More thoughts on the practice of routinely appending raw data to reports: Response to freides and matarazzo

Abstract

Our initial paper arguing against the practice of routinely appending raw data to reports of neuropsycholog-ical examinations (Naugle & McSweeny, 1995) elicited two responses in favor of doing so (Freides, 1995; Matarazzo, 1995). This paper reviews the major points raised by those two writers and provides our responses to their objections. We continue to recommend that the type and amount of data to be included with a report be tailored to the needs and competency of the referral source who receives that report.

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.