Originally Posted by Mark in Idaho

Julie,

Your report is interesting in both what is says about you but also, what is says about the NeuroPsychologist.

It appears to expose some biases of the NeuroPsychologist.

Before i go on, I suggest you edit out your last name and substitute Julie.

The MMPI-II may be showing elevated scales that are interpreted as depression/suicidality but would indicate organic brain injury if evaluated with the Cripe Neurological Symptoms criteria. This can be a common overlap diagnosis of the MMPI-II.

No. 5 indicates elevated scales in 2-3 with a lack of clarity as to the cause or diagnosis. This elevated pair needs to be evaluated using the Cripe Neurological Symptoms to focus on whether there is a statistical indication of organic injury. CNS shows how scales 1, 2, 3, and 8 can double indicate both organic and psychological deficits. Further analysis would be worthwhile.

No. 8 appears to be based on a common bias of considering the time since injury and projecting a level of neurological injury based on undocumented impact intensity or lack thereof. Research shows that it is impossible to impute neurological deficits based on an assumed impact intensity.

He states <9)Regarding prognosis, the probability of additional spontaneous recovery is relatively unlikely given the amount of time since the 7-21-10 incident. > This appears to be in conflict with No 8. Was the injury of a severity to cause permanent deficits or are the deficits of a non-organic basis? No. 9 appears to properly put a organic causation on the deficits. i.e. Non-pathological causes would suggest room for treatment and improvement with psychological and other treatments. Pathological/organic causes would suggest limited opportunity for spontaneous or other recovery or improvement.

The comments recommending use of memory compensation strategies and tools sounds appropriate but re-entry into the work-force prior to mastery of these strategies sounds premature. More pinpoint analysis of memory functions to allow a focus on compensation strategies could be warranted.

The deficits listed appear to cluster in a organic causation. Accepting the current level of deficits would allow the effort to develop compensation and work-around skills to be successful with proper support. A bit more specificity regarding individual deficits would have been helpful to allow focus on those defined deficits.

Julie, i hope I have not added more confusion and anxiety to this situation. As humbling as an NPA can be, it also allows an acceptance of deficits as organic rather than psychological/psychosomatic. The ability to confidently acknowledge that the symptoms are real and not imagined allows for a solid starting point to move forward.

My best to you.