schools? Like, say we’ve identified, okay, she has these weaknesses with rapid naming and higher-level phonemic awareness skills. What are you saying to the school from that point?

    Dr. Feifer:  Yeah, I’m quite an aggressive report writer. First of all, I’m not going to say this student needs READ 180. READ 180 is a program that costs over $30,000. I’m not putting schools on the hook or doing anything like that. But what I am going to do is try to drill down and that’s why we develop the FAR is to be able to drill down and say, we have a reading issue. Here’s what kind it is. It’s more of a problem with phonics or more or a little bit of both or whatever.

    Then when we get into the recommendations, I might phrase it like, Billy would benefit from an explicit and systematic phonics instructional program. And then I’ll put in parentheses. And I always make sure to the best of my ability that these are programs a lot of our schools already have, okay? Gillingham language foundations program which we use quite a bit for dyslexia. I will give examples of programs, but I will not dictate. That is the school to decide. But these are the types of programs.

    But right under that, this student also might have an issue with fluency. So I might talk about programs such as Great Leaps or something along those lines in my second recommendation that Billy could also benefit from building on speed. And I always put it in parentheses list of a few for some that are going too far and I’m fine. You don’t even want to go there. But for me, I stop at a point. I’m not going to tell a school what to do but I’m going to give examples. You decide. And I always try to make sure these are things, believe it or not, a lot of schools already have. They’re sitting on a shelf somewhere that they would benefit from these types of interventions.

    And what I’m trying to go for is not the one size all fits approach, but there are multiple aspects of reading here that the student is struggling with. Therefore it’s not unreasonable to think we might need multiple types of interventions and then try to give some choices. 

    Dr. Sharp: That sounds great. I think we can definitely get locked into it, especially if we’re using templates or whatever to just say reading intervention, but not drilling down and specifying. But you need the data to be able to do that in the first place. 

    Dr. Feifer: And you have a nice battery. And I think when you give this kind of battery where it’s not just a cognitive and academic, but you take it, you’re looking at the California Verbal Learning Test that is a masterful Dean Delis creation here in neuro-psychology. One of my favorite tests. Looking at the memory, and we haven’t even gotten to this, but we had a lot of issues with memory. And what this test really gets at is how you store information, whether it’s just literally word for word as you hear it, or can you store it by more semantic? Meaning it’s an ingenious test. And it’s so ingenious that I slightly, I’m not going to say rip off. I was inspired by it to develop our Word Recall Subtest on the FAR, trying to look at the same thing because that’s really explained it’s reading comprehension for students who are trying to remember stories literally word by word and not see the connection. Good luck on a more detailed story, trying to remember all that.

    But a lot of that goes to being Dean Delis. And a lot of help with verbal learning tests has to be a lot of what you’ve given. It’s not a neuropsychological evaluation. This is psychological, this is a group of tests. That’s a psychological eval with strong neuroscience layered to it because I can tell it’s really drilling down and trying to get underneath problems. And I think that’s important. And I think we owe that to our students in order to generate interventions. 

    Dr. Sharp: I think that is a fantastic note to close on. That is picture-perfect last word. Thanks again. This was really fun to hear how you talk through these cases or think through these cases. It feels good. I’m not going to lie to get a little bit of praise for our battery and some of the conceptualization. So thanks for that as well. It was a nice little shot in the arm for me. But no, this was great. I am so grateful for your time and your knowledge and just the willingness to engage in this experiment and see where we ended up. So, thanks. 

    Dr. Feifer: Well, thanks for having me back. And you laid this out in a way that it wasn’t just the three test scores. Hey, what do you think is going on? But we’d had a litany of things to look at, and it was fun to talk through them with you. And again, keep up your great work. I think you are an important voice in our field and I’ve greatly enjoyed listening throughout the pandemic.

    Dr. Sharp: Thank you. That means a lot. Take care of Steve. 

    Dr. Feifer: Okay. We’ll talk soon. Take care. 

    Dr. Sharp: Okay, y’all, thanks so much for tuning in to this masterclass. Like you noticed a little different format than the last one. I would love some feedback. I would love to know if you prefer this format where I bring cases and the expert talks through the data, or if you liked the case presentation format from before. I will continue to schedule these masterclass episodes hoping for one per quarter. So your feedback is really important.

    And like I mentioned at the beginning, if you’re interested in winning a free test kit for the Feifer Assessment of Reading, just go to thetestingpsychologists.com/far and enter your information to be considered for a random drawing, basically just to win a free test kit and we’ll send it to you. And I’ll be doing that drawing within two weeks of the podcast. So I will notify whoever wins the test kit immediately. 

    Okay, thanks as always for listening y’all. I appreciate any feedback. I love those ratings. And I really appreciate you sharing the podcast with anyone, any friends, colleagues that you think might like to hear this info. Hope everyone’s doing well enjoying some growing springtime weather and we’ll catch you next time. Take care.

    The information contained in this podcast and on The Testing Psychologists website is intended for informational and educational purposes only. Nothing in this podcast or on the website is intended to be a substitute for professional, psychological, psychiatric, or medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Please note that no doctor-patient relationship is formed here. And similarly, no supervisory or consultative relationship is formed between the host or guests of this podcast and listeners of this podcast. If you need the qualified advice of any mental health practitioner or medical provider, please seek one in your area. Similarly, if you need supervision on clinical matters, please find a supervisor with expertise that fits your needs.

    Click here to listen instead!

  • 192. Form Publisher w/ Dr. Rebecca Murray-Metzger

    192. Form Publisher w/ Dr. Rebecca Murray-Metzger

    Would you rather read the transcript? Click here.

    Everyone wants to streamline their report-writing process, right?? If you’ve ever wished that you could cut down the time spent writing your history, this is the episode for you. You may have seen Dr. Rebecca Murray-Metzger’s posts in the Testing Psychologist Community about her utilization of software called Form Publisher. If not, that’s okay – she’s here today to explain everything about Form Publisher. We talk about what it is, what it does, and how it can help us as testing psychologists. The best part is that Rebecca has lots of resources to help you out if you get stuck implementing Form Publisher!

    Cool Things Mentioned

    If you are interested in more information about form publisher, or you would like to purchase Rebecca’s template and instructions for how to set it up, please email her at rebecca@sfmindmatters.com

    Sample Intake Form

    Here’s the intake form as Rebecca’s clients see it. If you want to fill it out and see what it produces, put TEST for the child’s first name and your email address for the last name. Rebecca will forward the result to you.
    What it produces

    The Form Publisher generates a word document with Client info inserted, and sends it to you in an email. Here is a link to the original document (word) you get in the email,  (this is a fake one, so doesn’t have as much detail as clients usually include)
    It only takes me about 10-15 minutes to edit into a good history from it.  Here is an edited version (PDF) that took about 12 minutes to edit. It helps to do that right before the intake meeting, so you are prepping for the intake meeting while you edit. You can highlight parts (see example) to cue yourself to ask more about those areas during the meeting (and type as you listen). You will still need to review report cards and talk to teachers to flesh out the academic section, but otherwise, the history will be drafted by the end of the intake meeting.
    If you like it, and you don’t want to start from scratch, you can purchase Rebecca’s google form and form publisher templates, and then tweak it to meet your needs. She sells both for $100 total, along with detailed instructions as to how to put it onto your gsuite and start using it. Using these templates, it takes about an hour to get it up and running (as opposed to the 5+ hours it took to develop it). Rebecca’s email is rebecca@sfmindmatters.com.

    Rebecca’s templates are most suitable for those who work with children. If you are interested in an Adult form, two other Testing Group Psychologists have an adult template for sale:

    Featured Resource

    I am honored to partner with PAR for 2021 to bring you featured items from their catalog! Listen to each episode for specific product recommendations and links. Learn more at www.parinc.com.

    The Testing Psychologist podcast is approved for CEU’s!

    I’ve partnered with At Health to offer CE credits for podcast episodes! Visit this link to access current and past episodes available for CE credit. You can use code “TTP10” for a discount on ALL the course credits you purchase from At Health!

    Dr. Rebecca Murray-Metzger

    Rebecca MurrayMetzger is the mother of three children, licensed clinical psychologist and owner of Mind Matters, a group testing practice in San Francisco, California. She also owns and operates The Right Door, a shared office space for mental health and wellness professionals. Rebecca specializes in providing psychoeducational and neuropsychological evaluations for children, teens and young adults, with a goal of helping parents to better understand their children and helping school teams to better support their students. As the owner of two businesses, she is constantly looking for shortcuts in google workspace and beyond, in the hopes of having more time for her family and her hobbies, which used to include hiking, skiing, swing dancing and organizing community events.

    About Dr. Jeremy Sharp

    I’m a licensed psychologist and Clinical Director at the Colorado Center for Assessment & Counseling, a private practice that I founded in 2009 and have grown to over 20 clinicians. I earned my undergraduate degree in Experimental Psychology from the University of South Carolina before getting my Master’s and PhD in Counseling Psychology from Colorado State University. These days, I specialize in psychological and neuropsychological evaluation with kids and adolescents.

    As the host of the Testing Psychologist Podcast, I provide private practice consulting for psychologists and other mental health professionals who want to start or grow psychological testing services in their practices. I live in Fort Collins, Colorado with my wife (also a therapist) and two young kids.

    Ready to grow your testing services? Click below to schedule a complimentary 30-minute pre-consulting call!

    [x_button shape=”square” size=”large” float=”none” href=”https://app.acuityscheduling.com/schedule.php?owner=13476033&appointmentType=2843005″ target=”blank” info=”none” info_place=”top” info_trigger=”hover”]Schedule Your Call[/x_button]