These guidelines are designed to address the developing area of practice known as parenting coordination. In response to the recognition by family courts and substantial evidence in the empirical and clinical literature that divorce does not end patterns of high parental conflict for some families (Garrity & Baris, 1994; Hetherington, 1999; Johnston, 1994; Maccoby & Mnookin, 1992; Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980), parenting coordination interventions began to be developed more than two decades ago. In the past decade, parenting coordination work has expanded across states and jurisdictions (Kirkland, 2008; Kirkland & Sullivan, 2008).

The course of the divorce process is commonly one of heightened anger and conflict, anxiety, diminished communication, and sadness or depression for one or both partners. These negative emotions are often accelerated by the separation and the adversarial nature of the divorce process. Although the majority of parents significantly diminish their anger and conflict in the first two to three years following divorce, between 8% and 15% continue to engage in conflict in the years following divorce, with little reduction in intensity of their feelings (Deutsch & Pruett, 2009; Hetherington, 1999; Hetherington & Kelly, 2002; Johnston, Roseby, & Kuehnle, 2009; Kelly, 2000, 2003; Maccoby & Mnookin, 1992; Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980).

Generally, this relatively small group of parents is not able to settle their child-related disputes in custody mediation, through lawyer-assisted negotiations, or on their own. They turn to litigation in the years following separation and divorce to settle these disputes and utilize disproportionate resources and time of the courts. They are more likely to have significant psychological problems, which may interfere with their parenting, and they more often expose their children to intense conflict and intimate partner violence, also commonly referred to as domestic violence (Johnston et al., 2009). As the negative impacts of continued high conflict on children became well established in the empirical and clinical literature (Clarke-Stewart & Brentano, 2006; Deutsch & Pruett, 2009; Emery, 1999; Grych, 2005; Hetherington, 1999; Johnston et al., 2009), family court judges, divorce intervention researchers, and psychologists practicing in the divorce and family area explored alternative interventions that would diminish the use of the adversarial process to resolve child-related disputes and deal effectively with these parents to reduce the conflict to which children were exposed (e.g., Cookston, Braver, Griffin, deLuse ́, & Miles, 2007; Cowan, Cowan, Pruett, & Pruett, 2007; Emery, Kitzman, & Waldron, 1999; Henry, Fieldstone, & Bohac, 2009; Johnston, 2000; Kelly, 2002, 2004; Pruett & Barker, 2009; Pruett & Johnston, 2004; Sandler, Miles, Cookston, & Braver, 2008; Wolchik, Sandler, Winslow, & Smith-Daniels, 2005).

Parenting coordination began gaining recognition in the 1990s as a result of presentations and trainings first offered at conferences, such as those of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC), and by experienced parenting coordinators (PCs). Initially, there were variations in role, source and degree of authority, and practice in different jurisdictions, and different titles were used to describe this innovative intervention model, including special masters, coparenting facilitators, or mediator/arbitrators. In 2003, AFCC appointed an interdisciplinary task force to develop guidelines for parenting coordination to guide mental health professionals, mediators, and lawyers with respect to training, practice, and ethics (AFCC Task Force on Parenting Coordination, 2006).

The complex and hybrid parenting coordination model continues to be refined in professional deliberations about the role, emerging statutes and case law, and court and local rules and regulations governing parenting coordination practice at the local jurisdictional level. These American Psychological Association (APA) “Guidelines for the Practice of Parenting Coordination” are intended to provide a specific framework and direction for psychologists for professional conduct and decision making in the practice of parenting coordination. Although designed for psychologists, many aspects of these guidelines may be relevant to other professionals as well.

The literature reviewed in drafting these guidelines was selected by the members of the APA Task Force for the Development of Parenting Coordination Guidelines to include the most seminal, relevant, and recent publications

Dementia in its many forms is a leading cause of functional limitation among older adults worldwide and will continue to ascend in global health importance as populations continue to age and effective cures remain elusive (Mathers & Loncar, 2006). Plassman et al. (2007) estimated that over 2.5 million Americans suffered from Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and that nearly 4 million had that and other forms of dementia in 2002. Given expected increases in the size of the older adult population, those numbers are expected to increase strikingly by 2050 (Alzheimer’s Association, 2009).

The following guidelines were developed for psychologists who perform evaluations of dementia and agerelated cognitive change. These guidelines conform to the American Psychological Association’s (APA’s) “Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct” (APA, 2002). The term guidelines refers to statements that suggest or recommend specific professional behavior, endeavors, or conduct for psychologists. Guidelines differ from standards in that standards are mandatory and may be accompanied by an enforcement mechanism. Guidelines are aspirational in intent. They are intended to facilitate the continued systematic development of the profession and to help facilitate a high level of practice by psychologists. Guidelines are not intended to be mandatory or exhaustive and may not be applicable to every professional situation. They are not definitive, and they are not intended to take precedence over the judgment of psychologists.

Guidelines on this topic were originally developed by an APA Presidential Task Force, approved as policy of APA by the APA Council of Representatives, and published in 1998 (APA Presidential Task Force on the Assessment of Age-Consistent Memory Decline and Dementia, 1998). Consistent with APA standards, these guidelines were subject to sunset or review in 2008. The Board of Professional Affairs and the Committee on Professional Practice and Standards conducted an initial review and determined that the guidelines should not be sunset and that revision was appropriate. The APA Committee on Aging empanelled a group of experts who reviewed and deemed appropriate the maintenance of these guidelines with appropriate revision and updating. The introduction to the original guidelines remains pertinent today:

Psychologists can play a leading role in the evaluation of the memory complaints and changes in cognitive functioning that frequently occur in the later decades of life. Although some healthy aging persons maintain very high cognitive performance levels throughout life, most older people will experience a decline in certain cognitive abilities. This decline is usually not pathological, but rather parallels a number of common decreases in physiological function that occur in conjunction with normal developmental processes. For some older persons, however, declines go beyond what may be considered normal and are relentlessly progressive, robbing them of their memories, intellect, and eventually their abilities to recognize spouses or children, maintain basic personal hy-giene, or even utter comprehensible speech. These more malignant forms of cognitive deterioration are caused by a variety of neuropathological conditions and dementing diseases.

Psychologists are uniquely equipped by training, expertise, and the use of specialized neuropsychological tests to assess changes in memory and cognitive functioning and to distinguish normal changes from early signs of pathology. . . . Neuropsychological evaluation and cognitive testing remain the most effective differential diagnostic methods in discriminating pathophysiological dementia from age-related cognitive decline, cognitive difficulties that are depression related, and other related disorders. Even after reliable biological markers have been discovered, neuropsychological evaluation and cognitive testing will still be necessary to determine the onset of dementia, the functional expression of the disease process, the rate of decline, the functional capacities of the individual, and hopefully, response to therapies. . . .

These guidelines, however, are intended to specify for all clinicians the appropriate cautions and concerns that are specific to the assessment of dementia and age-related cognitive decline. These guidelines are aspirational in intent and are neither mandatory nor exhaustive. . . . The goal of the guidelines is to promote proficiency and expertise in assessing dementia and age-related cognitive decline in clinical practice. They may not be applicable in certain circumstances, such as some experimental or clinical research projects or some forensic evaluations. (APA Presidential Task Force on the Assessment of Age-Consistent Memory Decline and Dementia, 1998, p. 1298)

The Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Clients were adopted by the APA Council of Representatives, February 18-20, 2011 and replace the original Guidelines for Psychotherapy with Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Clients adopted by the Council, February 26, 2000, and which expired at the end of 2010. Each of the 21 new guidelines provide an update of the psychological literature supporting them, include a section on "Rationale" and "Application," and expand upon the original guidelines to provide assistance to psychologists in areas such as religion and spirituality, the differentiation of gender identity and sexual orientation, socioeconomic and workplace issues, and the use and dissemination of research on LGB issues. The guidelines are intended to inform the practice of psychologists and to provide information for the education and training of psychologists regarding LGB issues.

Psychologists practice in an increasingly diverse range of health care delivery systems (HCDS). This diversification is due to widening recognition of psychology as a health profession (Belar, 2002; Brown, Freeman, Brown, Belar, Hersch, & Hornyak, 2002), of the unique skills of psychologists, and of the value of psychological services for health and wellbeing. It is also due to rapidly evolving systems in which health care is being delivered (American Psychological Association (APA), 2009). At the same time, psychologists’ roles within these settings are expanding, and multidisciplinary collaboration within health care is becoming commonplace. The following guidelines are intended to assist psychologists, other health care providers, administrators in health care delivery systems, and the public to conceptualize the roles and responsibilities of psychologists in these diverse contexts.

These guidelines are informed by the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (“APA Ethics Codes”)1 (APA, 2002a, 2010) and the Record Keeping Guidelines (APA, 2007). These guidelines address psychologists’ roles and responsibilities related to service provision and clinical care, including teaching and administrative duties. There are additional obligations related to conducting research in health care delivery systems that will not be included here; guidance in this area can be found in the APA Ethics Code (APA Ethics Code 8.0 through 8.15). In accordance with ethical standards, the practice of psychology in health care delivery systems is based on established scientific and professional knowledge (APA Ethics Code 2.04).

These guidelines may also be used to inform rule making and decision making in health care delivery systems about the roles of psychologists that are commensurate with their training and licensure. Federal and state laws, (including those governing service delivery, payment arrangements and business structures), standards of accrediting bodies (e.g., Joint Commission, 2009), and institutional bylaws are also relevant to these rules and decisions. These guidelines build upon earlier guidelines regarding hospital privileges, credentialing and bylaws specific to hospital settings (APA Board of Professional Affairs, Task Force on Hospital Privileges, 1991) and draw on the issues highlighted in an additional APA document regarding practicing psychology in hospitals from that same time period (APA Practice Organization (APAPO), 1998).

There are a wide variety of systems for health care delivery, including, but not limited to, primary care and integrative care facilities, tertiary care hospitals, rehabilitation centers, nursing homes, outpatient surgery centers, and substance abuse treatment centers. Similarly, there are a wide variety of patient populations with whom psychologists work within these systems (e.g., pediatric, geriatric, acutely versus chronically ill, those being treated for mental health or medical conditions, those from diverse cultures and socioeconomic groups, etc.) There
are also different entry points for psychologists to deliver professional services for both direct and indirect patient care within health care delivery systems, ranging from being employed by the organization to being independent practitioners with either contractual arrangements or following their patients as they enter a health care delivery system. In all cases, psychologists have special expertise in communication, behavioral issues, patient decision making, human interaction and systems that is relevant to the full spectrum of health and mental health issues and settings; these guidelines apply to that full spectrum. It is recognized that there is rapid growth in the use of technology (in areas such as telehealth) with unique considerations for practice that are beyond the scope of these guidelines. Ethical and legal standards for the practice of psychology pertain to the full range of health care delivery systems, and to every professional psychological role within such systems, unless otherwise specified.

The term “guidelines” refers to statements that suggest or recommend specific professional behavior, endeavors, or conduct for psychologists. Guidelines differ from “standards” in that standards are mandatory and may be accompanied by an enforcement mechanism. Thus, guidelines are aspirational in intent. They are intended to facilitate the continued systematic development of the profession and to help ensure a high level of professional practice by psychologists. Guidelines are not intended to be mandatory or exhaustive and may not be applicable to every professional and clinical situation. They are not definitive and they are not intended to take precedence over the judgment of psychologists.

The following glossary of terms found in these guidelines may be helpful. For the purpose of these guidelines, “psychologists” are considered “health service providers” (APA, 1996), having been duly trained and experienced in the delivery of preventive, assessment, diagnostic and therapeutic intervention services related to the psychological and physical health of consumers, based on: 1) having completed scientific and professional training resulting in a doctoral degree in psychology; 2) having completd an internship and supervised experience in health care settings; and 3) having been licensed as psychologists at the independent practice level.

We use the term “patient” to refer to the child, adolescent, adult, older adult, couple, family, group, organization, community, or other population receiving psychological services in health care delivery systems. However, we recognize that in many situations there are important and valid reasons for using such terms as “client” or “person” in place of “patient” to describe the recipient of services. Finally, we use the term “multidisciplinary” throughout the guidelines but recognize that in some instances psychologists may actually be working in a “transdisciplinary” context where holistic care is being provided that crosses disciplinary boundaries.

To read the full article, download the PDF below: