Citations

Abstract Objective Clinical neuropsychology is an evidence-based discipline that draws heavily from the field’s peer-reviewed journal articles. However, our scientific understanding of the methods and content that comprise the articles published in clinical neuropsychology journals is quite limited. Method A mixed methods approach was used to describe the aims, methods, and content of clinical neuropsychology’s major lifespan journals. Six-hundred articles were randomly sampled from the 2020–2024 volumes of six lifespan clinical neuropsychology journals. All articles were coded across 42 dimensions, including article type, population, design, methods, ability domains, and miscellaneous topics (e.g., brain health). The aims/scope sections of the journals were subjected to qualitative analyses, to identify relevant themes. Results The most common article content was observed in the areas of empirical/data-driven studies, cross-sectional and observational designs, older and neurological participants, cognitive testing of higher-order abilities, and psychometrics/methods. Results showed significant between-journal differences for some of these content areas at broadly medium effect sizes (e.g., experimental design, brain health topics). Qualitative analyses yielded five shared themes, suggesting that the lifespan clinical neuropsychology journals are interested in submissions on brain-behavior relationships, clinical applications, both clinical and healthy/typical populations, professional/guild matters, and multidisciplinary investigations. Conclusions The scientific content published within clinical neuropsychology’s six primary lifespan journals varies in some dimensions, but largely focuses on cross-sectional, observational studies of psychometrics and higher-order cognition. The implications of these findings for future research in clinical neuropsychology are contextualized for authors, reviewers, and readers.

Abstract Background Proton radiotherapy (PRT) may be associated with less neurocognitive risk than photon RT (XRT) for pediatric brain tumor survivors. We compared neurocognitive and academic outcomes in long‐term survivors treated with XRT versus PRT. Methods Survivors underwent neurocognitive evaluation >1 year after craniospinal (CSI) or focal PRT or XRT. Groups were compared using separate one‐way analyses of covariance for the CSI and focal groups. Results PRT ( n = 58) and XRT ( n = 30) subgroups were similar on gender (66% male), age at RT (median = 6.5 years), age at follow‐up (median = 14.6 years), and government assistance status (32%). PRT and XRT focal groups differed on follow‐up interval, shunt history, and total RT dose (all p < .05), whereas PRT and XRT CSI groups differed on follow‐up interval, baseline neurocognitive performance score, boost volume, and CSI dose (all p < .05). The PRT focal group outperformed the XRT focal group on inhibition/switching ( p = .04). The PRT CSI group outperformed the XRT CSI group on inattention/impulsivity (both p < .05). Several clinical variables (i.e., RT dose, boost field, baseline performance) predicted neurocognitive outcomes (all p < .05). The PRT focal group performed comparably to population means on most neurocognitive measures, while both CSI groups performed below expectation on multiple measures. The XRT CSI group was most impaired. All groups fell below expectation on processing speed, fine motor, and academic fluency (most p < .01). Conclusions Findings suggest generally favorable neurocognitive and academic long‐term outcomes following focal PRT. Impairment was greatest following CSI regardless of modality. Dosimetry and baseline characteristics are important determinants of outcome alone or in combination with modality.