Neuropsych for 8yo?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The real issues with incorrect diagnoses from a neuropsych could be:
1. Causing the child to receive ineffective treatment
2. It may be difficult to repeat the testing too soon due to practice effects
3. The time and energy spent including time off work and school

Are you more or less likely to get an incorrect diagnosis if you have a neuropsych eval as opposed to not having one? Seems like more information will always aid in proper diagnosis.

Eventually sure. The extent to which harm occurs depends on different factors. For example focusing on compliance instead of skill building for an autistic kid can make things worse.

So how does getting more information to aid in proper diagnosis and treatment hurt?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The real issues with incorrect diagnoses from a neuropsych could be:
1. Causing the child to receive ineffective treatment
2. It may be difficult to repeat the testing too soon due to practice effects
3. The time and energy spent including time off work and school

Are you more or less likely to get an incorrect diagnosis if you have a neuropsych eval as opposed to not having one? Seems like more information will always aid in proper diagnosis.

Eventually sure. The extent to which harm occurs depends on different factors. For example focusing on compliance instead of skill building for an autistic kid can make things worse.

So how does getting more information to aid in proper diagnosis and treatment hurt?

Your premise is wrong. More of accurate information does not hurt proper diagnosis and treatment.

The issue is when neuropsychological testing ends up giving inaccurate information.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The real issues with incorrect diagnoses from a neuropsych could be:
1. Causing the child to receive ineffective treatment
2. It may be difficult to repeat the testing too soon due to practice effects
3. The time and energy spent including time off work and school

Are you more or less likely to get an incorrect diagnosis if you have a neuropsych eval as opposed to not having one? Seems like more information will always aid in proper diagnosis.

Eventually sure. The extent to which harm occurs depends on different factors. For example focusing on compliance instead of skill building for an autistic kid can make things worse.

So how does getting more information to aid in proper diagnosis and treatment hurt?

If the parents change their approach because the lack of a diagnosis seems to rule that out as the underlying issue

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The real issues with incorrect diagnoses from a neuropsych could be:
1. Causing the child to receive ineffective treatment
2. It may be difficult to repeat the testing too soon due to practice effects
3. The time and energy spent including time off work and school

Are you more or less likely to get an incorrect diagnosis if you have a neuropsych eval as opposed to not having one? Seems like more information will always aid in proper diagnosis.

Eventually sure. The extent to which harm occurs depends on different factors. For example focusing on compliance instead of skill building for an autistic kid can make things worse.

So how does getting more information to aid in proper diagnosis and treatment hurt?

Your premise is wrong. More of accurate information does not hurt proper diagnosis and treatment.

The issue is when neuropsychological testing ends up giving inaccurate information.

It’s hard to see how the raw data, which is what’s then given to your child’s providers for their own analysis, is likely to be inaccurate or more inaccurate than any other kind of information your child’s providers are getting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The real issues with incorrect diagnoses from a neuropsych could be:
1. Causing the child to receive ineffective treatment
2. It may be difficult to repeat the testing too soon due to practice effects
3. The time and energy spent including time off work and school

This is like saying it’s a bad idea to get bloodwork because sometimes bloodwork has errors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The real issues with incorrect diagnoses from a neuropsych could be:
1. Causing the child to receive ineffective treatment
2. It may be difficult to repeat the testing too soon due to practice effects
3. The time and energy spent including time off work and school

Are you more or less likely to get an incorrect diagnosis if you have a neuropsych eval as opposed to not having one? Seems like more information will always aid in proper diagnosis.

Eventually sure. The extent to which harm occurs depends on different factors. For example focusing on compliance instead of skill building for an autistic kid can make things worse.

So how does getting more information to aid in proper diagnosis and treatment hurt?

Your premise is wrong. More of accurate information does not hurt proper diagnosis and treatment.

The issue is when neuropsychological testing ends up giving inaccurate information.

It’s hard to see how the raw data, which is what’s then given to your child’s providers for their own analysis, is likely to be inaccurate or more inaccurate than any other kind of information your child’s providers are getting.

Sigh. ☹️

Testing conditions. Depending on the issues that the child has, they may need different testing conditions, time to focus or not to be stressed out. If the evaluator does not take care of this or fails to mention state of mind during testing, the raw testing data is useless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The real issues with incorrect diagnoses from a neuropsych could be:
1. Causing the child to receive ineffective treatment
2. It may be difficult to repeat the testing too soon due to practice effects
3. The time and energy spent including time off work and school

Are you more or less likely to get an incorrect diagnosis if you have a neuropsych eval as opposed to not having one? Seems like more information will always aid in proper diagnosis.

Eventually sure. The extent to which harm occurs depends on different factors. For example focusing on compliance instead of skill building for an autistic kid can make things worse.

So how does getting more information to aid in proper diagnosis and treatment hurt?

Your premise is wrong. More of accurate information does not hurt proper diagnosis and treatment.

The issue is when neuropsychological testing ends up giving inaccurate information.

It’s hard to see how the raw data, which is what’s then given to your child’s providers for their own analysis, is likely to be inaccurate or more inaccurate than any other kind of information your child’s providers are getting.

Sigh. ☹️

Testing conditions. Depending on the issues that the child has, they may need different testing conditions, time to focus or not to be stressed out. If the evaluator does not take care of this or fails to mention state of mind during testing, the raw testing data is useless.

Definitely not useless. But your argument seems to be, “Testing isn’t 100% accurate. Therefore, there’s a reasonable chance of the testing being harmful.” I doubt anyone would say the same about noninvasive medical diagnostics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The real issues with incorrect diagnoses from a neuropsych could be:
1. Causing the child to receive ineffective treatment
2. It may be difficult to repeat the testing too soon due to practice effects
3. The time and energy spent including time off work and school

This is like saying it’s a bad idea to get bloodwork because sometimes bloodwork has errors.

No, you got it wrong. It is only saying that for certain blood tests you need to fast or not take certain medications before the blood tests. Similarly, you need adequate “prep” for neuropsychological evaluation to be successful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The real issues with incorrect diagnoses from a neuropsych could be:
1. Causing the child to receive ineffective treatment
2. It may be difficult to repeat the testing too soon due to practice effects
3. The time and energy spent including time off work and school

Are you more or less likely to get an incorrect diagnosis if you have a neuropsych eval as opposed to not having one? Seems like more information will always aid in proper diagnosis.

Eventually sure. The extent to which harm occurs depends on different factors. For example focusing on compliance instead of skill building for an autistic kid can make things worse.

So how does getting more information to aid in proper diagnosis and treatment hurt?

Your premise is wrong. More of accurate information does not hurt proper diagnosis and treatment.

The issue is when neuropsychological testing ends up giving inaccurate information.

It’s hard to see how the raw data, which is what’s then given to your child’s providers for their own analysis, is likely to be inaccurate or more inaccurate than any other kind of information your child’s providers are getting.

Sigh. ☹️

Testing conditions. Depending on the issues that the child has, they may need different testing conditions, time to focus or not to be stressed out. If the evaluator does not take care of this or fails to mention state of mind during testing, the raw testing data is useless.

Definitely not useless. But your argument seems to be, “Testing isn’t 100% accurate. Therefore, there’s a reasonable chance of the testing being harmful.” I doubt anyone would say the same about noninvasive medical diagnostics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The real issues with incorrect diagnoses from a neuropsych could be:
1. Causing the child to receive ineffective treatment
2. It may be difficult to repeat the testing too soon due to practice effects
3. The time and energy spent including time off work and school

Are you more or less likely to get an incorrect diagnosis if you have a neuropsych eval as opposed to not having one? Seems like more information will always aid in proper diagnosis.

Eventually sure. The extent to which harm occurs depends on different factors. For example focusing on compliance instead of skill building for an autistic kid can make things worse.

So how does getting more information to aid in proper diagnosis and treatment hurt?

Your premise is wrong. More of accurate information does not hurt proper diagnosis and treatment.

The issue is when neuropsychological testing ends up giving inaccurate information.

It’s hard to see how the raw data, which is what’s then given to your child’s providers for their own analysis, is likely to be inaccurate or more inaccurate than any other kind of information your child’s providers are getting.

Sigh. ☹️

Testing conditions. Depending on the issues that the child has, they may need different testing conditions, time to focus or not to be stressed out. If the evaluator does not take care of this or fails to mention state of mind during testing, the raw testing data is useless.

Definitely not useless. But your argument seems to be, “Testing isn’t 100% accurate. Therefore, there’s a reasonable chance of the testing being harmful.” I doubt anyone would say the same about noninvasive medical diagnostics.

No. You are not getting the point. Try again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The real issues with incorrect diagnoses from a neuropsych could be:
1. Causing the child to receive ineffective treatment
2. It may be difficult to repeat the testing too soon due to practice effects
3. The time and energy spent including time off work and school

Are you more or less likely to get an incorrect diagnosis if you have a neuropsych eval as opposed to not having one? Seems like more information will always aid in proper diagnosis.

Eventually sure. The extent to which harm occurs depends on different factors. For example focusing on compliance instead of skill building for an autistic kid can make things worse.

So how does getting more information to aid in proper diagnosis and treatment hurt?

Your premise is wrong. More of accurate information does not hurt proper diagnosis and treatment.

The issue is when neuropsychological testing ends up giving inaccurate information.

It’s hard to see how the raw data, which is what’s then given to your child’s providers for their own analysis, is likely to be inaccurate or more inaccurate than any other kind of information your child’s providers are getting.

Sigh. ☹️

Testing conditions. Depending on the issues that the child has, they may need different testing conditions, time to focus or not to be stressed out. If the evaluator does not take care of this or fails to mention state of mind during testing, the raw testing data is useless.

Definitely not useless. But your argument seems to be, “Testing isn’t 100% accurate. Therefore, there’s a reasonable chance of the testing being harmful.” I doubt anyone would say the same about noninvasive medical diagnostics.

No. You are not getting the point. Try again.

“Sometimes there is misdiagnosis. Therefore, you should not make best efforts to diagnose because more information can complicate things.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The real issues with incorrect diagnoses from a neuropsych could be:
1. Causing the child to receive ineffective treatment
2. It may be difficult to repeat the testing too soon due to practice effects
3. The time and energy spent including time off work and school

Are you more or less likely to get an incorrect diagnosis if you have a neuropsych eval as opposed to not having one? Seems like more information will always aid in proper diagnosis.

Eventually sure. The extent to which harm occurs depends on different factors. For example focusing on compliance instead of skill building for an autistic kid can make things worse.

So how does getting more information to aid in proper diagnosis and treatment hurt?

Your premise is wrong. More of accurate information does not hurt proper diagnosis and treatment.

The issue is when neuropsychological testing ends up giving inaccurate information.

It’s hard to see how the raw data, which is what’s then given to your child’s providers for their own analysis, is likely to be inaccurate or more inaccurate than any other kind of information your child’s providers are getting.

Sigh. ☹️

Testing conditions. Depending on the issues that the child has, they may need different testing conditions, time to focus or not to be stressed out. If the evaluator does not take care of this or fails to mention state of mind during testing, the raw testing data is useless.

Definitely not useless. But your argument seems to be, “Testing isn’t 100% accurate. Therefore, there’s a reasonable chance of the testing being harmful.” I doubt anyone would say the same about noninvasive medical diagnostics.

No. You are not getting the point. Try again.

“Sometimes there is misdiagnosis. Therefore, you should not make best efforts to diagnose because more information can complicate things.”

You have serious comprehension issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The real issues with incorrect diagnoses from a neuropsych could be:
1. Causing the child to receive ineffective treatment
2. It may be difficult to repeat the testing too soon due to practice effects
3. The time and energy spent including time off work and school

Are you more or less likely to get an incorrect diagnosis if you have a neuropsych eval as opposed to not having one? Seems like more information will always aid in proper diagnosis.

Eventually sure. The extent to which harm occurs depends on different factors. For example focusing on compliance instead of skill building for an autistic kid can make things worse.

So how does getting more information to aid in proper diagnosis and treatment hurt?

1) there is no guarantee that a “neuropsych” will give a proper diagnosis. People continue to not know what a neuropsychological exam is here.
2) a diagnosis doesn’t always help with treatment
3) what hurts is the amount of money that private practices take for this, which should be put into therapy instead

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The real issues with incorrect diagnoses from a neuropsych could be:
1. Causing the child to receive ineffective treatment
2. It may be difficult to repeat the testing too soon due to practice effects
3. The time and energy spent including time off work and school

This is like saying it’s a bad idea to get bloodwork because sometimes bloodwork has errors.

lol! Let me introduce you to the concept of incidentaloma.

People on DCUM are really poor consumers of health care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The real issues with incorrect diagnoses from a neuropsych could be:
1. Causing the child to receive ineffective treatment
2. It may be difficult to repeat the testing too soon due to practice effects
3. The time and energy spent including time off work and school

Are you more or less likely to get an incorrect diagnosis if you have a neuropsych eval as opposed to not having one? Seems like more information will always aid in proper diagnosis.

Eventually sure. The extent to which harm occurs depends on different factors. For example focusing on compliance instead of skill building for an autistic kid can make things worse.

So how does getting more information to aid in proper diagnosis and treatment hurt?

Your premise is wrong. More of accurate information does not hurt proper diagnosis and treatment.

The issue is when neuropsychological testing ends up giving inaccurate information.

It’s hard to see how the raw data, which is what’s then given to your child’s providers for their own analysis, is likely to be inaccurate or more inaccurate than any other kind of information your child’s providers are getting.

Sigh. ☹️

Testing conditions. Depending on the issues that the child has, they may need different testing conditions, time to focus or not to be stressed out. If the evaluator does not take care of this or fails to mention state of mind during testing, the raw testing data is useless.

Exactly. Also in the 5 years since my kid’s neuropsychological exam, exactly zero providers (and we have good ones) have said anything to me about the “raw data” in them. He has a diagnosis (which came from a specialty clinic, not the neuropsychologist). About the only useful thing is the substantiation that he has high verbal skills and average math … but lol, anyone can look at his grades and see that.

If a kid is having major academic issues in grasping concepts then maybe extensive intelligence testing could help. But that is not what OP describes.