Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology最新文献

Objective: To provide a narrative overview of the development of forensic neuropsychology (FN) in the last 40-plus years.

Methods: Personal history description, highlighted by key data-based publications.

Results: Anecdotal and relevant data-based findings converge to present a perspective of a wealth of FN resources currently available to the well-documented growing numbers of practitioners.

Conclusion: The de facto subspecialty of FN is now a visible and prominent part of the landscape of clinical neuropsychology.

Objective: Research demonstrates reduced cognitive flexibility and weak central coherence during acute illness and following recovery from anorexia nervosa (AN). This systematic review investigated if these impairments are present in first-degree relatives of individuals with AN, representing a possible neuropsychological risk profile.

Methods: A systematic review of electronic databases was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The search ended on July 14, 2023. Established search terms and inclusion criteria identified relevant research. Risk of bias was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program. The review was registered with Prospero international prospective register of systematic reviews (No. CRD42023401268). Study selection, descriptive data, critical appraisal, and risk of bias are presented in tables and figures.

Results: The search yielded 10 studies. The included studies conducted neuropsychological assessments of discordant AN relatives and lifetime longitudinal study participants. Most studies found cognitive flexibility and central coherence to be significantly reduced in participants with AN and their relatives compared with controls. One study found decision making to be significantly impaired in AN participants and relatives. Effect sizes were moderate to large.

Discussion: Reduced cognitive flexibility and weak central coherence appear to be endophenotypes of AN. Further research is required with relatives concordant for AN to establish whether these biomarkers co-segregate with AN within families. These findings suggest a possibility of developing screeners to identify individuals at risk of AN allowing for early intervention.

In this article, we present a summary of Dr. Karen Postal's life's work on communication in neuropsychological testimony. Her central thesis was that providing effective testimony as a neuropsychological expert requires one to step outside of the traditional academic communication style to which we are accustomed. In her books, The Art and Science of Expert Witness Testimony (2022) and Testimony that Sticks (2019), Karen Postal described foundational principles she called "disruptive shifts," which she saw as the basis from which experts can develop credible and masterful testimony. These shifts begin with the fundamental and somewhat counterintuitive idea that the juror has the hardest job in the courtroom and it is our job as experts to create a direct, dynamic, and unique relationship with each juror. The article then focuses on ways to ensure jurors understand our testimony, including using good metaphors and analogies, showing visuals, avoiding jargon, and speaking in a way that conveys common sense. As Dr. Postal argued, following these principles will serve to establish, and ultimately bolster our credibility as experts with the people who have the most critical job in the courtroom. Finally, we discuss how these shifts can help us handle cross examination in a way that maintains the credibility we establish. The article concludes with a discussion of how mentorship, an incredibly important part of Dr. Postal's work, is of utmost value when embarking in the field of forensic neuropsychology.

Objective: Clinical neuropsychologists wishing to consult in criminal cases have ethical requirements to familiarize themselves with this specialty prior to initiating services. This paper presents foundational knowledge for professional neuropsychological consulting in cases where competence to proceed through the criminal adjudication process is in question.

Method: Reviewed are key foundations of knowledge for practice of clinical neuropsychology in relation to competency to stand trial or to proceed examinations. These foundations include a review of the criminal judicial system, relevant US Constitutional Amendments, and select mental health case law.

Results: First, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution establish the rights of freedom of thought, due process, freedom from self-incrimination, assistance of counsel, and equal protection. As used in criminal legal proceedings, capacity generally refers to abilities (i.e., functional capabilities), while competency is a legal determination based on a set of capacities. Although competency to proceed is assumed, Dusky  v  United  States  (1960) establishes that defendants are not competent if they lack sufficient present ability to consult with their lawyers using a reasonable degree of rational and factual understanding. Case law and statutory law establish that the loss must be due to mental disease or defect.

Conclusions: Clinical neuropsychologists wishing to consult in criminal forensic cases have ethical requirements to become familiar with this unique consultative arena before choosing to enter. The foundational knowledge for clinical consulting within the criminal forensic context is presented to help clinical neuropsychologists begin developing authentic professional competence in the criminal forensic arena.

Objective: The present study sought to identify changes in neuropsychological validity assessment beliefs and practices relative to surveys of North American neuropsychologists conducted in 2015 and 2016, obtain a more nuanced understanding of such beliefs and practices, and examine salient validity assessment topics not addressed by previous surveys.

Methods: Adult focused neuropsychologists (n = 445) and neuropsychological validity assessment experts (n = 16) were surveyed regarding their perceptions and practices related to the following topics: (i) importance of validity testing; (ii) multiple performance validity test (PVT) administration and interpretation; (iii) suspected causes of invalidity; (iv) reporting on malingering; (v) assessment of examinees of diverse language, culture, and nation of origin; (vi) terminology; and (vii) most frequently utilized validity measures.

Results: There was general agreement, if not consensus, across multiple survey topics. The vast majority of neuropsychologists and experts view validity testing as mandatory in clinical and forensic evaluations, administer multiple PVTs regardless of setting, believe validity assessment to be important in the evaluation of all individuals including older adults and culturally diverse individuals, and view evaluations with few to no validity tests interspersed throughout the evaluation as being of lesser quality. Divergent opinions were also seen among respondents and between neuropsychologists and experts on some topics, including likely causes of invalidity and assessment and formal communication of malingering.

Conclusions: Current results highlight the necessity of formal validity assessment within both clinical and forensic neuropsychological evaluations, and findings document current trends and reported practices within the field.

The global impact of the Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) pandemic has extended beyond physical health, leading to widespread mental health issues. Beyond respiratory symptoms, there is a growing concern about long-term cognitive effects, particularly in individuals who experienced mild cases of the infection. We aimed to investigate the neuropsychological aspects of long-term COVID-19 in non-hospitalized adults compared with a control group. This cross-sectional study included 42 participants, 22 individuals with a history of mild COVID, and 20 healthy controls. The participants were recruited from the community and underwent a comprehensive neuropsychological assessment. Participants from the mild COVID group reported cognitive symptoms persisting for an average of 203.86 days and presented a higher frequency of psychological treatment history (81.8%) compared with the control group (25.0%). History of anxiety disorders was more prevalent in the mild COVID group (63.6%) than in the control group (20.0%). Significant reductions in verbal working memory were observed in the mild COVID group. Levels of anxiety were found to have a significant impact on difficulties with visual recognition memory. This study reveals important neuropsychological alterations in individuals following mild COVID-19, emphasizing executive functions deficits. Our findings underscore the persistence of these deficits even in non-hospitalized cases, suggesting potential inflammatory mechanisms in the central nervous system. The study highlights the need for comprehensive assessments and targeted interventions to address the diverse cognitive impacts on individuals recovering from COVID-19.

Objective: We examined the user experience in different modalities (face-to-face, semi-automated phone-based, and fully automated phone-based) of cognitive testing in people with subjective cognitive decline and mild cognitive impairment.

Method: A total of 67 participants from the memory clinic of the Maastricht University Medical Center+ participated in the study. The study consisted of cognitive tests in different modalities, namely, face-to-face, semi-automated phone-based guided by a researcher, and fully automated phone-based without the involvement of a researcher. After each assessment, a user experience questionnaire was administered, including questions about, for example, satisfaction, simplicity, and missing personal contact, on a seven-point Likert scale. Non-parametric tests were used to compare user experiences across different modalities.

Results: In all modalities, user experiences were rated above average. The face-to-face ratings were comparable to the ratings of the semi-automated phone-based assessment, except for the satisfaction and recommendation items, which were rated higher for the face-to-face assessment. The face-to-face assessment was preferred above the fully automated phone-based assessment on all items. In general, the semi- and fully automated phone-based assessments were comparable (simplicity, conceivability, quality of sound, visiting the hospital, and missing personal contact), while on all the other items, the semi-automated phone-based assessment was preferred.

Conclusions: User experience was rated high within all modalities. Simplicity, conceivability, comfortability, and participation scores were comparable in the semi-automated phone-based and face-to-face assessment. Based on these findings and earlier research on validation of the semi-automated phone-based assessment, the semi-automated assessment could be useful for screening for clinical trials, and after more research, in clinical practice.

Neuropsychological assessment can play a vital role in competency to stand trial (CST) evaluations. This article provides an overview of the brain and behavior-based conditions that may impact an individual's ability to participate in their legal proceedings, as well as the relevant legal parameters that guide these types of forensic mental health evaluations. Circumstances that may warrant the involvement of a neuropsychologist in these evaluations are reviewed. For example, neuropsychologists' expertise with validity testing, as well as their specialized knowledge of cognition, is useful from the onset of the evaluation through the end, where involved parties often want to know about restoration interventions and feasibility. Select neuropsychological testing measures and cultural considerations are also addressed. The article concludes with illustrative case examples that demonstrate the real-world application of neuropsychological involvement in this specific forensic context. Given the expanding opportunities for neuropsychologists to assist triers of fact, this work contributes to the necessary and developing education base for neuropsychologists who wish to provide informed, effective, and culturally sensitive CST evaluations or related consultation to the legal system.

Objective: Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) has been identified as a risk factor for later developing neurodegenerative disorders, and there has been significant attention on this association in forensic settings. As a result, forensic neuropsychologists are frequently asked to comment on risk for dementia after an alleged TBI in litigation and criminal cases. This article provides an evidence-based foundation to aid forensic practice by synthesizing comprehensive information pertaining to: (i) the role of the neuropsychologist in TBI-related litigation, (ii) the complexities associated with identifying TBIs in forensic cases, (iii) the science of TBI in relation to incident dementia, and (iv) current scientific evidence for chronic traumatic encephalopathy.

Results: Developing a neurodegenerative disorder after TBI is the exception rather than the rule. Prevalence rates suggest that only a small subset (< 5%) of individuals with moderate-to-severe TBI, and even fewer (< 1%) with mild TBI (mTBI), appear to develop certain neurodegenerative diseases, and the characteristics that place some at risk remain unclear. The literature is mixed in terms of identifying a relationship between mTBI and later-in-life dementia risk. Also, the quality of positive evidence for risk of dementia after mTBI is weak and mostly consists of observational studies characterized by methodological limitations.

Conclusions: Methods used to establish the likely occurrence of a TBI in a forensic context are typically more extensive than those used in a routine clinical evaluation. Research methodology to define TBI is often even more rudimentary and inconsistent. Applying clinical research results of TBI and dementia outcomes to forensic cases at an individual level carries significant limitations. Estimating the contribution of remote head hits or concussion in a causal manner to dementia is a challenge forensic experts sometimes face, yet at present, the task is impossible beyond correlations and speculation.