A critique of Miller and Rohling's statistical interpretive method for neuropsychological test data.
A critical review of the 24-step procedure of Miller and Rohling's (in press) proposed standardization of clinician's use of neuropsychological assessment batteries is presented. Each step is examined for statistical sources of invalidity. It was concluded that parts of the procedure are quite vulnerable to between-battery variability that cannot be easily estimated or controlled, leading to significant errors in analysis and classification. A second fatal flaw is the failure to distinguish in the procedures between standard error measurement and standard error of the estimate in calculations in several steps. The purpose of the process remains viable, however, and is an important contribution toward the improvement of clinical diagnosis.
Willson
Victor L
VL
Texas A & M University, College Station, Texas 77843-4225, USA.
Reynolds
Cecil R
CR
D000465:Algorithms; D003072:Cognition Disorders / Q000175:diagnosis*; D003627:Data Interpretation, Statistical; D006801:Humans; D009483:Neuropsychological Tests / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D011594:Psychometrics / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D012016:Reference Values; D015203:Reproducibility of Results