Improving precision in neuropsychological assessment: Bridging the gap between classic paper-and-pencil tests and paradigms from cognitive neuroscience

Roy P. C. Kessels

94 citations0/0 files storedThe Clinical Neuropsychologist

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Psychological Testing and Assessment Cognitive Functions and Memory Historical and Modern Theater Studies

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: In cognitive neuroscience, well-controlled and highly specific paradigms have been developed to measure cognitive processes over the last decades, often using computer-assisted presentation and response registration. This approach is in contrast with the traditional paper-and-pencil tests used in clinical neuropsychology, which typically assess cognitive function in a less specific manner, often even at the level of a cognitive domain. As a result, important aspects of cognitive (dys)function may be missed during a neuropsychological assessment. This paper focuses on the main challenges that need to be overcome in order to successfully integrate experimental paradigms from cognitive neuroscience into the clinical practice of neuropsychologists. METHOD: Six challenges are discussed: (i) experimental paradigms are often lengthy and may be overly specific; (ii) technical limitations even today hamper their application in clinics; (iii) the psychometric properties of methods used in cognitive neuroscience are under-examined or poor; (iv) many paradigms from cognitive neuroscience rely on reaction times rather than accuracy, limiting their use in the many brain-injured patients with processing speed deficits; (v) the predictive and ecological validity of these paradigms often unclear; (vi) technological progress (e.g. Moore's law) seriously affects the continuous availability of experimental computerized assessment methods. CONCLUSION: Both cognitive neuroscientists and clinical neuropsychologists should work together to develop and validate novel paradigms for use in clinical assessments that are platform-independent, reliable and valid, user friendly and easy to use in clinical practice.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

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

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 94 citations exist upstream.

References

1991A compendium of neuropsychological tests: administration, norms, and commentary 1996The processing-speed theory of adult age differences in cognition.2003The Ecological Validity of Neuropsychological Tests: A Review of the Literature on Everyday Cognitive Skills 1990Rivermead Behavioural Memory Test 2010The concurrent validity of the N -back task as a working memory measure 2010Financial Exploitation and Psychological Mistreatment Among Older Adults: Differences Between African Americans and Non-African Americans in a Population-Based Survey 2013Neuropsychological assessment 2013Applications of Technology in Neuropsychological Assessment

Cited by

2021How do we measure attention? Using factor analysis to establish construct validity of neuropsychological tests 2021The effectiveness of a virtual reality attention task to predict depression and anxiety in comparison with current clinical measures 2020Realizing the Clinical Potential of Computational Psychiatry: Report From the Banbury Center Meeting, February 2019 2021The Making and Evaluation of Digital Games Used for the Assessment of Attention: Systematic Review

Explore the map →

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

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.