New neuropsych

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don't you want to provide it? Am important part of subsequent neuropsychs for us is the comparison -- where has there been growth, where hasn't there, what has changed.

But I get what the OP is saying - it's almost like you are swayed to think one way instead of a clean slate. I would provide it after the eval but before the written update

That only makes sense if you doubt the current diagnosis. Otherwise, you are wasting time and aren't getting as valuable results.

If you think “neuropsychs” are so subjective and neuropsychologists so unreliable that they will be “swayed” by former test results … I kind of wonder why you are doing this testing in the first place.

DP. I think OP’s concerns are valid. In a perfect world all neuropsychologists are reliable and cannot be easily swayed. The reality is that this is a mixed bag.

My opinion is that if the neuropsychologist is bad, it will not matter when or whether you provide the previous report. I would provide the report along with your own description of what you have observed since that evaluation. Then during the screening process you can gauge their reaction and choose the evaluator that seems most open minded and not too stuck on the previous report.

Good luck!

Do you get that the core of a neuropsychology exam is a battery of normed and standardized tests?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don't you want to provide it? Am important part of subsequent neuropsychs for us is the comparison -- where has there been growth, where hasn't there, what has changed.

But I get what the OP is saying - it's almost like you are swayed to think one way instead of a clean slate. I would provide it after the eval but before the written update

That only makes sense if you doubt the current diagnosis. Otherwise, you are wasting time and aren't getting as valuable results.

If you think “neuropsychs” are so subjective and neuropsychologists so unreliable that they will be “swayed” by former test results … I kind of wonder why you are doing this testing in the first place.

DP. I think OP’s concerns are valid. In a perfect world all neuropsychologists are reliable and cannot be easily swayed. The reality is that this is a mixed bag.

My opinion is that if the neuropsychologist is bad, it will not matter when or whether you provide the previous report. I would provide the report along with your own description of what you have observed since that evaluation. Then during the screening process you can gauge their reaction and choose the evaluator that seems most open minded and not too stuck on the previous report.

Good luck!

Neuropsychs are much too expensive to go to someone you don't trust. Long before you are providing past evaluations, you are checking references, doing an intake, etc.

If I think the old diagnosis is correct, I don't need someone to be open-minded. I need someone who will be thorough and thoughtful, both for looking for comorbidities and making recommendations.

ITA. These people sound like they are doctor shopping.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don't you want to provide it? Am important part of subsequent neuropsychs for us is the comparison -- where has there been growth, where hasn't there, what has changed.

But I get what the OP is saying - it's almost like you are swayed to think one way instead of a clean slate. I would provide it after the eval but before the written update

That only makes sense if you doubt the current diagnosis. Otherwise, you are wasting time and aren't getting as valuable results.

If you think “neuropsychs” are so subjective and neuropsychologists so unreliable that they will be “swayed” by former test results … I kind of wonder why you are doing this testing in the first place.

DP. I think OP’s concerns are valid. In a perfect world all neuropsychologists are reliable and cannot be easily swayed. The reality is that this is a mixed bag.

My opinion is that if the neuropsychologist is bad, it will not matter when or whether you provide the previous report. I would provide the report along with your own description of what you have observed since that evaluation. Then during the screening process you can gauge their reaction and choose the evaluator that seems most open minded and not too stuck on the previous report.

Good luck!

Neuropsychs are much too expensive to go to someone you don't trust. Long before you are providing past evaluations, you are checking references, doing an intake, etc.

If I think the old diagnosis is correct, I don't need someone to be open-minded. I need someone who will be thorough and thoughtful, both for looking for comorbidities and making recommendations.

ITA. These people sound like they are doctor shopping.

Yes, absolutely doctor shopping. Looking for a neuropsychologist who has both good reputation and who is not going to be easily swayed by a previous report.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don't you want to provide it? Am important part of subsequent neuropsychs for us is the comparison -- where has there been growth, where hasn't there, what has changed.

But I get what the OP is saying - it's almost like you are swayed to think one way instead of a clean slate. I would provide it after the eval but before the written update

That only makes sense if you doubt the current diagnosis. Otherwise, you are wasting time and aren't getting as valuable results.

If you think “neuropsychs” are so subjective and neuropsychologists so unreliable that they will be “swayed” by former test results … I kind of wonder why you are doing this testing in the first place.

DP. I think OP’s concerns are valid. In a perfect world all neuropsychologists are reliable and cannot be easily swayed. The reality is that this is a mixed bag.

My opinion is that if the neuropsychologist is bad, it will not matter when or whether you provide the previous report. I would provide the report along with your own description of what you have observed since that evaluation. Then during the screening process you can gauge their reaction and choose the evaluator that seems most open minded and not too stuck on the previous report.

Good luck!

Neuropsychs are much too expensive to go to someone you don't trust. Long before you are providing past evaluations, you are checking references, doing an intake, etc.

If I think the old diagnosis is correct, I don't need someone to be open-minded. I need someone who will be thorough and thoughtful, both for looking for comorbidities and making recommendations.

ITA. These people sound like they are doctor shopping.

Yes, absolutely doctor shopping. Looking for a neuropsychologist who has both good reputation and who is not going to be easily swayed by a previous report.

Can you explain what you think the psychologist will be swayed to do?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don't you want to provide it? Am important part of subsequent neuropsychs for us is the comparison -- where has there been growth, where hasn't there, what has changed.

But I get what the OP is saying - it's almost like you are swayed to think one way instead of a clean slate. I would provide it after the eval but before the written update

That only makes sense if you doubt the current diagnosis. Otherwise, you are wasting time and aren't getting as valuable results.

If you think “neuropsychs” are so subjective and neuropsychologists so unreliable that they will be “swayed” by former test results … I kind of wonder why you are doing this testing in the first place.

DP. I think OP’s concerns are valid. In a perfect world all neuropsychologists are reliable and cannot be easily swayed. The reality is that this is a mixed bag.

My opinion is that if the neuropsychologist is bad, it will not matter when or whether you provide the previous report. I would provide the report along with your own description of what you have observed since that evaluation. Then during the screening process you can gauge their reaction and choose the evaluator that seems most open minded and not too stuck on the previous report.

Good luck!

Neuropsychs are much too expensive to go to someone you don't trust. Long before you are providing past evaluations, you are checking references, doing an intake, etc.

If I think the old diagnosis is correct, I don't need someone to be open-minded. I need someone who will be thorough and thoughtful, both for looking for comorbidities and making recommendations.

ITA. These people sound like they are doctor shopping.

Yes, absolutely doctor shopping. Looking for a neuropsychologist who has both good reputation and who is not going to be easily swayed by a previous report.

What do you mean by “easily swayed”? This isn’t supposed to be totally subjective. if your disagree with a diagnosis you need to address that directly instead of trying to play a weird game. And again the core of the neuropsychology exam is objective normed tests - which can definitely depend on the skill of the tester especially if the kid has any challenges that interfere with test taking - but are not based on an option in that can be “swayed.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don't you want to provide it? Am important part of subsequent neuropsychs for us is the comparison -- where has there been growth, where hasn't there, what has changed.

But I get what the OP is saying - it's almost like you are swayed to think one way instead of a clean slate. I would provide it after the eval but before the written update

That only makes sense if you doubt the current diagnosis. Otherwise, you are wasting time and aren't getting as valuable results.

If you think “neuropsychs” are so subjective and neuropsychologists so unreliable that they will be “swayed” by former test results … I kind of wonder why you are doing this testing in the first place.

DP. I think OP’s concerns are valid. In a perfect world all neuropsychologists are reliable and cannot be easily swayed. The reality is that this is a mixed bag.

My opinion is that if the neuropsychologist is bad, it will not matter when or whether you provide the previous report. I would provide the report along with your own description of what you have observed since that evaluation. Then during the screening process you can gauge their reaction and choose the evaluator that seems most open minded and not too stuck on the previous report.

Good luck!

Neuropsychs are much too expensive to go to someone you don't trust. Long before you are providing past evaluations, you are checking references, doing an intake, etc.

If I think the old diagnosis is correct, I don't need someone to be open-minded. I need someone who will be thorough and thoughtful, both for looking for comorbidities and making recommendations.

ITA. These people sound like they are doctor shopping.

Yes, absolutely doctor shopping. Looking for a neuropsychologist who has both good reputation and who is not going to be easily swayed by a previous report.

Can you explain what you think the psychologist will be swayed to do?

PP pretty clearly has a diagnosis they want or don’t want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don't you want to provide it? Am important part of subsequent neuropsychs for us is the comparison -- where has there been growth, where hasn't there, what has changed.

But I get what the OP is saying - it's almost like you are swayed to think one way instead of a clean slate. I would provide it after the eval but before the written update

That only makes sense if you doubt the current diagnosis. Otherwise, you are wasting time and aren't getting as valuable results.

If you think “neuropsychs” are so subjective and neuropsychologists so unreliable that they will be “swayed” by former test results … I kind of wonder why you are doing this testing in the first place.

DP. I think OP’s concerns are valid. In a perfect world all neuropsychologists are reliable and cannot be easily swayed. The reality is that this is a mixed bag.

My opinion is that if the neuropsychologist is bad, it will not matter when or whether you provide the previous report. I would provide the report along with your own description of what you have observed since that evaluation. Then during the screening process you can gauge their reaction and choose the evaluator that seems most open minded and not too stuck on the previous report.

Good luck!

Neuropsychs are much too expensive to go to someone you don't trust. Long before you are providing past evaluations, you are checking references, doing an intake, etc.

If I think the old diagnosis is correct, I don't need someone to be open-minded. I need someone who will be thorough and thoughtful, both for looking for comorbidities and making recommendations.

ITA. These people sound like they are doctor shopping.

Yes, absolutely doctor shopping. Looking for a neuropsychologist who has both good reputation and who is not going to be easily swayed by a previous report.

What do you mean by “easily swayed”? This isn’t supposed to be totally subjective. if your disagree with a diagnosis you need to address that directly instead of trying to play a weird game. And again the core of the neuropsychology exam is objective normed tests - which can definitely depend on the skill of the tester especially if the kid has any challenges that interfere with test taking - but are not based on an option in that can be “swayed.”

And much of the art and skill of a neuropsych is deciding which assessments to administer in limited time. So the more they can build on what is already known, the more useful it will be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don't you want to provide it? Am important part of subsequent neuropsychs for us is the comparison -- where has there been growth, where hasn't there, what has changed.

But I get what the OP is saying - it's almost like you are swayed to think one way instead of a clean slate. I would provide it after the eval but before the written update

That only makes sense if you doubt the current diagnosis. Otherwise, you are wasting time and aren't getting as valuable results.

If you think “neuropsychs” are so subjective and neuropsychologists so unreliable that they will be “swayed” by former test results … I kind of wonder why you are doing this testing in the first place.

DP. I think OP’s concerns are valid. In a perfect world all neuropsychologists are reliable and cannot be easily swayed. The reality is that this is a mixed bag.

My opinion is that if the neuropsychologist is bad, it will not matter when or whether you provide the previous report. I would provide the report along with your own description of what you have observed since that evaluation. Then during the screening process you can gauge their reaction and choose the evaluator that seems most open minded and not too stuck on the previous report.

Good luck!

Neuropsychs are much too expensive to go to someone you don't trust. Long before you are providing past evaluations, you are checking references, doing an intake, etc.

If I think the old diagnosis is correct, I don't need someone to be open-minded. I need someone who will be thorough and thoughtful, both for looking for comorbidities and making recommendations.

ITA. These people sound like they are doctor shopping.

Yes, absolutely doctor shopping. Looking for a neuropsychologist who has both good reputation and who is not going to be easily swayed by a previous report.

What do you mean by “easily swayed”? This isn’t supposed to be totally subjective. if your disagree with a diagnosis you need to address that directly instead of trying to play a weird game. And again the core of the neuropsychology exam is objective normed tests - which can definitely depend on the skill of the tester especially if the kid has any challenges that interfere with test taking - but are not based on an option in that can be “swayed.”

And much of the art and skill of a neuropsych is deciding which assessments to administer in limited time. So the more they can build on what is already known, the more useful it will be.

+1.