Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We found it helpful. One DS was tested at six years old and it put us on the right track immediately. He has dyslexia and it was very helpful to push us to get the right intervention and really lean into it. It’s made all the difference in the world.

The 2nd DS was a bit of a surprise. We didn’t know what the heck was going on with him and got him tested when he was 10 because we thought he had dyslexia because of the genetic factor. Nope. Very very much ADHD. We didn’t know what ADHD could look like and thought it was x when it can be y, z, and m. Almost off the charts. Reading intervention/tutoring would do zero for all that and the only thing that helped him academically and socially is stimulants. He’s in such a better place now and he has an improved understanding of his reactions and impulses.

None of the above would have been possible without the neuro-psych.

You don’t need a “full neuropsych” to diagnose the issues you listed.

You are correct. With the first one, we did the psycho educational testing instead. But with the second one, we absolutely needed the full neuropysch. Trust me.

Not sure why? ADHD is not actually diagnosed through neuropsychological tests (or exclusively that way).

DP

How often do you post here? How many times do people have to explain to you that some cases do need a clinician to spend a lot of time with the child and reviewing documents and questionnaires to diagnose. Like with my kid, the cognitive testing showed she was solidly average in everything except one area and that contributed to the diagnosis in addition to the condition specific diagnostic assessment.

Sometimes early intervention doesn't matter. But it often does and to get it (either for insurance to pay or just to know your kid needs it) you need a diagnosis, the earlier the better. That might mean getting the diagnosis before it is obvious to a pediatrician who might spend 15 minutes with a kid 2-3 times per year.

How many times do you need to be told that what you described is neither necessary nor sufficient to diagnose ADHD?

You're not listening. Number 1 I am not talking about ADHD. I am a DP. Number 2, you seem to think only people with straightforward cases should be diagnosed, and that is wrong and harmful.

No. I am saying that a diagnosis (straightforward or not) does not require the generic, expensive battery of cognitive tests commonly called a “full neuropsych.”

I’m not the PP but what would you suggest instead?

I would ask the person offering the “full neuropsych” to list each test they are going to do and explain the function and how the outcome will affect your child’s treatment plan/therapy. But preferably, I would start with therapy for the obvious challenges then explore what kind of diagnostic assessment needs to be made. Then I would research the best practices for the various possible diagnoses. It’s never going to be one size fits all.

I am the PP and I and everyone else I know in our situation got therapy for the obvious challenges first. I don't understand why you are promoting this narrative where people are just wandering into neuropsych practices for no reason.

I mean, I’m not the one who posted this thread. Clearly a lot of other people agree. I’m sure in some cases it is indicated but the knee-jerk “pay $8000 for a full neuropsych” advice is misleading. And also the reason why places like Children have had to outright say that they won’t schedule neuropsychs except for the kids that really need them (eg epilepsy or brain tumor).

Institutions like Children's and KKI have had to limit their criteria for evaluations because of the immense need creating unmanageably long wait-lists. You make it sound like they looked at their multiple years long wait-lists and thought, "these people don't really need evaluations" instead of "we do not have the capacity to serve all these people so we need to prioritize".

You also seem to think it's fine to delay accurate diagnosis. It can be tough to untangle multiple concerns like social issues, learning issues and mental health issues. The time it takes to do that costs money.

I absolutely think Children’s and KKI looked through their waitlist and realized that a good percentage don’t need the full neuropsych testing.

AGAIN - the point I am making is not about diagnosis but the belief that an expensive, resource intensive “full neuropsych” is the only way to get a diagnosis. Most of us have limited financial resources and it is better to spend them on therapy and focused assessment.

It's obviously not the only way in general to get n ADHD or ASD or other diagnosis. Nobody has said that. But it is the only way to get correct diagnoses for some kids and it gives more than that, specifically recommendations for supports that are specific to a kid based on a comprehensive look at their needs.

You totally understand what a “neuropsych” is (probably because there is no standard meaning). It is not some super duper diagnostic technology better than others. It does not generate recommendations for your particular kid. It is a battery of cognitive tests.

It's honestly unclear what you think neuropsychological testing is. I asked Perplexity to define it for you. I hope this clears up your confusion. You're welcome.

Neuropsychological testing usually involves an interview, review of history/records, and a series of standardized tasks that measure attention, memory, language, processing speed, reasoning, executive skills, and sometimes mood or behavior ���. It does not usually involve anything invasive like needles, and it is used to understand how thinking and brain function may be affecting daily life ��.
What it usually includes
A typical evaluation may ask you to:
Answer questions about symptoms and daily functioning ��.
Do paper-and-pencil or computer-based tasks involving memory, problem-solving, language, and attention ��.
Sometimes complete questionnaires, and have the clinician review medical or school records ���.
About the report
In most cases, yes — it results in a written report ���. That report usually summarizes the tests, your strengths and weaknesses, and the clinician’s interpretation; it often includes recommendations, such as treatment referrals, school/work accommodations, or follow-up evaluations ����.
Is it always recommendations?
Not always in the same form. The report usually includes recommendations, but what those recommendations look like depends on the reason for testing and the clinician’s practice setting ���. Sometimes recommendations are very specific, and sometimes the report is more focused on describing cognitive strengths/weaknesses and supporting a diagnosis or treatment plan ��.
Practical expectation
A neuropsychological evaluation often takes several hours, and many clinics schedule a later feedback session to go over the results and recommendations ��. If the testing was ordered for a specific concern, the report is usually tailored to that question rather than being a generic summary ��.
A helpful rule of thumb: the testing answers “how are these brain-based skills working?”, and the report usually answers “what does this mean, and what should happen next?” ��.

You think AI stop is convincing?

I think it is all you deserve in response to you claiming getting a neuropsych doesn't give you specific recommendations for your kid.

I am not the PP you responded to. People should understand that doing a neuropsych does not necessarily provide any helpful information.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We found it helpful. One DS was tested at six years old and it put us on the right track immediately. He has dyslexia and it was very helpful to push us to get the right intervention and really lean into it. It’s made all the difference in the world.

The 2nd DS was a bit of a surprise. We didn’t know what the heck was going on with him and got him tested when he was 10 because we thought he had dyslexia because of the genetic factor. Nope. Very very much ADHD. We didn’t know what ADHD could look like and thought it was x when it can be y, z, and m. Almost off the charts. Reading intervention/tutoring would do zero for all that and the only thing that helped him academically and socially is stimulants. He’s in such a better place now and he has an improved understanding of his reactions and impulses.

None of the above would have been possible without the neuro-psych.

You don’t need a “full neuropsych” to diagnose the issues you listed.

You are correct. With the first one, we did the psycho educational testing instead. But with the second one, we absolutely needed the full neuropysch. Trust me.

Not sure why? ADHD is not actually diagnosed through neuropsychological tests (or exclusively that way).

DP

How often do you post here? How many times do people have to explain to you that some cases do need a clinician to spend a lot of time with the child and reviewing documents and questionnaires to diagnose. Like with my kid, the cognitive testing showed she was solidly average in everything except one area and that contributed to the diagnosis in addition to the condition specific diagnostic assessment.

Sometimes early intervention doesn't matter. But it often does and to get it (either for insurance to pay or just to know your kid needs it) you need a diagnosis, the earlier the better. That might mean getting the diagnosis before it is obvious to a pediatrician who might spend 15 minutes with a kid 2-3 times per year.

How many times do you need to be told that what you described is neither necessary nor sufficient to diagnose ADHD?

You're not listening. Number 1 I am not talking about ADHD. I am a DP. Number 2, you seem to think only people with straightforward cases should be diagnosed, and that is wrong and harmful.

No. I am saying that a diagnosis (straightforward or not) does not require the generic, expensive battery of cognitive tests commonly called a “full neuropsych.”

I’m not the PP but what would you suggest instead?

I would ask the person offering the “full neuropsych” to list each test they are going to do and explain the function and how the outcome will affect your child’s treatment plan/therapy. But preferably, I would start with therapy for the obvious challenges then explore what kind of diagnostic assessment needs to be made. Then I would research the best practices for the various possible diagnoses. It’s never going to be one size fits all.

I am the PP and I and everyone else I know in our situation got therapy for the obvious challenges first. I don't understand why you are promoting this narrative where people are just wandering into neuropsych practices for no reason.

I mean, I’m not the one who posted this thread. Clearly a lot of other people agree. I’m sure in some cases it is indicated but the knee-jerk “pay $8000 for a full neuropsych” advice is misleading. And also the reason why places like Children have had to outright say that they won’t schedule neuropsychs except for the kids that really need them (eg epilepsy or brain tumor).

Institutions like Children's and KKI have had to limit their criteria for evaluations because of the immense need creating unmanageably long wait-lists. You make it sound like they looked at their multiple years long wait-lists and thought, "these people don't really need evaluations" instead of "we do not have the capacity to serve all these people so we need to prioritize".

You also seem to think it's fine to delay accurate diagnosis. It can be tough to untangle multiple concerns like social issues, learning issues and mental health issues. The time it takes to do that costs money.

I absolutely think Children’s and KKI looked through their waitlist and realized that a good percentage don’t need the full neuropsych testing.

AGAIN - the point I am making is not about diagnosis but the belief that an expensive, resource intensive “full neuropsych” is the only way to get a diagnosis. Most of us have limited financial resources and it is better to spend them on therapy and focused assessment.

It's obviously not the only way in general to get n ADHD or ASD or other diagnosis. Nobody has said that. But it is the only way to get correct diagnoses for some kids and it gives more than that, specifically recommendations for supports that are specific to a kid based on a comprehensive look at their needs.

You totally understand what a “neuropsych” is (probably because there is no standard meaning). It is not some super duper diagnostic technology better than others. It does not generate recommendations for your particular kid. It is a battery of cognitive tests.

It's honestly unclear what you think neuropsychological testing is. I asked Perplexity to define it for you. I hope this clears up your confusion. You're welcome.

Neuropsychological testing usually involves an interview, review of history/records, and a series of standardized tasks that measure attention, memory, language, processing speed, reasoning, executive skills, and sometimes mood or behavior ���. It does not usually involve anything invasive like needles, and it is used to understand how thinking and brain function may be affecting daily life ��.
What it usually includes
A typical evaluation may ask you to:
Answer questions about symptoms and daily functioning ��.
Do paper-and-pencil or computer-based tasks involving memory, problem-solving, language, and attention ��.
Sometimes complete questionnaires, and have the clinician review medical or school records ���.
About the report
In most cases, yes — it results in a written report ���. That report usually summarizes the tests, your strengths and weaknesses, and the clinician’s interpretation; it often includes recommendations, such as treatment referrals, school/work accommodations, or follow-up evaluations ����.
Is it always recommendations?
Not always in the same form. The report usually includes recommendations, but what those recommendations look like depends on the reason for testing and the clinician’s practice setting ���. Sometimes recommendations are very specific, and sometimes the report is more focused on describing cognitive strengths/weaknesses and supporting a diagnosis or treatment plan ��.
Practical expectation
A neuropsychological evaluation often takes several hours, and many clinics schedule a later feedback session to go over the results and recommendations ��. If the testing was ordered for a specific concern, the report is usually tailored to that question rather than being a generic summary ��.
A helpful rule of thumb: the testing answers “how are these brain-based skills working?”, and the report usually answers “what does this mean, and what should happen next?” ��.

You think AI stop is convincing?

I think it is all you deserve in response to you claiming getting a neuropsych doesn't give you specific recommendations for your kid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We found it helpful. One DS was tested at six years old and it put us on the right track immediately. He has dyslexia and it was very helpful to push us to get the right intervention and really lean into it. It’s made all the difference in the world.

The 2nd DS was a bit of a surprise. We didn’t know what the heck was going on with him and got him tested when he was 10 because we thought he had dyslexia because of the genetic factor. Nope. Very very much ADHD. We didn’t know what ADHD could look like and thought it was x when it can be y, z, and m. Almost off the charts. Reading intervention/tutoring would do zero for all that and the only thing that helped him academically and socially is stimulants. He’s in such a better place now and he has an improved understanding of his reactions and impulses.

None of the above would have been possible without the neuro-psych.

You don’t need a “full neuropsych” to diagnose the issues you listed.

You are correct. With the first one, we did the psycho educational testing instead. But with the second one, we absolutely needed the full neuropysch. Trust me.

Not sure why? ADHD is not actually diagnosed through neuropsychological tests (or exclusively that way).

DP

How often do you post here? How many times do people have to explain to you that some cases do need a clinician to spend a lot of time with the child and reviewing documents and questionnaires to diagnose. Like with my kid, the cognitive testing showed she was solidly average in everything except one area and that contributed to the diagnosis in addition to the condition specific diagnostic assessment.

Sometimes early intervention doesn't matter. But it often does and to get it (either for insurance to pay or just to know your kid needs it) you need a diagnosis, the earlier the better. That might mean getting the diagnosis before it is obvious to a pediatrician who might spend 15 minutes with a kid 2-3 times per year.

How many times do you need to be told that what you described is neither necessary nor sufficient to diagnose ADHD?

You're not listening. Number 1 I am not talking about ADHD. I am a DP. Number 2, you seem to think only people with straightforward cases should be diagnosed, and that is wrong and harmful.

No. I am saying that a diagnosis (straightforward or not) does not require the generic, expensive battery of cognitive tests commonly called a “full neuropsych.”

I’m not the PP but what would you suggest instead?

I would ask the person offering the “full neuropsych” to list each test they are going to do and explain the function and how the outcome will affect your child’s treatment plan/therapy. But preferably, I would start with therapy for the obvious challenges then explore what kind of diagnostic assessment needs to be made. Then I would research the best practices for the various possible diagnoses. It’s never going to be one size fits all.

I am the PP and I and everyone else I know in our situation got therapy for the obvious challenges first. I don't understand why you are promoting this narrative where people are just wandering into neuropsych practices for no reason.

I mean, I’m not the one who posted this thread. Clearly a lot of other people agree. I’m sure in some cases it is indicated but the knee-jerk “pay $8000 for a full neuropsych” advice is misleading. And also the reason why places like Children have had to outright say that they won’t schedule neuropsychs except for the kids that really need them (eg epilepsy or brain tumor).

Institutions like Children's and KKI have had to limit their criteria for evaluations because of the immense need creating unmanageably long wait-lists. You make it sound like they looked at their multiple years long wait-lists and thought, "these people don't really need evaluations" instead of "we do not have the capacity to serve all these people so we need to prioritize".

You also seem to think it's fine to delay accurate diagnosis. It can be tough to untangle multiple concerns like social issues, learning issues and mental health issues. The time it takes to do that costs money.

I absolutely think Children’s and KKI looked through their waitlist and realized that a good percentage don’t need the full neuropsych testing.

AGAIN - the point I am making is not about diagnosis but the belief that an expensive, resource intensive “full neuropsych” is the only way to get a diagnosis. Most of us have limited financial resources and it is better to spend them on therapy and focused assessment.

It's obviously not the only way in general to get n ADHD or ASD or other diagnosis. Nobody has said that. But it is the only way to get correct diagnoses for some kids and it gives more than that, specifically recommendations for supports that are specific to a kid based on a comprehensive look at their needs.

You totally understand what a “neuropsych” is (probably because there is no standard meaning). It is not some super duper diagnostic technology better than others. It does not generate recommendations for your particular kid. It is a battery of cognitive tests.

It's honestly unclear what you think neuropsychological testing is. I asked Perplexity to define it for you. I hope this clears up your confusion. You're welcome.

Neuropsychological testing usually involves an interview, review of history/records, and a series of standardized tasks that measure attention, memory, language, processing speed, reasoning, executive skills, and sometimes mood or behavior ���. It does not usually involve anything invasive like needles, and it is used to understand how thinking and brain function may be affecting daily life ��.
What it usually includes
A typical evaluation may ask you to:
Answer questions about symptoms and daily functioning ��.
Do paper-and-pencil or computer-based tasks involving memory, problem-solving, language, and attention ��.
Sometimes complete questionnaires, and have the clinician review medical or school records ���.
About the report
In most cases, yes — it results in a written report ���. That report usually summarizes the tests, your strengths and weaknesses, and the clinician’s interpretation; it often includes recommendations, such as treatment referrals, school/work accommodations, or follow-up evaluations ����.
Is it always recommendations?
Not always in the same form. The report usually includes recommendations, but what those recommendations look like depends on the reason for testing and the clinician’s practice setting ���. Sometimes recommendations are very specific, and sometimes the report is more focused on describing cognitive strengths/weaknesses and supporting a diagnosis or treatment plan ��.
Practical expectation
A neuropsychological evaluation often takes several hours, and many clinics schedule a later feedback session to go over the results and recommendations ��. If the testing was ordered for a specific concern, the report is usually tailored to that question rather than being a generic summary ��.
A helpful rule of thumb: the testing answers “how are these brain-based skills working?”, and the report usually answers “what does this mean, and what should happen next?” ��.

You think AI stop is convincing?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, we regret it. It was $$$$, thousands. No info. We already knew he had adhd. Useless and impractical recommendations we would not actually turn over to the school. Pages and pages of them that would not actually help our kid and seemed cookie cutter.

DS was angry he has to go through all of that additional testing. We felt it was a money grab for parents to bully the schools into more than their kid needs.

This is absolute hogwash. You are free to take the recommendations and work with the school to make them fit. Most parents, after getting an initial diagnosis, don't know much about accommodations and which will help. That's the real help that comes from getting the child evaluated.

You are wildly off base. You have to explain your comment about pages of recommendations that would not help. You sound like you understand very little about your child's disability and my guess is that you are in denial and hate the idea of other kids/adults knowing your child has disabilities.

Anonymous wrote:Yes, we regret it. It was $$$$, thousands. No info. We already knew he had adhd. Useless and impractical recommendations we would not actually turn over to the school. Pages and pages of them that would not actually help our kid and seemed cookie cutter.

DS was angry he has to go through all of that additional testing. We felt it was a money grab for parents to bully the schools into more than their kid needs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They were like a scarlet A around our child’s neck.

That is not even possible. No one knows unless you told them.

You have to tell the schools if you want to be truthful when they ask the question in the application. When they didn’t ask, child was accepted. When they did ask, child was rejected.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No! I wish I could do one on my neurotypical kids. Such wonderful insights into what makes them tick, their strengths and weaknesses. So helpful.

Huh. Like how? I already knew all do these going in with my kid with significant challenges so I honestly found them useless. Like no utility served at all. And we already had an ADHD diagnosis and did all the therapy. I think it completely depends on your kid and the issues. Most parents of kids with issues to the degree of mine have also said they’re pretty redundant.

Same

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We found it helpful. One DS was tested at six years old and it put us on the right track immediately. He has dyslexia and it was very helpful to push us to get the right intervention and really lean into it. It’s made all the difference in the world.

The 2nd DS was a bit of a surprise. We didn’t know what the heck was going on with him and got him tested when he was 10 because we thought he had dyslexia because of the genetic factor. Nope. Very very much ADHD. We didn’t know what ADHD could look like and thought it was x when it can be y, z, and m. Almost off the charts. Reading intervention/tutoring would do zero for all that and the only thing that helped him academically and socially is stimulants. He’s in such a better place now and he has an improved understanding of his reactions and impulses.

None of the above would have been possible without the neuro-psych.

You don’t need a “full neuropsych” to diagnose the issues you listed.

You are correct. With the first one, we did the psycho educational testing instead. But with the second one, we absolutely needed the full neuropysch. Trust me.

Not sure why? ADHD is not actually diagnosed through neuropsychological tests (or exclusively that way).

DP

How often do you post here? How many times do people have to explain to you that some cases do need a clinician to spend a lot of time with the child and reviewing documents and questionnaires to diagnose. Like with my kid, the cognitive testing showed she was solidly average in everything except one area and that contributed to the diagnosis in addition to the condition specific diagnostic assessment.

Sometimes early intervention doesn't matter. But it often does and to get it (either for insurance to pay or just to know your kid needs it) you need a diagnosis, the earlier the better. That might mean getting the diagnosis before it is obvious to a pediatrician who might spend 15 minutes with a kid 2-3 times per year.

How many times do you need to be told that what you described is neither necessary nor sufficient to diagnose ADHD?

You're not listening. Number 1 I am not talking about ADHD. I am a DP. Number 2, you seem to think only people with straightforward cases should be diagnosed, and that is wrong and harmful.

No. I am saying that a diagnosis (straightforward or not) does not require the generic, expensive battery of cognitive tests commonly called a “full neuropsych.”

I’m not the PP but what would you suggest instead?

I would ask the person offering the “full neuropsych” to list each test they are going to do and explain the function and how the outcome will affect your child’s treatment plan/therapy. But preferably, I would start with therapy for the obvious challenges then explore what kind of diagnostic assessment needs to be made. Then I would research the best practices for the various possible diagnoses. It’s never going to be one size fits all.

I am the PP and I and everyone else I know in our situation got therapy for the obvious challenges first. I don't understand why you are promoting this narrative where people are just wandering into neuropsych practices for no reason.

I mean, I’m not the one who posted this thread. Clearly a lot of other people agree. I’m sure in some cases it is indicated but the knee-jerk “pay $8000 for a full neuropsych” advice is misleading. And also the reason why places like Children have had to outright say that they won’t schedule neuropsychs except for the kids that really need them (eg epilepsy or brain tumor).

Institutions like Children's and KKI have had to limit their criteria for evaluations because of the immense need creating unmanageably long wait-lists. You make it sound like they looked at their multiple years long wait-lists and thought, "these people don't really need evaluations" instead of "we do not have the capacity to serve all these people so we need to prioritize".

You also seem to think it's fine to delay accurate diagnosis. It can be tough to untangle multiple concerns like social issues, learning issues and mental health issues. The time it takes to do that costs money.

I absolutely think Children’s and KKI looked through their waitlist and realized that a good percentage don’t need the full neuropsych testing.

AGAIN - the point I am making is not about diagnosis but the belief that an expensive, resource intensive “full neuropsych” is the only way to get a diagnosis. Most of us have limited financial resources and it is better to spend them on therapy and focused assessment.

It's obviously not the only way in general to get n ADHD or ASD or other diagnosis. Nobody has said that. But it is the only way to get correct diagnoses for some kids and it gives more than that, specifically recommendations for supports that are specific to a kid based on a comprehensive look at their needs.

You totally understand what a “neuropsych” is (probably because there is no standard meaning). It is not some super duper diagnostic technology better than others. It does not generate recommendations for your particular kid. It is a battery of cognitive tests.

It's honestly unclear what you think neuropsychological testing is. I asked Perplexity to define it for you. I hope this clears up your confusion. You're welcome.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They were like a scarlet A around our child’s neck.

That is not even possible. No one knows unless you told them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No! I wish I could do one on my neurotypical kids. Such wonderful insights into what makes them tick, their strengths and weaknesses. So helpful.

Huh. Like how? I already knew all do these going in with my kid with significant challenges so I honestly found them useless. Like no utility served at all. And we already had an ADHD diagnosis and did all the therapy. I think it completely depends on your kid and the issues. Most parents of kids with issues to the degree of mine have also said they’re pretty redundant.

What a lie. My adult and teen kids both have diagnoses and we've been in the special needs sphere for 15+ years. Not a single parent ever said the neuropsych was redundant. In fact, most said they wished they could have done it sooner.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We found it helpful. One DS was tested at six years old and it put us on the right track immediately. He has dyslexia and it was very helpful to push us to get the right intervention and really lean into it. It’s made all the difference in the world.

The 2nd DS was a bit of a surprise. We didn’t know what the heck was going on with him and got him tested when he was 10 because we thought he had dyslexia because of the genetic factor. Nope. Very very much ADHD. We didn’t know what ADHD could look like and thought it was x when it can be y, z, and m. Almost off the charts. Reading intervention/tutoring would do zero for all that and the only thing that helped him academically and socially is stimulants. He’s in such a better place now and he has an improved understanding of his reactions and impulses.

None of the above would have been possible without the neuro-psych.

You don’t need a “full neuropsych” to diagnose the issues you listed.

You are correct. With the first one, we did the psycho educational testing instead. But with the second one, we absolutely needed the full neuropysch. Trust me.

Not sure why? ADHD is not actually diagnosed through neuropsychological tests (or exclusively that way).

DP

How often do you post here? How many times do people have to explain to you that some cases do need a clinician to spend a lot of time with the child and reviewing documents and questionnaires to diagnose. Like with my kid, the cognitive testing showed she was solidly average in everything except one area and that contributed to the diagnosis in addition to the condition specific diagnostic assessment.

Sometimes early intervention doesn't matter. But it often does and to get it (either for insurance to pay or just to know your kid needs it) you need a diagnosis, the earlier the better. That might mean getting the diagnosis before it is obvious to a pediatrician who might spend 15 minutes with a kid 2-3 times per year.

How many times do you need to be told that what you described is neither necessary nor sufficient to diagnose ADHD?

You're not listening. Number 1 I am not talking about ADHD. I am a DP. Number 2, you seem to think only people with straightforward cases should be diagnosed, and that is wrong and harmful.

No. I am saying that a diagnosis (straightforward or not) does not require the generic, expensive battery of cognitive tests commonly called a “full neuropsych.”

I’m not the PP but what would you suggest instead?

I would ask the person offering the “full neuropsych” to list each test they are going to do and explain the function and how the outcome will affect your child’s treatment plan/therapy. But preferably, I would start with therapy for the obvious challenges then explore what kind of diagnostic assessment needs to be made. Then I would research the best practices for the various possible diagnoses. It’s never going to be one size fits all.

I am the PP and I and everyone else I know in our situation got therapy for the obvious challenges first. I don't understand why you are promoting this narrative where people are just wandering into neuropsych practices for no reason.

I mean, I’m not the one who posted this thread. Clearly a lot of other people agree. I’m sure in some cases it is indicated but the knee-jerk “pay $8000 for a full neuropsych” advice is misleading. And also the reason why places like Children have had to outright say that they won’t schedule neuropsychs except for the kids that really need them (eg epilepsy or brain tumor).

Institutions like Children's and KKI have had to limit their criteria for evaluations because of the immense need creating unmanageably long wait-lists. You make it sound like they looked at their multiple years long wait-lists and thought, "these people don't really need evaluations" instead of "we do not have the capacity to serve all these people so we need to prioritize".

You also seem to think it's fine to delay accurate diagnosis. It can be tough to untangle multiple concerns like social issues, learning issues and mental health issues. The time it takes to do that costs money.

I absolutely think Children’s and KKI looked through their waitlist and realized that a good percentage don’t need the full neuropsych testing.

AGAIN - the point I am making is not about diagnosis but the belief that an expensive, resource intensive “full neuropsych” is the only way to get a diagnosis. Most of us have limited financial resources and it is better to spend them on therapy and focused assessment.

It's obviously not the only way in general to get n ADHD or ASD or other diagnosis. Nobody has said that. But it is the only way to get correct diagnoses for some kids and it gives more than that, specifically recommendations for supports that are specific to a kid based on a comprehensive look at their needs.

You totally understand what a “neuropsych” is (probably because there is no standard meaning). It is not some super duper diagnostic technology better than others. It does not generate recommendations for your particular kid. It is a battery of cognitive tests.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We found it helpful. One DS was tested at six years old and it put us on the right track immediately. He has dyslexia and it was very helpful to push us to get the right intervention and really lean into it. It’s made all the difference in the world.

The 2nd DS was a bit of a surprise. We didn’t know what the heck was going on with him and got him tested when he was 10 because we thought he had dyslexia because of the genetic factor. Nope. Very very much ADHD. We didn’t know what ADHD could look like and thought it was x when it can be y, z, and m. Almost off the charts. Reading intervention/tutoring would do zero for all that and the only thing that helped him academically and socially is stimulants. He’s in such a better place now and he has an improved understanding of his reactions and impulses.

None of the above would have been possible without the neuro-psych.

You don’t need a “full neuropsych” to diagnose the issues you listed.

You are correct. With the first one, we did the psycho educational testing instead. But with the second one, we absolutely needed the full neuropysch. Trust me.

Not sure why? ADHD is not actually diagnosed through neuropsychological tests (or exclusively that way).

DP

How often do you post here? How many times do people have to explain to you that some cases do need a clinician to spend a lot of time with the child and reviewing documents and questionnaires to diagnose. Like with my kid, the cognitive testing showed she was solidly average in everything except one area and that contributed to the diagnosis in addition to the condition specific diagnostic assessment.

Sometimes early intervention doesn't matter. But it often does and to get it (either for insurance to pay or just to know your kid needs it) you need a diagnosis, the earlier the better. That might mean getting the diagnosis before it is obvious to a pediatrician who might spend 15 minutes with a kid 2-3 times per year.

How many times do you need to be told that what you described is neither necessary nor sufficient to diagnose ADHD?

You're not listening. Number 1 I am not talking about ADHD. I am a DP. Number 2, you seem to think only people with straightforward cases should be diagnosed, and that is wrong and harmful.

No. I am saying that a diagnosis (straightforward or not) does not require the generic, expensive battery of cognitive tests commonly called a “full neuropsych.”

I’m not the PP but what would you suggest instead?

I would ask the person offering the “full neuropsych” to list each test they are going to do and explain the function and how the outcome will affect your child’s treatment plan/therapy. But preferably, I would start with therapy for the obvious challenges then explore what kind of diagnostic assessment needs to be made. Then I would research the best practices for the various possible diagnoses. It’s never going to be one size fits all.

I am the PP and I and everyone else I know in our situation got therapy for the obvious challenges first. I don't understand why you are promoting this narrative where people are just wandering into neuropsych practices for no reason.

I mean, I’m not the one who posted this thread. Clearly a lot of other people agree. I’m sure in some cases it is indicated but the knee-jerk “pay $8000 for a full neuropsych” advice is misleading. And also the reason why places like Children have had to outright say that they won’t schedule neuropsychs except for the kids that really need them (eg epilepsy or brain tumor).

Institutions like Children's and KKI have had to limit their criteria for evaluations because of the immense need creating unmanageably long wait-lists. You make it sound like they looked at their multiple years long wait-lists and thought, "these people don't really need evaluations" instead of "we do not have the capacity to serve all these people so we need to prioritize".

You also seem to think it's fine to delay accurate diagnosis. It can be tough to untangle multiple concerns like social issues, learning issues and mental health issues. The time it takes to do that costs money.

I absolutely think Children’s and KKI looked through their waitlist and realized that a good percentage don’t need the full neuropsych testing.

AGAIN - the point I am making is not about diagnosis but the belief that an expensive, resource intensive “full neuropsych” is the only way to get a diagnosis. Most of us have limited financial resources and it is better to spend them on therapy and focused assessment.

It's obviously not the only way in general to get n ADHD or ASD or other diagnosis. Nobody has said that. But it is the only way to get correct diagnoses for some kids and it gives more than that, specifically recommendations for supports that are specific to a kid based on a comprehensive look at their needs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We found it helpful. One DS was tested at six years old and it put us on the right track immediately. He has dyslexia and it was very helpful to push us to get the right intervention and really lean into it. It’s made all the difference in the world.

The 2nd DS was a bit of a surprise. We didn’t know what the heck was going on with him and got him tested when he was 10 because we thought he had dyslexia because of the genetic factor. Nope. Very very much ADHD. We didn’t know what ADHD could look like and thought it was x when it can be y, z, and m. Almost off the charts. Reading intervention/tutoring would do zero for all that and the only thing that helped him academically and socially is stimulants. He’s in such a better place now and he has an improved understanding of his reactions and impulses.

None of the above would have been possible without the neuro-psych.

You don’t need a “full neuropsych” to diagnose the issues you listed.

You are correct. With the first one, we did the psycho educational testing instead. But with the second one, we absolutely needed the full neuropysch. Trust me.

Not sure why? ADHD is not actually diagnosed through neuropsychological tests (or exclusively that way).

DP

How often do you post here? How many times do people have to explain to you that some cases do need a clinician to spend a lot of time with the child and reviewing documents and questionnaires to diagnose. Like with my kid, the cognitive testing showed she was solidly average in everything except one area and that contributed to the diagnosis in addition to the condition specific diagnostic assessment.

Sometimes early intervention doesn't matter. But it often does and to get it (either for insurance to pay or just to know your kid needs it) you need a diagnosis, the earlier the better. That might mean getting the diagnosis before it is obvious to a pediatrician who might spend 15 minutes with a kid 2-3 times per year.

How many times do you need to be told that what you described is neither necessary nor sufficient to diagnose ADHD?

You're not listening. Number 1 I am not talking about ADHD. I am a DP. Number 2, you seem to think only people with straightforward cases should be diagnosed, and that is wrong and harmful.

No. I am saying that a diagnosis (straightforward or not) does not require the generic, expensive battery of cognitive tests commonly called a “full neuropsych.”

I’m not the PP but what would you suggest instead?

I would ask the person offering the “full neuropsych” to list each test they are going to do and explain the function and how the outcome will affect your child’s treatment plan/therapy. But preferably, I would start with therapy for the obvious challenges then explore what kind of diagnostic assessment needs to be made. Then I would research the best practices for the various possible diagnoses. It’s never going to be one size fits all.

I am the PP and I and everyone else I know in our situation got therapy for the obvious challenges first. I don't understand why you are promoting this narrative where people are just wandering into neuropsych practices for no reason.

I mean, I’m not the one who posted this thread. Clearly a lot of other people agree. I’m sure in some cases it is indicated but the knee-jerk “pay $8000 for a full neuropsych” advice is misleading. And also the reason why places like Children have had to outright say that they won’t schedule neuropsychs except for the kids that really need them (eg epilepsy or brain tumor).

Institutions like Children's and KKI have had to limit their criteria for evaluations because of the immense need creating unmanageably long wait-lists. You make it sound like they looked at their multiple years long wait-lists and thought, "these people don't really need evaluations" instead of "we do not have the capacity to serve all these people so we need to prioritize".

You also seem to think it's fine to delay accurate diagnosis. It can be tough to untangle multiple concerns like social issues, learning issues and mental health issues. The time it takes to do that costs money.

I absolutely think Children’s and KKI looked through their waitlist and realized that a good percentage don’t need the full neuropsych testing.

AGAIN - the point I am making is not about diagnosis but the belief that an expensive, resource intensive “full neuropsych” is the only way to get a diagnosis. Most of us have limited financial resources and it is better to spend them on therapy and focused assessment.