Current limitations of neuropsychological tests and assessment procedures
Abstract
Objective Neuropsychological tests are used for a wide variety of purposes: assessing basic cognitive abilities or disabilities; determining cognitive patterns associated with brain disorders or injury; exploring brain-behavior relationships; and, in some cases, addressing psycho-legal issues. This paper will focus on the limitations of current neuropsychological tests for these purposes. Method Current limits of neuropsychological tests and assessment procedures are reviewed and recommendations for improvements are made. The relationship between the conceptual basis of neuropsychological tests and modern theories of brain functional organization is discussed. In addition, psycho-legal concerns are briefly outlined. Conclusions Existing tests and techniques can be improved. Normative data for some neuropsychological tests are based on small samples or have limited validity or reliability data. A variety of neuropsychological tests are available but particular cognitive domains are underrepresented, particularly those involving high-level cognitive skills and social skills. Progress is being made in the availability of tests in multiple languages, but the restricted range of languages and cultural influences demands more attention. Standard test procedures often deviate from real-world activities. In this modern age, some tests have become too familiar because of the Internet. Understanding of complex neural networks activated by cognitive tasks is only beginning to be appreci…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
While performance on neurocognitive tests can lack ecological validity, they can provide valuable predictions of clinical diagnoses and problems in daily life and overcome participant bias in self-report measurements.
“While performance on neurocognitive tests can lack ecological validity [40], they can provide valuable predictions of clinical diagnoses and problems in daily life [41] and overcome participant bias in self-report measurements.”
From Treating new-onset cognitive complaints after risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy: A randomized controlled crossover trial of lisdexamfetamine (2024) · cites this paper as [40]
Cites
The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment
Nasreddine, Z. S., Phillips, N. A., Bédirian, V., Charbonneau, S., Whitehead, V., Collin, I., Cummings, J. L., & Chertkow, H. (2005) · Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.53221.x · Cited by 25,553 · see citing works
The Alzheimer’s disease neuroimaging initiative (ADNI): MRI methods
Jack, C. R., Bernstein, M. A., Fox, N. C., Thompson, P., Alexander, G., Harvey, D., Borowski, B., Britson, P. J., L. Whitwell, J., Ward, C., et al. (2008) · Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging · doi:10.1002/jmri.21049 · Cited by 4,347 · see citing works
Delis-Kaplan Executive Function System
Delis, D. C., Kaplan, E., & Kramer, J. H. (2012) · PsycTESTS Dataset · doi:10.1037/t15082-000 · Cited by 2,683 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Metcalf, C. A., Page, C. E., Stocker, B. O. S., Johnson, R. L., Duffy, K. A., Sammel, M. D., Loughead, J., & Epperson, C. N. (2024) · Gynecologic Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2024.07.689 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
- Authors
- Howieson, D.
- Affiliations
- Oregon Health & Science University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Howieson, Diane
- Venue
- The Clinical Neuropsychologist
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2019-01-04
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 200-208
- ISSN
- 0920-1637 (ISSN-L)
- 1385-4046
- 1744-4144
- OpenAlex
- W2907749054
- Cited by
- 143
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 17 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 5
- FWCI
- 12.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The Clinical Neuropsychologist (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Historical and Modern Theater Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
- Keywords
- neuropsychological assessment, test limitations, reference values, test validity and reliability, cognitive domain, brain-behavior relationship, brain injury, brain disorders, test familiarity, artificial neural networks, cognitive assessment
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Mental Disorders, Female, Humans, Language, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Neuropsychological Tests, 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