We kick off the new year (and decade) by providing commentary on our episode with Robert Bilder, Ph.D., ABPP-CN, and talk more about the future of neuropsychology (click here for a link to that episode and to see Dr. Bilder’s bio). Specifically, we discuss Dr. Bilder’s concept of “Neuropsychology 3.0,” and we explain what the 1.0 and 2.0 phases were. We also discuss the prominent concerns and benefits related to computerized testing, which is crucial for Neuropsychology 3.0, and further explain other topics that were discussed in the episode.
A pdf of the transcript for this episode is available here.
Topics Covered (with time stamps)
- What are Neuropsychology 1.0 and 2.0? (2:19)
- Forces encouraging change in the field of neuropsychology (5:30)
- Computerized testing as a driving force of Neuropsychology 3.0 (6:53)
- Privacy concerns and computerized testing/cloud normative data (9:00)
- Financial concerns and computerized testing (10:30)
- Qualitative data concerns and computerized testing (12:05)
- Geriatric testing concerns and computerized testing (14:20)
- Other benefits of computerized testing (17:36)
- Measuring reaction time with computerized testing (19:50)
- How to use incrementalism to adopt computerized testing in a clinical setting (20:30)
- Physiological vs. ecological validity (21:30)
- The National Neuropsychology Network (NNN; 25:24)
- Computerized adaptive testing (CAT) and its benefits (30:44)
- Nominal response model (32:38)
- Person fit statistics and embedded effort indices (33:50)
- Anxiety, impulsivity, and state-dependent variables measured by embedded computerized tests (36:20)
- Healthcare reformation and computerized testing (39:00)
- Differential diagnosis and computerized testing (39:28)
- Adapting neuropsychology to harness technological advancements (41:05)
- Future of neuropsychology: neuropsychological intervention (43:32)
- Standardized neuropsychological history forms and NNN (44:32)
National Neuropsychology Network (NNN): https://www.sistat.ucla.edu/NNNWeb/index.html
Eye-tracking and pupil dilation. What to do with that? Seriously. You are talking about a future that might possibly come. For now computerized testing is a way for the assessment industry to prevent piracy, raise prices and collect patient data. This in a situation where the Pearson conglomerate has close to monopoly in many areas. There are some promising or interesting signs, but please – we are not there yet.
Thank you for the comment. We are very interested in feedback and discussion.
We have a few points to clarify:
1) The purpose of the episode was to discuss future possibilities, not the current state of computerized testing
2) We believe we are closer to this future than some might think. For example, we feel strongly that the NNN and similar initiatives have the potential to drastically improve the field within the next 5-10 years. Regarding eye tracking and pupil dilation detection, we agree that these will likely not be incorporated into neuropysch assessment for quite some time, but they are already developed technologies used in research and we do not want to exclude any technologies that could improve our assessment methods.
3) It is through discussions like these that we make progress and bring this vision to life.
~John and Ryan
I’m glad you brought up eye tracking and pupillometry, which might be available sooner than some other technologies, due to the potential for these measures to be implemented on smart phones. We have a special workshop on “Smart Things” upcoming at the 2020 Annual Conference of the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology (AACN), and that will focus on novel technologies including smart phones, smart cars, wearables, and “the internet of things” (smart refrigerator, smart home…) that may provide the ultimate in “ecological validity”, although we also need to validate these measures with respect to the “traditional” measures. The National Neuropsychology Network (NNN) was established in large part to enable the field to better specify the traditional landscape of what is being measured today, with hope that it can provide a staging ground for introduction of novel and superior methods, that will possess either stronger validity with respect to underlying physiology, with respect to real world function, or both.
With respect to Pearson, they and Psychological Assessment Resources do possess rights to the majority of currently-used instruments. The NNN and other collaborative efforts might one day help create alternatives, through freely shared resources. For an example that involves clinical rating scales, the NIH “PROMIS” initiative (Patient Reported Measurement Information Systems) might offer at least a partial roadmap, given that they developed item banks for key constructs, then did a lot of solid psychometric work, and now offer fixed short-forms of many self-report rating scales for free.
Comments are closed.