Letter to the Editor: Assessing Mild Traumatic Brain Injury
Steven Mandel
Search for other papers by Steven Mandel in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Edward A. Maitz
Search for other papers by Edward A. Maitz in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
John E. Gordon
Search for other papers by John E. Gordon in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
David Massari
Search for other papers by David Massari in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Joely Esposito
Search for other papers by Joely Esposito in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
, and
Heidi Mandel
Search for other papers by Heidi Mandel in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Restricted access

Abstract

The authors respond to an article, Assessing Mild Traumatic Brain Injury, that appeared in the November/December 1998 issue of the Guides Newsletter. The authors of the article referred to several shortcomings of neuropsychological assessment; specifically, they questioned the ecological (real-world) validity of such testing for less severely impaired individuals. The authors of the letter agree that neuropsychological testing may underestimate problems with attention, concentration, and memory that patients experience in real-world settings. The letter writers identify research that indicates a correlation between neuropsychological test findings and an individual's ability to perform in a work environment, and they emphasize the need to consider the individual's environment before determining the degree of functional impairment based on neuropsychological test findings. The letter writers also suggest that evaluators use recently developed measures of malingering in test batteries, and they dispute the existence of an “overreliance on technicians for test administration.” The authors of the original article respond that questions of ecological validity are less relevant when neuropsychologists do not generalize from test scores to real-world performance. The authors of the article mention their work in detecting malingering and report only preliminary and variable success. Finally, the authors of the original article note that limited space precluded discussion of all the issues raised by the letter's authors.

  • Brandt J, van Gorp W. American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology Policy on the use of Non-Doctoral-Level Personnel in conducting Clinical Neuropsychological Evaluations. J Clin Exper Neuropsychology. 1999;21:1.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Girard D, Brown J, Burnett-Stolnack, M, Hashimoto N, Hier-Wellmer S, Perlman OZ, Seigerman C. The relationship of neuropsychological status and productive outcomes following traumatic brain injury. Brain Injury. 1996;10:663676.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ip RY, Dornan J, Schentag C. Traumatic brain injury: factors predicting return to work or school. Brain Injury. 1995; 9:517532.

  • Zasler ND, Martelli MF. Assessing Mild Traumatic Brain Injury. The Guides Newsletter. 1998;Nov/Dec:15.

  • Dodrill CB. Myths of neuropsychology. Clin Neuropsychologist. 1977;11:117.

  • Martelli MF, Zasler ND. Response Bias Detection in Neuropsychological Assessment. Grand rounds presentation at the National Academy of Neuropsychology annual meeting, Las Vegas, 1997.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Martelli MF, Zasler ND. Response Bias Detection in Neuropsychological Assessment: An integrative approach. Arch Clin Neuropsychology. 1998;13:153.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Report of the Therapeutics and Technology Assessment Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology: Assessment: Neuropsychological testing of adults. Neurology. 1996;47:592599.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sbordone RJ, Long CJ. Ecological Validity of Neuropsychological Testing. Delray Beach, Fla: St Lucie Press, 1996.

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 84 84 4
Full Text Views 30 30 0
PDF Downloads 0 0 0
Save