PhD/PsyD Practically, how do you evaluate new tests?

[ExecutiveDysfunction]

This is less a question of psychometrics, and more my wondering how folks go about deciding whether to purchase a new test for your library.

As an early career neuropsych practicing solo for a relatively limited time, I have considered expanding my department’s library for a while. I recently browsed a few of the big publishers and realized there are a bunch of tests which sound interesting. However, it seems hard to get any information aside from flashy sales language on the test’s main page. It seems like only the very commonly used tests have any sort of publicly available psychometric data or bibliography of research using the test.

So anyway, I’m curious how others go about evaluating whether a test is worth it? Relatedly, but maybe a whole other thread, what makes you decide to upgrade to a new version of a test.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[WisNeuro]

Number one issue, what is the clinical literature base for this test? Does it have use in the populations that I assess, and does the literature base support that use? Sometimes that means doing your own lit review.

When it's a new test, wait until that comes out. Unlike all the people who started using the new WMS tests before we found out that it's actually pretty easy to get an average score on certain subtests just by randomly guessing.