T
Tim McNamara
Guest
"Jay Beattie" <[email protected]> writes:
> Also, everybody claims a brain injury -- usually a subtle "mild
> traumatic brain injury" which makes the plaintiff cranky and
> forgetful. Or maybe he was cranky and forgetful before the injury.
> Who knows. That is where the neuropsychologists come in with a
> battery of tests. Interpreting these tests is like reading tea
> leaves unless the plaintiff has a pretty serious brain injury.
> That's where you get some pretty good expert battles.
A good standardized neuropsychological test battery (Halstead-Reitan,
for example) can be very objective and the interpretation can be made
quite confidently. Many neuropsychologists pick and choose tests,
however, for a variety of reasons including their own bias, the
difficulty of administration, etc. The Weschler Memory Scale, for
example, is a difficult test to administer. Some neuropsychologists
will use projective tests like the Rorschach, Thematic Apperception
Test, House-Tree-Person, etc., and IMHO these are little better than
reading tea leaves.
What is harder to predict is the functional effects of brain injury on
a person's life because there are factors that affect outcome besides
the brain injury and the cognitive impairments that may arise from
those. Motivation, mood disorders, pre-existing conditions, social
support, the competence of the rehabilitation therapists, etc can have
an enormous impact on outcome. I wonder if lawsuits for compensation
for brain injuries can provide a disincentive to have a positive
outcome? After all, the victim is likely to get more money the more
impaired they are. I don't know if any research has been done on
this.
> Also, everybody claims a brain injury -- usually a subtle "mild
> traumatic brain injury" which makes the plaintiff cranky and
> forgetful. Or maybe he was cranky and forgetful before the injury.
> Who knows. That is where the neuropsychologists come in with a
> battery of tests. Interpreting these tests is like reading tea
> leaves unless the plaintiff has a pretty serious brain injury.
> That's where you get some pretty good expert battles.
A good standardized neuropsychological test battery (Halstead-Reitan,
for example) can be very objective and the interpretation can be made
quite confidently. Many neuropsychologists pick and choose tests,
however, for a variety of reasons including their own bias, the
difficulty of administration, etc. The Weschler Memory Scale, for
example, is a difficult test to administer. Some neuropsychologists
will use projective tests like the Rorschach, Thematic Apperception
Test, House-Tree-Person, etc., and IMHO these are little better than
reading tea leaves.
What is harder to predict is the functional effects of brain injury on
a person's life because there are factors that affect outcome besides
the brain injury and the cognitive impairments that may arise from
those. Motivation, mood disorders, pre-existing conditions, social
support, the competence of the rehabilitation therapists, etc can have
an enormous impact on outcome. I wonder if lawsuits for compensation
for brain injuries can provide a disincentive to have a positive
outcome? After all, the victim is likely to get more money the more
impaired they are. I don't know if any research has been done on
this.