Functional Neurology is not limited to the chiropractic model of neurology and embraces a multi-disciplinary approach to the brain. A new board and exam was developed by the International Association of Functional Neurology and Rehabilitation (IAFNR) called the International Board of Functional Neurology (IBFN). Fellowship with this board will be open to all licensed health care professional who have a license to diagnose (DC, ND, MD, DO, FNP, LAc, etc.)
The IAFNR board of advisors currently represents PhD, DCs, MD, and NDs from many prestigious universities and current membership is at approximately 800 members from around the world.
The IBFN is the examination board for IAFNR-approved programs. Fellowship with IBFN will let the public and other health care providers know the individual has specialized training and qualification in a diverse and multi-disciplinary approach to the brain instead of just chiropractic neurology.
In order to make the IBFN hours recognized by government, political, and educational institutions, critical guidelines have been established. First, only credit hours that are attained by a regionally accredited university can be used for the exam. Credit hours from private seminar institutes not recognized by the U.S. Department of Education will not be able to qualify or be transferred since they are not considered valid by many agencies and officials. Second, the examination must be given by a third party testing agency that is independent. Third, the IBFN must have oversight.
At Functional Neurology Seminars we have our courses approved by IAFNR and also by National University of Health Sciences (NUHS). NUHS is a regionally accredited university recognized by the United States Department of Education. Its approved hours are eligible for the IBFN Fellowship exam requirements.
Simply put, the IBFN credential will represent training in a multi-disciplinary approach to the brain and is available to multiple health care specialties.
Please be cautious of certification boards that may not be viewed as legitimate, such as those (1) making claims to be a “college” or “institute” without any legal standing as an academic institution or degree-awarding authorization; (2) whose examinations are not conducted by an independent agency; (3) with board memberships without meetings or transparency; (4) that charge exorbitant examination fees without transparency; and (5) that are financially connected with for-profit institutes.