The Experts below are selected from a list of 201 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Martin L Rohling - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
application of the daubert standards to the meyers neuropsychological battery using the rohling Interpretive Method
Psychological Injury and Law, 2015Co-Authors: Martin L Rohling, John E Meyers, Gerard R Williams, Stephen S Kalat, Shanna K Williams, Joshua KeeneAbstract:The Meyers Neuropsychological Battery (MNB) is a neuropsychological assessment battery used to detect cognitive impairment caused by acquired brain injury. Results obtained by examinees given the MNB have been submitted as evidence in a judicial proceeding in cases involving traumatic brain injury (TBI) and other neurocognitive disorders. We provide an examination of the MNB when used with the Rohling Interpretive Method (RIM) through the lens of Daubert v. Merrell Dow (1993). Daubert established criteria to be applied by judges to determine who can provide expert opinions and what these experts are allowed to present to the triers of fact. Daubert has five criteria judges consider in their role as gatekeepers of an expert’s testimony. These standards are utilized to ascertain if the expert’s testimony is scientific, with particular focus on its reliability, validity, and relevancy. We report on the MNB-RIM’s ability to withstand the rigors of a Daubert analysis, with each criterion addressed in sequence. To accomplish this task, we review the peer-reviewed literature that has tested each of the MNB components, as well as the utility of the battery in its entirety. The literature extends over the 20-year history that the MNB and the RIM have been in use in clinical and forensic assessments. Statistics regarding the MNB-RIM’s error rate have been empirically derived in numerous publications. These factors have led to a “general acceptance” of the battery and the material. Our review is intended to provide users of the MNB-RIM with the information they will need to successfully defend against a Daubert challenge.
-
Rohling's Interpretive Method for Neuropsychological Case Data: A Response to Critics
Neuropsychology Review, 2004Co-Authors: Martin L Rohling, L. Stephen Miller, Jennifer Langhinrichsen-rohlingAbstract:In the September 2001 issue of Neuropsychology Review Miller and Rohling published a description of the Rohling Interpretive Method (RIM). These authors indicated that the RIM could be used to analyze an individual patient's test results obtained from a flexible neuropsychological battery. Two critiques of the RIM were submitted (Palmer, Appelbaum, & Heaton, 2004; Willson & Reynolds, 2004), both of which are printed in the current issue. This paper is a response to these two author groups concerns about the clinical and psychometric feasibility of the RIM. We provide both psychometric theory and data analyses to refute each of the two author groups' main objections. We conclude with a recommendation that neuropsychologists adopt the RIM for use in their day-to-day practice to improve their diagnostic accuracy and treatment planning skills. The main reason for use of the RIM is to avoid several common errors in clinical judgment that have been well documented in the literature (e.g., Dawes, Faust, & Meehl, 1989).
-
using the halstead reitan battery to diagnose brain damage a comparison of the predictive power of traditional techniques to rohling s Interpretive Method
Clinical Neuropsychologist, 2003Co-Authors: Martin L Rohling, David Williamson, Stephen L Miller, Russell L AdamsAbstract:The aim of this project was to validate an alternative global measure of neurocognitive impairment (Rohling Interpretive Method, or RIM) that could be generated from data gathered from a flexible battery approach. A critical step in this process is to establish the utility of the technique against current standards in the field. In this paper, we compared results from the Rohling Interpretive Method to those obtained from the General Neuropsychological Deficit Scale (GNDS; Reitan & Wolfson, 1988) and the Halstead–Russell Average Impairment Rating (AIR; Russell, Neuringer & Goldstein, 1970) on a large previously published sample of patients assessed with the Halstead–Reitan Battery (HRB). Findings support the use of the Rohling Interpretive Method in producing summary statistics similar in diagnostic sensitivity and specificity to the traditional HRB indices.
-
A Statistical Interpretive Method for Neuropsychological Test Data
Neuropsychology Review, 2001Co-Authors: L. Stephen Miller, Martin L RohlingAbstract:The accurate interpretation of large numbers of neuropsychological tests within a flexible battery approach is a difficult and sometimes controversial process. We present a statistically based Method of interpretation (Rohling's Interpretive Method or RIM) and evaluation of neuropsychological data that allows for varying numbers of tests along a varying number of cognitive domains, yet remains psychometrically based. This Method requires informed clinical judgment in that the level of confidence for tests, cognitive domains, and global indices are used as the backdrop for Interpretive decisions. Specific procedures for use are presented in a systematic, detailed fashion to allow the interested reader to replicate the Method. Two case examples are presented: a straightforward case of cerebrovascular insult and a more complicated case of mixed etiology. Examples include a variety of different neuropsychological tests commonly used in a flexible battery approach. A discussion of the practicality, ease of use, and potential limitations of this Method are further presented.
L. Stephen Miller - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Rohling's Interpretive Method for Neuropsychological Case Data: A Response to Critics
Neuropsychology Review, 2004Co-Authors: Martin L Rohling, L. Stephen Miller, Jennifer Langhinrichsen-rohlingAbstract:In the September 2001 issue of Neuropsychology Review Miller and Rohling published a description of the Rohling Interpretive Method (RIM). These authors indicated that the RIM could be used to analyze an individual patient's test results obtained from a flexible neuropsychological battery. Two critiques of the RIM were submitted (Palmer, Appelbaum, & Heaton, 2004; Willson & Reynolds, 2004), both of which are printed in the current issue. This paper is a response to these two author groups concerns about the clinical and psychometric feasibility of the RIM. We provide both psychometric theory and data analyses to refute each of the two author groups' main objections. We conclude with a recommendation that neuropsychologists adopt the RIM for use in their day-to-day practice to improve their diagnostic accuracy and treatment planning skills. The main reason for use of the RIM is to avoid several common errors in clinical judgment that have been well documented in the literature (e.g., Dawes, Faust, & Meehl, 1989).
-
A Statistical Interpretive Method for Neuropsychological Test Data
Neuropsychology Review, 2001Co-Authors: L. Stephen Miller, Martin L RohlingAbstract:The accurate interpretation of large numbers of neuropsychological tests within a flexible battery approach is a difficult and sometimes controversial process. We present a statistically based Method of interpretation (Rohling's Interpretive Method or RIM) and evaluation of neuropsychological data that allows for varying numbers of tests along a varying number of cognitive domains, yet remains psychometrically based. This Method requires informed clinical judgment in that the level of confidence for tests, cognitive domains, and global indices are used as the backdrop for Interpretive decisions. Specific procedures for use are presented in a systematic, detailed fashion to allow the interested reader to replicate the Method. Two case examples are presented: a straightforward case of cerebrovascular insult and a more complicated case of mixed etiology. Examples include a variety of different neuropsychological tests commonly used in a flexible battery approach. A discussion of the practicality, ease of use, and potential limitations of this Method are further presented.
Cecil R Reynolds - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a critique of miller and rohling s statistical Interpretive Method for neuropsychological test data
Neuropsychology Review, 2004Co-Authors: Victor L Willson, Cecil R ReynoldsAbstract:A critical review of the 24-step procedure of Miller and Rohling's (in press) proposed standardization of clinician's use of neuropsychological assessment batteries is presented. Each step is examined for statistical sources of invalidity. It was concluded that parts of the procedure are quite vulnerable to between-battery variability that cannot be easily estimated or controlled, leading to significant errors in analysis and classification. A second fatal flaw is the failure to distinguish in the procedures between standard error measurement and standard error of the estimate in calculations in several steps. The purpose of the process remains viable, however, and is an important contribution toward the improvement of clinical diagnosis.
Jennifer Langhinrichsen-rohling - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Rohling's Interpretive Method for Neuropsychological Case Data: A Response to Critics
Neuropsychology Review, 2004Co-Authors: Martin L Rohling, L. Stephen Miller, Jennifer Langhinrichsen-rohlingAbstract:In the September 2001 issue of Neuropsychology Review Miller and Rohling published a description of the Rohling Interpretive Method (RIM). These authors indicated that the RIM could be used to analyze an individual patient's test results obtained from a flexible neuropsychological battery. Two critiques of the RIM were submitted (Palmer, Appelbaum, & Heaton, 2004; Willson & Reynolds, 2004), both of which are printed in the current issue. This paper is a response to these two author groups concerns about the clinical and psychometric feasibility of the RIM. We provide both psychometric theory and data analyses to refute each of the two author groups' main objections. We conclude with a recommendation that neuropsychologists adopt the RIM for use in their day-to-day practice to improve their diagnostic accuracy and treatment planning skills. The main reason for use of the RIM is to avoid several common errors in clinical judgment that have been well documented in the literature (e.g., Dawes, Faust, & Meehl, 1989).
Robert K Heaton - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
rohling s Interpretive Method and inherent limitations on the flexibility of flexible batteries
Neuropsychology Review, 2004Co-Authors: Barton W Palmer, Mark Appelbaum, Robert K HeatonAbstract:Miller and Rohling (2001) proposed a 24-step algorithm, the Rohling Interpretive Method (RIM), for quantitative interpretation of results from flexible neuropsychological test batteries. We believe that the RIM as presented in that paper has several conceptual problems, including (a) a failure to distinguish “statistically significant” from pathological differences, (b) an assumption that declines in specific abilities can be inferred when a particular test score deviates from an estimate of general premorbid ability, and (c) confusion between the standard deviation associated with individual test scores versus that of a composite of those scores. As an alternative, we suggest the value of developing and using co-normed comprehensive neuropsychological test batteries from which test users might select subsets of tests.
