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.
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.
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?
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.”
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.
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 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 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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?
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.