In the August issue of the Louisiana Register, the state psychology board published their “Notice of Intent” to change the rules governing continuing education for licensed psychologists.
The psychology board has proposed two main
changes. They intend to increase continuing education hours from the present biannual requirement of 30 hours, to 40 hours.
They will also expand the types of activities that can be submitted for credit. These will include practice monitoring, journal clubs, and work on committees, for example.
The public has until September 10 to submit comments about the proposed changes. Comments and questions can be sent to Executive Director, Kelly Parker.
According to the Notice, the reporting periods beginning July 2012 (for even numbered licenses) and beginning July 2013 (for odd numbered licenses) will continue with the 30-hour requirement. However, the types of activities submitted include the ten new categories of professional development and conform
to the percentage of total hours that a psychologist can claim for each type of activity. Then, in the next biannual cycle, the number of credits required will increase to 40.
The proposed categories appear to tract the recommendations of the Associations of State and Provincial Psychology Boards (ASBBP). They are:
1. Peer Consultation (1 hour of peer consultation equals 1 credit). Examples include case consultation groups, journal clubs, regional research groups, mentoring, and shadowing a colleague. Up to 50 percent of total hours is allowed.
2. Practice Outcome Monitoring (1 completed questionnaire equals 1 credit). This is an activity where the psychologist assesses patient/client outcomes with a questionnaire that is shown to be of empirical value. Up to 50 percent of total credit hours is allowed.
3. Professional Activities (1 year equals 10 credits) involves serving on a national, regional, or state psychological association board or committee or board member of regulatory body related to the field of psychology. This category can count for up to 25 percent of total credit hours.
4. Conferences and Conventions (1 conference day equals 1 credit). Attendance at a conference related to the field of psychology or a
conference, which aids in the licensee’s professional development, is allowed, and qualifies for up to 10 percent of total requirements.
5. Academic Courses (1 3-hour course or equivalent equals 20 credits). Examples include graduate-level course related to psychologist’s discipline and practice taken for credit from a regionally accredited university or one pre- approved by the board. This category can meet up to 50 percent of total credit hours.
6. Instruction (1 23-hour course equals 20 credits; 1 full-day workshop equals 10 credits). Instruction includes teaching a course in a regionally accredited institution or full day workshop presentation. Credit can only be received the first time teaching or presenting the material. Up to 50 percent of credits can be obtained in this category.
7. Publications (1 article equals 10 credits; book chapter equals 10 credits). Publications including authoring an article for peer- reviewed publications, or being the editor or co-editor of a book related to the field of psychology. This area can meet 25 percent of CPD requirements.
8. Traditional Continuing Education. Includes approved Sponsored CE (1 hour equals 1credit) workshops
from a recognized approved sponsor such as APA or any of its approved sponsors, academies of professional specialty boards, regionally accredited colleges or universities, continuing medical education in category 1 of AMA or its subsidiaries including grand rounds. Activities can meet 50 percent of total required CPDs.
9. Self-directed Learning (1 hour equals 1 credit). Examples include reading, videos, and/or other unsponsored activities. The maximum allowed toward requirement in this category is 10 percent of total.
10. Board Certification from the American Board of Professional Psychology. Certification equals 40 credits and can be used for the full CPD requirement during a reporting period, or split 20 hours in one period and 20 in another.
The Notice of Intent also covers reporting requirements, extensions, exemptions, and non- compliance, and can be found in full at the Louisiana Register website.
The Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards released a set of guidelines in June, recommending the increase to 40 hours and outlining the ten categories.
The Notice of Intent can be found in the August issue of the LA Register at:
“Hola” at the LSBEP in June. In August the psychology board published proposed new guidelines to revamp the continuing education requirements to include new categories, including activities like serving on professional committees and client monitoring research. (Hola is Dr. Courtney’s dog.)
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.
Originally published: . Volume 4, No. 1. Source pages: 14.
In an August 16 report Pew Research noted that for the second time in a decade the “believability” ratings for major news organization has dropped. In the newest survey the ratings of positive believability have fallen in nine of the 13 news organizations tested.
The drop affected news organizations including national newspapers such as the New York Times and USA Today. The decline also included all three cable news stations and broadcast television and NPR.
Pew reported that the average positive believability rating (3 or 4 on a 4 point scale) fell to 56 percent in 2012. In 2010 it was 62 percent. A decade ago it was 71 percent.
The negative believability (scores of 1 or 2) has risen from 30 percent in 2002 to 44 percent for 2012.
Pew authors noted that “every news outlet’s believability rating has suffered a double-digit drop except for local daily newspapers and local TV news.”
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.
July 2012 marked three years since the passage of Act 251. Act 251 repealed the landmark 2004 Act 11 that gave Louisiana psychology prescribing privileges, an achievement requiring a decade of effort and by some accounts, a million dollars of funding.
Act 251 not only repealed Act 11, it moved medical psychologists and their practice of psychology under the authority of the medical board.
The secretly lobbied legislation, when discovered, launched a civil war in the Louisiana Psychological Association (LPA). Among those who opposed the measure, some of the anger was fueled by suspicions that Louisiana Academy of Medical Psychologists (LAMP) members had inappropriately used LPA resources to lobby the Act.
This past July, asking as a member of LPA, I requested copies of the financial records and grant information to help clarify these questions. The Executive Committee gave me the documents in August.
The following is what I found about what happened in Louisiana.
In the spring of 2009 when LPA members became aware of Act 251, a firestorm followed on the LPA listserve. The then president Dr. Darla Burnett, posted a formal response to members on the list, writing, “As president of LPA I wanted
to address the passage of Senate Bill 294 [Act 251]. This bill will affect licensure of those psychologists who are licensed as medical psychologists. The Louisiana Academy of Medical Psychology, a statewide organization comprised of medical psychologists, has been involved legislatively during the passage of this bill. LPA has monitored this bill, as it does all bills potentially affecting psychology, but took no formal position on the bill. The Louisiana Academy of Medical Psychology and the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners have negotiated what they both believe to be the best compromise on the legislation.”
Conflict continued through the summer and into the fall at a high pitch, with complaints about funds and multiple roles, particularly of Dr. Jim Quillin, who was the LPA Legislative Chair and who had acknowledged formally his involvement as a designer of Act 251, and Dr. Warren Lowe, LPA Chair of Medical Psychology. Both were also leaders in LAMP.
In November 2009, a group of 18 psychologists wrote to the new LPA president, Dr. Judith Levy, and posed questions about funds and Act 251. Signing the letters were Drs. F. William Black, Wes Brockhoeft, Charles Burchell, Eric Cerwonka, Michael Chafetz, Gail Gillespie, Bryan Gros, Tom Hannie, and others, and also me, the Times publisher.
On November 18, 2009, the then president Levy answered the questions. She posted her answers on the list. She wrote that the Legislative Chairman, Dr. Jim Quillin, helped with responses.
The psychologists asked, “Were any funds from LPA used for lobbying efforts by Courson and Nickel related to Senate Bill 294, now known as Act 251, or were funds used in any other efforts related to Senate Bill 294?” Drs. Levy and Quillin, answered, “No.”
Members also asked, “Did LPA provide any funding to LAMP for lobbying efforts or any other efforts related to Senate Bill 294?” Levy and Quillin answered, “No.”
“Were any funds, provided by the American Psychological Association to LPA, used for any lobbying or legislative
efforts?” members asked.
Levy and Quillin answered, “Yes. CAPP has provided grants to be used for lobbying and legislative efforts over the years and some of those efforts included prescriptive authority and the advancement of medical psychology.”
But according to 2009 financial records I obtained this past August, LPA did pay Courson Nickel during the 2009 legislative season. The association paid the lobbyists $6,000 a month from January to August, 2009, a total of $48,000. $30,000 came from an account with grant money from APA (and CAPP) and $18,000 came from another account.
And, during the same time period, LAMP paid nothing to Courson Nickel, based on a review of the records for the LAMP political action committee from the state Ethics Board.
It was only in October 2009 that LAMP finally paid Courson Nickel, an amount of $6,000. Then in December 2009, LAMP paid them again, this time $20,831.
As I reported in the November, 2009 issue of the Times, Courson and Nickel posted on the state Ethics Board website that both LPA and LAMP were their clients.
Ethics Board records from October 2009, showed that the lobbyists reported being paid “less than $24,999,” from LPA, and from “$25,000 to $49,999” by LAMP. The time
period for this was from January 2009 to “present,” in this case meaning from January to November 2009.
Based on the most recent LPA records, and the 2009 postings, it seems that the lobbyists may have been confused about who was paying them. There was no written contract, an ethical concern that Dr. John Simoneaux voiced at a town hall meeting in December 2009.
In 2009 I called Mr. Nickel but he declined to answer until speaking with Dr. Quillin and ignored future calls.
(Note: I have asked Dr. Burnett, Levy, and Quillin for clarifications, but no answers had arrived by press deadline.)
This picture changes in the fall of 2009, when Dr. Quillin sent a follow-up report to APA, which indicated that Act 251 had been, in fact, a goal of LPA. He wrote:
“In a series of confidential meetings with medicine, both groups expressed the desire to try to avoid the political and financial bloodletting another fight between the groups would entail and alternative means of achieving our joint goals were explored.” […]
“Negotiations between medicine and psychology led to the development of a framework of an agreement for medical psychology to be regulated by LSBME
after January 1, 2010 as a new healthcare professional (sic), medical psychology, under the jurisdiction of that regulatory body. Under this framework, medicine would formally recognize medical psychologists as qualified for a limited practice of medicine, in addition to the practice of psychology, while, in turn, psychology recognized that the prescription of medications and the attending clinical activities necessary to do so represents a practice of medicine and is optimally so regulated.”
This theme was repeated in another follow-up to APA, this time written in the fall of 2010 by then LPA president Dr. Kelly Ray, also a LAMP member. She wrote:
“ … These monies were used entirely to assist paying our contracted lobbyists, CoursonNickel for services which totaled $72,000 in 2009,” she wrote.
“LPA and our sister organization, the Louisiana Academy of Medical Psychologists (LAMP), were put in a position to again address
threats to the vision of psychology and unrestricted access to underserved citizens. The Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners (LSBME) promulgated a draft of proposed rules to govern the roles of physicians who consult and collaborate with medical psychologists. These draconian rules, as proposed, would have resulted in artificial barriers to the practice of medical psychology and infringe on the jurisdiction of the Louisiana State Board of Examiners of Psychologists (LSBEP) in the regulation of that practice.” […]
“While controversial with some,” Dr. Ray wrote, “careful consideration demonstrates that Act 251 simultaneously achieved multiple goals of long term importance to psychology in Louisiana.”
Was there a real threat to medical psychologists from the rule-making efforts of the medical board?
During the initial firestorm about Act 251, a number of medical psychologists reported to me that Act 251 was needed because the medical board’s “onerous” rules for physicians would
have “put medical psychology out of business.”
Dr. Levy also noted this in her March 2010 newsletter to members. “A group within medicine had proposed rules to LSBME that were about to be published,” she wrote, “which would have made it extremely difficult, and on a practical level impossible, for primary care physicians to consult and collaborate with medical psychologists regarding their prescribing psychotropic medications. This, in effect, would have shut down the practice of medical psychology. Negotiations began and eventually became Act 251.”
However, based on minutes from both boards, and several undisclosed sources, and a review of the different drafts of rules themselves, there is little evidence that the rules were a serious threat.
Additionally, I consulted two attorneys who said that rules could not circumvent the purpose of the law, in this case, the 2004 law allowing psychologists to prescribe.
A first draft of the rules was presented in July 2008, and outlined necessary paperwork for physicians working with medical psychologists.
According to minutes of both boards, the medical board sent a draft of the rules to the psychology board for review and in August 2008 a meeting was held at the psychology board to discuss changes. Dr. Robert Marier, director of the medical board attended. Also attending was Dr. Jim Quillin according to minutes.
A source close to the LSBEP and attending the meeting told the Times that the negotiations regarding the rules were completely constructive, but that a long discussion occurred after the meeting between Dr. Quillin and Dr. Marier.
Following this, modifications were made around October 2008 and the rules were “noticed” in the December 2008 Louisiana Register. In January 2009 a hearing was held at the medical board in New Orleans, when Dr. Glenn Ally, psychology board Legislative Chair, and LAMP member, attended.
Also attending this meeting were Drs. Quillin, Lowe, and Courtney, according to a message sent by Ally to APA Practice Directorate after the passage of Act 251.
The medical board then made changes and completed the rules in March 2009. They published their intended ruled in April 2009. They held another public hearing in June 2009 and no one attended. There were no comments.
The rules directed physicians regarding paperwork such as patient authorization, patient identity, the medical psychologist’s treatment plan, and under what circumstances a physician could withdraw from the arrangement. Between the first and final drafts, changes such as using “communication” in place of “discussion,” and deleting the words, “intended role of medication,” and verifying the identity of the medical psychologist if unknown, were made.
Additionally, I spoke with two medical psychologists who said that sending this type of paperwork to the physician was appropriate, relatively simple, and good marketing.
In a document I obtained shortly after the passage of Act 251, a letter from Dr. Glenn Ally to the APA Practice Directorate, Ally wrote:
“As you know, for the past 2-3 years Louisiana has talked about ‘going for the big enchilada.’ The ‘big enchilada’ has been the term that LAMP has used to develop legislation to remove the ‘concurrence’ clause from our statute. The need for prior concurrence has been the most difficult aspect of our prescriptive authority for both psychologists and the physicians with whom we have consulted. …”
“In addition to the ‘prior concurrence’ concept being just unworkable, the need to remove this from our statute was driven home by the recent attempt by the LSBME to publish rules that would have made it quite onerous for any physician to give concurrence to medical psychologists regarding medication management.”
Act 251 created the “advanced practice” certificate which removed the consultation and collaboration clause for experienced medical psychologists. (In comparison, it took 14 years for psychology to remove a similar clause from the psychology practice act.)
And, in different writings by LAMP leaders, there appears to be a hope that a more expanded role in practicing medicine may be forthcoming.
It is too soon to know if independence in prescribing may have come at too high a price. The medical board has full authority for establishing standards for medical psychology including their practice of psychology and it is not clear how this will evolve with the different leaders of medicine.
Practical problems with Act 251 continue, an example being a confusing Opinion by the psychology board allowing medical psychologists without a state psychology license to supervise psychology interns. It was a move that Dr. Steve DeMers, Executive Director of Association of
State and Provincial Psychology Boards, called “playing with fire.”
Act 251 also drew criticism from national groups, including the APA Board of Educational Affairs, the Interdivisional Healthcare Committee, the APA Committee for the Advancement of Professional Practice (CAPP), and the national Academy of Medical Psychology.
The Times asked APA Director Dr. Katherine Nordal if her group had received the grant follow-ups. She wrote that she had, and, “… I want to assure you that since then CAPP has clearly indicated that states that use the term ‘Medical Psychologist’ or attempt to move authority for psychology licensure under the auspices of the medical board will not be eligible for legislative grant support for these efforts.”
The prescribing independence also came at the cost of serious conflict, perhaps permanent, between psychologists, with a majority of medical psychologists dropping from LPA.
Dr. Bryan Gros, current President of LPA, noted that he is trying to bridge the gap and be more “welcoming” to medical psychologists. He told the Times he does not believe that the 2009 Executive Council ever really discussed Act 251. “… Executive Council, including presidents, were kept largely in the dark about Act 251,” he said, and he has committed himself to openness. “The culture is no longer secretive, but transparent,” he said, “even on legislative issues. We are accountable, as I believe we should be.”
“LPA has become invigorated. Now is a better time than any to join and be an active member,” he said.
So, it remains to be seen if the arrangement LAMP made with the medical board is going to be worth the costs, to the “new profession,” and to psychology as a whole.
Dr. John Simoneaux at a 2009 Meeting. He warned members about ethics.
Dr. Jim Quillin (L) designer of Act 251, and Dr. Michael Chafetz, leader of the group that formed to oppose the measure, called Grassroots. The two men talked briefly at the NAN convention in New Orleans in late 2009.
Some of the conflict about Act 251 in the Louisiana Psychological Association (LPA) was channeled into changes to the LPA bylaws, to make the organization more democratic in the future. Here LPA members vote on changes in 2010, led by President Levy. But over time many of the medical psychologists who worked on the bylaws changes have dropped from LPA.
Act 251 created a new, hybrid profession, under the medical board. But national groups are not supportive of the move. Above, the Medical Psychology Advisory Committee meets with the Executive Director of the Medical Board at a 2012 meeting. From L to R, Drs. Quillin (facing away), Marier, Ally, and Lowe.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.
Originally published: . Volume 4, No. 1. Source pages: 14.
In a memo last week, Dr. Jesse Lambert, Baton Rouge area forensic psychologist cautioned colleagues and members of the state association to be aware of changes coming with the installing of the Louisiana Behavioral Health Partnership.
The Louisiana Behavioral Health Partnership is a coordinated system of care involving the Department of Health and Hospitals, Department of Education, Department of Children and Family Services, and the Office of Juvenile Justice.
However, services for different objectives in these agencies, are currently falling under one managed care company, Magellan, he explained. And Magellan has contracted with the state to manage Medicaid funding for the Partnership.
Lambert is the Chair of the LPA created Mediciad Task Force, which will be exploring issues involve in decisions about psychological evaluation and quality of services for citizens. Other members on the task force include Drs. Michael Chafetz, James van Hook, Susan Dardard, and Wes Brockhoeft, Dr. Lambert noted.
The task force is involved in discussions with representatives from a number of state agencies.
Dr. Lambert told the Times that he is very interested in hearing from any psychologists who have experienced concerns about the changes in services and quality of services in the new Partnership arrangement. He can be reached 225- 907-7183 or psyceJ@aol.com.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.
Dr. Stacy Overstreet has been appointed Chair of the Department of Psychology at Tulane. Dr. Overstreet is a professor, licensed school psychologist, and has served as Director for the APA-accredited School Psychology Doctoral Program for Tulane. She took over the duties of the Chair in July.
Dr. Overstreet explained to the Times that her goal will be to help support the faculty in order for them to continue to build areas of excellence in research and practice.
“I hope to continue to collaborate with my colleagues to further develop our areas of strength,” she told the Times, “which include research programs in aging, stress, and health and gender disparities. Many of our faculty are also actively involved in the
development of innovative models for school-based mental health. We recently welcomed a new faculty member, Dr. Courtney Baker, who will continue to place this work on the cutting edge with her focus on implementation science.”
“My main goal is to not wreck things,” she noted, smiling. “Our former Chair, Janet Ruscher, was in the position for about 10 years. She helped place our Department well within the School of Science and Engineering and she led us through strategic planning in 2011.”
Also in July, Dr. Ruscher was appointed as Associate Dean of Graduate Programs, School of Science and Engineering at Tulane U.
Dr. Overstreet explained that the Tulane Psychology Department has recently completely their departmental strategic plan and this effort will coordinate with the university’s strategic plan. “It will be challenging, but fun,” she said, “to reframe our strategic plan in the context of University initiatives. If we hope to grow our faculty and secure resources to support our research and teaching, we need to highlight how our Department can play a central role in helping the University achieve its broad initiatives.”
In looking ahead, Dr. Overstreet said that most of the challenges are practical concerns. “I'm on a steep learning curve regarding running a Department,” she noted. “Administrative and budgeting issues on this scale are new to me.”
Dr. Overstreet explained that she sees the contributions of the Tulane Psychology department to be in the four primary areas: development, school, social and behavioral neuroscience.
“Faculty within each of these areas are making contributions across all levels,” she said and mentioned some of the work of the group. Faculty members Dr. Jeffery Lockman and Dr. Ed Golob are involved in a study for the Tulane Center for Aging and with a $10.4 million grant to support the aging-related research and to enhance infrastructure and collaboration among researchers.
Dr. Overstreet also noted that faculty member Dr. Jill Daniel has received a 5-year, $1.39 million grant from NIH to study long-term implications for the aging female brain and short- term estrogen use in middle years.
“In the Social Psychology area,” Dr. Overstreet noted, social psychologist Dr. Laurie O'Brien, is part of a multi-site study funded by National Science Foundation. Dr. O’Brien is looking at gender disparities in STEM disciplines.
“Two of our faculty are editors of national journals,” Dr. Overstreet noted. Dr. Jeff Lockman is the editor of Child Development and Dr. Oscar Barbarin is the editor of the American Journal of Orthopsychiatry.
“The School and Developmental faculty are instrumental to our U.S. Department of Education funded training grant in Trauma-Focused School
Psychology,” she said. “Bonnie Nastasi and I are co- PIs on this grant.”
Dr. Overstreet and Dr. Nastasi have delivered invited presentations on this specialized program, at national and international conferences, including the International School Psychology Association, the Trauma Services Adaptation Center for Schools and Communities, and the American Psychological Association.
Dr. Stacy Overstreet (courtesy photo)
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.
Originally published: . Volume 4, No. 1. Source pages: 15.
Dr. Karen Kopera-Frye, University of Louisiana Monroe (ULM) professor and department chair, has been asked to participate in the American Psychological Association’s Leadership Institute for Women in Psychology. This is according to a May ULM news article.
The article noted that Kopoera- Frye had been invited to participate based on her career accomplishments and her leadership/
Kopera-Frye is professor, interim head of ULM department of Gerontology, Sociology, and Political Science.
She is the Joseph A. Biedenharn Endowed Chair, and a project leader in a coordinated research effort with Pennington Biomedical, among her other responsibilities.
Kopera-Frye was surprised to be selected, she told the reporter,
but honored and happy to bring the recognition to the university.
According to the APA website, “The mission of the Leadership Institute for Women in Psychology (LIWP) is to prepare, support and empower women psychologists as leaders to promote positive changes in institutional, organizational and practice settings as well as APA governance, and increase the diversity, number and effectiveness of women psychologists as leaders.”
Also, “A major focus of the Institute is to ensure that leadership training opportunities are available for mid-career and senior women psychologists in all of their diversities.”
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.
Dr. Rita Culross, LSU College of Education professor and licensed psychologist, spoke at the Oxford Roundtable at the University of Oxford in Oxford, England, this past July. In an invited
address, “Talent Development and Talent Enhancement of the Olympic Athlete,” she explained the complex psychological patterns in talent development for Olympians.
Culross is the Ellen Levy Yates Endowed Professor of Gifted Education in the Department of Educational Theory, Policy & Practice at LSU, and teaches courses on the social and
psychological aspects of human talent development.
Drawing on her background as an expert in gifted and talented development, Culross described contributions of genetic, cognitive, and emotional traits in the athletes’ personal journey to the assembly of scholars, who were in part acknowledging the topics related to the London Summer Olympics.
Culross spoke about the psychosocial impacts of home, school, gender, community and culture, and also the principle of chance, for the athlete, describing the “Piirto Pyramid of Talent Development,” from the work of Dr. Jane Piirto, Ashland University, Ohio, author of Talented Children and Adults: Their Development and Education.
Historically talent has been confined to intelligence, Culross told the scholars, but today talent development includes many aspects of human performance including areas such as athletic, artistic, and even entrepreneurship abilities.
Drawing on the Piirto model, Culross explained that educators and psychologists see talent as specific to one domain, such as athletic performance, and relate it to the person, process, outcomes, and as influenced by environmental factors such as home, school, culture, and chance happenings.
She said that while genetic traits alone are not enough for individuals to excel to high-level performance such as the levels of Olympic athletes, these characteristics are very important and the benefits are clear. For example, Michael Phelps has a unique body type that provides a clear advantage. His “wingspan” is 80 inches, four inches more than his 76-inch height. While most people have a wingspan essentially equal to their height, Phelps’ longer arms can account for the tenth or even the hundredth of a second required to out touch other swimmers in competition. He is also double- jointed, she noted. Which, with his size 14 feet, and an extra bend of 15 degrees, turn his feet into “virtual flippers,” citing a Scientific American report.
But she explained that these assets are “only part of what is required for Olympic success.”
Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence, paired with visual learning, is also part of the talent repertoire for Olympic level athletes. The athletes must be able to acquire
skilled movements and make fine adjustments in their performance, she explained, describing the training activities of LSU’s and Olympic hurdler Lolo (Lori) Jones who, with her coaches, analyze videotapes with hundreds of images of her runs. This helps Jones and her coaches to help her with very precise corrections.
Elite athletes must manage an array of distractions and control their emotional responses, she noted. Techniques such as controlled breathing, concentration activities, and mental approaches to fears or emotions about past failures, are employed, Culross explained. Even though Olympic athletes are competitive, tough-minded, and demonstrate what is known as “adaptive perfectionism,” they must also learn to turn off their minds, Culross explained, quoting US Olympic Committee sport psychologist Karen Cogan.
She emphasized the social and environmental characteristics needed for talent development, which include support from parents, coaches, schools, teams, organizations. She said the culture of the United States is very supportive of organized sports.
And, chance plays a significant role, Culross told the audience, describing the story of Boyd Martin as told on Fox News.
“Boyd Martin, a member of the U.S. Olympic equestrian team and the son of an Australian father and an American mother, bought Neville Bardos, his mount, for $850, a pittance in a sport where horses may cost
several hundred thousand dollars. Neville Bardos was on his way to the slaughterhouse. His appeal to Martin? The horse, too, was half Australian, half American. In a freak fire last Memorial Day, Martin saved Neville Bardos’ life a second time when the stable in which he was housed caught on fire, killing all the other horses inside. A chance encounter and quick sale have led to one of the most successful partnerships in U.S. Olympic history.”
Culross outlined a number of techniques from sport psychology used to improve performance in athletes. She described visualization and how it is used to correct performance and for mental rehearsal prior to competition. Focus and motivation may also be enhanced by visualization. Culross noted how Serena Williams used the image of the Olympic gold medal to help motivate her to overcome health problems.
Culross outlined the technique of “goal-setting perfectionism” and how many elite athletes must set goals to beat their own time. But with this level of high motivation and goal-directedness, the athlete must also balance out negative arousal, and the techniques for relaxation are essential.
She described techniques for relaxation including breathing exercises, imagery, and self-talk. She also explained that there are personalized methods that may be helpful. Kayla Harrison, Olympic athlete in Judo, used these techniques, Culross noted, but also cries periodically to mentally prepare for competitions. The stress lowering benefits of crying are well known.
Olympic athletes often face challenges because of the
demands on them physically, socially, and psychologically, a topic she called, “Talent in Trouble.”
High-level, elite athletes can experience an array of difficulties, she explained, including eating disorders, problems with substance abuse, or problems with life/work balance. Problems with physical injuries are common. And, transitioning from Olympian to post- Olympic career can be very difficult psychologically.
The risk of eating disorders is more prevalent in female athletes, she said, because of focus on body image. The balancing of career demands, life, and financial demands can be a challenge, even though more sponsorships are available these days.
Finally, Culross explained that for elite athletes, who have often dedicated their entire lives to their sport, a psychological search for a new identity and sometimes an entirely new vocation, will come eventually when they retire.
This transition can be a time of critical adjustment demands. Culross noted that Rulon Gardner, US Olympic wrestler, who achieved a major accomplishment in Beijing by winning gold over the Russian champion, returned home, and was involved in a motorcycle accident, a snowmobile accident, and then an archery accident. He did not compete again, she told the group.
Dr. Culross closed her presentation by reminding the audience that performances in the 2012 London Summer Olympics represent a “lifetime of developing talent and overcoming challenges.”
And yet the rewards of this monumental effort might all take place in as little as 60 seconds, punctuating the psychological complexity that most of the rest of us may have some difficulty truly understanding.
Dr. Rita Culross is licensed in Louisiana and Texas, and presently serves on the Louisiana State Board of Examiners of Psychologists.
She has served as Interim Director of the LSU Women’s and Gender Studies Program, as Fullbright Senior Specialist, and honored as an LSU Rainmaker.
She is author of Counseling the gifted: Developing the whole child, A handbook. And she is author of Counseling the gifted, in Directions in child and adolescent therapy: Volume 2.
Originally published: . Volume 4, No. 1. Source pages: 15.
Nadia Webb, PsyD, MP, and Joseph Tramontana, PhD, will be presenting in September at the Illinois Psychological Association.
Drs. Webb and Tramontana will present Workshop #1, “What life is like for both prescribing psychologists (MPs) and non- prescribing psychologists in Louisiana.”
The workshop is free.
The conference brochure notes: “Nadia Webb, PsyD, MP, ABPN, a licensed medical psychologist
and pediatric neuro- psychologist, practicing in Louisiana, and teaching in Louisiana and Chicago; Neuropsychology Training Director for Neuropsychology and Joint Neuropsychology- Autism Fellowship Programs, Children's Hospital, New Orleans, Louisiana, 2009 – Present; Full Professor, School Psychology, Pediatric Neuropsychology Doctoral Program, Chicago School of Professional Psychology, Chicago, Illinois, 2012 – Present.”
Also, the brochure notes, “Joseph Tramontana, Ph.D., a licensed clinical psychologist practicing in Baton Rouge and Metairie, Louisiana, and Pass Christian, Mississippi; Psychological Consultant with the State of Louisiana, Department of Disability Services.
In the 1970's, at the age of 30, Dr. Tramontana was the youngest Mental Health Center Director in the U.S.”
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.
Originally published: . Volume 4, No. 1. Source pages: 2.
The “Behavior Analysts Licensure and Regulation Study Commis- sion,” a group created by a 2012 Senate Resolution, is scheduled to meet this Friday, September 7.
The group includes 15 members representing psychology, education, behavior analysis, social work, counseling, medicine and parents. These include Executive Director of the Psychology Board, Ms. Kelly Parker, and LPA representative, Dr. Lacey Seymour. Drs. John Courtney and Darla Burnett may also be attending the group, according to discussion at the recent psychology board meeting.
According to previous reports, the group will meet at the DHH offices in Baton Rouge.
The study group is scheduled to continue discussion about the components of licensure and “develop key points of licensure.”
“Our last meeting did not yield much forward movement,” Chair Ms. Ashley Munn noted to the Times. “There was a lot of discussion, which I think was needed but unfortunately, it did not move us toward finalizing any decisions,” she explained.
The Commission was formed by a Senate Resolution authored by J.P Senator Morrell, who emerg- ed as a leading opponent of the psychology board’s effort to develop regulations for Behavior Analysts.
“I am going to change the structure of future meetings in an attempt to get some concrete movement towards what we were asked to do,” Ms. Munn said.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.
Originally published: . Volume 4, No. 1. Source pages: 15.
The psychology board is in the process of shopping around Baton Rouge for a building with larger office space.
According to the discussion at a recent LSBEP meeting, board members feel that they are too cramped and do not have adequate rooms nor privacy and for holding examinations and meetings.
Dr. Marc Zimmermann reported that he had looked at various rental properties and would proceed to “see who is willing to rent to the board.”
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.
Originally published: . Volume 4, No. 1. Source pages: 3.
In an interview this week with Dr. Alicia Pellegrin, Legislative Chair and also Secretary for the Louisiana Psychological Association (LPA), she said to the Times that her group was very aware of the “Doctor Rule” legislation, passed in the spring and supported by the medical board.
The “Doctor Rule” or Act 772 prohibits those who are not physicians from using communications that could confuse patients about who is and who is not a physician. The body of the legislation mentions nurses, physical therapists, and physician assistants. It also provides for exceptions. Psychologists are not listed in either section.
“We were on that,” Dr. Pellegrin told the Times. “We did not leave that to chance. I got with Kevin Hayes, our attorney and he got with the authors. We made sure of that one. Mental health was not even on the radar.”
Pellegrin had called the Times after the last issue and gave a correction to one story, and
reported LPA’s efforts about the “Doctor Rule.”
Pellegrin also described where the state association is headed in the future. “First, we will have a shorter than normal legislative session in the Spring, with the session to begin April 8th and ending on June 6th. While the session may be 30 days shorter, you can bet that it won't be any less lively.”
“While we have not yet finalized our legislative agenda for the upcoming session, we know that we will be monitoring a number of issues,” she noted.
First, we will be exploring the findings of the working group for the Applied Behavior Analysts in an attempt to resolve, to the satisfaction of all and for the protection of the public, the issue of ABA regulation. We have our own representative in the working group in Dr. Lacey Seymour who will be providing us with regular updates as the working group goes forward.”
“Secondly,” Pellegrin said, “we are very concerned about the effects that Magellan has had
on the access to psych- ological services for Medicaid and DCFS [Department of Child and Family Services] clients, an issue about which we intend to be at the forefront. We feel strongly that not only must we represent our profession, but also those who are the most powerless to speak out about the diminution of their services.”
“Of course, we will as always be monitoring all new legislation for anything that has the potential to affect our profession.” But, Pellegrin noted that the association will be sponsoring some proactive legislation at the right times.
And she said, “We continue to be grateful to the many generous members of our PAC who have donated the funds necessary for us to continue to be players in the political arena. We have raised approximately 30K thus far and will continue our fund raising campaigns. I would like for Times readers to stay tuned to what is likely to be another important and exciting legislative session.”
Dr. Carolyn Weyand (L) and Dr. Alicia Pellegrin at a recent meeting of the Louisiana Psychological Association Executive Committee. Dr. Pellegrin told the Times she is following several areas in the legislative area.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.
Originally published: . Volume 4, No. 1. Source pages: 16.
The Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) will host its Leading Edge Consortium in New Orleans on October 19 and 20, 2012.
Organizers note that the meeting will host keynote speakers from industry, psychology, environmental sciences, and consulting, to look at the topic of environmental sustainability as a central issue to business and organizations in today’s world.
“As organizations transform to minimize, mitigate, and neutralize their environmental impact, I-O psychology is uniquely positioned to aid in these efforts,” note the conference planners.
Presenters will address the interdisciplinary aspects of how science and practice can contribute, and what exactly is the business case for environmental sustainability.
Speakers include Edward E. Lawler III, Ph.D. – Distinguished Professor of Business at the University of Southern California Marshall School of Business and founder and director of the University's Center for Effective Organizations (CEO), Anna Clark – Author of Green, American Style and the president of EarthPeople, a sustainability communications firm, and John P. Muros, Ph.D. – John is a Senior HR Research Consultant with AT&T.
For more information go to http://www.siop.org/fallconsortium/
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.
Originally published: . Volume 4, No. 1. Source pages: 3.
LPA Legislative Chair, Dr. Alicia Pellegrin called an error to our attention in the story, August issue, page 8, “LPCs Successful In Removing Requirement.” Pellegrin pointed out that LPA did not support the change, but rather, did not oppose the change, in the LPC’s law. The change in the law deleted the requirement that patients be seen by someone prescribing medications and licensed under the medical board.The wording was corrected in the final, evening edition, and the online copy. Some early downloads contain the error. The Times is sorry for any confusion or inconvenience this may have caused.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.
Originally published: . Volume 4, No. 1. Source pages: 16.
The Psychology Department at Southern University will host the 13th annual Behavioral and Social Sciences Undergraduate Research Conference at the Southern U. Campus in Baton Rouge, November 18, 2012.
The conference will be from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. in the Royal Cotillion Ballroom of the Smith- Brown Memorial Union on the University’s campus, according to the university announcement.
Featured with be oral presentations of “empirical and theoretical research papers by Southern students.” The conference will focus on the presentations and research from the departments of Criminal Justice, Economics, History, Political Science, Psychology, Rehabilitation and Disability Studies, Social Work, Sociology, and Speech Pathology.
The conference is free and open to the public. For more information, please contact Dr. Reginald Rackley at 225.771.2313.
Dr. Murelle Harrison, psychologist and professor is Interim Chair of the Psychology Department at Southern.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.
Originally published: . Volume 4, No. 1. Source pages: 4.
Oral Examination Committee: Dr. Zimmermann, Chair and Dr. Culross Vice Chair Jurisprudence Examination Committee: Dr. Courtney, Chair and Dr. Matthews, Vice Chair Legislative Coordinator [Oversight] Committee: Dr. Burnett, Chair and Dr. Courtney, Vice Chair Liaison to Professional Organizations and Boards: Dr. Courtney, Chair and Dr. Burnett, Vice Chair Continuing Education: Dr. Culross, Chair and Dr. Zimmermann, Vice Chair Supervision/Credentials Review: Dr. Culross, Chair and Dr. Burnett, Vice Chair Complaints Committee: Dr. Matthews, Chair and Dr. Courtney, Vice Chair Long Range Planning: Dr. Matthews, Chair, and Dr. Burnett, Vice Chair
Liaison to Professional Organizations and Boards: Ms. Parker informed the Board that ASPPB has requested a representative from Louisiana sit on the ASPPB Annual Meeting panel for regarding liaison to professional organizations. The Board agreed that Dr. Courtney should be the LA representative at the conference. The Board carefully reviewed the ASPPB Portability Grant. The Board discussed matters concerning the Louisiana Psychological Association. The Board agreed to notify the Louisiana Psychological Association of upcoming meeting dates and new committee assignments. 2.
LSBEP Opinion Mandatory Reporting of Child Abuse: The Board approved the draft opinion regarding Mandatory Reporting of Child Abuse, and designated it as LSBEP Opinion 14.
The Psychology Times request-Act 251 emails: Ms. Parker informed the Board that Dr. Nelson has requested all emails form 2008-2009, prior to the Governor’s signature, regarding Act 251. The Board carefully discussed the request and directed Ms. Parker to consult with Lloyd Lunceford, Esquire.
2012 Renewal Update: Ms. Parker informed the Board that as of July 13, 2012, 553 psychologists had renewed, 495 were online renewals and 58 were paper renewals. Ms. Parker updated the Board about changes to the database including a new function for a renewal disciplinary action report.
Dr. Darla Burnett, the newest psychology board member, calls Kinkos to find prices for copying, at a recent board meeting.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.