Summary: Neuropsychological Assessments: Articles

Read the summary and the most important questions on Neuropsychological Assessments: Articles

• 1 The psychological report: A Review of Current Controversies

• 1.1 Length

• What is the length of a report?

  • the average report is 5-7 pages. 
  • The length depends on the setting, referral source, and question i.e. 
  • Brief (1-2 pages), Normal (2-10 pages), Extensive (10-50 pages)

• 1.2 Readability

• Why is it important that reports must be readable?

  • They are consumed by other health professionals, clients, family, schools, etc. 
  • Avoid jargon to make it easier for other parties to comprehend. 

• What are the reasons for incomprehensibility of reports?

  • focus on test scores instead of patients everyday abilities and experiences. 
  • clinicians expect that everyone understands the jargon. 
  • reports with jargon are more time-efficient 

  
  
  [avoid jargon, talk to patients and family members, short sentences, as concrete advise as possible]

• 1.3 Acknowledging Presence of Poorly Validated Measures

• should non/questionable-validated measures be used in test batteries?

  • it should be noted if the tests were questionable, and why the assessor used them 
  • results of such test should be mentioned with caution 
  • non-integrated hypothesis reports read like test results, and they should take extra care with non-validated measures. 
  • integrated reports use multiple information sources, and non-validated measures are one of many informational sources for answering the hypothesis. 

• 1.4 Use of Computer-Based Narratives

  This is a preview. There are 2 more flashcards available for chapter 1.4
  Show more cards here

• What is the greatest controversy when accepting the CBTI?

  • The copy-paste of large parts of the CBTI results 
  • Inaccurate results will be presented as accurate in the report 
  • It is unethical 

• 1.5 Inclusion of Test Scores

• Should test scores be included in reports?

  In favour
  

  • helpful for other psychologists 
  • scores indicate facts, and are understood by everyone. 
  • give both supporting as non-supporting evidence, and the clinician can be held responsible more easily 
  • is relevant information
  • make interpreting follow-up tests easier

  
  
  Opposed 
  

  • scores should not be given to non-trained persons
  • data should be guarded 
  • some data like IQ is understandable for the population, and can be easily misinterpreted by non-trained individuals at school, family or work setting. 
  • even trained individuals can misinterpret the results as they do not take into account things like behaviour, culture, motivation, and malingering. 

• Ethical consideration for test score includement

  • clients are allowed to share the report, and information of the patient can be shared to thirds, which if including sensitive data, may harm the patient

  
  
  [The ethical dilemma is between the clients rights, and the clinicians ethical end legal responsibilities. ]

• The decision to append test scores depend on?

  1. the referral source
     - does the source expect the results?
     - Is the report for a qualified person? 
  2. Qualitative vs quantitative 
     - qualitative are more likely to not append scores compared to quantitative 
  3. Are the scores easily misinterpreted? 
  4. Test scores must be released if the client asks for them 

• 1.6 Integration of Reports

• Integrated vs non-integrated reports

  Non-integrated 
  

  • rely heavily on test scores 
  • present conclusions test by test
  • ignore contradictions between tests 
  • minimal time spend discussing the meaning for the patient 

  
  Integrated
  

  • involve data from multiple assessment methods 
  • multiple measures are used for a single conclusion
  • rely on clinical judgement
  • understanding results for the patient 

• 1.7 Inclusion of Client Strengths

  This is a preview. There are 1 more flashcards available for chapter 1.7
  Show more cards here

• Why to include patients strengths in reports?

  • wil give patients more hope and a positive view
  • strengths may be used to overcome deficits 
  • reduces the risk of overpathologizing the patient 
  • client/patient reads the report, and a only negative report may demoralize and harm the patient. is that ethical?