13 - In Defense of the Halstead–Reitan Battery—Revisited

Abstract

This chapter is a critique of the newest criticisms of the Reitan method by Lezak and her associates (Lezak et al., 2004, pp. 670–677). In their critique, she and her associates confuse Reitan's scientific method, which is perhaps the most rigorous methodology that has been used in neuropsychology, with his method of assessment. Thus, these papers constitute a dialogue between these two approaches to neuropsychological assessment. This chapter demonstrates that the multitude of studies establishes the validity and rate of error of the Halstead–Reitan Battery (HRB) and Halstead–Russell Neuropsychological Evaluation System (HRNES–R). In contrast, there are no published studies examining the validity of Lezak's method, which uses a whole battery, and there is no information concerning experimental control procedures or rate of error for that methodology. As such, Lezak's method, as with all clinical judgments based on flexible methods, cannot be defended as forensically reliable. Consequently, the fallacy of nonrefutation applies to Lezak et al.'s review of the HRB and HRNES–R. In the same book in which Lezak et al. implied that the HRB and HRNES, which would include the HRNES–R, should not be used because they had so many problems, Lezak's method is presented as the ideal procedure. However, nowhere in this vast book are any studies cited that provide any indication of the validity or accuracy of the Lezak method. As such, the entire description of Lezak's methodology should be considered as an unvalidated position paper rather than as a validated methodology. By contrast, the HRB and HRNES–R are validated methodologies.