Discussion: Brain Damage and Rehabilitation: A Neuropsychological Approach

Abstract

The arguments in favour of standardized tests are reasonably obvious so I have no particular desire to argue against them. But I do have to say that I find it a little distressing that we have not so far talked very much about the kind of theoretical motivation behind any of these standardized tests; in particular, we have not explicitly tried to relate them to current views about the functional architectures of normal cognitive systems and how they can be impaired by brain damage. It is a related point that whilst, of course, we are all in favour of standardized tests, I do think that there should be a built-in obsolescence on every single screening battery that exists. I would suggest a period of ten years after which — without wishing to support the detractors of Mr Salman Rushdie — I think a test should be publicly burnt. The reason is this: After we have used a test for ten years, and after people have been doing research on and with that test for ten years, it would seem to me extremely depressing if we had not discovered enough to improve that particular test quite dramatically. I should perhaps not put this as extremely as I did in the first place. I think we actually have a choice. If we have improved the test in those ten years the earlier versions should be burned; alternatively, if we have not improved it in ten years, then we should fire the appropriate research workers and clinicians because they ought to have improved it in a period of ten years. Validity is never established for eternity.