Hypothesis testing in neuropsychology in context: Another response to the neuropsychology debate

Abstract

This comment addresses specific issues concerning neuropsychological practice in Australia that have been raised by Bowden (1995) in an earlier edition of the Australian Psychologist, Specifically, Bowden argues that hypothesis testing as currently practiced by Australian neuropsychologists is professionally self-defeating and scientifically flawed. In this comment, these matters are addressed. It is argued that, in contradistinction to Bowden's first assertion, current assessment procedures represent a flexible, professionally responsible approach that meets the joint demands of maximising patient care and facilitating interdisciplinary communication. With regard to the scientific merit of this approach, it is argued that the absence of rigour in neuropsychological practice suggested by Bowden is no more true of neuropsychology than of any other scientific endeavour. Clinical neuropsychology is guided by many pragmatic requirements common to most psychological research as well as additional constraints peculiar to the area. Good neuropsychological practice is sensitive to these constraints and yet practical in dealing with them.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 3 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.