The incremental value of neuropsychological assessment: A critical review
Abstract
Objective : The purpose of this critical review was to evaluate the current state of research regarding the incremental value of neuropsychological assessment in clinical practice, above and beyond what can be accounted for on the basis of demographic, medical, and other diagnostic variables. The focus was on neurological and other medical conditions across the lifespan where there is known risk for presence or future development of cognitive impairment. Method : Eligible investigations were group studies that had been published after 01/01/2000 in English in peer-reviewed journals and that had used standardized neuropsychological measures and reported on objective outcome criterion variables. They were identified through PubMed and PsychInfo electronic databases on the basis of predefined specific selection criteria. Reference lists of identified articles were also reviewed to identify potential additional sources. The Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group's (GRADE) criteria were used to evaluate quality of studies. Results : Fifty-six studies met the final selection criteria, including 2 randomized-controlled trials, 9 prospective cohort studies, 12 retrospective cohort studies, 21 inception cohort studies, 2 case control studies, and 10 case series studies. The preponderance of the evidence was strongly supportive with regard to the incremental value of neuropsychological assessment in the care of persons with mild cognitive impairm…
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 [41]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 99 · Cited by 87
- Authors
- Donders, J.
- Affiliations
- Mary Free Bed Rehabilitation Hospital (US)
- Corresponding author
- Donders, Jacobus
- ORCID
- Donders, Jacobus
- Venue
- The Clinical Neuropsychologist
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2019-04-23
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 56-87
- ISSN
- 0920-1637 (ISSN-L)
- 1385-4046
- 1744-4144
- OpenAlex
- W2941606718
- Cited by
- 87
- References
- 99
- Citations by year
- 2026: 13 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 1.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The Clinical Neuropsychologist (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Historical and Modern Theater Studies
- Keywords
- neuropsychological assessment, incremental value, cognitive impairment, mild cognitive impairment, dementia, traumatic brain injury, stroke, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, cost reduction, diagnostic classification, outcome prediction, neurological disorders
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Neuropsychological Tests, Research Design
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