Incorporating Intersectionality in Neuropsychology: Moving the Discipline Forward.

OBJECTIVE: Intersectionality is the interface between a person's identities in relation to social systems and institutional discrimination. The concept has generated much interest in psychology for understanding societal inequities and providing culturally informed services to minoritized patients but has yet to be incorporated in clinical neuropsychology. This omission is unfortunate as it is argued that appreciating the impact of institutional discrimination on minoritized groups can enhance our understanding of brain organization and functioning and bolster access to competent neuropsychological services to minoritized patients. The purpose of this article is to illustrate how intersectionality is germane to the discipline of clinical neuropsychology and to make recommendations for infusing it into the practice. METHOD: Theories and findings in cultural neuroscience are summarized to provide a theoretical background for understanding how the environment can impact brain development and organization. The literature on disparities in education, economics, and health disparities between Whites and minoritized groups was reviewed for institutional biases that place minoritized groups at a disadvantage. These topics were selected due to their known impact on brain organization and cognition. This was followed by a similar review for access to competent neuropsychological assessments for minoritized patients. RESULTS: There is a confluence of institutional discriminatory processes that contribute to disparities in education attainment, economic status, health disparities, and accessibility to culturally informed neuropsychological services. Perceived discrimination has significant health and cognitive ramifications. CONCLUSIONS: Intersectionality is germane to appreciating brain functioning and providing competent services to minoritized patients. Recommendations were made to incorporate intersectionality in clinical neuropsychology.

Developing a cultural context for conducting a neuropsychological evaluation with a culturally diverse client: the ECLECTIC framework.

OBJECTIVE: With the increasing diversification of the American population, the discipline of neuropsychology is challenged to develop appropriate tools and conceptual models to meet its evolving client base. Thus far, the focus has been on developing appropriate tests and norms to obtain accurate testing data. By contrast, far less attention has been paid to the contextual impact of culture on an evaluation. This paper attempts to address this shortcoming. METHODS: This manuscript introduces the ECLECTIC framework for conceptualizing different facets of culture pertinent for understanding a culturally diverse client when conducting a neuropsychological evaluation. Individual components of the framework (E: education and literacy; C: culture and acculturation; L: language; E: economics; C: communication; T: testing situation: comfort and motivation; I: intelligence conceptualization; and C: context of immigration) are introduced and potential biases to fairness in testing are described. In this manner, the framework specifies how individual facets of culture can impact neuropsychological test performance. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical implementation of the framework will be illustrated with a case sample. Strengths and weaknesses of the framework are discussed as well as recommendations for implementation.

Ethnic differences in prediction of violence risk with the HCR-20 among psychiatric inpatients.

OBJECTIVE: This study examined ethnic differences in assessment of violence risk among psychiatric inpatients by using the Historical Clinical Risk Management-20 (HCR-20). METHODS: The HCR-20 was administered to 169 consecutive psychiatric inpatients. Individual items and total scores on the HCR-20 were compared between patients of Asian-American (N=51), Euro-American (N=46), and Native-Hawaiian (N=38) heritage. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and stepwise regressions were calculated for each ethnic group with HCR-20 scores as predictor variables and violent event reports of significant threats and assaults as the outcome measure. RESULTS: Similar rates of overall violence were found between ethnic groups, and the HCR-20 was found to have predictive validity as measured by ROC analysis. Differences in scores on individual HCR-20 items were found, including young age at first incident of violence, psychopathy, early maladjustment, personality disorder, and past supervision failure, as well as total HCR-20 score, with Asian Americans scoring lower (less risk) than Euro-Americans and Native Hawaiians. Stepwise multiple regressions indicated a different pattern of predictor variables for each ethnic group, with impulsivity salient for the Asian-American group, young age at first incident of violence salient for the Euro-American group, and young age at first incident of violence, relationship instability, and risk-management plans' lacking feasibility as salient predictors for the Native-Hawaiian group. CONCLUSIONS: The findings provide preliminary support for the cross-cultural validity of the HCR-20 while at the same time identifying unique ethnic differences in prediction of violence risk among psychiatric inpatients.