Cited by 154Psychological Testing and AssessmentHistorical and Modern Theater StudiesHealth Education and Validation

Computerized neuropsychological assessment devices: joint position paper of the American Academy of clinical neuropsychology and the National Academy of neuropsychology

Open access
Bauer, Russell M., Iverson, Grant L., Cernich, Alison N., Binder, Laurence M., Ruff, Ronald M., Naugle, Richard I.·2012·The Clinical Neuropsychologist

Abstract

This joint position paper of the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology and the National Academy of Neuropsychology sets forth our position on appropriate standards and conventions for computerized neuropsychological assessment devices (CNADs). In this paper, we first define CNADs and distinguish them from examiner-administered neuropsychological instruments. We then set forth position statements on eight key issues relevant to the development and use of CNADs in the healthcare setting. These statements address (a) device marketing and performance claims made by developers of CNADs; (b) issues involved in appropriate end-users for administration and interpretation of CNADs; (c) technical (hardware/software/firmware) issues; (d) privacy, data security, identity verification, and testing environment; (e) psychometric development issues, especially reliability and validity; (f) cultural, experiential, and disability factors affecting examinee interaction with CNADs; (g) use of computerized testing and reporting services; and (h) the need for checks on response validity and effort in the CNAD environment. This paper is intended to provide guidance for test developers and users of CNADs that will promote accurate and appropriate use of computerized tests in a way that maximizes clinical utility and minimizes risks of misuse. The positions taken in this paper are put forth with an eye toward balancing the need to make validated CNADs accessible to otherwise underserved patients with the need to ensure that such tests are developed and utilized competently, appropriately, and with due concern for patient welfare and quality of care.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/13854046.2012.663001

Cites

90 of 90 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Although the AACN and NAN outlined appropriate standards for digital assessment tool development in 2012, the field had not significantly advanced as expected for the next years.

    “Although the AACN and the NAN outlined appropriate standards for the development of digital assessment tools development back in 2012 (15), the field had not significantly advanced as expected for the next years (16).”
  • High concordance may not be guaranteed after simply converting traditional pen-and-paper tests into digital versions.

    “First, high concordance may not be guaranteed after simply converting traditional pen-and-paper tests into the digital versions (15, 16).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 91 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Green P Rohling ML Lees-Haley PR Allen LM 3rd Effort has a greater effect on test scores than severe brain injury in compensation claimants. Brain Injury 2001 15 12 1045 1060 11712951
  2. Heilbronner RL Sweet JJ Morgan JE Larrabee GJ Millis SR Participants C American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology Consensus Conference statement on the neuropsychological assessment of effort, response bias, and malingering. The Clinical Neuropsychologist 2009 23 7 1093 1129 19735055
  3. Nunnally JC Bernstein IH Psychometric theory 1994 McGraw-Hill, Inc. New York 3rd ed.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bauer, R. M., Iverson, G. L., Cernich, A. N., Binder, L. M., Ruff, R. M., & Naugle, R. I.
Affiliations
  • University of Florida (US)
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
  • VA Maryland Health Care System (US)
  • Oregon Health & Science University (US)
  • National Academy of Neuropsychology (US)
  • Cleveland Clinic (US)
Corresponding author
Bauer, Russell M.
Venue
The Clinical Neuropsychologist
Published
2012-02
Volume
26
Issue
2
Pages
177-196
ISSN
  • 0920-1637 (ISSN-L)
  • 1385-4046
  • 1744-4144
OpenAlex
W2123523173
Cited by
154
References
91
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 1
FWCI
12.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Clinical Neuropsychologist (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Center for Research Resources (UL1RR029890)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Historical and Modern Theater Studies
  • Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
Keywords
computerized neuropsychological assessment, psychometric validation, reliability and validity, response validity, effort monitoring, data security and privacy, identity verification, underserved patients, clinical utility, test misuse
MeSH terms
Cognition, Computers, Humans, Neuropsychological Tests, Psychometrics, Reproducibility of Results

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review