[AVAPL Members] Re: FW: Re: Licensed Professional Mental Health Counselor
- From: "Hagans, Chad L." <Chad.Hagans@xxxxxx>
- To: <members1@xxxxxxxxx>, "Arbisi, Paul" <Paul.Arbisi@xxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 08:55:41 -0500
Thanks for your response, Dr. Arbisi - I'm a big fan of your research. J
In Table 3 in the article I attached (one that you attached as well), it's
indicated that the sensitivity to overreporting of Fp at a cutoff of > 100T
is 0.49, and the sensitivity at a cutoff of > 85T is 0.60. Those are both
fairly modest figures in comparison to the sensitivity of the Meyers
Validity Index (0.86), which uses a weighting of multiple MMPI validity
scales, including Fp. The Meyers Index also offers no reduction in
specificity (1.0) from the figures associated with Fp in your article, which
are exceptionally high.
And that was my original point - Fp appears to be relatively insensitive to
overreporting, in comparison to other available methods of assessing
response style. In essence, using Fp alone rather than the combination of
MMPI validity scales in the Meyers Index would miss 37% of overreporting
respondents at a cutoff of > 100T, and 26% of overreporting respondents at a
cutoff of > 85T. That's a lot of false negatives in my opinion.
Chad Hagans, Ph.D.
Licensed Psychologist
Pensacola Joint Ambulatory Care Clinic
850-912-2000 ext. 2091
From: avaplmembers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:avaplmembers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Siegel, Wayne
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 7:05 PM
To: members1@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Arbisi, Paul
Subject: [AVAPL Members] FW: Re: Licensed Professional Mental Health
Counselor
Dr. Arbisi asked that I forward his response to the mail group. I invited
him to comment given his expertise in this area.
Wayne
Wayne G. Siegel, Ph.D., ABPP
Licensed Psychologist
Director of Training/ Psychology Supervisor
Minneapolis VA Medical Center
612.467.4024
wayne.siegel@xxxxxx
<http://www.minneapolis.va.gov/education/psychology/psyc_home.asp>
http://www.minneapolis.va.gov/education/psychology/psyc_home.asp
From: Arbisi, Paul
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 11:07 AM
To: Siegel, Wayne
Subject: RE: [AVAPL Members] Re: Licensed Professional Mental Health
Counselor
Since, I am not a member of AVAPL and do not participate in the list serve,
Dr. Hagan's opinion regarding the utility of the F family of scales in
identification of non-credible reporting of PTSD symptoms was forwarded to
me by Dr. Siegel who asked if I would like provide a response that would
serve to inform the list.
First off, the utility of the MMPI-2 F family of scales and in particular
the FP scale to identify non credible reporting of symptoms across a wide
range of psychiatric conditions including PTSD is well established. As a
matter of fact, among all the MMPI-2 scales examined in the Rogers et al.,
meta-analysis (2003), FP was the best single scale on the MMPI-2 in
identifying feigned psychopathology across a wide range of clinical
settings. Further, in a study published in Psychological Services, the FP
scale out performed the other MMPI-2 validity scales in discriminating
between veterans who were instructed to exaggerate PTSD and those who were
instructed to respond honestly on the MMPI-2 shortly after completing a C&P
Examination secondary to a claim for service connection for PTSD. Finally,
Efendov, Sellbom, & Bagby (2008) found that the F family of scales
accurately discriminated a group of remitted trauma victims who were
instructed to fake PTSD on the MMPI-2 and provided coaching on how to avoid
detection from a group of injured workers diagnosed with PTSD. F and Fp
outperformed Trauma Symptom Inventory validity scales as well as the MMPI-2
FBS in discriminating the trauma exposed group feigning PTSD from the
injured worker group. FP produced the largest effect sizes of all the
MMPI-2 validity scales examined in both the coached and uncoached
conditions. In sum, based on studies complied in the Rogers et al., 2003
meta analysis as well as a large number of empirical studies published since
that time, the F family of scales continue to be the best set of scales on
the MMPI-2 and the MMPI-2 RF in the detection of non-credible reporting of
psychiatric conditions including PTSD.
I am speculating, but Dr. Hagan's opinion may in part reflect the setting he
practices in. The observation that most individual's who feign PTSD do
not try to appear crazy or psychotic comes from the neuropsychological and
personal injury settings where claimants often report onset of PTSD symptoms
after a relatively mild physical injury. For example, someone slips and
falls in a big box store and claims chronic pain and cognitive impairment
resulting from a mild TBI but also claims to have developed PTSD symptoms.
In these cases the injured claimant is more likely to attempt to present to
the examiner as reasonable, but emotionally distressed without appearing
severely psychiatrically disturbed or thought disordered. On the other
hand, if the primary claim is purely emotional and the individual is
claiming a consequential psychological injury, such as the PTSD claims we
all see in the VA, exaggeration or fabrication on the MMPI-2 will reflect
severe psychopathology. I am only aware of a single study that examined
implausible PTSD claims where an MMPI-2 validity scale other than the F
family of scales outperformed FP. Greiffenstein et. al., 2004 found that
the FBS outperformed the F family of scales in discriminating a group of
litigants who reported implausible Post Traumatic Symptoms after a
relatively minor trauma (i.e., the trauma would not have met criteria A)
from a group of litigants who experienced a major trauma (likely met
criteria A). Importantly, the report of PTSD symptoms occurred within the
context of litigation after a physical injury and was frequently associated
with reported claims of cognitive impairment. Under these circumstances,
the FBS has been repeatedly found to outperform the F family of scales in
identifying individuals who non-credibly report cognitive and somatic
problems (see the Nelson et al., 2010 meta-analysis). Indeed, the FBS is
one of the most effective MMPI-2 validity scales in predicting failure of
symptom validity measures.
To summarize, there is really no question that the F family of scales and in
particular the FP are the best scales on the MMPI-2 and MMPI-2 RF in
identifying the non-credible reporting of PTSD symptoms. However, when the
claim of PTSD takes place within the context of a simultaneous claim of TBI
or physical injury, then the FBS and now the RBS, a scale designed
specifically to identify individuals who fail SVT, may have an advantage
over the F family of scales in identifying non-credible report of PTSD
symptoms associated with the head injury.
(Arbisi, Ben-Porath, & McNulty, 2006; Efendov, Sellbom, & Bagby, 2008;
Greiffenstein, Baker, Axelrod, Peck, & Gervais, 2004; Nelson, Hoelzle,
Sweet, Arbisi, & Demakis, 2010; Rogers, Sewell, Martin, & Vitacco, 2003)
Arbisi, P. A., Ben-Porath, Y. S., & McNulty, J. (2006). The ability of the
MMPI-2 to detect feigned PTSD within the context of compensation seeking.
Psychological Services, 3, 249-261.
Efendov, A. A., Sellbom, M., & Bagby, R. M. (2008). The utility and
comparative incremental validity of the MMPI-2 and Trauma Symptom Inventory
validity scales in the detection of feigned PTSD. Psychological Assessment,
20(4), 317-326.
Greiffenstein, M. F., Baker, W. J., Axelrod, B., Peck, E. A., & Gervais, R.
(2004). The Fake Bad Scale and MMPI-2 F family in detection of implausible
psychological trauma claims. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 18, 573-590.
Nelson, N. W., Hoelzle, J. B., Sweet, J. J., Arbisi, P. A., & Demakis, G. J.
(2010). Updated meta-analysis of the MMPI-2 symptom validity scale (FBS):
verified utility in forensic practice. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 24,
701-724.
Rogers, R., Sewell, K. W., Martin, M. A., & Vitacco, M. J. (2003). Detection
of Feigned Mental Disorders: A Meta-analysis of the MMPI-2 and Malingering.
Assessment, 10(2), 160-177.
Paul A. Arbisi, Ph.D., ABAP, ABPP. L.P.
Staff Clinical Psychologist
Minneapolis VA Medical Center
Associate Professor
Depts of Psychiatry and Psychology
University of Minnesota
_____
From: Siegel, Wayne
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 8:20 AM
To: Arbisi, Paul
Subject: FW: [AVAPL Members] Re: Licensed Professional Mental Health
Counselor
Paul - interested in responding?
Wayne
Wayne
Wayne G. Siegel, Ph.D., ABPP
Licensed Psychologist
Director of Training/ Psychology Supervisor
Minneapolis VA Medical Center
612.467.4024
wayne.siegel@xxxxxx
<http://www.minneapolis.va.gov/education/psychology/psyc_home.asp>
http://www.minneapolis.va.gov/education/psychology/psyc_home.asp
From: avaplmembers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:avaplmembers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Hagans, Chad L.
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 7:58 AM
To: members1@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [AVAPL Members] Re: Licensed Professional Mental Health Counselor
Thanks for bringing up the MMPI, Denise. You mention F and Fp, and those
are certainly scales to consider when assessing response style; however,
there are many more validity scales the MMPI offers for consideration, and I
find that F and Fp are very often insensitive to an overreporting response
style to which the other validity scales often appear to be more sensitive.
I've attached an article on this if anyone's interested.
Based on my experience using the scales in the article (in the neighborhood
of a thousand administrations), Fp is by far the scale least sensitive to
overreporting in cases of PTSD. This stands to reason, since people would
presumably endorse items on the Fp scale if they're attempting to appear
"crazy" (psychotic), which is inconsistent with PTSD.
Of course there's also the possibility of administering additional measures
of response style, which offers the potential of confirming or refuting
hypotheses generated by the MMPI. I've attached an article on that as well.
Chad Hagans, Ph.D.
Licensed Psychologist
Pensacola Joint Ambulatory Care Clinic
850-912-2000 ext. 2091
From: avaplmembers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:avaplmembers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of denise abney
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 10:47 PM
To: members1@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [AVAPL Members] Re: Licensed Professional Mental Health Counselor
At a fairly recent MMPI2- RF workshop, Paul Arbisi presented on the new
restructured scales of the MMPI and mentioned that the research he was
involved in indicated that the PK and PS scales were not useful in
determining who may have PTSD since the scale mostly reflected level of
distress. This made so much sense and a lightbulb went on and has stayed on
since.
I wonder if administering the MMPI2-RF would help distinguish between level
of distress and symptomology in patients with PTSD? I've given the MMPI to
almost every patient I have worked with over the last 18 years. MMPI's of
many severe cases often suggested that the results were invalid due to an
unusual level of over-reporting. However when I looked at the pattern of
scores in the profiles, I could see that it was relatively consistent (high
2,4,6,7,8) with PTSD patients with valid profiles. The F scores are always
high as well unless a patient has developed a lifestyle around their
symptoms or they have had some treatment. I don't necessarily discard these
results as invalid or malingering. In fact the Fp scale score often
indicates malingering is not occurring despite overreporting. The patient's
presentation is usually consistent in terms of the severity of intrapsychic
and interpersonal problems. In these cases the F scale score is typically
very high compared to non-PTSD diagnosed patients which also suggests the
results are invalid. Unfortunately, others often dismiss these patients as
malingerers or dismiss results when they indeed indicate a very severe level
of distress. And these may be individuals that are in most need of help.
If, when stripped of "distress", the MMPI can be used to look at
symptomology, it would be very useful in helping to understand PTSD, what it
looks like in individuals (and I do believe in subgroups, i.e. relivers and
avoiders, the defenses they use to cope, a more accurate picture of symptom
severity, and levels of distress and how they impact assessment. I'd want
this and the PAI to be included as they are now somewhat complementary in my
eyes. The PAI needs to be giving to pts with PTSD to develop norms and the
interpretations can be made available for free if VA is willing to allow the
testing corporations to analyze the data for these purposes. We have years
of data on these patients that could be reviewed by assessment researchers.
Since our system is so large, it wouldn't take much time to have huge
samples to work with on any test we give. Some VA's could use a few tests
and others could use other tests for outcome or other variables. I could go
crazy thinking of the possibilities for assessment research. I have always
wanted to see assessment clinics in the VA. We could diagnose and recommend
good treatment for more patients and be very efficient about it. I think we
need to look as defenses in assessment. Many PTSD patients have been
misdiagnosed, for example, as narcissistic personality disorder because
their defenses are of this type. There are lots of variables which come from
the old fashioned womb to tomb evaluations... trauma history in childhood,
coping styles in childhood, social support in childhood and the same
variables in adulthood after adult trauma and on and on. One especially
pertinent variable would be related to the wax and wane of symptomology in
every patient as test results differ depending on where the patient is with
their symptoms at the time - again - level of distress and stress play a
role. If we already do these things than why not template the evaluations
and use the data for research. It would help with training, we could look up
this information for patients on an as needed basis for other clinicians,
for ourselves, track progress in therapy with variables.....How could other
VA clinicians argue with that large a sample? Tracking people over time? You
would have hard data to show and explain to others. It might remove the
compensation seeking issue. Can't a person who is ill seek compensation too?
If our history of assessment with these tools has provided us with respect
over the years, it only makes sense to me to stay committed to what we have
been most successful at and what has distinguished us from others.
Enough
Denise Cardin Abney
San Antonio
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 5:56 AM, Hagans, Chad L. <Chad.Hagans@xxxxxx> wrote:
That sounds like a great idea, Kathleen. I would encourage anyone
attempting such research to include measures of response style, since the
reputation of our profession within the VA may be affected by the results.
I'm attaching an article with more details for those who are interested.
Chad Hagans, Ph.D.
Licensed Psychologist
Pensacola Joint Ambulatory Care Clinic
850-912-2000 ext. 2091
From: avaplmembers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:avaplmembers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of McNamara, Kathleen
M.
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 3:05 PM
To: members1@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [AVAPL Members] Re: Licensed Professional Mental Health Counselor
Quite a number of years ago, the APA Practice Directorate had a project with
Atlantic Bell South which showed a significant reduction in costs when
psychological assessments (objective testing like MMPI) were used with those
who were covered under insurance by them. The savings came from proper
diagnosis and follow-up treatment recommendations, with significant
reduction in psychiatric hospitalizations, in particular.
Unfortunately, when I have tried to track down anything published or even
a summary report, I have been informed that the data were proprietary and it
is not a published finding. I would like to see the Denver VA study (or
have the reference), if you could please forward that to me. Thank you.
It would be great if we had some efforts from OMHS to coordinate a study
across VA MHSs to do a large scale study, where psychological assessments
were included in Intakes to make diagnostic decisions, and then utilization
and/or costs for things such as: medications, hospitalizations, and
subsequent number of visits to each of the various MH provider groups
(psychologist, psychiatrist, social worker, counselor) over a two year
period could be tracked. I think our resources would be well spent.
Kathleen M. McNamara, Ph.D., ABPP
Lead Professional, Psychology
Staff Psychologist, Maui VA CBOC
808-871-2454
From: avaplmembers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:avaplmembers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Hagans, Chad L.
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 7:59 AM
To: members1@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [AVAPL Members] Re: Licensed Professional Mental Health Counselor
Right, but how much money does it save when you use it? J
I think that's the question the people making the decisions are asking,
unfortunately.
Now, is anyone in our field working on answering that question?
Chad Hagans, Ph.D.
Licensed Psychologist
Pensacola Joint Ambulatory Care Clinic
850-912-2000 ext. 2091
From: avaplmembers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:avaplmembers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Evans, F. Barton
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 12:55 PM
To: members1@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [AVAPL Members] Re: Licensed Professional Mental Health Counselor
Well said, William.
There is an empirically well supported treatment method called Therapeutic
Assessment (TA) developed by Dr. Stephen Finn in Austin which integrates
psychological assessment and treatment. There was even a study done at the
Denver VA successfully using TA with suicidal veterans. If anyone is
interested, I would be glad to send information next week.
F Barton Evans, PhD
Clinical Psychologist
VA Montana Health Care System
Bozeman CBOC
Bozeman, MT 59715
Clinical Professor
Department of Psychiatry and
Behavioral Science
George Washington University
School of Medicine
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
This e-mail message, including any attachments, is intended for the
addressed recipient only, and may contain confidential or privileged
information. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying,
distribution, or use of the contents of this information is prohibited and
may be unlawful. If you have received this electronic transmission in error,
please notify the sender immediately, and destroy the original message and
all copies thereof.
From: avaplmembers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:avaplmembers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Crisp, William
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 11:01 AM
To: members1@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [AVAPL Members] Re: Licensed Professional Mental Health Counselor
What sets psychologists apart and makes them valuable is their training and
ability to conduct research and do assessments. Many psychologists seem to
have ignored these assets in favor of developing things like manualized
training which opens the door for other disciplines to do our work. In many
VA settings research and assessment are discouraged as time consuming and
less important than therapy, case management and documentation. Instead
psychologists should develop protocols which emphasize both assessment and
research as guides to treatment. This could greatly improve treatment over
generic style manualized treatment and demonstrate the value of
psychologists.
William Crisp, Ph.D.
Clinical Psychologist
Substance Treatment Employment Program
Central Texas Veteran's Health care System
Temple, TX
From: avaplmembers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:avaplmembers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Hagans, Chad L.
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 8:03 AM
To: members1@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [AVAPL Members] Re: Licensed Professional Mental Health Counselor
In my opinion just another failure by psychology to demonstrate empirically
the value of what we offer over and above the value of what other mental
health professionals offer, if indeed that value exists. I'd like to think
it does because I'm a psychologist, but to say it does without empirical
evidence would indicate bias more than anything else in my opinion.
It's time to get to work and demonstrate the value. Who wants to do the
work?
Chad Hagans, Ph.D.
Licensed Psychologist
Pensacola Joint Ambulatory Care Clinic
850-912-2000 ext. 2091
From: avaplmembers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:avaplmembers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Long, Stephen
[Northport]
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 3:30 PM
To: 'members1@xxxxxxxxx'
Subject: [AVAPL Members] Re: Licensed Professional Mental Health Counselor
Edgardo, you sound the way I feel at times like these.
It is very difficult to see so much of what one has worked for (developing
skills, making what contributions you can, getting doctoral and postdoctoral
training) over a professional career to have much of that devalued, denied,
dismissed.
om: avaplmembers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:avaplmembers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Kirchberg, Thomas
Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 11:49 AM
To: members1@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [AVAPL Members] Re: Licensed Professional Mental Health Counselor
Thank you, Edgardo. I value your viewpoint on all the issues you raise!
Tom
Thomas M. Kirchberg, Ph.D., ABPP
Chief Psychologist
Mental Health Service
VA Medical Center Memphis
901-523-8990 ext. 5320
From: avaplmembers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:avaplmembers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Padin, Edgardo
(VHACLE)
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2010 9:55 PM
To: members1@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [AVAPL Members] Re: Licensed Professional Mental Health Counselor
By interesting, I'm sure you mean discouraging. After 20+ years in the VA,
I continue to be astounded at how so many other professions continue to have
sufficient advocacy to increase their grade levels commensurate with their
responsibilities (case in point, Social Workers continue a juggernaut rise
in grade with each new "position" created (most now seemingly needing GS-12
grades) while psychologist have an almost insurmountable task getting
approvals at the GS-14 level. The data notwithstanding (that we have
increased the number of GS-14 positions), the success of our Hybrid T38 and
Professional Standards Boards have been underwhelming.
This is not to start an old argument about our glass ceiling as
psychologists in the VA; but it is to say that this new initiative to bring
in and somehow "Qualify" Master's Level Counselors is a lobbyist win by
Master's Level Counselors and Counseling Programs to establish their niche
in the VA. And it will ultimately be to the detriment of Psychology. A
system of lower entry pay entry "counselors" who can rise to the GS-13 by
taking on greater responsibility means fewer Psychologists will be needed as
they become overseers of a cadre counselors doing more of the supposed
"drone" work of fully manualized and technicalized therapy. What a Brave
New World. Anyone who thinks this is not the case should look at the
private sector and see how lower level "Assistants" are replacing part of
the work (and the pay) of their more educated colleagues.
Let me clarify here that I have nothing against Master's Level Counselors,
we have used them in Cleveland ever since I have been here. I don't know
who is trying to kid whom whey they say that this is a "new position" of
Mental Health Counselor, but we have had GS101-11 Readjustment Counselors in
the VA for well over thee decades. They have limitations, but have worked
out well in the areas we have used them. But what I do know is that not a
single one has ever shown that they have some secret knowledge or facility
or skill and foundational learning that is different from, greater than, or
particularly more technical in nature that Psychologists. Usually, they
have less. The only difference now is that some accreditation body (CACREP)
can now be added as a profession lobbying body in the VA. Personally, I am
not amused.
So, maybe we as Psychologists are too educated, maybe manualized, evidence
based protocols are making our "therapy" work too rote and straightforward
for the amount of pay we are demanding, maybe what we do, with a good
cookbook here and an evidence based therapy there, can be done by cheaper
labor. I'm not sure; but I will say that with this cannon shot of promoting
our Master's Level colleagues, we will find out. End of rant.
From: avaplmembers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:avaplmembers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Fischer, Pamela
(OKL)
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2010 10:52 AM
To: members1@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [AVAPL Members] Re: Licensed Professional Mental Health Counselor
It is interesting to me that the LPC who is a program manager can be a GS 13
- the grade level that many psychologists who manage programs and have years
of experience cannot move beyond.
Pamela C. Fischer, Ph.D.
Director, Primary Care Mental Health #111AC
Veterans Affairs Medical Center -OKC
921 N.E. 13th Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73104
Phone: 405-456-3634
Fax: 405-456--5956
From: avaplmembers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:avaplmembers-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Shorter, George
Wiley
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 8:54 AM
To: members1@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [AVAPL Members] Licensed Professional Mental Health Counselor
Colleagues,
As many of you have been awaiting the Qualification Standards for Mental
Health Counselors, we wanted to share these with you when we first received
it.
George Shorter, Ph.D.
President, AVAPL
"The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war,
no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional as to how they
perceive the Veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their
country." -George Washington
Error! Filename not specified.
Date: 9/29/10 ID#: 2010-25
Policy Office: Recruitment & Placement Policy Service (059)
Contact: Kent A. Wellman (Kent.Wellman2@xxxxxx)
Policy Subject: VA Handbook 5005, PT II, Chapter 2, Appendix G43, Licensed
Professional Mental Health Counselor qualification standard.
Handbook Reference: 5005
The attached new VA qualification standard for Licensed Professional Mental
Health Counselor, GS-101 has been signed. Since this is a new occupation to
VA there will NOT be an initial one-time boarding. Additional
implementation instructions and guidance will be forthcoming from the
Veterans Health Administration (VHA). The new Appendix G43 will be added to
the electronic version of VA Handbook 5005, Pt II, located at
http://vaww1.va.gov/ohrm/HRLibrary/Dir-Policy.htm
Questions regarding this Policy Update should be addressed to the Title 38
Staffing Policy Section, mailto:staffingpolicy059/vaco@xxxxxxx
Status: Policy Process Step 4
Estimated date of release/implementation: 9/29/2010
This policy alert e-mail is part of a notification process that is intended
to alert HR Specialists and other interested parties that a new policy or
change to existing policy is required or being considered. If you have
specific questions regarding this policy alert, please address them to the
contact person named above. Policy update e-mails regarding this policy
subject will be automatically generated according to the policy
communication schedule/timeline. For more information about this policy
alert or the policy communication schedule/timeline please go to
http://vaww.va.gov/ohrm/ <http://vaww1.va.gov/ohrm/>
Other related posts:
