But if thorough psych eval isn't possible, then how is testing, which is on top of that, possible, even for just cases of suspected ADHD?
It's not simply about "turning away business," it's also about considering the patient. As
@WisNeuro pointed out, often times patients themselves or their families are footing the bills for these out of pocket, either entirely or awaiting reimbursement from their insurance, if it ever comes. Thus, it's important whether you can answer the question(s) at hand with something that is significantly less expensive for them. It's a not insignificant ethical issue if you're steering someone into testing because it's satisfying your concerns/curiosity or adding to your bottom line without considering what footing the bill for it is going to do to them.
Are we? Many different kinds of providers, from physicians to psychologists to nurses to social workers, have plenty of hard data, but they still end up treating patients disparately depending on demographic factors like race, ethnicity, LGBTQ+ status, etc. And this doesn't even get into other misuses of data that lead to even more consequential disparities in the legal system (e.g., death row inmates with possible ID).
I'd posit that other considerations and practices (e.g., cultural and linguistic competency, being up to date on the literature in disparities, SES and race, etc.) are what guard against these issues, not simply having data from neurocognitive testing. Sure, having data can help, but not absent the other sociocultural competencies that are what's really driving resolution of disparities in these cases.
I mean, it sounds like the parents already have lots of data and what's going on with the kid is a lot more about them than him. They could very easily dismiss the test results with any number of rationalizations. I've seen it quite a bit on the cases I worked on and every supervisor had a wealth of experience of this as well.
Aren't you kind of undercutting your argument in favor of this broad application of testing by pointing at that the real questions are independent of testing and which are ones that need to be addressed by other skills in our training (e.g., therapy)?
Ok, but by that token, why not do testing for virtually every presenting issue? There are demonstrable neurocognitive deficits for variety of maladies, including psychopathology, chronic pain, cancer, etc. Should we do testing for all of those cases?
And people also have a variety of broader concern beyond actual diagnosable problems, so why not do testing for even subclinical complaints, like occupational dissatisfaction and malaise? Wouldn't it be helpful to figure out if they're having more objective cognitive impairment or whether it's more likely burnout, dissatisfaction, concerns about being passed over for their age, etc?