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?

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

I've done a ton of therapy that helped more than hurt because neither I nor the therapist could grasp the underlying issue

Then you had a bad therapist. But to the point - did you do a full battery of cognitive tests to get to the under issue?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know why people put so much faith in the results of a single day of testing … they’ve been sold a story that it is some kind of magic key to their kid. But any reputable psychologist or psychiatrist will tell you that you cannot understand a patient on the basis of a diagnosis - it takes a long time to get to know them before you can understand the patterns of challenges and strengths; and no good clinician can predict the future. None of this would matter if “neuropsychs” were free of course.

Have you had a neuropsych? There’s tons of screeners that all people from all aspects of their life: coaches, teachers, parents, and even family members fill out. There’s a discussion beforehand and a discussion after hand afterwards. It’s all taken together with the expertise of the provider.

**this is what I am saying**: there is no industry standard thing that is a “neuropsych.” No, nobody solicited all that collateral information you list. And the most common instrument people might encounter that solicits it (the Vanderbilt for ADHD) can be administered on its own by a variety of specialists - no need for a full day of expensive testing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know why people put so much faith in the results of a single day of testing … they’ve been sold a story that it is some kind of magic key to their kid. But any reputable psychologist or psychiatrist will tell you that you cannot understand a patient on the basis of a diagnosis - it takes a long time to get to know them before you can understand the patterns of challenges and strengths; and no good clinician can predict the future. None of this would matter if “neuropsychs” were free of course.

Have you had a neuropsych? There’s tons of screeners that all people from all aspects of their life: coaches, teachers, parents, and even family members fill out. There’s a discussion beforehand and a discussion after hand afterwards. It’s all taken together with the expertise of the provider.

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?

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

I've done a ton of therapy that helped more than hurt because neither I nor the therapist could grasp the underlying issue

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know why people put so much faith in the results of a single day of testing … they’ve been sold a story that it is some kind of magic key to their kid. But any reputable psychologist or psychiatrist will tell you that you cannot understand a patient on the basis of a diagnosis - it takes a long time to get to know them before you can understand the patterns of challenges and strengths; and no good clinician can predict the future. None of this would matter if “neuropsychs” were free of course.

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?

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

I've done a ton of therapy that helped more than hurt because neither I nor the therapist could grasp the underlying issue

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?

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 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

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.