Abstract
The difficulties inherent in differentiating practice effects from meaningful changes in neuropsychological retest data are well known to clinicians. Although gross actuarial guidelines are available on the basis of group studies, the application of such information to individual cases presents many interpretive complexities. This is particularly true when litigation is involved or the retest interval is very short. The case presented here involved examinations performed independently on successive days by 2 diplomate neuropsychologists. The majority of tests produced clinically equivalent results in both examinations
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
