“The presentation of brain facts
aboutspecific damages is meaningless topatients unless they can begin tounderstand how the changes in theirbrains are lived out in everydayexperiences and situations”(Varela, 1991 as stated in McInerneyand Walker, 2002)
What is CollaborativeNeuropsychology?• What is
traditional neuropsychology? – Typically follows a medically based/information gathering model. – Outsider viewing a passive “object” – Reductionist – Categories, diagnoses, constructs used to explain a client. – Focus on pathology – Tester as detached observer – Sense of secrecy – Specific focus on the brain-behavior relationship
What is CollaborativeNeuropsychology? – Emanates
from “Third Force” Psychology – Relational encounter – Client as “co-evaluator” – Open sharing of results – Client viewed in context – Constructs serve to understand the client holistically. – Focus on strengths and weaknesses – Test scores, categories, and classifications help patients develop an understanding of their experience, not to define it (Fischer, 1970/1994) – Blending art and science into a “human science neuro-psychology” (Fischer, 2003; italics mine).
Holistic Neuropsychology Yehuda Ben-Yashay and
LeonardDiller• Roots in Kurt Goldstein’s holistic views. – A holistic theory of the organism based Gestalt Theory – “We have said that life confronts us in living organisms. But as soon as we attempt to grasp them scientifically, we must take them apart, and this taking apart nets us a multitude of isolated facts which offer no direct clue to that which we experience directly in the living organism.” Kurt Goldstein, The Organism, p. 7
Holistic NeuropsychologicalPrinciples• Empower patients and
families to take an active role in the treatment process;• Believe people with neurological disabilities are more like people without neurological disabilities (ie. Go beyond the brain) ;• Convey honesty and caring in personal interactions to form a foundation for a strong therapeutic relationship;• Develop practical plans for rehabilitation; explain rehabilitation techniques in understandable language;
Holistic Neuropsychological Principles• Help patients
and families understand neurobehavioral sequelae of brain injury and recovery;• Recognize change is inevitable and help families cope with change;• Every patient is important, treat with respect;• Remember that patients and families have different perspectives regarding treatment approaches.
• Neuropsychology is failing to
distinguish itself due to: – Over-reliance on diagnosing brain behavior relationships – Narrow focus on psychometric approach – Uncertainty of roles in areas such as rehabilitation. – Lack of translation of test results into patient care – Lack of assessment advocacy (Gass and Brown, 1992; Nelson and Adams, 1997; Goldstein, S. Personal Communication)
Rise of ForensicNeuropsychology• There is
a greater presence of forensic neuropsychology topics in peer reviewed journals and neuropsychology meeting programs (Sweet, et al., 2002).• Consequently there is a greater proportion of topics related to legal proceedings and malingering.• Increasing emphasis on Symptom Validity Testing.
Possibilities• Focus on the utility
of neuropsychological assessment – Ensuring relevance by tailoring assessment to treatment/rehabilitative needs and outcomes – Focus on the needs of the client/consumer – Closely link assessment – feedback – intervention. – Integrate treatment planning, monitoring progress, and outcomes (Groth-Marnat, G. (1999)).
Importance of Working Alliance• There
are strong links between patient- therapist collaboration and goal consensus in psychotherapy outcomes (Shick Tryon and Winograd, 2011).• Working alliance and collaboration in rehabilitation is viewed as important but less well studied.
Working Alliance inRehabilitation• A positive
relationship between working alliance and outcomes has been found. Working alliance defined as• (a) the agreement between client and therapist on goals,• (b) their agreement on how to achieve these goals (common work on tasks) and• (c) the development of a personal bond between client and therapist. (Shönberger et al. 2006).
Working Alliance inRehabilitation• A good
working alliance can be created with both clients who experience many problems and clients who experience comparatively few problems, as long as they are aware of the consequences of their brain injury.• Therapist’s experience of a good working alliance was influenced by the client’s experience of success. (Shönberger, et al., 2006).
Working Alliance inRehabilitation• Clients’ and
therapists’ overall success ratings at program end were related to their emotional bond at program end.• Early-therapy compliance and the average amount of compliance are predictive of subjective improvement. (Shönberger, et al., 2006).
Working Alliance: Someevidence• Bieman-Copelan and
Dywan (2000). Brain and Cognition, 44, 1-5.• Behavioral therapy in context of a supportive/collaborative therapeutic alliance for anosognosia.• Collaborative negotiation and trusting therapeutic relationship for behavioral goal setting.• Results indicated a significant reduction in problematic behaviors despite no increase in insight or awareness of injury.
Pegg et al., 2005• Evaluated
the role of interpersonal relationship factors on patient outcomes with 28 patients with moderate to sever TBI admitted to an inpatient unit at a VAMC.• Personalized information-provision intervention.• Results: – Patients exerted greater effort in therapies – Patients increased satisfaction with rehabilitation treatment. – Significantly more improvement in cognitive FIM scores.
Interdisciplinary team workingalliance (Evans, et
al., 2008).• Importance of therapeutic alliance in post acute brain injury rehabilitation (PABIR).• Sherer et al., 2007 - poor working alliance was associated with high levels of family discord, greater discrepancy between family and clinician ratings of client functioning, and poor client participation in therapies.• Treatment team members attended in-services that emphasized motivational interviewing philosophy and techniques, building rapport, reflective listening, dealing with patient resistance, making behavioral changes, stages of change, dealing with challenging clients, and assessment and treatment issues with depressed and/or suicidal patients (pg. 332).
Lane-Brown and Tate, 2010.• Single
case study that evaluated an intervention utilizing external compensation and motivational interviewing to initiate and sustain goal directed activity with a TBI patient.• Demonstrated that treating specific and operationally defined goals through external compensation and motivational interviewing successfully decreased apathy.
Comprehensive Recovery ChallengesRehabilitation• Physical Therapy
• Knowledge of deficits• Occupational Therapy • Adapting to deficits• Speech Therapy • Grieving and Coping (Denial, anger,• Medical Management bargaining, depression,• Psychological/Neuropsyc acceptance). hological • Learning and re-learning• Emotional/Psychiatric • Integrating knowledge Management as into the self appropriate • Re-discovering meaning• Family Support and a sense of purpose• Case Management
“…But be that as it
may, those of us who did make ithave an obligation to build again. To teach to others whatwe know, and to try with whats left of our lives to find agoodness and a meaning to this life.”(Quote from the movie “Platoon”, 1986)
How traditional neuropsychologicalassessment addresses these
challenges1. Knowledge of deficits 1. Provides information on2. Adapting to deficits cognitive functioning. 2. Presents potential3. Grieving and Coping ameliorative strategies. (Denial, anger, 3. Does not directly bargaining, depression, address. acceptance). 4. Cognitive rehabilitation4. Learning and re-learning and remediation.5. Integrating knowledge 5. Presents one aspect of into the self the person (cognition).6. Re-discovering meaning 6. Does not directly address.
How collaborative neuropsychologicalassessment addresses these
challenges1. Knowledge of deficits 1. Provides information on cognitive functioning and seeks individual2. Adapting to deficits application. 2. Presents potential ameliorative3. Grieving and Coping strategies and seeks out the (Denial, anger, individuals own resources for change. bargaining, depression, 3. Address a person’s experience acceptance). and reactions to information provided; balances education and4. Learning and re-learning the I-Thou interaction.5. Integrating knowledge 4. Cognitive rehabilitation and remediation and works to into the self motivate internalization.6. Re-discovering meaning 5. Presents one aspect of the person (cognition) and considers it within the context of the whole person. 6. Looks toward the future and what
Luria’s Neuropsychological Investigation (LNI)• Loose
conceptual basis, not an actual precursor.• A qualitative and flexible interviewing method for diagnosing brain lesions.• The value of LNI: – Provides a thorough individualized neuropsychological assessment in which the cognitive functions and psychological responses of the individual can be ascertained. – Provides the opportunity to identify strengths and deficits. – LNI principles can be implemented throughout the rehabilitation process which include • Hypothesis testing • A collaborative working relationship with the patient’• Feedback to enhance awareness.Christensen, Anne-Lise (1975); Christensen, A.L. and Caetano, C. (1999)
Neuropsychological TestFeedback Research• No empirical
studies but some recommendations• Neuropsychological test feedback provides useful information about cognitive strengths and weaknesses,• Clients find the information useful,• Results apply to clients everyday life and concerns• Facilitates the development of useful and applicable interventions(Gass & Brown, 1992; Pope, 1992; Crosson, 2000; Bennet-Levy et al., 1994).
Recommended method forproviding information (Gass
& Brown, 1992)1. Review the purpose of testing in plain, simple language2. Tests are “behavior samples” of functional domains3. Explain in terms of behavioral functioning4. Summarize strengths and weaknesses5. Address diagnostic issues6. Make recommendations
Limited empirical evidence• Case Studies
(Malla et al., 1997; Rose, 1998)• Conceptual articles (Allen et al., 1986)• Provision of medical information which included neuropsychological tests (Pegg, Auerbach, Seel, Buenaver, Kiesler, and Plybon, 2005).
Collaborative IndividualizedAssessment (Fischer, 1994)• Based
on phenomenological psychology.• Assessor works collaboratively to understand a client’s unique worldview• Tests, scores, categories, and classifications serve to develop a hermeneutic understanding of the person.• Reflects a “human-science psychology”.
Motivational Interviewing Principles(Miller and Rollnick,
2002)• A method of dialogue designed to enhance client’s intrinsic motivation to make changes in behavior.• Heavily rooted in Roger’s Client Centered Therapy.• Originally developed with alcoholics but expanded to drug addiction and health behavior change.
• Strongly based on the
Rogerian approach• Non-directive/directive intervention• Empathy and unconditional regard are the crux of MI• Exploring and resolving ambivalence about making changes is a key goal• Works to develop a discrepancy between real and ideal self (values and behavior; who a client is versus who they want to be).• Associated with the stages of change.
MI Method for Giving Feedback•
Elicit – Provide – Elicit• Using OARS – Open ended questions – Affirmations – Reflections – Summarizations• Goal is to help clients work through and resolve ambivalence in order to move through the stages of change.
The NAFI• Origins – Neuropsychological
Testing – Personal Feedback Report (Project MATCH, Dual Diagnosis Adherence Strategies, WPIC) – Anecdotal Observations• Pilot Study• Development of the Feedback Report• NIDA funded study 2004 – 2008.
Patient Responses• “The assessment was
helpful to me. I learned a lot about myself…I would have done it without being paid.”• “Allowed me to see why I may be reluctant to participate in groups.”• “Helped me narrow in on specific steps I need to take with my therapist re: depression and addiction. Identified couple things we can work on.”• “I am so pleased that I participated in the study. It was right on. M- allowed me to share during the process, which really assisted with my overall understanding of the feedback.”
• First presentation at The
Society for Personality Assessment, Spring 2006. – Diane Engelman, Ph.D. – Steven R. Smith, Ph.D. – Tad Gorske, Ph.D.
Methods of CollaborativeNeuropsychology• Demystify the
neuropsychological assessment process: Provide feedback report; explain session purpose; facilitate collaboration and empathic understanding• Answer what the individual wants to know (If you can).• Explain how strengths and weaknesses are determined.• Ensure an understanding of the information provided.
CTNA• The spirit of the
CTNA lies in Collaborative and Therapeutic Assessment Models – Open sharing; explore results contextually; use results to facilitate empathic understanding• The framework for conducting the CTNA is drawn from MI.• The CTNA adopts and adapts the MI Personalized Feedback Report
CTNA Personalized Feedback1. Introduction •
Provide feedback report; explain session purpose; facilitate collaboration and empathic understanding1. Develop Questions • Develop 2 or 3 well defined questions the client hopes the results can answer1. Explain how strengths and weaknesses are determined • Percentiles, determine criteria for strength or weakness
CTNA Personalized Feedback4. Feedback about
strengths and weaknesses • Elicit: What skills did the client use to complete the test. • Provide: Therapist provides information on the cognitive skill test(s) examine. • Elicit: Therapist elicits reactions from the clients and applies results to their real life.
Future Implications• Clinical: A high
degree of utility for consultation, initiating therapy, working with “sticking points” in therapy, rehabilitation planning.• Teaching: Developing students into “human-science” practitioners, researchers, and teachers.• Research: Learn outcomes, factors influencing effectiveness, manual development.
Case #1: Multiple Concussions• Caucasian
female, early 20’s;• Recent very mild hit to the head;• Increase in PCS: headache, mental fogginess, dizziness, nausea, balance problems, fatigue, drowsiness, sensitivity to light and noise, mood changes, feeling slowed down, difficulty concentrating, difficulty remembering, and visual problems• Hx of two prior concussions over 5 year span since her teen years.• Doctor told her she had a “catastrophic reaction.”
COWA FAS = 55 82
Animal = 28 79Boston Naming 57/60 58TestTrailmaking B 41 sec., 1 error 87Stroop C/W Test Word = 100 45 Color = 81 58 Color Word = 52 79 Interference = 7 77WCST-64 Categories = 5 Average Total Errors = 6 94 Perseverative Errors = 5 47 Trials to first category = Average 10
Main themes in CTNA session•
Discrepancy between how she felt vs objective evidence;• Negative thoughts and beliefs about herself and her capabilities;• Underlying perfectionism;• After session became more open to considering psychological/emotional vs brain injury as causing her distress.
• My thanks to all
the participants, Dr. Fiona Bardenhagen and the Australian Psychological Society for inviting me to your conference.My contact information Tad T. Gorske, Ph.D Clinical Assistant Professor Division of Neuropsychology and Rehabilitation Psychology UPMC Mercy 1400 Locust Street, Suite G138 Pittsburgh, PA USA 15219 Gorskett@upmc. edu