​2026 REHABILITATION PSYCHOLOGY TRAINING GUIDELINES

---

OPEN COMMENT PERIOD (Deadline: Sunday, July 19, 11:59pm PT)

We are seeking feedback from the Rehabilitation Psychology community on the proposed 2026 Guidelines for Postdoctoral Training in Rehabilitation Psychology. The 2026 Guidelines reflect a multi-year process to revise the 2012 Guidelines, including ongoing work of Steering Committee, Advisory Board, and participants of the Guidelines revision workshop, which was held during the 2023 Rehabilitation Psychology Annual Conference.

A copy of the 2026 Guidelines​ is available to download in the link below.

CRPPTP Guidelines Revised 2026 - For General Comment
File Size:	379 kb
File Type:	pdf

Download File

---

SUBMISSION FORM

Please use the form below to provide specific comments and suggestions.

• To ensure we are able to fully understand your comments and track feedback, please reference the specific Guideline, Section, and Line Numbers relevant to your comment.
• If you are commenting on behalf of your group, enter your Group Name.​
• After you click "Submit Comment," your feedback will be shared with the Co-Chairs of the Steering Committee.

SUBMITTED COMMENTS

Guideline | Section | Line Number(s)	Comment	Name/Group
Guideline 4 – Resident Characteristics, Length of Training | Section 4.2 ​	I have concerns about changing the training recommendation to require two years of postdoctoral fellowship. I propose that we continue to advocate for two years of postdoctoral fellowship OR one year of postdoctoral fellowship if the internship is rehabilitation psychology focused. While I understand the rationale of aligning RP with Neuropsychology, one could also argue that Health Psychology, which has a fair amount of overlap with rehabilitation psychology as well, only requires one year of training at this time. Requiring two years of postdoctoral training may create unintended barriers to recruiting and retaining trainees into our specialty by disproportionately limiting access for trainees from minoritized and disadvantaged backgrounds, as well as those with significant financial or family responsibilities. Extending the training period delays entry into independent practice and stable employment. This could ultimately reduce the diversity of the Rehabilitation Psychology workforce, which is inconsistent with our profession's commitment to equity and inclusion. For individuals who complete a specialized rehabilitation psychology internship, one additional year of focused postdoctoral training can provide sufficient depth to achieve specialty competence. Our current model, which allows for one year of rehabilitation-focused internship plus one year of postdoctoral fellowship (or two years of postdoctoral training), offers flexibility while still ensuring rigorous preparation. This flexibility also allows the trainee to choose whether or not they would like to pursue one vs two years of postdoctoral training, knowing it may impact their competitiveness to those with neuropsychology or 2-years of postdoctoral training in RP.	Felicia Mata-Greve
Table 2 | Page 18	(speaking only in my personal capacity; not as the current President of ABRP). I think some of the methodology and numbers in Table 2 might be slightly skewed. 1) It's not clear from footnote 2 "Reported median new-hire salaries of the nine university Rehabilitation Psychology training programs that are members of CRPPTP" if that number is only accounting for individuals truly in their first year out of residency, or if "new hire" salaries might also include people farther along in their career but a "new hire" to the institution, which would artificially inflate that number. 2) Similar to this but related to footnote 4 for the VA sites, it might not make sense to list the GS-12 and GS-13 salaries geographically adjusted for the seven VA Rehabilitation Psychology training programs that are members of CRPPTP as this also may artificially skew related to the precise locality of some of these sites (e.g., Palo Alto, California) and also has a slight supposition that these hypothetical individuals are starting new jobs at these 7 specific VAs. It might be more accurate to use the broader GS salary tables that show the "Rest of US" designation for a better average. In that context, the Year 2 income for a GS-12 (Step 1) in 2026 would be $89,508 rather than $96,000; and the Year 3 income for a GS-13 (Step 1) would be $106,437 rather than $114,000. 3) For the 3 sites listed as "Other" CRPPTP sites, the same context as comment 1 above it's unclear if these numbers are accounting for individuals truly in their first year out of residency, or if "new hire" salaries might also include people farther along in their career but a "new hire" to the institution, which would artificially inflate that number. This is also worth noting because, by contrast with the 9 University CRPPTP sites where said salary seems to increase modestly from $116,500 in Year 1 to $119,000 in Year 2, the jump from $110,000 to $130,000 between Year 2 income and Year 3 income seems pretty substantial (that's almost a 20% raise year-over-year. While the number jump for the VA columns makes sense, e.g., a GS-12 is probably not yet licensed but a GS-13 is, the number discrepancy between these 3 Other sites vs. the 9 University sites for these same income years is pretty remarkable). ​4) While it's understandable that this Table and its time course is meant to empathically appreciate the short-term hardships an individual might experience from having to complete a 1-year post-doc instead of a 2-year post-doc (over a 3-year span), an alternative "longer view" perspective of, say, calculating a 5-year total income or 10-year total income might also provide an important longer perspective as well.	Bradley Daniels