- Joined
- Apr 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,827
- Reaction score
- 5,612
This may be split into its own thread by t4c, but il write it here for the time being. I am curious at to what these hardcore clinical science model types, such as McFall, think about the Boston Process Approach to the practice of clinical neuropsychology?
Although the process approach is built upon science from behavioral neurology and neuroscience, anyone familiar with it knows how much subjective impression and speculation can go into interpreting data when using this approach. In other words, there is alot of clinical judegment of persons's behavioral output, and alot of emphasis is placed clinical experience within this model. These are all things that Mcfall and collegues seem to hate, no?
I am asking because I have noticed that a flexible battery approach with a heavy emphasis on observing process seems to be the predominant model taught in most clinical neuropsych programs (and in practice), including in many research heavy programs such as Florida, etc. This model is know for advocating that npsychs not be "data/test bound" in their practice, is loaded with psychometric controversies (comparing perfomance based on mulitple different normative samples), and emphasizes the integration of process issues obtained via clinical judegment. Although I choose to use this model, (as its better than some of the other alternsatives), it seems almost antithetical to the philosophy that these big research programs (and McFall) preach. Just seems like they would fall alot more on the side of the HRB approach since there is less question about the psychometics invloved, and generally speaking, less emphaiss on clinical judegment and "process" interpretations? Any truth to this?
Although the process approach is built upon science from behavioral neurology and neuroscience, anyone familiar with it knows how much subjective impression and speculation can go into interpreting data when using this approach. In other words, there is alot of clinical judegment of persons's behavioral output, and alot of emphasis is placed clinical experience within this model. These are all things that Mcfall and collegues seem to hate, no?
I am asking because I have noticed that a flexible battery approach with a heavy emphasis on observing process seems to be the predominant model taught in most clinical neuropsych programs (and in practice), including in many research heavy programs such as Florida, etc. This model is know for advocating that npsychs not be "data/test bound" in their practice, is loaded with psychometric controversies (comparing perfomance based on mulitple different normative samples), and emphasizes the integration of process issues obtained via clinical judegment. Although I choose to use this model, (as its better than some of the other alternsatives), it seems almost antithetical to the philosophy that these big research programs (and McFall) preach. Just seems like they would fall alot more on the side of the HRB approach since there is less question about the psychometics invloved, and generally speaking, less emphaiss on clinical judegment and "process" interpretations? Any truth to this?
Last edited:
