Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T21:00:05.204Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Testing for Intellectual Impairment—Some Comments on the Tests and the Testers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2018

Malcolm Piercy*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Barrow Hospital, near Bristol

Extract

Psychologists are frequently asked to say whether, in the case of a particular patient, there is evidence of organic dementia. At first sight this would not appear to be an unreasonable request. A considerable amount is known about the performance of normal people on tests of cognitive function and it might be supposed that people who work with tests of human ability should be able to modify their procedures to the purpose of diagnosing intellectual deterioration when this is not obvious on routine neurological or psychiatric examination. Moreover, it might seem that the frequent presence of independent criteria of brain damage provided by neurological and neurosurgical investigations should facilitate the development of competent diagnostic clinical psychology in the neurological field.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 1959 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Goldstein, K., After Effects of Brain Injuries in War, 1942. William Heinemann Google Scholar
Meyer, V., “Critique of psychological approaches to brain damage”, J. Ment. Sci., 1957, 103, 80109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, R. W., “Experimental method in clinical psychological practice”, J. Ment. Sci., 1957, 103, 189196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, M. B., “An experimental approach to diagnostic psychological testing”, J. Ment. Sci., 1951, 97, 748764.Google Scholar
Yates, A., “The validity of some psychological tests of brain damage”, Psychol. Bull., 1954, 51, 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.