The TCN AACN 2010 Salary Survey Professional Practices Beliefs and Incomes of U S Neuropsychologists

The Clinical Neuropsychologist
ISSN: 1385-4046 (Print) 1744-4144 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ntcn20
The TCN/AACN 2010 Salary Survey: Professional

Practices, Beliefs, and Incomes of U.S.
Neuropsychologists
Jerry J. Sweet Ph.D. , Dawn Giuffre Meyer , Nathaniel W. Nelson & Paul J.
Moberg
To cite this article: Jerry J. Sweet Ph.D. , Dawn Giuffre Meyer , Nathaniel W. Nelson & Paul
J. Moberg (2011) The TCN/AACN 2010 Salary Survey: Professional Practices, Beliefs, and
Incomes of U.S. Neuropsychologists, The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 25:1, 12-61, DOI:
10.1080/13854046.2010.544165
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2010.544165
Published online: 19 Jan 2011.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 8063
View related articles
Citing articles: 31 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ntcn20
Download by: [119.63.142.18]
Date: 03 March 2016, At: 20:01
The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 2011, 25 (1), 1261

http://www.psypress.com/tcn
ISSN: 1385-4046 print/1744-4144 online
DOI: 10.1080/13854046.2010.544165
The TCN/AACN 2010 Salary Survey: Professional

Practices, Beliefs, and Incomes of U.S. Neuropsychologists
Jerry J. Sweet1,2, Dawn Giuffre Meyer3, Nathaniel W. Nelson4,5,
and Paul J. Moberg6
1
NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, IL, USA

University of Chicago, Pritzker School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA
3
National Rehabilitation Hospital, Washington, DC, USA
4
University of St. Thomas, Minneapolis, MN, USA
5
Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Minneapolis, MN, USA
6
University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA
Downloaded by [119.63.142.18] at 20:01 03 March 2016
Doctoral-level members of the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology, Division

40 (Clinical Neuropsychology) of the American Psychological Association, and the National
Academy of Neuropsychology, and other neuropsychologists, were invited to participate in
a web-based survey in early 2010. The sample of respondents was 56% larger than a prior
related income and practice survey in 2005. The substantial proportional change in gender
taking place in the field has continued, with 7 of 10 post-doctoral residents being women
and, for the first time ever, more than half of the total sample of respondents being women.
Whereas the median age of APA members has been over 50 since the early 1990s, the current
median age of clinical neuropsychologists remains at 47 and has remained essentially
unchanged since 1989, indicating substantial entrance of young psychologists into the field.
The Houston Conference training model has influenced the vast majority of residency
training sites, and is endorsed as compatible with prior training by two-thirds of all
respondents. Testing assistant usage remains commonplace, and is much more common in
institutions. The flexible battery approach has again increased in popularity and
predominates, whereas endorsement of the fixed/standardized battery approach has
continued to decline. The vast majority of clinical neuropsychologists work full time.
Average length of time reported for evaluations increased significantly from 2005, which
does not appear to be explained by changes in common referral sources or common
diagnostic conditions being evaluated. The most common factors affecting evaluation length
were identified, with the top three being goal of evaluation, stamina/health of examinee, and
age of examinee. Pediatric specialists are more likely than others to work part time, more
likely to be women, more likely to work in institutions, and report lower incomes than
respondents whose professional identity is purely adult or a combination of adult and
pediatric. Incomes once again vary considerably by years of clinical practice, work setting,
amount of forensic practice, state, and region of country. Job satisfaction has little
relationship to income and is comparable across most variables (e.g., work setting,
professional identity, amount of forensic activity), whereas income satisfaction has a
stronger relationship to actual income, and income satisfaction and job satisfaction are
moderately correlated. Job satisfaction of neuropsychologists in general is higher than
reported for other US jobs. Fewer than 5% of respondents are considering changing job
position. As was true in the 2005 survey, a substantial majority of respondents reported
increased incomes over the last 5 years. Actual reported income values were meaningfully
Address correspondence to: Jerry J. Sweet, Ph.D., NorthShore Medical Group, Psychiatry &
Behavioral Sciences, 909 Davis Street, Suite 160, Evanston, IL 60201, USA. E-mail: jerrysweet@
uchicago.edu
Accepted for publication: November 19, 2010
2011 Psychology Press, an imprint of the Taylor & Francis group, an Informa business
TCN/AACN 2010 SALARY SURVEY
13
higher than in 2005 across general work settings and professional identities, and were also
higher for entry-level positions. Numerous breakdowns related to income and professional
activities are provided.
Keywords: Survey; Salary; Income; Professional practice; Satisfaction; Neuropsychology.
INTRODUCTION
Surveys of clinical neuropsychologists have provided information regarding
salient characteristics of practice, teaching, research, and incomes within the field
since separate survey projects were undertaken in 1988 by Putnam (1989) and in
1989 by Sweet and Moberg (1990). The present survey reflects 2010 data collected in
a format comparable to the 2005 TCN/AACN Salary Survey (Sweet, Nelson, &
Moberg, 2006), which itself contained questions that had been asked in multiple
prior surveys in order to allow analysis of stability and change across time (Sweet &
Moberg, 1990; Sweet, Moberg, & Suchy, 2000a, 2000b; Sweet, Moberg, &
Westergaard, 1996). Subsets of items have been dropped and added across surveys
to track topics deemed timely.
The title salary survey, originated by Putnam (1989), has been retained
because of its recognition value in the neuropsychology literature. However,
financial data solicited from current survey items are more aptly described as
income, whereas salary, when applied to professionals, connotes a status of
being an employee in an organization that is most frequently associated with a
predetermined annual payment referred to as a salary. In reality, past surveys
have demonstrated that many neuropsychologists have private practice incomes,
rather than salaries.
METHOD
Survey development began in the fall of 2009. Most items from the 2005
AACN/TCN Salary Survey (Sweet et al., 2006) were maintained in their original
format for the 2010 survey. However, some items were deleted (e.g., due to being
less relevant to the field or not having produced useful information regarding
change of beliefs of practices in past surveys) or modified (e.g., to prevent
problematic data issues that arose during the previous surveying). New items were
added to address emerging topics related to neuropsychological practice. Pilot data
were collected from AACN Board members and adult and pediatric neuropsychologist colleagues in December 2010; survey structure and content was adjusted in
response to feedback.
Based on the successful online survey experience with the 2005 AACN/TCN
Salary Survey (Sweet et al., 2006), the commercial company PsychData (http://
psychdata.com/) was again selected for the web-based survey. Web survey settings
were set so that no identifying information was collected from respondents or their
computers (e.g., IP address); therefore, survey respondents had complete anonymity
of their responses. Participant data could be downloaded from the PsychData
website directly into an SPSS file, which prevented data entry errors.
14
JERRY J. SWEET ET AL.
During early 2010, initial postcards were sent to 615 members and 37 senior
members of the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology (AACN), 3955
members of the American Psychological Associations (APA) Division 40, and to
an all-categories membership list of 3550 individuals provided by the National
Academy of Neuropsychology (NAN).1 After removing redundant names across
mailing lists, 7,891 names were provided to an outside vendor, who further scrutinized the names and deleted more duplicates. Ultimately, a lower number of postcards were mailed. The postcard included instructions and information relevant to
completion of the survey on the website. Announcements were also sent to the official
e-mail listservs for AACN, Division 40, and NAN, as well as other listservs that
are specifically neuropsychologically oriented (e.g., NPSYCH, PEDS). To assure
that post-doctoral residents would be included, a mailing list from the Association
of Post-doctoral Programs in Clinical Neuropsychology (APPCN) was utilized.
In some instances colleagues forwarded e-mail announcements to the members of
other neuropsychology organizations (e.g., Colorado Neuropsychological Society,
Massachusetts Neuropsychological Society). Reminder postcards and listserv
announcements were sent in April and May.
All completed surveys received by the morning of June 2 were examined for
usability; 1731 cases were recorded. Duplicate records were deleted (e.g., individuals
who began taking the survey, discontinued midway, and completed the survey in
full a brief time later), and five individuals who indicated that they had not yet
completed their doctorate were excluded from the sample. Thirteen participants
indicated that they were not psychologists, psychologists-in-training, or qualified to
be clinicians, and were excluded from the sample. Ultimately, the final sample
included 1685 records.
Because the online survey was set to allow most items to be completed or
skipped at the discretion of the respondent, sample sizes will vary across tables and
sometimes within tables. Statistical analyses were carried out sparingly, under the
basic assumption that most meaningful survey results would be apparent to the
reader. Where statistics have been utilized, we decided not to include statistical
significance of p5.05, due to the large sample size. Instead, statistical significances
of p5.01 or p5.001 are reported.
RESULTS
Response rate
In prior surveys we calculated estimates regarding how well the respondent
sample approximated the total pool of clinical neuropsychologists who had been
invited to participate, which was primarily doctoral-level members of APAs
Division 40. For the present survey, even though we expressly targeted the
memberships of AACN, Division 40, and NAN, we also attempted to saturate the
US community of neuropsychologists by sending invitations via listserv and via
1
The NAN mailing list was discovered to have included many more names than were intended. This
number included students, associates, and affiliates. Based on communications with NAN office
personnel on 11/04/2010 and 11/08/2010 the professional members at the outset of the survey project
numbered 1897, with an additional 264 Fellows, for a total of 2161.
15
smaller organizations. These invitations were electronic and could be easily

forwarded to many additional individuals, which was consistent with our goal of
being as inclusive as possible. The only drawback to this approach is that there is
no method of precisely specifying (1) the actual denominator (i.e., the number
representing the total number of doctoral-level neuropsychologists who received the
survey invitation), (2) membership overlap between the many organizations and
listservs whose members received the invitation, and (3) the number within some of
the organizations and listservs who are licensed practitioners and post-doctoral
residents, the true target audiences of the current survey. Adding to the present
problems in calculating response rate, months after the survey was completed the
NAN mailing list was discovered to have contained many names of individuals who
were not NAN doctoral-level members. For all of these reasons, a computation of
response rate is not possible. However, the 1685 respondents in the present survey
represent a 56% increase in sample size compared to the final sample size of 1078 in
the preceding 2005 TCN/AACN Salary Survey (Sweet et al., 2006). On that basis
alone, and the most often meaningfully larger samples available for subgroup data
analyses, it appears that the return rate can be considered representative of US
clinical neuropsychologists.
GENERAL SAMPLE DEMOGRAPHICS AND CHARACTERISTICS
Table 1 shows that more than 80% of respondents attained a Ph.D. as their
doctorate degree. Approximately three-fourths of the doctorates were awarded in
clinical psychology, with the second largest group being doctorates in counseling
psychology at 8.2%. Post-doctoral residents comprise 6.2% of the sample. The
sample contains approximately 5% more women than men. Ethnic minorities
represent approximately 10% of the sample, with the largest subgroup of these
being Hispanic/Latino. Work status is full time or full time plus a second part time
position for approximately 90% of the sample. Only eight respondents were
unemployed.
A substantial majority of respondents work in urban areas, with only 8.4%
working in rural areas exclusively and an additional 12.6% working in both urban
and rural areas. Institutional employment accounts for 40% of the sample, with
27.5% exclusively in private practice, and 26.1% working in both settings. Testing
assistants are used by 48% of the sample, with the vast majority of these being paid
assistants, rather than unpaid trainees. A slim majority of 54% of respondents have
a professional identity of being an adult neuropsychologist. Whereas only 15.2%
consider themselves exclusively a pediatric neuropsychologist, an additional 25.5%
adhere to an identity that is pediatric and adult in nature. Board certification
through the American Board of Professional Psychology (ABPP) was reported by
approximately one-third of the sample, with more than 90% of these individuals
being board certified by the American Board of Clinical Neuropsychology (ABCN).
Slightly less than 5% (n 75) of the sample reported board certification through the
American Board of Neuropsychology (ABN), with a subset of 36% (n 27) holding
one of the 13 ABPP specialty certifications and the ABN credential.
Table 2 shows the place of residence of survey respondents among the 50
United States, District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The nine states in which the
16

Table 1. Characteristics of general sample of respondentsa
Demographics
Frequency
Percent
Degree
Ph.D.
Psy.D.
Ed.D.
Other
1381
240
9
44
82.5
14.3
0.5
2.6
Gender
Female
Male
853
763
52.8
47.2
Ethnicity
African American/Black
American Indian or Alaskan Native
Asian or Pacific Islander
Hispanic/Latino
Caucasian/White
Biracial/Multiethnic/Multiracial
Chose not to disclose
20
5
34
54
1488
21
34
1.2
0.3
2.1
3.3
89.9
1.3
2.1
Field of doctoral study

Clinical psychology
Neuropsychologyb
Counseling psychology
School psychology
Educational psychology
Neurosciences
Other
1235
108
137
54
19
13
103
74.0
6.5
8.2
3.2
1.1
0.8
6.2
Work status
Full time
Part time
Combined (full time part time)
Retired
Unemployed
1363
142
138
11
8
82.0
8.5
8.3
0.7
0.5
Work environment
Rural
Urban
Some time in both
139
1306
208
8.4
79.0
12.6
General work setting

Institution only
Private practice only
Institution and private practice
Post-doctoral residency
582
398
377
90
40.2
27.5
26.1
6.2
Do you use a technician/psychometrician to

collect test data from patients?c,d
Yes
Paid paraprofessionals (i.e., psychometricians)
Paid doctoral-level staff
Paid post-doctoral residents or fellows
Paid pre-doctoral trainees
752
589
84
235
287
48.0
78.3
11.2
31.3
38.2
(continued )
17
Table 1. Continued
Demographics
Frequency
Unpaid post-doctoral residents or fellows

Unpaid trainees
No
Percent
16
207
814
2.1
27.5
52.0
Professional identityd
Adult neuropsychologist only
Pediatric neuropsychologist only
Both adult/pediatric neuropsychologist
Not a clinical neuropsychologist
740
207
347
67
54.4
15.2
25.5
4.9
Board certificationd
ABPP (of any kind)
ABPP-CN
ABPN
555
502
75
35.1 (of 1579)

90.5 (of 555)
4.8 (of 1563)
Useable n 1685. aIncludes all licensed and non-licensed respondents.

b
Participants were instructed to choose this option only if their neuropsychology
program was separate from a clinical psychology program.
c
As respondents were allowed to check multiple types of technicians, sums of
technicians will not be equal to the total number who use technicians (752).
d
Post-doctoral residents were excluded from analyses pertaining to testing
assistants, professional identity, and board certification. See Tables 6 and 7 for more
information pertaining to residents.
Table 2. Respondent state of licensure and primary employment
State
California
New York
Texas
Massachusetts
Florida
Illinois
Pennsylvania
Minnesota
Michigan
North Carolina
Colorado
Maryland
Washington
Ohio
Wisconsin
Arizona
Georgia
New Jersey
Connecticut
Tennessee
Missouri
Indiana
Virginia
Cum. %
148
102
96
95
89
73
68
58
50
45
44
44
42
40
40
36
36
32
31
28
25
22
22
9.7
6.7
6.3
6.2
5.8
4.8
4.5
3.8
3.3
3.0
2.9
2.9
2.8
2.6
2.6
2.4
2.4
2.1
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.4
9.7
16.4
22.7
29.0
34.8
39.6
44.1
47.9
51.1
54.1
57.0
59.9
62.6
65.3
67.9
70.3
72.6
74.7
76.8
78.6
80.2
81.7
83.1
(continued )
18
Table 2. Continued
State
Cum. %
Iowa
Oregon
Louisiana
Rhode Island
Alabama
South Carolina
Maine
Nebraska
Utah
Arkansas
District of Columbia
Kansas
New Hampshire
Oklahoma
West Virginia
North Dakota
Kentucky
Hawaii
Mississippi
Montana
New Mexico
Nevada
Delaware
Alaska
Idaho
Vermont
Puerto Rico
South Dakota
Wyoming
19
18
17
16
14
14
13
12
12
11
11
11
10
9
9
8
7
6
6
6
6
5
4
3
3
3
2
1
1
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.1
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
84.4
85.6
86.7
87.7
88.6
89.6
90.4
91.2
92.0
92.7
93.4
94.2
94.8
95.4
96.0
96.5
97.0
97.4
97.8
98.2
98.6
98.9
99.1
99.3
99.5
99.7
99.9
99.9
100.0
If licensed in more than one state, respondents were asked to provide state of
primary employment; 1523 provided this information.
most neuropsychologists reside constitute more than half of the sample. Among the
lowest-frequency entries at the bottom of Table 2, residents of 21 states, District of
Columbia, and Puerto Rico constitute only 10% of the sample. Figure 1 shows the
U.S. regions of the sample, with the highest residential region being the
South Atlantic at 18% and the lowest residential region being the East South
Central at 4%.
As shown in Table 3, excluding post-doctoral residents, the average age of
licensed practitioners in the present sample is approximately 47 (range 2885), with
licenses having been attained approximately 14 years ago on average (range 153).
Weekly professional activities in this licensed group are heavily clinical
(mean 67.7%; median 75%), followed by non-clinical administration
(mean 10%; median 6%) and teaching/training (mean 6.7%; median 4%).
A new item in this survey showed amount of professional volunteer time, with a
mean of 2.6% and a median of 0%. The median of zero percent indicates that many
individuals do not engage in professional volunteerism.
19
New England
14%
11%
Middle Atlantic
East North Central
13%
7%
West North
Central
South Atlantic
9%
East South Central

15%
4%
18%
West South
Central
Mountain
9%
Pacific
Figure 1 Regions of residence (n 1523). New England Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont; Middle Atlantic New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania; East
North Central Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin; West North Central Iowa, Kansas,
Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota; South Atlantic Delaware, District of
Columbia, Georgia, Florida, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia; East
South Central Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee; West South Central Arkansas, Louisiana,
Oklahoma, Texas; Mountain Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah;
Pacific Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Washington.
Table 3. Age of licensed practitioners, years since licensed, and percent of weekly time devoted to
clinical, research, and administrative duties and volunteer activities
Age of licensed practitioners

Years since licensed
Percent weekly time devoted to:
Clinical practice
Teaching/training
Research/writing (funded)
Research/writing (unfunded)
Supervision of support personnel
Non-clinical administration
Volunteer activities
Range
Mean
Median
SD
1543
1555
1398
28.085.0
1.053.0
47.4
14.2
47.0
13.0
10.5
10.3
0100.0
090.0
095.0
0100.0
044.0
0100.0
0100.0
67.7
6.7
6.6
3.7
2.7
10.0
2.6
75.0
4.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.0
0.0
27.1
10.0
16.7
8.0
4.4
12.0
6.0
Includes all licensed clinicians. Excludes post-doctoral residents.
Table 4 shows the time needed in hours to complete evaluations related to

referral questions and referral context. The briefest evaluation, not surprisingly,
involves inpatient evaluations for determination of diagnosis (mean 4.1 hours)
and treatment planning (mean 2.8 hours). Also not surprising, the lengthiest
evaluation time is for evaluations in a forensic context (mean 12.7 hours),
followed by educational evaluations (mean 7.6 hours). In each category of
evaluation type there is a wide range of times reportedly necessary. These widely
varying estimates from respondents can reflect a variety of factors, which are
addressed in part by Table 5, which contains summary responses to a new survey
item that targeted factors potentially affecting evaluation length. The listing of
factors reflects the order resulting from top five selections by respondents.
20

Table 4. Hours needed to complete evaluations related to referral questions and referral context
Percentile
Referral question
Determination of diagnosis (inpatient)

Determination of diagnosis (outpatient)
Treatment planning (inpatient)
Treatment planning (outpatient)
Establishing baseline of function
with probable subsequent testing (inpatient)
Establishing baseline of function with
probable subsequent testing (outpatient)
Educational evaluation (excludes
educational due process)
Forensic evaluation
Mean
Median
SD
25
75
95
99
619
1180
515
993
575
4.1
8.1
2.8
4.9
4.4
3.0
7.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
3.9
5.7
3.1
5.0
3.9
2.0
4.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
5.0
10.0
4.0
8.0
6.0
10.0
20.0
8.0
15.0
10.0
20.0
25.0
16.0
25.0
21.2
948
6.4
6.0
4.6
3.0
9.0
15.0
25.0
742
7.6
7.0
5.3
3.0
11.0
18.0
24.0
797
12.7
12.0
6.4
9.0
16.0
25.0
25.0
Excludes post-doctoral residents. The maximum allowable number of hours for any referral question
was 25 hours. The range for all referral questions and contexts was 0.5 to 25 hours.
Table 5. Choose Top Five factors affecting the length of an

evaluation
Factor
Percent
Goal of Evaluation
Stamina/Health of Examinee
Age of Examinee
Sensory, Motor, Cognitive Limitation
Context (Clinical vs Forensic)
Orientation/confusion
Outpatient vs inpatient
Comorbid condition
Rarity of condition
Re-evaluation
Reimbursement factors
Multiple report consumers
Scarcity of relevant norms
Employer limits
78.7%
63.3%
58.6%
48.8%
45.8%
39.8%
35.0%
25.6%
23.8%
22.4%
18.9%
14.2%
9.4%
8.9%
All licensed clinicians, excluding residents, n 1368.
The five most frequently endorsed as affecting evaluation length were, in order:
(1) the goal of evaluation; (2) stamina/health of examinee; (3) age of examinee;
(4) sensory, motor, cognitive limitation; and (5) context (clinical vs forensic).
Post-doctoral residents
Survey data provided by post-doctoral residents are depicted in Table 6. With
an average age of 31.7 years, women residents are in the majority. A majority of
residents have attained a Ph.D. as their doctorate. Only a single resident reported
21
Table 6. Demographics of post-doctoral residents

Demographics
Age
Mean
SD
Range
31.7
4.4
2653
Frequency
Percent
Degree
Ph.D.
Psy.D.
66
24
73.3
26.7
Gender
Female
Male
62
26
70.5
29.5
Year of post-doctoral residency

1
2
42
35
49
6
38.9
54.4
6.7
Licensure status
Licensed
Non-licensed
35
55
38.9
61.1
Work status
Full time
Part time
85
1
3
95.5
1.1
3.4
Work environment
Rural
Urban
Some time in both
6
73
9
6.8
83.0
10.2
Employment setting
Institution only
Institution and private practice
58
5
0
92.1
7.9
0
Professional identity
Adult neuropsychologist only
Pediatric neuropsychologist only
Both adult/pediatric neuropsychologist
Not a clinical neuropsychologist
38
15
9
2
59.4
23.4
14.1
3.1
n 90.
having a part time position. Understandably, given the locations of most training
programs, most residents are being trained in urban areas, with more than 90%
being trained in institutions, rather than private practice. None was being trained in
a combination of institution and private practice. Compared to the larger survey
sample, which contains a 15.2% pediatric identity, 23.4% of residents are
developing an exclusively pediatric identity. Although it appears that a larger
proportion of residents endorse a pediatric identity, a z test for proportions was not
significant (z 1.77).
22

Table 7. Salaries of post-doctoral residents by year of residency
Percentile
Year of residency
Mean
Median
SD
25
75
95
99
Range
1
2
All years
18
36
58
34.7
37.8
37.0
36.5
38.0
38.0
8.2
7.3
7.5
28.7
36.2
35.0
40.0
38.0
40.0
50.0
49.0
49.0
50.0
49.0
50.0
18.050.0
3.449.0
3.450.0
Includes post-doctoral residents working full time or more within institutional settings only. Incomes
are in thousands of dollars. aOnly one second year resident reported 3400.00 dollars, with all others in the
second year reporting 30,000.00 or higher.
Table 8. Post-doctoral resident income and job satisfaction

Continuous satisfaction variable
Mean
Median
SD
Income satisfaction (1100)

Job satisfaction (1100)
61
63
41.2
72.3
40.0
75.0
26.3
22.7
Categorical satisfaction variable
Percent
Income satisfaction
Completely dissatisfied
Mostly dissatisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Mostly satisfied
Completely satisfied
5
19
21
11
5
1
8.1
30.6
33.9
17.7
8.1
1.6
Includes all post-doctoral residents.
Table 7 shows that the mean and median salaries of post-doctoral residents in
year one and in year two are primarily in the mid to upper 30,000 dollar range.
Income satisfaction and job satisfaction were measured by separate 0100 ratings,
with 0 representing completely dissatisfied and 100 representing completely
satisfied. The satisfaction ratings for post-doctoral residents are shown in Table 8.
As would be expected, in keeping with training level salaries, post-doctoral residents
report an average level of income satisfaction that is much lower than average
job satisfaction. When categories of income satisfaction were offered, 72.6%
reported some degree of dissatisfaction, ranging from somewhat dissatisfied to
completely dissatisfied.
Houston Conference influence
A new survey item inquired as to whether respondents believed that their
training was consistent with the Houston Conference model of training. Figure 2
shows a graphic comparison of licensed clinicians and respondents who are current
post-doctoral residents. Even among the licensed clinicians, many of whom were
trained before the formal creation of Houston Conference training guidelines in
I don't know
12%
No
8%
23
I dont know
4%
No
22%
Yes
66%
Yes
88%
Licensed clinicians (n = 1576)
Post-doctoral residents (n = 90)
Figure 2 To the best of your knowledge, did your training in clinical neuropsychology follow the
recommendations of the Houston Conference on Specialty Education and Training?
1997, two-thirds of respondents offered a self-appraisal of training having been

consistent with the Houston model. Among current post-doctoral residents,
consistency with Houston training guidelines was expressed by 88%.
Table 9 shows a breakdown of self-appraisal of consistency with the Houston
Conference training guidelines across years of licensed experience. As one might
expect, the greater the number of years of licensed experience that a neuropsychologist reports, the less that he or she is likely to report that prior training adhered
to the Houston training guidelines. However, surprisingly, even at 30 to 39 years
of experience, which is decades before the Houston Conference, approximately onethird of respondents believe their training was consistent with the obviously
influential training guidelines.
Philosophical approach toward test selection
Figure 3 shows a comparison of survey responses dating back to 1989
regarding philosophical approach toward test selection. It is obvious that the trends
apparent in the 1990s have continued. Specifically, the Flexible Battery has
increased its predominant position to an impressive 78%, whereas the Fixed/
Standardized Battery approach has continued its apparent decline to that of an
historical footnote in terms of importance and influence in the specialty of clinical
neuropsychology, now at only 5% endorsement. The Flexible approach has
stabilized across recent surveys at 18%.
Income from neuropsychological activities
Correlates of income. Select correlates of income are presented in Table 10.
Years in clinical practice, percent weekly time devoted to clinical practice, forensic
practice, and board certification of any kind have moderate relationships to income.
Throughout the remainder of this article we will continue to present variables in a
way that elucidates whether they appear to be related to income.
Testing assistants. For the approximately one-half of the sample who rely
on the services of testing assistants, there are a number of associated significant
findings, as shown in Table 11. Length of evaluation time is briefer and weekly
24

Table 9. Houston conference compatibility with training
To the best of your knowledge, did your training in clinical neuropsychology follow the
recommendations of the Houston Conference on Specialty Education and Training?
By Years of Experience (n 1634)
Frequency
Percent
79
7
4
87.8
7.8
4.4
51 to 5 Years Post Training

Yes
No
I dont know
342
41
17
85.5
10.3
4.3
6 to 10
Yes
No
I dont know
226
30
29
79.3
10.5
10.2
11 to 19
Yes
No
I dont know
270
65
45
71.1
17.1
11.8
20 to 29
Yes
No
I dont know
136
138
63
40.4
40.9
18.7
30 to 39
Yes
No
I dont know
41
55
29
32.3
44.0
23.2
40
Yes
No
I dont know
4
10
3
23.5
58.8
17.6
Post-doctoral Residents
Yes
No
I dont know
All licensed clinicians, excluding post-doctoral residents.
clinical hours are fewer for those relying on assistants. The hourly fee charged and
annual income associated with reliance on assistants are higher. Finally, both
income satisfaction and job satisfaction are significantly higher among clinicians
who work with assistants.
As noted previously in Table 1, the majority of testing assistants are paid.
Table 12 shows the percentages of paid assistants who are provided benefits in
addition to pay. Only in the categories of paid post-doctoral residents and paid
paraprofessionals are benefits provided almost routinely to testing assistants.
Starting salaries. A perennial topic of discussion among post-doctoral
training directors and their residents, as well as prospective employers, concerns
what is a reasonable entry level salary. That is, what amount of money is
25
100
1989
1994
1999
2005
2010
Percent
80
60
40
20
0
Flexible battery
Flexible
Fixed/Standardized
battery
Figure 3 Primary philosophical approach toward test selection. Flexible Battery variable but routine
groups of tests for different types of patients, such as head injury, alcoholism, elderly, etc.
Flexible based upon the needs of an individual case, not uniform across patients. Fixed/
Standardized Battery routine group of tests uniform across patients, such as the Halstead-Reitan,
Luria-Nebraska, Benton, or other standard battery.
Table 10. Significant correlates of incomea

Variable
Years in clinical practice
Any form of board certification
Hours of forensic practice each week
Percent weekly time devoted to forensic activities
1154
1155
642
689
.42*
.30*
.33*
.36*
Includes licensed clinicians who work full time or more; excludes post-doctoral residents
and income outliers (5$33,600).
a
Non-significant income correlates included percent of weekly time devoted to clinical
practice, funded research, unfunded research, administrative duties, supervision of support
personnel, and volunteer activities. *p5.001.
Table 11. Effects of utilizing a testing assistant
Do you use a technician/psychometrician
or other assistant to collect test data from your patients?
Yes
Avg. number of hours for

a single evaluationa
Weekly clinical hoursb
Hourly clinical feeb
Estimated gross psychology incomeb
Income satisfactiona
Job satisfactiona
No
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
654
10.1
4.5
681
11.3
5.2
4.5**
619
443
598
642
647
31.3
241.5
138.8
73.5
79.6
13.4
86.3
85.4
22.2
19.0
602
452
557
671
680
33.1
217.6
125.7
68.5
75.9
13.6
76.9
73.4
24.6
21.9
2.2
4.7**
2.8*
3.9**
3.2*
a
Excludes post-doctoral residents. bIncludes all licensed clinicians who work full time or more; excludes
post-doctoral residents and income outliers (5$33,600). Incomes are expressed in thousands of dollars.
*p5.01, **p5.001.
26

Table 12. Types of technician/psychometrician or other assistant utilized, by pay and benefits
Do you provide benefits?
n
% of the
sample
% who
use assts.
Yes
No
275
81
228
556
19.7
5.8
16.3
39.8
38.7
11.4
32.1
78.3
247
68
209
501
58.7%
57.4%
90.4%
80.6%
41.3%
42.6%
9.6%
19.4%
15
200
710
1.1
14.3
50.8
2.1
28.2
629
78.4%
21.6%
Type of assistant
Paid pre-doctoral trainees
Paid doctoral level staff
Paid post-doctoral residents
Paid paraprofessionals
(i.e., psychometricians)
Unpaid post-doctoral residents
Unpaid trainees
Totala
Includes licensed clinicians who work full time or more; excludes post-doctoral residents.
a
Total n will not equal the sum of the frequencies provided in this column, as some respondents use
more than one type of assistant.
Table 13. Mean annual incomes in initial years of clinical practice by work setting
Percentile
Work setting
Mean
Median
SD
25
75
95
99
Range
51 year in practice
Institution Only
Private Practice Only
Institution and Private Practice
43
2
6
77.5
80.7
80.0
78.0
17.6
27.2
70.0
59.0
85.0
93.0
121.0
132.0
133.0
132.0
38.0133.0
67.095.0
56.0132.0
1 year in practice
Institution Only
16
2
4
83.4
70.0
81.5
65.0
13.7
21.6
72.0
52.5
90.0
92.5
120.0
100.0
120.0
100.0
67.0120.0
60.070.0
50.0100.0
2 years in practice
Institution Only
35
10
9
85.4
82.3
90.6
85.0
79.5
100.0
10.1
22.7
20.9
80.0
65.8
68.5
92.0
95.3
106.5
106.0
130.0
120.0
110.0
130.0
120.0
65.0110.0
50.0130.0
61.0120.0
3 years in practice
Institution Only
32
6
11
88.7
96.3
110.6
85.5
89.0
100.0
19.7
36.1
33.9
75.8
64.3
85.0
93.8
131.3
145.0
151.0
150.0
170.0
162.0
150.0
170.0
63.6162.0
59.0150.0
70.0170.0
Income are in thousands of dollars. Includes licensed clinicians who work full time or more, excluding
post-doctoral residents and those earning 5$33,600 annually. Excludes 3 outliers reporting income of
4$300,000 within their first 3 years of clinical practice.
reasonable as a new specialist to expect and as a prospective employer to pay.

Table 13 shows incomes reported by neuropsychologists who have entered the
specialty relatively recently, broken down by general work setting. The incomes
reported in less than one complete year, year one, year two, and year three are
27
Table 14. Income at varying intervals of years in clinical practice

Percentile
Years in practice
515
610
1115
1620
2125
425
All years
Mean
Median
SD
25
75
95
99
Range
304
222
154
157
144
173
1154
94.1
112.1
130.6
142.3
172.5
185.2
132.4
86.0
101.0
110.0
121.0
131.5
160.0
108.8
51.2
40.7
63.3
75.7
116.0
109.1
80.1
75.0
85.0
93.8
98.5
104.6
120.0
87.0
100.0
140.0
142.5
158.0
200.0
211.0
150.0
160.0
185.9
285.0
300.0
400.0
376.5
270.0
219.2
238.1
379.0
505.0
701.6
793.4
450.0
37.0275.0
42.0307.0
39.0390.0
40.0650.0
50.0720.0
45.0840.0
37.0840.0
Incomes are in thousands of dollars. Includes all licensed clinicians who work full time or more,
excluding post-doctoral residents and those earning 5$33,600 annually. Four outliers, three reporting an
income of4$300,000 in the first 3 years of clinical practice and one reporting an income of $810,000 in the
fourth year of practice, were excluded. Included 521 institutional, 308 private practice, and 325 combined
institutional/private practice respondents.
relatively consistent, with modest but steady increases across these years. In most
categories, at least some individuals were earning over 100,000 dollars.
Years in clinical practice. Table 14 continues the focus on the impact of
years of experience, showing income at varying intervals of years in clinical practice.
In the interval of 610 years, both mean and median increase to over 100,000
dollars, and at the 75th percentile income is at 140,000 dollars. The positive effect on
income of years of experience continues all the way up to the category of above 25
years of experience, a point at which the 75th percentile is well over 200,000.
Figure 4 shows a comparison of means and medians in 2005 and 2010 across
intervals of years of practice experience. At all intervals the respondents in 2010
reported higher incomes than in 2005.
Income satisfaction and job satisfaction. Respondents were asked to
identify satisfaction with their incomes on a 0 to 100 scale (with 0 being completely
dissatisfied and 100 being completely satisfied). Separately, respondents rated job
satisfaction on the same type of 0 to 100 scale. As shown in Table 15, respondents
reported a lower mean and median income satisfaction compared to job satisfaction. With a median job satisfaction of 85 on a 100-point scale, one would expect
that few neuropsychologists are making plans to leave their current position, and in
fact, the related categorical ratings shown in Table 15 bear this out. Only 4.5% of
respondents were so dissatisfied with their current work position that they intended
to actively seek out a different position.
Figure 5 shows 2005 and 2010 categorical ratings of income satisfaction.
Although not substantially different, there has been a slight shift in the direction of
increased satisfaction from 2005 to 2010. Importantly, despite the context of a
turbulent and recessed economy, there has been no erosion of income satisfaction
among practicing neuropsychologists.
Thousands of dollars
28
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Mean 2005
Mean 2010
<1 5
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
610
1115 1620 2125

Years of clinical practice
> 25
All years
Median 2005
Median 2010
< 15 610
1115 1620 2125
>25
All
years
Figure 4 Five-year comparisons of income at varying intervals of years in clinical practice.
Table 15. Overall job and income satisfaction

Continuous satisfaction variable
Interest in leaving current position (n 1077)
Not interested; will stay in present position
Ambivalent; unclear given both positive and negative feeling
Somewhat interested; will at least seek information
from other position
Very interested; will actively seek a new position
Mean
Median
SD
1158
1168
71.7
78.3
80.0
85.0
23.2
19.9
Percent
874
41
114
81.2
3.8
10.6
48
4.5
Includes licensed clinicians who work full time or more; excludes post-doctoral residents and income
outliers (5$33,600).
Table 16 details additional information pertaining to actual income and satisfaction. Somewhat surprisingly, even though there is a moderate correlation
between years of experience and income, there is only a very minor relationship between years of experience and income satisfaction and no significant
relationship between years of experience and job satisfaction. There is a relatively
29
2005 (n = 582)
Completely
satisfied
9%
Completely
dissatisfied Mostly
dissatisfied
4%
10%
Somewhat
dissatisfied
19%
Mostly satisfied
39%
Somewhat
satisfied
19%
2010 (n = 1187)
Completely
Completely dissatisfied 3%
satisfied 10%
Mostly
dissatisfied 10%
Somewhat
dissatisfied 17%
Mostly satisfied
40%
Somewhat
satisfied 20%
Figure 5 Comparison of income satisfaction from 2005 to 2010.
Table 16. Correlations of years licensed, psychology income, income satisfaction,

and job satisfaction
Variable
Income satisfaction
(n)
Job satisfaction
(n)
Psychology income
(n)
Years licensed
Income satisfaction
Job satisfaction
.10
(1157)
.06
(1167)
.42*
(1154)
.52*
(1158)
.33*
(1143)
.18*
(1149)
Includes licensed clinicians who work full time or more; excludes post-doctoral
residents and income outliers (5$33,600).
*p5.001.
30

Table 17. Gross psychology incomes and income satisfaction
Estimated gross psychology income
Completely dissatisfied
Mostly dissatisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Mostly satisfied
Completely satisfied
Mean
Median
SD
Range
30
111
198
222
469
115
119.3
100.8
100.5
118.4
142.9
204.3
85.5
89.0
90.0
104.0
120.0
160.0
85.8
43.8
38.8
50.8
80.6
132.6
45.0350.0
40.0225.0
39.0310.0
38.0450.0
42.0840.0
37.0777.0
Incomes are in thousands of dollars. Excludes post-doctoral residents. Includes licensed clinicians that
work full time or more and earn more than $33,600.
minor relationship between income and job satisfaction, and a stronger relationship
between income and income satisfaction. Of the variables that are presented in the
correlation table in Table 16, the most substantial and positive relationship is
between income satisfaction and job satisfaction; respondents who have a positive
view of their income are more likely to have a positive view of their job.
Finally, with regard to income and satisfaction, Table 17 shows a breakdown
of categorical income satisfaction and actual reported incomes. Among those who
express some degree of dissatisfaction, ranging from completely to somewhat
dissatisfied, there appears to be no relationship to actual income. In fact, the
completely dissatisfied group reported a higher income than the group who reported
being somewhat or mostly dissatisfied, with both latter groups reporting virtually
the same incomes. However, for the groups expressing some degree of income
satisfaction, there is a substantial and meaningful rise in income as income
satisfaction increases.
Board certification. ABCN is the largest board-certification enterprise in the
specialty of clinical neuropsychology (cf. Cox, 2010). The present survey sample
included the largest sample of ABCN board-certified neuropsychologists that has
ever been conducted. At the time the survey was conducted, there was a total of 730
living ABCN diplomates, of which 502 (69%) participated in the present survey.
Table 18 shows the incomes, years of clinical experience, income satisfaction, and
job satisfaction of the ABCN respondents compared to non-ABCN respondents
who provided responses to these same survey items. Incomes, years of clinical
experience, and income satisfaction were statistically significant between groups,
with ABCN respondents reporting the more favorable incomes, as well as greater
income satisfaction. Given that the difference in income might be accounted for by
the greater years of experience, an analysis of covariance was carried out, using
years of experience. Incomes remained statistically significant between groups, even
after covarying years of experience.
Table 19 shows additional characteristics of the ABCN sample. Average age
is 49 years, with an average of 18 years of experience post licensure. Although the
overall sample is comprised of 60.3% men, when limited to those trained more
recently, specifically those with less than 15 years of experience, the majority are
31
Table 18. Mean differences of income, income satisfaction, and job satisfaction for ABCN and nonABCN respondents
ABCN status
ABCN certified
Variable
Gross psychology income

Not ABCN certified
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
403
403
405
407
158.4
17.9
75.4
80.1
95.1
9.6
21.6
19.5
752
751
753
761
118.6
13.3
69.8
77.3
66.8
9.8
23.8
20.0
7.5*
7.5*
4.1*
2.3
outliers (5$33,600).
*p5.001. An ANOVA comparing gross psychology income between ABCN status using years of
licensed clinical practice as a covariate nevertheless resulted in a statistically significant difference in
income, F(1, 1153) 32.9, p5.001, with only 14.7% of the variance explained by years of clinical practice.
Table 19. Characteristics of ABCN respondents

Background characteristic
Age
Years of licensed clinical practice
Mean (SD)
Range
465
469
49.2 (9.2)
18.3 (9.7)
32.078.0
1.049.0
Degree
Ph.D.
Psy.D.
Other
442
45
17
87.7
8.9
3.4
Gender
Total ABCN sample
Male
Female
295
194
60.3
39.7
ABCN with 515 years experience

Male
Female
88
104
45.8
54.2
ABCN with 15 years experience

Male
Female
207
90
69.7
30.3
1
4
15
0
0
0
5
0
0
0.2
0.8
3.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
ABPP Certification (in addition to ABCN)

Clinical, Child, & Adolescent Psychology
Clinical Health Psychology
Clinical Psychology
Cognitive & Behavioral Psychology
Counseling Psychology
Couple & Family Psychology
Forensic Psychology
Group Psychology
Organizational & Business Consulting Psych.
(continued )
32

Table 19. Continued
n
0
10
3
0.0
2.0
0.6
ABN Certification (in addition to ABCN)

Yes
No
17
480
3.4
96.6
Field of doctoral study

Clinical psychology
Neuropsychology
Counseling psychology
School psychology
Educational psychology
Neurosciences
Other
377
37
36
11
3
4
35
75.0
7.4
7.2
2.2
0.6
0.8
6.9
Work environment
Rural
Urban
Some time in both rural and urban settings
30
424
48
6.0
84.5
9.6
Work status
Full time
Part time
Retired
417
38
44
4
82.9
7.6
8.7
0.8
Employment setting
Medical
Solo Private or Group Private Practice
Psychiatric
Rehabilitation
College/University
Other
234
125
8
50
12
24
51.7
27.6
1.8
11.0
2.6
5.3
Professional Identity
Pediatric Neuropsychologist
Adult Neuropsychologist
Both Pediatric and Adult Neuropsychologist
51
289
117
11.2
63.2
25.6
Do you work with a technician/psychometrist

or other assistant to collect test data from patients?
Yes
No
314
188
62.5
37.5
Philosophical approach to test selection

Flexible (i.e., based upon needs of the individual)
Flexible Battery (i.e., variable but routine grouping)
Fixed/Standardized (e.g., Halstead-Reitan)
65
367
18
14.4
81.6
4.0
Do you conduct forensic evaluations (e.g., civil, criminal,

disability, educational, due process, workers compensation,
other adjudicatory processes)?
Yes
No
359
141
71.8
28.2
Psychoanalysis in Psychology
Rehabilitation Psychology
School Psychology
33
Table 20. Incomes for ABCN respondents

n
Mean (SD)
Range
Estimated Pre-Tax Income
408
158.6 (94.9)
50.0777.0
Environmental Income
Rural
Urban
Some time in both rural and urban settings
23
344
40
132.1 (45.4)
158.0 (95.3)
178.8 (109.9)
63.0245.0
50.0777.0
85.0600.0
175.0
189.6
153.2
130.3
149.3
157.9
131.6
156.2
183.7
(110.5)
(121.0)
(92.5)
(55.3)
(69.9)
(38.2)
(50.6)
(111.1)
(126.2)
63.0679.0
58.5515.0
63.0650.0
50.0310.0
70.0400.0
92.0238.0
54.0250.0
67.7600.0
75.0777.0
120.1 (47.0)
213.2 (140.6)
174.8 (82.2)
54.0390.0
50.0777.0
58.5650.0
Regional Income
New England
Middle Atlantic
East North Central
West North Central
South Atlantic
East South Central
West South Central
Mountain
Pacific
Practice-based Income
Institution only
Private Practice only
Both Institution and Private Practice
37
43
76
40
70
12
38
29
55
185
92
131
Income values are in thousands of dollars.
women. ABCN board-certified neuropsychologists holding additional ABPP

credentials are most likely to have additional board certification in clinical
psychology, followed by rehabilitation psychology. A total of 17 members,
representing 3.4%, of the ABCN sample, also hold ABN certification. Paralleling
the overall sample, the vast majority of ABCN respondents have a doctorate in
clinical psychology, practice in an urban environment, and work full time. ABCN
respondents tend to be employed in medical settings, followed by private practice.
Professional identity is that of an adult neuropsychologist for 63.2%, with the
remainder involved to some extent in pediatric care. ABCN respondents are more
likely than the overall sample to rely on testing assistants, with 62.5% doing so. The
proportion of ABCN respondents who endorse the flexible battery approach is
comparable to the overall sample. A relatively high proportion of ABCN
respondents are involved in forensic evaluations.
Table 20 shows that ABCN respondents who spend time working in urban
and rural environments report higher incomes than those who work in only one of
these environments. Middle Atlantic and Pacific ABCN respondents report the
highest incomes, whereas those in the West North Central and the West South
Central regions report the lowest incomes. ABCN respondents in private practice
report much higher incomes, with mean incomes in excess of 200,000 dollars.
Professional volunteerism was addressed for the first time in the present
survey. Of the ABCN members participating in the current survey, 464 respondents
produced a mean involvement in volunteer activities per work week of 3.2%
34

Table 21. Income by region of the United States
Region
Pacific
Mountain
West North Central
East North Central
Mid Atlantic
New England
West South Central
East South Central
South Atlantic
Mean
Median
SD
141
84
110
177
145
121
104
36
201
147.7
127.5
108.1
127.5
138.8
143.1
135.4
133.3
128.0
120.0
110.0
95.6
105.0
109.0
125.0
113.0
125.0
105.0
94.2
79.1
44.3
72.3
84.9
84.2
91.4
45.8
74.4
Includes licensed clinicians working full time or more; excludes post-doctoral

residents and income outliers (individuals earning 5$33,600). Amounts are in
thousands of dollars.
Table 22. Income by work environment

Setting
Urban
Rural
Some time in both
Mean
Median
SD
909
94
147
132.4
114.0
144.5
109.0
103.5
110.5
77.4
46.6
107.6
Income values are in thousands of dollars. Includes licensed clinicians working full time or
more; excludes post-doctoral residents and income outliers (i.e., those earning 5$33,600).
(SD 5.2). This compares to a mean of 2.6% (SD 6.0) in the larger sample,
excluding residents (as shown in Table 3).
Region of United States and work environment. Table 21 shows
incomes by regions of the United States. Means are highest in the Pacific and
New England regions, whereas medians are highest in the New England, East South
Central, and Pacific regions. Lowest incomes, in terms of means and medians, are
reported in the West North Central region.
Across all states and regions, incomes by work environment (i.e., rural, urban,
some time in both) is depicted in Table 22. Those respondents working in both report
the highest income, followed by respondents working in an urban environment.
State of licensure and practice. Regions can have very different incomes in
neighboring states. Therefore individual states and associated incomes are reported in
Table 23. This table also shows income and job satisfaction by state, as well as
increases and decreases in income compared to 5 years earlier. Note that Connecticut
and Pennsylvania are far apart in reported incomes and yet report income
satisfactions that are comparable, with nearly identical levels of job satisfaction.
Also, all states reported a much greater percentage of individuals with 5-year income
increase compared to those who experienced a decrease. In many states, fewer than
10% of respondents reported a decrease in income compared to 5 years prior.
35
Table 23. Incomes, income changes, income satisfaction, and job satisfaction by state of licensure and
primary employment
Respondents reporting
5-year income changea
Increase
Decrease
Satisfaction
Income
Job
State
Mean
Median
SD
Mean
Mean
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Tennessee
Texas
Washington
Wisconsin
31
86
30
22
74
24
58
30
68
36
48
20
77
30
33
46
21
74
33
29
135.3
163.6
98.3
164.1
126.9
129.0
127.7
139.5
149.2
124.2
120.3
152.8
145.2
130.7
119.9
119.5
130.2
132.0
121.7
144.8
121.0
130.0
89.3
142.5
105.0
109.0
100.0
110.0
126.0
110.0
100.0
110.0
112.0
129.0
101.0
100.0
125.0
110.5
106.0
130.0
69.2
108.0
37.4
75.6
87.1
64.2
94.3
86.2
94.5
55.3
52.5
106.3
92.4
66.6
55.2
55.9
45.9
96.8
56.0
74.7
25
77
22
17
63
19
47
27
53
30
38
17
62
23
29
41
19
62
27
26
78.1
81.1
66.7
77.3
84.0
79.2
79.7
90.0
77.9
78.9
79.2
81.0
76.5
71.9
85.3
87.2
82.6
80.5
77.1
78.8
1
4
7
0
4
3
8
1
3
6
2
1
7
6
1
3
0
8
3
5
3.1
4.2
21.2
0
5.3
12.5
13.6
3.3
4.4
15.8
4.2
4.8
8.6
18.8
2.9
6.4
0
10.4
8.6
15.2
31
86
30
22
74
24
58
30
68
36
48
20
77
30
33
46
21
74
33
29
77.7
73.5
55.1
78.8
65.7
76.6
73.9
69.6
65.9
73.4
79.5
69.8
66.0
64.0
75.9
75.4
81.1
75.0
73.2
71.6
31
86
30
22
74
24
58
30
68
36
48
20
77
30
33
46
21
74
33
29
78.5
76.7
74.4
88.2
72.1
86.9
78.9
73.6
75.2
82.1
81.2
78.2
77.6
76.9
80.2
83.9
83.7
78.2
83.7
73.6
Incomes are expressed in thousands of dollars. Includes licensed clinicians who work full time or more;
excludes post-doctoral residents. States with fewer than 20 respondents providing income information
are not reported.
a
Percents of increase and decrease do not equal 100. The percent not shown that when added to the
increase and decrease values would add to 100 is the percent reporting no change.
Professional identity. Data related to gender, work status, general work

setting, specific work environment, and use of testing assistants are presented in
Table 24, all organized by self-assigned professional identity as a pediatric, adult, or
combined pediatric/adult clinician. Respondents with a pure pediatric identity are
more likely to be women, work on a part time basis, be employed in an institution,
and work in an urban environment, while less likely to use testing assistants
compared to pure adult identity respondents and those with a combined identity.
Presented in the same table is a small group of individuals who reported not having
one of the three identified professional identities. The survey item related to this
category included the self-description that the psychologist did not consider her/
himself to be a neuropsychologist. This latter group is more likely to work in private
practice, less likely to work in an urban setting, and much less likely to use testing
assistants than the other three common professional identity groups of
neuropsychologists.
36
Table 24. Professional neuropsychology identity by gender, use of technicians, work status, work setting,
and income setting
Professional neuropsychology identity
Total
Variable
Pediatric only
Adult only
Pediatric/adult
None
n
Gender
Female
Male
1529
791 51.7
738 48.3
201
144
57
71.6
28.4
741
337
375
47.3
52.7
333
150
183
45.0
55.0
67
34 50.7
33 49.3
Work status
Full time
Part time
Full part time
Retired
Unemployed
1573
1278 81.2
141 9.0
135 8.6
11 0.7
8 0.5
206
162
33
10
0
1
78.6
16.0
4.9
0
0.5
741
622
50
61
5
3
83.9
6.7
8.2
0.7
0.4
346
273
30
43
0
0
78.9
8.7
12.4
0
0
68
53 77.9
8 11.8
4 5.9
3 4.4
0 0
Work setting (general)

Institution only
Private practice
Institution prvt. prac.
1357
582 42.9
398 29.3
377 27.8
204
114
56
34
55.9
27.5
16.7
738
365
168
205
49.5
22.8
27.8
347
77
144
126
22.2
41.5
36.3
68
26 38.2
30 44.1
12 17.6
Work setting (specific)

Medical
Private/group practice
Psychiatric
Rehabilitation
College/university
Other
1350
540 40.0
471 34.9
47 3.5
161 11.9
42 3.1
89 6.6
205
107
68
2
8
10
10
52.2
33.2
1.0
3.9
4.8
4.8
730
329
176
32
121
20
52
45.1
24.1
4.4
16.6
2.7
7.1
346
97
192
9
24
9
15
28.0
55.5
2.6
6.9
2.6
4.3
68
6 8.8
35 51.5
4 5.9
8 11.8
3 4.4
12 17.6
Work environment
Rural
Urban
Some time in both
1565
133 8.5
1233 78.8
199 12.7
205
10
176
19
4.9
85.9
9.3
738
48
598
92
6.5
81.0
12.5
344
39
251
54
11.3
73.0
15.7
68
16 23.5
41 60.3
11 16.2
Do you use a technician/

1569
psychometrician to collect
test data from patients?
Yes
754 48.1
No
815 51.9
207
95
112
741
45.9
54.1
381
360
348
51.4
48.6
173
175
68
49.7
50.3
12 17.6
56 82.4
Excludes post-doctoral residents.
Additional information organized by professional identity is presented in

Table 25. Those who do not identify with the three common neuropsychology
identities appear to be older and have been practicing longer, whereas the pure
pediatric identify respondents are somewhat younger and have fewer years of
clinical experience. The combined pediatric/adult respondents and those without a
neuropsychology identity appear to be engaged in more forensic activities than the
other two groups. Neuropsychological evaluation time in hours per examinee is
greatest in the pure pediatric group and least in the pure adult group. Clinical fees
are wide ranging, with the highest average fee per hour in the pure pediatric group
8.6
12.5
251.5
296.6
67.2
76.5
148
64
160
62
198
201
5.8
6.9
89.2
85
23.7
20.6
9.0
8.5
26.0
3.7
25.4
6.4
9.7
16.6
5.9
3.6
10.6
4.9
6.3
6.3
5.2
SD
288
431
499
368
721
730
733
736
741
415
741
444
741
741
741
741
741
706
631
532
521
6.7
11.9
228.8
291.3
72.5
78.3
46.9
14.0
46.4
7.3
64.8
14.9
6.9
8.7
4.0
2.8
10.1
9.2
7.6
4.4
6.2
Mean
Adult only
4.7
6.1
83.0
92.4
22.6
20.1
10.3
10.2
29.0
9.5
29.3
21.3
9.8
19.5
9.3
4.6
12.9
3.9
5.2
4.3
4.2
SD
267
246
276
220
342
344
342
344
347
232
347
254
347
347
347
347
347
338
312
261
257
8.3
14.3
222.4
290.3
71.3
79.2
49.1
15.8
47.9
9.1
71.9
16.9
6.8
3.6
3.2
2.6
9.4
11.7
8.6
5.3
6.5
Mean
SD
5.7
6.0
74.6
89.9
24.6
20.0
10.1
9.8
28.5
9.9
24.4
21.0
10.9
12.7
6.2
4.1
11.0
5.2
6.1
5.5
4.8
Pediatric/adult
39
28
40
17
67
67
67
62
68
29
68
31
68
68
68
68
68
57
51
51
36
4.6
9.3
164.5
252.4
60.3
65.3
52.2
19.5
19.2
9.5
69.5
20.9
6.1
3.8
2.9
2.9
11.4
11.8
6.3
4.3
4.1
Mean
None
3.6
7.2
53.9
118.7
25.9
26.6
13.3
12.9
22.4
14.6
29.7
30.2
13.8
11.5
5.3
6.6
12.7
6.3
6.0
4.8
2.9
SD
Excludes post-doctoral residents; forensic hourly fee and hourly clinical fee exclude erroneous numbers (e.g., zeros) and outliers (i.e., tails trimmed at 5th and 95th
percentiles).
43.6
10.2
58.5
3.2
67.8
5.2
6.7
7.3
3.7
2.6
9.6
13.9
9.0
6.3
7.9
204
204
207
65
207
69
207
207
207
207
207
201
182
147
132
Age
Percent weekly time for neuropsych eval/treatment
Forensic neuropsychology hours/week
Percent weekly time for clinical practice
Percent weekly time for forensic practice activities
Percent weekly time for teaching/training
Percent weekly time for funded research
Percent weekly time for unfunded research
Percent weekly time for supervision of support personnel
Percent weekly time for administrative duties
Hours spent on a single typical neuropsych eval
Avg. outpatient eval time (hrs.) for diagnosis
Avg. outpatient eval time (hrs.) for treatment planning
Avg. outpatient eval time (hrs.) for baseline
testing with probable later testing
Avg. educational eval time (hrs.)
Avg. forensic eval time (hrs.)
Hourly clinical fee
Hourly forensic fee
Income satisfaction
Job satisfaction
Mean
Variable
Pediatric only
Table 25. Professional neuropsychology identity basic demographics and time spent in professional activity

37
38
Table 26. Professional neuropsychology identity by percentage of time spent with various age cohorts
Total
Percent of time spent with:
Adult only
Pediatric/adult
None
Infants/toddlers (ages 3 and younger)

0%
1011 81.0
125%
224 17.9
2650%
12 1.0
5175%
1 0.1
76100%
0 0
63
120
3
0
0
33.9
64.5
1.6
0
0
570
2
1
0
0
99.5
0.3
0.2
0
0
211
63
2
0
0
76.4
22.8
0.7
0
0
50 84.7
8 13.6
1 1.7
0 0
0 0
Preschool (ages 45)

0%
125%
2650%
5175%
76100%
853 66.5
384 29.9
42 3.3
3 0.2
1 0.1
8
162
27
0
0
4.1
82.2
13.7
0
0
563
8
0
0
0
98.6
1.4
0
0
0
142
144
2
0
0
49.3
50.0
0.7
0
0
41 66.1
16 25.8
3 4.8
1 1.6
1 1.6
Children (ages 611)

0%
125%
2650%
5175%
76100%
679 51.1
330 24.8
262 19.7
55 4.1
4 0.3
1
22
143
37
2
0.5
10.7
69.8
18.0
1.0
534
36
0
0
0
93.7
6.3
0
0
0
28
220
70
6
0
8.6
67.9
21.6
1.9
0
32 52.5
16 26.2
8 13.1
4 6.6
1 1.6
Adolescents (ages 1218)

0%
125%
2650%
5175%
76100%
427 31.0
640 46.4
273 19.8
32 2.3
6 0.4
2
48
138
15
2
1.0
23.4
67.3
7.3
1.0
338
258
8
0
0
56.0
42.7
1.3
0
0
8
244
74
7
2
2.4
72.8
22.1
2.1
0.6
17 27.9
28 45.9
13 21.3
2 3.3
1 1.6
Young adults (ages 1939)

0%
125%
2650%
5175%
76100%
111 7.6
814 55.4
429 29.2
88 6.0
27 1.8
43
126
8
0
1
24.2
70.8
4.5
0
0.6
34
360
243
53
21
4.8
50.6
34.2
7.5
3.0
5
199
114
18
3
1.5
58.7
33.6
5.3
0.9
5 8.5
25 42.4
22 37.3
6 10.2
1 1.7
Older adults (ages 4065)

0%
125%
2650%
5175%
76100%
217 15.0
436 30.2
643 44.6
131 9.1
16 1.1
135
21
0
0
1
86.0
13.4
0
0
0.6
23
185
422
83
11
3.2
25.6
58.3
11.5
1.5
15
162
122
24
2
4.6
49.8
37.5
7.4
0.6
6 9.8
26 42.6
22 36.1
6 9.8
1 1.6
Geriatrics (ages 465)

0%
125%
2650%
5175%
76100%
294
469
366
191
63
146
4
0
0
0
97.3
2.7
0
0
0
46
218
249
140
52
6.5
30.9
35.3
19.9
7.4
36
161
77
26
5
11.8
52.8
25.2
8.5
1.6
19 33.9
25 44.6
5 8.9
5 8.9
2 3.6
Pediatric only
21.3
33.9
26.5
13.8
4.6
39
and the lowest in the no identity group. Income satisfaction and job satisfaction are
lowest in the no identity group, whereas income satisfaction appears highest and
comparable in the pure adult group and the combined pediatric/adult group. Job
satisfaction is comparable across the other three groups.
The percentage of time spent with different age patient groups would be
expected to vary across professional identity. This fact is borne out by the data that
are presented in Table 26. Note that even in the pure pediatric group, one-third of
respondents spend zero percent of their professional time with children age 3 and
younger, and a total of over 98% spend a relatively small amount of their work
week with children this age. Approximately 86% spend 025% of their work week
with children age 45. No one in the pure pediatric group spends more than 50% of
their work week with children age 5 or younger, which is in contrast to the older age
ranges of children and adolescents.
A new item in the 2010 survey asked respondents to choose and rank the top 5
factors that affect length of evaluation from a list of 14 possible factors. The overall
results of those choices were presented in Table 5. The third ranked factor, endorsed
by more than half of the respondents, was age of examinee. Therefore it might be
expected that factors chosen might vary by professional identity, which is
demonstrated in Table 27. Context (clinical vs forensic) enters the top five only
for the pure adult and combined pediatric/adult groups, whereas only the pure
pediatric and the no identity groups rated presence of comorbid conditions in the
top five.
Finally, with regard to information pertinent to professional identity, Table 28
demonstrates that incomes vary appreciably across professional identities, with
those who have no distinct identity and pure pediatric respondents reporting the
lowest average incomes and the combined pediatric/adult respondents reporting the
highest. Figure 6 compares 2005 income data with 2010, broken down by
professional identity. A meaningful increase from 2005 to 2010 is evident in all
four groups, for both mean and median incomes.
General work settings. Table 29 presents income data by general work
setting. Respondents working in institutions reported the lowest mean and median
incomes. Mean incomes were highest in private practice, whereas medians for
private practice and combined private practice/institution employment are identical.
Figure 7 compares 2005 and 2010 income data by work setting, clearly depicting
a rise in mean and median incomes for all three general work settings.
Finally, with regard to general work settings, Table 30 depicts 2010 income as
a function of years in licensed clinical practice. At all levels of practice experience,
incomes of institutional respondents lag behind those of private practice respondents. Those who work in both institution and private practice settings simultaneously appear to hold early and mid career income advantage over private
practitioners, until approximately year 20, when private practice only respondents
become the highest income earners.
Specific work settings. Table 31 shows the detailed breakdown of
employment characteristics within institutions, by type of institution, department,
academic rank, and position title. Primary university hospital/academic medical
centers and academic affiliate hospital/medical centers are by far the largest
Sensory, motor and/or

cognitive limitations
Goal of evaluation
Stamina/health of examinee
Context (clinical vs. forensic)
Orientation (confused)
Adult only (n 741)

cognitive limitations
Goal of evaluation
Age of examinee
Context (clinical vs. forensic)
Pediatric/adult (n 348)
48
161
642
304
None
Pediatric only
Adult only
Pediatric/Adult
110.2
113.5
128.8
153.7
Mean
109.5
94.0
106.0
125.0
Median
51.3
53.4
74.2
100.5
SD
72.3
80.0
88.8
94.3
25
132.3
127.5
148.5
180.0
75
200.0
249.0
249.3
350.0
300.0
321.9
400.0
623.0
99
39.0300.0
48.0325.0
37.0777.0
40.0840.0
Range
a
Includes licensed clinicians who work full time or more, excluding post-doctoral residents and those earning5$33,600 annually. Incomes are expressed in thousands
of dollars.
95
Presence of co-morbid condition
Percentile
Table 28. Mean annual incomes by professional neuropsychology identitya
None (n 68)
Goal of evaluation
Sensory, motor and/or cognitive limitations
Age of examinee
Excludes post-doctoral residents. aThese factors were endorsed by the same number of participants (i.e., there was a tie).
Age of examinee
Goal of evaluation
Stamina/health of examineea
cognitive limitationsa
Presence of co-morbid
condition
Neuropsychology identity
1
2
3
4
Pediatric only (n 207)
Table 27. Top five factors affecting the length of an evaluation by professional identity
40
41
180
160
2005 Mean
2010 Mean
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Pediatric only
Adult only
Pediatric/Adult
Pediatric only
Adult only
Pediatric/Adult
140
120
None
2005 Median
2010 Median
100
80
60
40
20
0
None
Figure 6 Five year comparisons of income by professional neuropsychology identity.
Table 29. Mean annual incomes by general work settinga

Percentile
Work Setting
Institution only
Private Practice only
Institution/Private Practice
Mean
Median
SD
25
75
95
99
Range
521
308
326
104.8
163.1
147.7
95.0
130.0
130.0
39.7
117.4
69.8
83.0
90.0
100.0
114.1
192.8
180.0
177.2
400.0
291.3
294.5
716.3
377.3
38.0390.0
37.0840.0
40.0650.0
a
Includes licensed clinicians who work full time or more, excluding post-doctoral residents and those
earning 5$33,600 annually. Incomes are expressed in thousands of dollars.
employment sites, accounting for 43.6% of institutional employment. The top five
departments in which respondents are most frequently employed are: psychology
(23.9%), psychiatry (20.3%), neuropsychology (13.5%), rehabilitation (11.8%), and
neurology (11.4%). For 44.5% of respondents, academic rank is not applicable.
42
170
2005 Mean
2010 Mean
150
130
110
90
70
50
30
Institution/private practice
140
2005 Median
2010 Median
120
Institution only
100
80
60
40
20
0
Institution only
Figure 7 Mean and median annual incomes by general work setting.
Table 30. Mean and median incomes by general work setting and years in clinical practice
General work settings
Institution
n
Mean Median
515 202 89.1

610 106 103.1
1115 65 106.5
1620 57 110.6
2125 51 128.7
425 40 146.5
85.0
96.0
102.0
105.0
109.0
125.0
Private practice
All settings
Mean Median
Mean
Median
47
53
43
39
53
73
97.0
113.8
134.9
162.2
217.5
219.1
55
63
46
61
40
60
109.8
125.7
160.6
159.2
168.5
169.7
100.0
115.0
137.5
140.0
135.5
152.6
304
222
154
157
144
173
92.0
105.0
125.0
138.0
170.0
190.0
Mean Median
94.1
112.1
130.1
142.3
172.5
185.2
86.0
101.0
110.0
121.0
131.5
160.0
Incomes are in thousands of dollars. Includes licensed clinicians who work full time or more, excluding
post-doctoral residents and those earning 5$33,600 annually.
43
Table 31. Breakdown of specific settings, departments, academic ranks, and

position titles within institutionsa
Institutional setting
Primary university hospital/academic med center
Academic affiliate hospital/med center
Public general hospital (non-academic)
Private general hospital (non-academic)
Public specialty hospital (e.g., psych, rehab)
Private specialty hospital (e.g., psych, rehab)
Outpatient free-standing general clinic
Outpatient free-standing specialty clinic
VA hospital/med center (academic affiliated)
VA hospital/med center (non-academic affiliated)
Military hospital
Governmental/municipal hospital/clinic (e.g., state)
College/university, 4-year, no medical/doct program
College/university, 4-year, with doctoral program
Doctoral Psychology Program (medical/educ setting)
Professional school of psychology
Research foundation (non-hospital)
State prison or other correctional facility
Other
Institutional department
Neuroscience
Neurosurgery
Neurology
Neuropsychology
Orthopedic Surgery
Pediatrics
Psychiatry
Psychology
Primary care/family medicine/internal medicine
Rehabilitation/physiatry/physical medicine
Rheumatology
Not applicable
Other
Institutional academic rank
Not applicable
Lecturer/instructor
Assistant professor
Associate professor
Professor
Emeritus
Institutional position title
Post-doctoral Resident/Fellow
Staff neuropsychologist/psychologist
Clinical program director
Research program director
Clinical training director
Division head
Vice or associate or assistant chair
Department chair
Other
Frequency
Percent
305
127
41
51
34
76
20
41
54
68
22
12
12
43
4
8
4
5
62
30.8
12.8
4.1
5.2
3.4
7.7
2.0
4.1
5.5
6.9
2.2
1.2
1.2
4.3
0.4
0.8
0.4
0.5
6.3
35
13
112
133
2
27
200
236
9
116
1
13
89
3.5
1.3
11.4
13.5
0.2
2.7
20.3
23.9
0.9
11.8
0.1
0.8
9.0
436
64
255
127
94
4
44.5
6.5
26.0
13.0
9.6
0.4
55
561
101
34
27
64
9
21
96
5.7
58.0
10.4
3.5
2.8
6.6
0.9
2.2
9.9
a
Includes all respondents who work in institutional and combined institutional/
private practices.
44

Table 32. Mean annual incomes by specific institutional settinga
Institutional Setting
Primary university hospital or AMC
Academic affiliated hospital or AMC (non-VA)
Public general hospital (non-academic)
Private general hospital (non-academic)
Public specialty hospital (e.g., psych, rehab)
Private specialty hospital
Outpatient free-standing clinic (general or specialty)
VA hospital or medical center
(with or without academic affiliation)
Military Hospital
Governmental/Municipal Hospital or Clinic
(e.g., state hospital)
Four-year University/College
(with or without doctoral psychology program)
Doctoral Psychology Degree Program
Research Foundation (non-hospital)
Correctional Facility (State, Federal Other)
Other
Mean
Median
SD
Range
214
95
29
30
19
52
43
102
110.8
99.1
107.3
116.9
83.5
105.0
114.0
102.2
100.5
92.0
90.8
99.5
80.0
98.5
106.0
96.5
41.3
26.8
49.1
54.5
16.6
34.8
58.5
25.3
48.0390.0
49.0190.0
42.0275.0
50.0300.0
54.0130.0
60.0260.0
50.0310.0
38.0240.0
19
7
128.2
93.4
121.0
94.0
27.8
10.7
70.0182.0
80.0105.0
26
105.5
100.0
45.7
42.0250.0
3
2
4
34
90.8
86.8
99.8
98.8
89.0
86.8
98.5
92.3
29.3
11.7
23.7
38.8
62.5121.0
78.595.0
72.0130.0
39.0201.0
a
Includes all licensed clinicians who work full time or more in an institutional setting and licensed
clinicians who work in a combined institutional/private practice setting and spend at least 80% of their
time at the institutional setting. Excludes post-doctoral residents and income outliers (5$33,600). Incomes
reflect institutional incomes only and are in thousands of dollars. Note that salaries for Professional
School Psychology are not reported as n 1. AMC = academic medical center.
Assistant professors comprised 26.0%, associated professors 13.0%, and professors

9.6%. A staff position title of neuropsychologist or psychologist was applicable
to 58%, with the next two most frequent titles being clinical program director at
10.4% and other at 9.9%.
Incomes related to specific institutional settings, primary department
of employment, academic rank, and position title are reported separately
in Tables 32, 33, 34, and 35, respectively. It is apparent that each of these variables
has a substantial impact on annual income; income ranges for each breakdown are
very broad. Within specific institutional settings, military hospital employment is
associated with the highest reported mean and median incomes, whereas public
specialty hospital is associated with the lowest mean and median incomes.
Among departments, the highest mean and median incomes were reported by
respondents working in a neuroscience department, with the lowest mean (but not
median) income reported in primary care departments. The latter figures may be
unreliable, given the fact that few neuropsychologists are employed in primary care
departments. As might be expected with incomes reported by academic rank, as
rank increases so do the reported mean and median incomes. Similarly, some of the
position titles associated with increased professional responsibility show an expected
income increase, with clinical program directors, division heads, and department
chairs reporting progressively higher mean incomes. It is noteworthy that research
program directors report mean incomes second only to department chairs and
median incomes that are higher than all other position titles.
45
Table 33. Mean annual incomes by institutional departmenta

Institutional department
Neuroscience
Neurosurgery
Neurology
Neuropsychology
Pediatrics
Psychiatry
Psychology
Primary Care/Family Practice/Internal Medicine
Rehabilitation/Physiatry/Physical Medicine
Not Applicable
Other
Mean
Median
SD
Range
26
10
85
88
18
132
156
7
82
8
66
142.8
95.1
107.6
96.9
112.8
110.4
100.5
79.5
101.4
127.8
108.4
135.0
85.0
100.0
94.0
88.5
100.5
92.3
100.0
95.5
116.5
101.5
55.8
21.6
38.4
24.6
53.6
46.4
32.6
50.2
30.1
64.9
36.6
70.0300.0
75.0135.0
50.0310.0
48.0202.0
65.0250.0
48.0390.0
38.0270.0
85.0225.0
42.0201.0
65.0260.0
39.0260.0
a
reflect institutional incomes only and are in thousands of dollars. Note that salaries are not reported for
Orthopedic Surgery and Rheumatology as n for both departments equal to 1.
Table 34. Mean annual incomes by institutional academic ranka

Institutional academic rank
Not applicable
Lecturer/Instructor
Assistant Professor
Associate Professor
Professor
Mean
Median
SD
Range
281
43
193
95
68
101.4
91.7
97.9
115.4
145.8
94.0
89.0
92.0
110.0
133.5
35.2
23.7
29.0
35.6
58.3
38.0310.0
49.0180.0
42.0260.0
65.0300.0
42.0390.0
reflect institutional incomes only and are in thousands of dollars.
Table 35. Mean annual incomes by institutional position titlea

Institutional position title
Staff neuropsychologist/psychologist
Clinical program director
Research program director
Clinical training director
Division head
Vice, Associate, or Assistant chair
Department Chair
Other
Mean
Median
SD
Range
434
77
27
21
51
8
15
47
96.2
112.9
141.3
103.2
139.0
122.2
156.3
114.8
90.9
106.0
150.0
95.0
125.0
130.0
130.0
103.0
29.5
30.1
39.8
30.7
57.1
34.1
68.2
46.9
38.0310.0
65.0225.0
70.0215.0
49.0180.0
70.0390.0
60.0168.0
79.0300.0
42.0260.0
a
reflect institutional incomes only and are in thousands of dollars.
46

Table 36. Psychology incomes and private practice roles
a
Private practice role
Cum %
nb
Mean
Median
SD
Sole proprietor
Partner
Employee
Outside contractor
Other
Total
490
65
100
69
31
755
64.9
8.6
13.2
9.1
4.1
100.0
64.9
73.5
86.8
95.9
100.0
211
32
64
11
15
333
63.4
9.6
19.2
3.3
4.5
100.0
179.8
135.5
123.5
101.5
156.5
150.0
119.5
105.5
86.0
140.0
129.3
72.5
65.2
46.0
102.6
Includes all licensed clinicians; excludes post-doctoral residents.

Includes licensed clinicians who work full time or more in a private practice and licensed clinicians
who work full time or more in a combined institutional/private practice setting, with at least 80% of their
time at the private practice. Incomes reflect private practice incomes only and are in thousands of dollars.
Excludes post-doctoral residents and income outliers (5$33,600).
Similar to varying employment roles in institutional settings, roles in private

practice can also vary. Table 36 shows the various roles and the incomes associated
with various roles in private practice for those who work at least 80% of their work
week in private practice. Most private practice respondents operate as sole
proprietors and in so doing report the highest mean and median incomes. By
comparison, respondents who are employees in a private practice owned by
someone else report substantially lower mean and median incomes.
Finally, with regard to specific work settings, Table 37 shows data from
respondents who work in institutions and private practice simultaneously.
Specifically, this table presents the number of clinical hours worked and incomes
associated with increasing levels of professional work time spent in institutions.
As the proportion of time spent in institutional work increases, and therefore
time spent in private practice decreases, the number of weekly clinical hours
decreases significantly. Although average income decreases meaningfully (e.g., from
168.3 thousand dollars to 142.0 thousand) as institutional time increases, the
standard deviations are large, such that the mean differences are not significantly
different.
Forensic practice. Demographic differences between those participating in
forensic practice versus not engaging in forensic practice are presented in Table 38.
More than half of female respondents do not participate, whereas only approximately 30% of male respondents do not. Almost 63% of those working exclusively
in institutions do not participate, compared to approximately one-fourth of
respondents in private practice. Approximately three-fourths of private practitioners engage in forensic practice, whereas in most other specific work settings the
proportion is closer to, or less than, half who participate. Nearly three-fourths
of respondents whose neuropsychology identity is that of a combined pediatric and
adult practitioner are engaged in forensic practice, in contrast to only one-third of
those with a purely pediatric identity.
47
Table 37. Weekly clinical hours and psychology income for respondents work in institution and
private practice
Weekly percentage of combined job time spent in institution
1 to 30%
31 to 75%
76 to 99%
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Number of weekly clinical hours 39

Psychology income
40
40.1
168.3
9.7
110.5
83
83
35.1
151.9
12.1
66.8
207
202
26.4
142.0
14.1 25.5*
59.7 2.6*
Includes all licensed clinicians who work full time or more in combined institution and private
practices. Excludes post-doctoral residents and income outliers (5$33,600). Incomes are expressed in
thousands of dollars.
*p5.001.
Table 38. Demographic variables and forensic practice

Forensic practice (n 904)
No forensic practice (n 651)
Frequency
Percent
Frequency
Percent
Gender
Male
Female
507
354
70.1
45.9
216
417
29.9
54.1

Institution only
Institution prvt. prac.
216
291
288
37.1
73.1
76.4
366
107
89
62.9
26.9
23.6

Medical
Private or group practice
Psychiatric
Rehabilitation
College/university
Other
267
358
26
81
17
46
49.4
76.0
55.3
50.3
40.5
51.7
273
113
21
80
25
43
50.6
24.0
44.7
49.7
59.5
48.3
Pediatric only
Adult only
Both pediatric/adult
No neuropsych identity
69
444
254
31
33.3
59.9
73.0
45.6
138
297
94
37
66.7
40.1
27.0
54.4
Table 39 displays frequencies and percentages of involvement in forensic

practice by gender, general work setting, specific work setting, and neuropsychology
identity. Percentage of work week spent on forensic practice is not significantly
different in terms of gender, although readers should note that this represents
responses from the much smaller proportion of women who engage in forensic
practice, as depicted in Table 38. In terms of general work setting,
48
Table 39. Demographic variables and percent of weekly time devoted to forensic
practice among participants who have a forensic practice
n
Mean
SD
Gender
Female
Male
315
471
12.7
15.3
20.3
20.0

Institution only
216
291
288
7.2
22.5
13.0
11.8
25.9
18.2

Medical
Private or group practice
Psychiatric
Rehabilitation
College/university
Other
267
358
26
81
17
46
7.9
21.8
17.0
7.2
4.1
17.4
11.0
25.2
23.0
9.7
3.7
3.7
Pediatric only
Adult only
Pediatric/adult
No neuropsych identity
69
444
254
31
5.2
14.9
16.9
20.9
6.4
21.3
21.0
30.2
t or F
1.8
38.1*
19.1*
6.7*
Excludes post-doctoral residents. *p5.001.
neuropsychologists who work in private practice, with no portion of their work

carried out in institutions spend significantly more of their weekly time on forensic
practice, whereas those working in institutions with no portion of their work carried
out in private practice are involved much less in forensic practice. Somewhat
unexpectedly, with regard to specific work settings, respondents working in
rehabilitation and medical settings appear to be less engaged in forensic practice
than those working in psychiatric settings. Those with a purely pediatric identify are
much less involved in forensic practice.
Table 40 depicts incomes according to six categories of increasing involvement
in forensic practice. In terms of mean incomes, there is a positive and linear
relationship between incomes and percentage of weekly work time spent on forensic
practice. This same pattern holds true for the median income data, with the
exception of a single category (6079%). Table 40 also shows that approximately
one-half of the sample is not involved in forensic practice at all.
Relationships of key variables to involvement in forensic practice are shown
in Table 41. Those who are involved versus not involved at all in forensic
practice differ significantly in years of clinical practice, with years of clinical
experience significantly higher in the group that is involved. Job satisfaction is
significantly higher in the group that is involved in forensic practice, as is income
satisfaction. Mean income is also significantly higher in the group involved in
forensic practice.
49
Table 40. Incomes and frequencies at various levels of forensic activity

Forensic activity (%)
0
0.0519
2039
4059
6079
80100
Total
Cum %
49.8
36.6
6.6
3.4
1.8
1.8
100.0
49.8
86.4
93.0
96.4
98.2
100.0
736
541
98
50
26
27
1478
nb
532
462
80
44
20
17
1155
Mean
Median
SD
46.1
40.0
6.9
3.8
1.7
1.5
100.0
106.8
138.9
162.5
219.2
232.3
275.7
132.5
95.0
124.0
149.0
180.0
163.0
200.0
109.0
45.0
64.2
94.0
158.5
160.7
228.7
80.1

outliers (5$33,600). Incomes are expressed in thousands of dollars.
Table 41. Forensic activity: Extent, years in clinical practice, job satisfaction,
income satisfaction, and income
n
Mean
SD

No forensic involvement
Some forensic involvement
633
900
11.4
18.0
9.2
10.1
Job satisfactiona
554
788
75.4
79.2
21.6
19.9
Income satisfactiona
545
783
68.6
72.4
23.6
23.5
Incomeb
466
689
104.6
151.3
41.6
93.3
t
13.1**
3.3*
2.9*
11.6**

Includes licensed clinicians who work full time or more; excludes post-doctoral
residents and income outliers (5$33,600).
*p5.01, ** p5.001.
b
Clinical productivity expectations. Whether working in private practice or

in institutions, some employers apply productivity expectations in a manner that
can affect income. Data related to this topic are presented in Table 42. The results
of several questions seem somewhat at odds. That is, in general, the effect of
having a quota or a productivity expectation in ones clinical position seems to have
a negligible or slightly negative effect on income. However, the follow-up questions
regarding whether the impact of productivity can increase or decrease ones income
produced a very substantial effect, which in both instances was associated with
much higher incomes. Mean and median hourly fees do not appear to be
50
Table 42. Institutional income, income satisfaction, job satisfaction, and hourly fee by level of clinical
productivity
Productivity variable
Is your income
based on a quota
or clinical productivity
expectation?
Does your
clinical productivity
allow you to
increase income?
Could your
clinical productivity
result in a decrease
in income?
No
Yes
No
Yes
No

n
197
Mean
123.4
Median
105.0
SD
53.6
248
128.6
110.0
67.0
157
140.2
115.0
77.4
288
118.9
103.3
49.0
117
144.6
119.0
83.1
329
119.8
105.0
50.0
Hourly fee
n
Mean
Median
SD
197
256.6
250.0
90.8
248
238.5
220.0
81.8
157
259.5
250.0
85.5
288
240.4
220.0
86.8
117
258.4
250.0
91.0
329
242.6
228.0
85.1
Income satisfaction
n
197
Mean
71.6
Median
80.0
SD
21.9
248
71.7
80.0
22.0
157
73.8
80.0
21.6
288
70.4
75.0
22.0
117
71.5
80.0
23.9
329
71.8
80.0
21.0
Job satisfaction
n
Mean
Median
SD
248
78.8
85.0
18.8
157
79.9
85.0
18.7
288
76.8
85.0
19.2
117
77.3
85.0
20.7
329
78.1
85.0
18.5
Variable
Yes
197
76.7
80.0
19.4
For all licensed clinicians who work full time or more in institutions or institutions/private practice;
excludes post-doctoral residents and income outliers ($533,600). Incomes are expressed in thousands
of dollars.
influenced by the presence of productivity expectations. Income satisfaction and job

satisfaction also do not appear to be substantially affected by productivity
expectations.
Most common diagnoses of examinees. Respondents were asked to rank
the top five diagnostic conditions for which examinees were referred. Table 43
shows the results from 2005 and 2010, broken down by professional identity.
Whereas in 2005 ADHD did not make the top five for adult respondents, in 2010
ADHD made the top five for all three professional identities, moving from second
to first among pediatric respondents. The top three for adults have not changed
across the 5-year interval, with elderly dementias, closed head injury/traumatic
brain injury, and stroke or cerebrovascular accident, in that order. In 2010 the
category of other medical/neurological conditions was fourth for the adult
51
Table 43. Top five rankings of diagnostic conditions evaluated in neuropsychological assessment by
professional identity in 2005 vs 2010
Rank
Top 5 conditions in 2005
Top 5 conditions in 2010
Pediatric only
1
2
3
4
5
Learning disabilities
ADHD
PDD
CHI/TBI
Seizure disorder
ADHD
Seizure disorder
CHI/TBI
PDD
Adult only
1
2
3
4
5
Elderly dementias
CHI/TBI
Stoke or CVA
Mood disorder
Seizure disorder
Elderly dementias
CHI/TBI
Stroke or CVA
Other med/neuro conditions
ADHD
Pediatric/adult
1
2
3
4
5
CHI/TBI
ADHD
Elderly dementia
Stroke or CVA
CHI/TBI
ADHD
Elderly dementias
Other med/neuro conditions
Excludes post-doctoral residents. Attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Pervasive developmental disorder (PDD). Closed head injury/traumatic brain injury (CHI/TBI). Cerebrovascular
accident (CVA).
respondents and fifth for the combined pediatric/adult respondents, whereas this
category of conditions did not make any of the three top five lists in 2005.
Most common referral sources. Table 44 shows the top five rankings of
referral sources by general work setting and by professional identity. Across work
settings and professional identities, neurology was the number one referral source.
Rankings two through five tend to be distinct across both variables of interest
in terms of exact ranking, but tend to overlap with regard to sharing most of the
same top five referral sources. Among unique referral sources within one of the
three general work settings, only private practice ranks pediatrics and only
institution ranks rehabilitation (defined separately from psychiatry) among the
top five.
Regarding professional identity, unique rankings are seen in pediatric
respondents ranking school system, self-referral, and other in third, fourth, and
fifth, respectively. The adult respondents uniquely ranked psychiatry and rehabilitation as fourth and fifth, respectively. Pediatric/adult respondents ranked law
(attorney) uniquely, in fifth place.
Journals subscribed to and read regularly
In the present survey the detailed listing of journals used in prior surveys was
shortened by only including journals that had received at least a total of 10%
endorsement as being subscribed to or read regularly in the 2005 survey. As in 2005,
the ratings of subscribing or reading the journal are mutually exclusive. The results
52
Table 44. Top five rankings of referral sources evaluated in neuropsychological assessment by general
work setting and professional identity
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
Institution only
Neurology
Primary care medicine
Physiatry
Psychiatry
Rehabilitation
(rehab nurse, counselor,
or other specialist)
Neurology
Law (attorney) a
Primary care medicinea
Pediatrics
Psychiatry
Institution Private practice

Neurology
Psychiatry
Law (attorney)
Physiatry
Rank
Pediatric only
Adult only
Pediatric/adult
1
2
3
4
5
Neurology
Pediatrics
School system
Self-referral
Other
Neurology
Psychiatry
Physiatry
Rehabilitation (rehab
nurse, counselor, or
other specialist)
Neurology
Psychiatry
Pediatrics
Law (attorney)

a
These factors were endorsed by the same number of participants (i.e., there was a tie).
of the current journal ratings are shown in Table 45. Journals affiliated with large
organizations whose members received the journal as a member benefit fare best
in these ratings, with the Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society
(JINS) ranked first in terms of subscriptions and Archives of Clinical
Neuropsychology (ACN) ranked second. The Clinical Neuropsychologist (TCN),
with a smaller society membership, ranked third in subscriptions. Interestingly, the
read-regularly endorsements produce a fairly different result, with TCN ranked
first, ACN second, and the Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology
(JCEN) ranked third. JINS fell to fifth place in terms of the read regularly ratings.
The ranking totals, representing subscriptions plus non-subscribers who nevertheless
read the journal regularly, show ACN first, JINS second, and TCN third.
Survey satisfaction
The final survey item asked respondents to express their opinion regarding
whether pertinent important information and variables relevant to their respective
income and practice activities had been gathered by the survey. Six categories were
offered, with three reflecting degrees of dissatisfaction (12.4%) and three reflecting
degrees of satisfaction (87.6%). Combining the top two categories, 65.3% of
respondents endorsed either mostly satisfied or completely satisfied, with the
latter category consisting of 101 individuals (9.2%). Only 3.9% were either mostly
8.6
51.1
5
0.3
1.7
6.5
3
13.1
6.4
52.6
0.6
40.1
5
5.3
43.2
0.5
0.6
0.2
1.1
2.2
0.3
0.2
3.4
0.9
1.7
7
8
3
14
28
4
3
44
11
22
111
658
64
4
22
84
38
169
83
677
8
516
64
68
557
8
6
10
4
2
9
10
1
5
3
6
2
10
15
13
7
12
5
8
1
14
4
10
9
3
Rank
127
203
105
299
123
186
151
318
229
124
133
261
79
90
148
147
89
242
138
181
89
211
128
85
278
9.9
15.8
8.2
23.2
9.5
14.4
11.7
24.7
17.8
9.6
10.3
20.3
6.1
7.0
11.5
11.4
6.9
18.8
10.7
14.1
6.9
16.4
9.9
6.6
21.6
Read regularly
8
4
11
2
10
5
7
1
2
9
9
2
15
11
6
7
12
3
8
5
12
4
10
14
1
Rank
134
211
108
313
151
190
154
362
240
146
244
919
143
94
170
231
127
411
221
858
97
727
192
153
835
10.4
16.4
8.4
24.3
11.7
14.8
12
28.1
18.6
11.3
18.9
71.4
11.1
7.3
13.2
17.9
9.9
31.9
17.2
66.6
7.5
56.4
14.9
11.9
64.8
Subscribed to or
read regularly
10
4
11
2
8
5
7
1
3
9
6
1
12
15
10
7
13
5
8
2
14
4
9
11
3
Rank
N 1288 after 284 respondents were excluded because they did not endorse a single journal as either subscribed to or read regularly. A longer listing of journals
used in prior surveys was shortened by excluding journals that did not receive at least 10% total for subscribed to and read regularly in the 2005 survey. Also, a
journal title was excluded in the event that it had ceased publication since the prior survey.
Psychology
Applied Neuropsychology
Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology
Assessment
Brain & Cognition
Brain Injury
Child Neuropsychology
Developmental Neuropsychology
Journal of Clinical & Experimental Neuropsychology
Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society
Neuropsychologia
Neuropsychology
Neuropsychology Review
Psychological Assessment
The Clinical Neuropsychologist
Neurology/medicine/psychiatry
American Journal of Psychiatry
Annals of Neurology
Archives of General Psychiatry
Archives of Neurology
Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation
Brain
Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, & Psychiatry
Neurology
New England Journal of Medicine
Science
Journal
Subscribed to
Table 45. Psychology and medical journals subscribed to or read regularly

53
54
dissatisfied or completely dissatisfied, with the latter group consisting of six

individuals (0.5%).
DISCUSSION
The present survey updates information regarding characteristics of clinical

neuropsychologists and their practices, and provides information on new topics that
were not addressed in prior surveys. Because of the amount of information
generated by this type of professional practice survey, we will selectively address our
summary and inferential, instead of exhaustively discussing all of the findings, as
doing so would take inordinate space. Moreover, most survey data simply do not
need explanation, as the numbers speak for themselves.
Stability and change across time
There has been a stability of age across surveys at 5-year intervals dating back
to data collected in 1989 (Sweet & Moberg, 1990). The fact that the average age of
clinical neuropsychologists remains near the midrange of 40s means that there is a
steady influx of new specialists entering the field after completing training. Were
that not the case, the average age would be increasing as those already practicing
continue to age. For the purpose of comparison, in 2009 the average age of APA
members, inclusive of affiliates, full members, and fellows, was 54.3 (SD 14.6)
(APA Center for Workforce Studies, February 2010; downloaded October 26, 2010
at http://www.apa.org/workforce/publications/09-member/index.aspx). Thus, at
present, the average practicing neuropsychologist appears to be younger than the
average member of APA.
In contrast to the stable average age of neuropsychologists across time, gender
representation in the specialty has changed markedly over time. Most readers are
already familiar with the phrase feminization of psychology, a phrase coined in
the 1980s that was based on data analyzed by an APA Committee on Employment
and Human Resources (Howard et al., 1986). As noted by Ostertag and McNamara
(1991), the overall trend of awarding doctorates in psychology to women jumped
steadily, and eventually dramatically, from 1950 (14.8%) to 1980 (42.3%). In 1984
women received half of the psychology doctorates, and by 1988 women received
almost 10% more psychology doctorates than men. This trend continued through
the 1990s, until for example in 2001 more than 70% of new doctorates were earned
by women (downloaded from http://www.apa.org/workforce/snapshots/2003/
women-in-psych.aspx October 27, 2010). By comparison, past surveys demonstrated
that the specialty of clinical neuropsychology lagged far behind the trend for
psychology at large. Data collected in 1989, 1994, and 1999 showed that whether
grouped as board certified or not or as employed in institutions or in private
practice, women typically comprised fewer than 30% of the survey respondents
(Sweet et al., 2000a, 2000b). By 2005, women specializing in clinical neuropsychology produced a post-doctoral resident sample of approximately 71% women,
and the sample of all survey respondents in 2005 was almost equal in terms of
gender (Sweet et al., 2006). In 2010 the post-doctoral resident sample is again
predominantly women (70.5%), and for the first time in any neuropsychology
55
practice survey the sample of all survey respondents shows a majority of women
(5.6% more than men). It seems very likely that the proportion of women in
neuropsychology will continue to increase, eventually matching the field of
psychology as a whole.
Stability across time is evident in the Ph.D. being the dominant degree choice
and in clinical psychology remaining the dominant doctoral degree area of study
across surveys. Similarly, full time work status has remained stable and predominant across time. High rate of employment, with less than 1% unemployed, has
also been a stable feature of the specialty. This fact takes on special significance in
the context of an international economic downturn that has left the United States
with a national unemployment figure that has often hovered around 910% in
recent years.
Based on prior survey data (Sweet et al., 2000a), private practice had become
the work setting of the majority of clinical neuropsychologists, whereas previously
the majority had worked in institutional settings. This continues to be the case,
removing post-doctoral residents from consideration, approximately 57% of
respondents report working either full time or part time in private practice. As
has been true in past surveys, private practice as a sole endeavor or in combination
with part time institutional employment continues to be associated with higher
income. Also continuing to be related positively to income are factors such as
involvement in forensic activity, professional identity, board certification, and years
of licensed clinical experience.
There has been a relative stability in practitioners relying on testing assistants,
ranging narrowly from just above to just below half of respondents doing so across
numerous surveys, including the present. Use of testing assistants is more common
in institutional work settings.
There has been a continuation of change in the same direction with regard
to philosophical approach to test selection. The data displayed in Figure 3 show
progressively increased endorsement of the flexible battery approach since 1989,
whereas there is continued decreased endorsement of the fixed/standardized
approach. Now at an all-time low of 5% endorsement, even if the decreasing trend
of acceptance of the last 20 years continues, this fact would not diminish the
important historical significance of the fixed/standardized approach having been the
original bedrock foundation for the development of clinical neuropsychology in
North America in the latter half of the twentieth century (cf. Reed & Reed, 1997).
The percentage of time devoted to clinical practice on a weekly basis is
approximately the same as it was in 2005. Although the number of hours of clinical
work per week has also remained stable from 2005 to 2010, the number of hours
invested by clinicians per evaluation has increased an hour or more whether or not
testing assistants are used. This latter finding could represent a change in either the
clinical conditions being seen by neuropsychologists or a change in referral sources.
However, comparisons in Tables 43 and 44 do not reveal the degree of change that
might explain an average increase in evaluation length. Relevant information may
be contained within a new item that elicited primary factors (see Table 5) that affect
evaluation length, which varies somewhat according to professional neuropsychological identity, as shown in Table 27. However, no prior data are available for
comparison.
56
For a number of years APA has emphasized diversity and has attempted to
increase the presence of ethnic minorities in the field of psychology. Similar
attention has begun to be given to diversity within the specialty of clinical
neuropsychology (e.g., Mindt, Byrd, Saez, & Manly, 2010; Romero et al., 2009).
Comparing 2005 and 2010, there has been a slight decrease in the majority category
of Caucasian/White, but little notable change in any specific ethnic minority
category. An increase in diversity in recent years is more strongly suggested by
comparison to APAs Division 40 membership, which in 2006 was reported by APA
to include 6% ethnic minorities, compared to approximately 10% in the present
survey.
Finally, with regard to stability and change, as was the case in 2005, when
asked to gauge relative change in income over the preceding 5 years, the vast
majority of respondents reported an increased income. Figures 4, 6, and 7 provide
convincing evidence that this increase was experienced across all levels of licensed
practice experience, all professional identities and all general work settings. In all six
categories income satisfaction remained nearly the same, with 50% of respondents
reporting being mostly or completely satisfied with their income. Within the
current economic context, which was so severe that it led to massive government
stimulus intervention, this continued upswing in income over the last 5 years is
impressive. During the 5-year interval from the prior survey to the present survey,
there was a very noticeable increase in the creation of new positions for clinical
neuropsychologists related to the military, and especially in Veterans Affairs
medical centers. Given a relatively stable supply of new specialists entering the field
from training programs, one can speculate that this increased demand has had a
substantial impact in raising salaries. However, this is not the only factor likely to be
affecting income. For example, the involvement of clinical neuropsychologists in
forensic activities has continued to increase across decades, with the most dramatic
evidence of increase appearing subsequent to 2000 (cf. Sweet & Westerveld, in
press). Whichever factors are responsible, comparison of actual means and medians
from 2005 and 2010 show that when collapsed across years of clinical experience,
mean income rose 22.6 thousand and median income rose 18.8 thousand. Related,
entry-level or starting salaries, whether limited to the initial entry point within the
first year or at any point during the first 5 years, have increased substantially from
2005 to 2010. For example, mean and median data from 2005 suggest that a
common starting salary was approximately 65,000 dollars, whereas present data
suggest that a common starting salary is in the range of 75,00080,000 dollars.
This range would, of course, vary by state and region.
Houston Conference
New to the present survey was an item that attempted to grossly determine the
extent to which the 1997 Houston Conference training guidelines (Hannay et al.,
2008) had affected the specialty. A two-thirds majority believe that their training
was consistent with the Houston model, with percentages decreasing as the years of
licensed experience increased. This makes sense in that many senior neuropsychologists were trained years before the Houston model was created, and during an era
in which post-doctoral training was scarce. Importantly, providing clear evidence
57
that the Houston model has made a substantial impact, 88% of current residents
describe their training as consistent with the Houston model.
Professional identity was first assessed during the 2005 salary survey, and at
that time was found to be associated meaningfully with a number of variables, such
as income, gender, work status, and hours required to complete an evaluation.
Again in 2010, these and other factors are differentiated by professional identity.
Specifically, the pure pediatric identity is associated with a lower income, a greater
proportion of women practitioners, part time work status, institutional work
setting, and lengthier evaluations. As was true in 2005, current post-doctoral
residents have identified pediatric neuropsychology as their identity more frequently
than the overall sample of practitioners, which suggests a trend toward an
increasing number of sub-specialists entering the field. Related, in the 5-year
interval between surveys, the American Board of Clinical Neuropsychology has
been working with the American Board of Professional Psychology on a subspecialty pathway. Presently, the interim step of developing a sub-specialty special
interest group in pediatric neuropsychology is in its second year of existence. Given
the degree of activity in forensic activities that repeated surveys have demonstrated,
one wonders whether an additional formal sub-specialty in forensic neuropsychology will also begin to evolve.
Understanding income satisfaction and job satisfaction: Context
matters
Inquisitiveness regarding the relationship between money and happiness has
produced a substantial literature. Beyond the typical conclusion, which is most
often that amount of money has little bearing on individual happiness, Cummins
(2000) has interpreted relevant data to support the idea that to some extent wealth
buffers individuals against the stress of negative events. In a separate review Diener
and Seligman (2004) concluded that as a society gains wealth well-being is less
influenced by income than by relationships and work enjoyment. Within the last
year several interesting viewpoints have been expressed, which have contextual
relevance for present findings. Judge, Piccolo, Podsakoff, Shaw, and Rich (2010)
used meta-analaytic techniques to study the relationship between income and
satisfaction with income and job. Based on 115 correlations from 92 independent
samples, these authors found an overall correlation of only .23 between income and
income satisfaction and an even lower correlation of .15 between income and job
satisfaction. Why are these correlations so low? In the prestigious Proceedings of the
National Academies of Science, Kahneman and Deaton (2010) reported on an
analysis of more than 450,000 US residents to the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being
Index, completed at the rate of 1000 individuals a day in 2008 and 2009. Kahneman
and Deaton found that emotional well-being has a positive relationship to income,
but only up to 75,000 dollars annually and not beyond that point. Consistent with
the suggestion of Cummins (2000) regarding income as a buffer against negative
events, Kahneman and Deaton (2010, p. 16489) surmise that Low income
58
exacerbates the emotional pain associated with such misfortunes as divorce, ill
health, and being alone. Presumably, once basic needs and substantial buffering
against negative events takes place, greater amounts of income do not increase wellbeing.
What, then, do we make of income satisfaction and job satisfaction data in
clinical neuropsychology, within which the mean and median starting salaries are
now higher than the dollar figure identified as influencing emotional well-being?
First, the correlations between actual income and income satisfaction in 2005 (.37)
and in 2010 (.33) for clinical neuropsychologists are appreciably higher than the
meta-analytic study of Judge et al. (2010), which reported a correlation of only .23.
Second, the correlations between actual income and job satisfaction in 2005 (.19)
and in 2010 (.18) are quite similar to the .15 correlation reported by Judge et al.
Perhaps part of the difference between the findings of the present study and the
Judge et al. study can be explained by the fact that the average income of the 61
studies included in their meta-analysis was 64,119, which is substantially lower than
the present study. The Kahneman and Deaton (2010) conclusion that incomes
higher than 75,000 do not lead to greater well-being may not be taking into account
a discrimination that individuals can make between their income satisfaction and
their job satisfaction. Ones satisfaction with a career can be separable from ones
satisfaction with the money earned in that career. For example, Judge et al. cited
studies showing that highly paid lawyers making an average $148,000 were less
satisfied with their jobs than were childcare workers earning an average of only
$23,500 annually. However, adding some difficulty to simple interpretations, both
in 2005 and in 2010 the relationship between income satisfaction and job
satisfaction was much higher than either variable alone with income, at .60 in
2005 and .52 in 2010.
What is clear and simple to interpret is that in 2010 fewer than 5% of clinical
neuropsychologists in the present sample are so disenfranchised with their current
job positions that they are very interested in leaving their present positions and
. . . will actively seek a new position. This percentage is even smaller than in the
2005 survey data. When compared to national job satisfaction data, the differences
on this exact point are profound. In a press release, Manpower Inc. (2009,
November 19) reported that when 900 North American workers were asked Do
you plan to pursue new job opportunities as the economy improves in 2010?, 60%
said yes, 21% said maybe, 6% reported that it was not likely but Ive updated
my resume, and only 13% said no. It seems that clinical neuropsychologists,
by comparison, can be considered to be very satisfied with their jobs, even in the
context of widely varying incomes.
FINAL COMMENTS
Survey data pertinent to the specialty of clinical neuropsychology have been
collected since the 1980s. These data have illustrated various professional practices,
beliefs, and characteristics of clinical neuropsychologists, and have allowed for
identification of trends in the development of professional identities, trends in the
proportional representation of women, the penetration of the most identified
training model, job satisfaction, as well as important variables that affect the quality
59
of life of individual specialists, such as income, job satisfaction, work status, and
typical work activities.
Without data collected specifically from clinical neuropsychologists, we would
have no way of knowing that the survey data released by APA pertaining to
psychologists is either grossly erroneous or is grossly irrelevant to clinical neuropsychologists. For example, Jacobsen (2009) presented data from the APA Center for
Workforce Studies that reported the 2006 median annual income of full time PhD
psychologists was $70,000, a figure that was far below the 2005 data for
neuropsychologists. Moreover, in April 2010 APAs monthly publication
for members, Monitor, (downloaded from http://www.apa.org/monitor/2010/04/
salaries.aspx October 29, 2010), the description of median salaries declining
substantially for APA across the board from 2001 to 2010 is grossly and
inescapably wrong as applied to clinical neuropsychologys thousands of practitioners, in light of 2005 and 2010 data specifically relevant to clinical neuropsychology. Moreover, an APA bar graph showing the median income of direct health
service providers to be well under $60,000 makes no sense for any specialty of
psychology when one considers the simple fact that even starting salaries have been
higher than this for a number of years. Finally, although there are very few specialties
of psychology that have undertaken extensive self-analysis via surveys, since 2002
the Society for Industrial Organizational Psychology has performed such surveys.
As most recently reported, based on 2009 data Khanna and Medsker (2010, p. 18)
stated, Comparing weighted medians, we found that primary income for those with
doctorates increased for each year in which it has been measured since 2002. In 2005
and 2006 the median incomes were in the $90,000s and in 2008 and 2009 the median
incomes were over $100,000. Such data from another psychology specialty add to the
appearance that APAs data are erroneous. There may be no better example
regarding reasons that specialties gather their own professional practice and income
data. We continue to believe that a 5-year interval survey can provide useful
information to specialists in clinical neuropsychology.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The funding source for the survey was the American Academy of Clinical
Neuropsychology. Funding was used for costs associated with postcard production
and postage, as well as to pay for the services of the web-based survey company
PsychData. No funding was provided to the surveyors. The survey team is grateful
and extends thanks for the cooperation and assistance of the American
Psychological Association Division 40 (Clinical Neuropsychology), Association of
Post-doctoral Programs in Clinical Neuropsychology, and National Academy of
Clinical Neuropsychology. Also, a special thank you to Division 40 President
Celiane Rey-Casserly who facilitated the means of inviting D40 members directly.
The surveyors also thank Laura Howe for distributing announcements on
NPSYCH, as well as numerous other neuropsychologists who supported this
project by posting survey announcements to state organizations and special interest
groups. Finally, thanks to all the respondents who took time to participate.
60
The authors thank Leslie Guidotti Breting for assistance with a subset of
statistical analyses and with editing of the original manuscript.
A portion of the 2010 survey data was presented as a scientific poster and as a
business meeting PowerPoint presentation at the annual AACN meeting in Chicago
in June 2010.
REFERENCES
Cox, D. (2010). Board certification in professional psychology: Promoting competency and
consumer protection. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 24, 493505.
Cummins, R. (2000). Personal income and subjective well-being: A review. Journal of
Happiness Studies, 1, 133158.
Diener, E., & Seligman, M. E. (2004). Beyond money: Toward an economy of well-being.
Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5, 131.
Hannay, J., Bieliauskas, L., Crosson, B., Hammeke, T., Hamsher, K., & Koffler, S. (1998).
Proceedings of the Houston Conference on Specialty Education and Training in Clinical
Neuropsychology. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 13, 157250.
Howard, A., Pion, G., Gottfredson, G., Flattau, P., Oskamp, S., Pfafflin, S., et al. (1986). The
changing face of American psychology: A report from the Committee on Employment
and Human Resources. American Psychologist, 41, 13111327.
Jacobsen, T. A. (2009, April). Psychology workforce trends in the 21st century: What students
need to know. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Psychological
Association, Chicago, IL.
Judge, T., Piccolo, R., Pdsakoff, N., Shaw, J., & Rich, B. (2010). The relationship between
pay and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis of the literature. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 77, 157167.
Kahneman, D., & Deaton, A. (2010). High income improves evaluation of life but not
emotional well-being. Proceedings of the National Academies of Science, 107(38),
1648916493.
Khanna, C., & Medsker, G. (2010). 2009 income and employment survey results for the
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. The Industrial-Organizational
Psychologist, 48, 2328.
Manpower, Inc. (2009, November 19). Employee discontent expected to reach crisis level
next year. Retrieved December 7, 2010, from http://www.manpower.com/investors/
releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=425444.
Mindt, M., Byrd, D., Saez, P., & Manly, J. (2010). Increasing culturally competent
neuropsychological services for ethnic minority populations: A call to action. The
Clinical Neuropsychologist, 24, 429453.
Ostertag, P., & McNamara, R. (1991). Feminization of psychology: The changing sex
ratio and its implications for the profession. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15,
349369.
Putnam, S. (1989). The TCN Salary Survey: A salary survey of neuropsychologists. The
Reed, J., & Reed, H. (1997). The Halstead-Reitan Neuropsychological Battery.
In G. Goldstein & T. Cagnoli (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to neuropsychological
assessment. New York: Plenum Press.
Romero, H., Lageman, S., Kamath, V., Irani, F., Sim, A., Suarez, P., et al. (2009). Challenges
in the neuropsychological assessment of ethnic minorities: Summit proceedings. The
61
Sweet, J., & Moberg, P. (1990). A survey of practices and beliefs among ABPP and nonABPP clinical neuropsychologists. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 4, 101120.
Sweet, J., Moberg, P., & Suchy, Y. (2000a). Ten-year follow-up survey of clinical
neuropsychologists: Part I. Practices and beliefs. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 14,
1837.
Sweet, J., Moberg, P., & Suchy, Y. (2000b). Ten-year follow-up survey of clinical
neuropsychologists: Part II. Private practice and economics. The Clinical
Neuropsychologist, 14, 479495.
Sweet, J., Moberg, P., & Westergaard, C. (1996). Five year follow-up survey of practices and
beliefs of clinical neuropsychologists. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 10, 202221.
Sweet, J., Nelson, N., & Moberg, P. (2006). The TCN/AACN Salary Survey: Professional
practices, beliefs, and incomes of U.S. neuropsychologists. The Clinical
Neuropsychologist, 20, 325364.
Sweet, J., & Westerveld, M. (in press). Pediatric neuropsychology in forensic proceedings:
Roles and procedures in the courtroom and beyond. In. E. Sherman & B. Brooks (Eds.),
Pediatric forensic neuropsychology. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

The TCN AACN 2010 Salary Survey Professional Practices Beliefs and Incomes of U S Neuropsychologists

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The TCN AACN 2010 Salary Survey Professional Practices Beliefs and Incomes of U S Neuropsychologists

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Clinical Neuropsychologist

ISSN: 1385-4046 (Print) 1744-4144 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ntcn20

The TCN/AACN 2010 Salary Survey: Professional

Published online: 19 Jan 2011.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 8063

View related articles

Citing articles: 31 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Date: 03 March 2016, At: 20:01

The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 2011, 25 (1), 1261

The TCN/AACN 2010 Salary Survey: Professional

NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, IL, USA

Downloaded by [119.63.142.18] at 20:01 03 March 2016

Doctoral-level members of the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology, Division

TCN/AACN 2010 SALARY SURVEY

Downloaded by [119.63.142.18] at 20:01 03 March 2016

Downloaded by [119.63.142.18] at 20:01 03 March 2016

JERRY J. SWEET ET AL.

Downloaded by [119.63.142.18] at 20:01 03 March 2016

TCN/AACN 2010 SALARY SURVEY

smaller organizations. These invitations were electronic and could be easily

JERRY J. SWEET ET AL.

Downloaded by [119.63.142.18] at 20:01 03 March 2016

Field of doctoral study

General work setting

Do you use a technician/psychometrician to

TCN/AACN 2010 SALARY SURVEY

Downloaded by [119.63.142.18] at 20:01 03 March 2016

Unpaid post-doctoral residents or fellows

35.1 (of 1579)

Useable n 1685. aIncludes all licensed and non-licensed respondents.

JERRY J. SWEET ET AL.

Downloaded by [119.63.142.18] at 20:01 03 March 2016

TCN/AACN 2010 SALARY SURVEY

East South Central

Downloaded by [119.63.142.18] at 20:01 03 March 2016

Age of licensed practitioners

Includes all licensed clinicians. Excludes post-doctoral residents.

Table 4 shows the time needed in hours to complete evaluations related to

JERRY J. SWEET ET AL.

Downloaded by [119.63.142.18] at 20:01 03 March 2016

Determination of diagnosis (inpatient)

Table 5. Choose Top Five factors affecting the length of an

All licensed clinicians, excluding residents, n 1368.

TCN/AACN 2010 SALARY SURVEY

Table 6. Demographics of post-doctoral residents

Downloaded by [119.63.142.18] at 20:01 03 March 2016

Year of post-doctoral residency

JERRY J. SWEET ET AL.

Downloaded by [119.63.142.18] at 20:01 03 March 2016

Table 8. Post-doctoral resident income and job satisfaction

Income satisfaction (1100)

Categorical satisfaction variable

Includes all post-doctoral residents.

TCN/AACN 2010 SALARY SURVEY

Post-doctoral residents (n = 90)

Downloaded by [119.63.142.18] at 20:01 03 March 2016

1997, two-thirds of respondents offered a self-appraisal of training having been

JERRY J. SWEET ET AL.

51 to 5 Years Post Training

Downloaded by [119.63.142.18] at 20:01 03 March 2016

All licensed clinicians, excluding post-doctoral residents.

TCN/AACN 2010 SALARY SURVEY