|It’s easy! Just fill out the form below.|
**NSS does not sell, trade, release or share emails.
At eCourse conclusion, participants will be able to:
A score of 80% or better must be received on the post test in order
Jacqueline J. Hinckley, PhD, CCC-SLP, BC-NCD, is Board Certified in Neurogenic Communication Disorders (ANCDS), and has 25 years of experience treating patients with aphasia and other neurogenic communication disorders. After a career as a clinician and clinical manager, she is now Associate Professor Emeritus in Communication Sciences & Disorders at the University of South Florida in Tampa, FL. Dr. Hinckley is known internationally for her work on treatment effectiveness and implementation. She has a particular interest in integrating the clinician's expertise and the client's values with scientific evidence supporting best practices. She has published numerous articles and book chapters on assessment and treatment in aphasia, and is the author of the book Narrative-Based Practice in Speech-Language Pathology.
Financial — Jacqueline Hinckley is author of online CE courses sponsored by Northern Speech Services; receives royalty payments.
Nonfinancial — Jacqueline Hinckley submitted a manuscript titled, "A Case for the Implementation of Cognitive Screenings After Stroke" to the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.
This program is offered for 0.15 CEUs (Intermediate level; Professional area).
Offered for 1.5 CEEs. Northern Speech Services’ continuing education activities are eligible for Speech-Language and Audiology Canada (SAC) Continuing Education Equivalents (CEEs) in speech-language pathology. An activity’s eligibility for CEEs does not imply SAC’s endorsement of its content or any associated products or procedures.
Content Disclosure: The content of this online CE course does not focus exclusively on any specific proprietary product or service. Presenter financial and non-financial disclosures may be found by clicking on the Presenter & Disclosures tab.
ASHA CEUs: NSS online courses are registered with ASHA and are offered for ASHA CEUs. The number of CEUs is noted above. Note that 0.1 CEU = 1 contact hour = equals 1 CEE.
Licensing Boards: Most state licensing boards DO accept CEUs earned online (usually classified as home-study credits). Some state boards do, however, place a limit to the number of credits that can be earned via home study/online courses. For the most current information, we suggest that you contact your licensing board or agency to verify acceptance policies and/or any credit limits related to home-study courses prior to registering for this course.
ASHA CE Registry: During the enrollment process, if you select to receive ASHA credit for this course and if you provide your ASHA number, NSS will automatically submit your CEU information to the ASHA CE Registry after successful course completion (80% on post test). This submission happens once per month, during the first week of the month. For example, if you complete your course on November 7th, NSS will submit all November online course CEUs to ASHA during the first week of December. When ASHA inputs the information into their database, they will mark the course as completed on the last day of the month in which it was completed, so November 30th using this example. The certificate of completion available for you to print immediately, however, will reflect the actual completion date, November 7th in this example. Due to ASHA processing procedures please allow 2-3 weeks, from the submission date, for the course to appear on your ASHA transcript.
ASHA CEUS: Attendees must meet at least one of the following conditions in order to be eligible to earn ASHA CEUs:
If an attendee is not an ASHA member or CCC holder but meets any of the above criteria, they may inform the ASHA CE Registry of their eligibility by visiting this site.
Additional accrediting agencies by which Northern Speech is an approved CE provider:
More Offerings by: Jacqueline Hinckley
"I enjoyed the comparison of the four cognitive screening tools as well as the detailed explanations & pros and cons of the different cognitive screening tools." – L.N. (Jan. 2017)
"Very interesting info!! I liked the links and info for all the tests." – J.T. (Dec. 2016)
"I enjoyed the statistics related to cognitive impairment in different populations. The delivery of information was extremely slow and very basic. The information could have been covered in about half the time." – I.M. (Dec. 2016)
"I really appreciated the discussion on the amount of impairment missed with clinical observation only as well as the comparison of formal screenings. I liked the information provided and research or studies to support info." – D.H. (Dec. 2016)
"Going over the large number of patients that have cognitive linguistic deficits that are missed by clinical observation alone was very helpful. Also, the prevalence of cognitive linguistic deficits in differing populations was interesting." – P.D. (Nov. 2016)
"This course has reinforced the fact that these are useful tools and have excellent evidence backing their appropriate use by SLPs. I found that an hour and a half was a good length of time for this information, and the breaking up of the course into 4 sections was an effective format." – R.M. (Oct. 2016)
"The reasons for use and results to expect from each tool reviewed were beneficial. I liked that the course was straight to the point and helpful in explaining variety of screening tools." – C.D. (Oct. 2016)
"The chart comparing the four tests was most useful." – T.T. (Aug. 2016)
"The comparison of the various screening tools was good." – J.P. (July 2016)
"The various screening tools were really helpful. In acute rehab, quick assessments are beneficial. I liked that the course adressed the data for other diagnoses outside of stroke." – J.O. (May 2016)
"The outline was great and the resources are very helpful. The discussion on the vast difference in identifying mild cognitive impairments when comparing informal and formal screenings was most beneficial." – R.A.A. (May 2016)
"I liked the examples of screening tools." – J.O. (Apr. 2016)
"The screening tools were really useful." – L.H. (Mar. 2016)
"I appreciated the overview of what cognitive tests are measuring more specifically. The course was a good review, but I wanted more specifics." – T.O. (Feb. 2016)
"The statistics about cog impairments were great." – M.R. (Feb. 2016)
"I found the statistics of clinical observation vs. formal assessment really beneficial. I appreciated the reinforcement that screening measures (MOCA & SLUMS) I currently use as a screener is supported by research." – J.D. (Feb. 2016)
"I liked the specific information provided comparing the screening tools." – V.K. (Feb. 2016)
"The information regarding information observations versus using a formal screening tool to identify cognitive deficits was really beneficial. However, I expected a discussion identifying patients who will make functional progress." – K.M. (Jan. 2016)
|CE SEMINARS:||PRODUCTS:||ONLINE CEUs||DYSPHAGIA||RESOURCES||CUSTOMER CARE|
| 325 Meecher Rd. • Gaylord, MI 49735
Copyright © 2017 Northern Speech Services