Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Yeh, they seem to work for assessing memory concerns as individual scales (cause the scales aren't doing any novel tasks that aren't replicated on other memory/IQ measures). My issue is that they don't describe the five domains the RBANS in as a specific manner as they claim and so its likely that people are often claiming they do things that they don't do, like treating List learning and List recall as actually doing something different when evidence doesn't support it does). It looks much more like its only 2 factors assessing Language/verbal memory and visuospaial memory that we should interpret (e.g., Carlozzi et al., 2008; Garcia et al., 2008; McKay et al., 2007; Schmitt et al., 2010; Wilde et al., 2006). It's not exactly new "news" either. I don't recall finding a single supporting article for it's factor structure last year when I was digging around out of idle boredom, regardless of if analysis was based on patients with AD, general memory complaints, etc. Sort of like I have concern that the WAIS hadn't had anything done to verify its interpretive structure with those with ID, given its role in making those determinations.
It's likely a moot argument to many clinicians and (certainly) to insurance providers. If we can show tests have a clinically useful and specific predictive capacity (or our services in general) then thats what they want/need to see. It seems like we can demand more of tests and use what we know to predict things with strong, consistent, structures. If we can't (or choose not to do so steadily) then that's a problem.
Oh empirical based assessment...
