User:Mckenzie.l.mann/sandbox

One problem with the Boston Process Approach article is that some of the wording, grammar, and/or structure could be cleaned up and could use more references, since one reference in particular is used throughout the majority of the article. Two references that could be added to the article that are not already used: Grant, I., & Adams, K. (2009). Neuropsychological Assessment of Neuropsychiatric and Neuromedical Disorders. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. and Adams, K., & Gabel, N. (2014). Review of The Boston Process Approach to neuropsychological assessment. Archives Of Clinical Neuropsychology, 29(1), 121-123. Two questions/comments: In the article, should the first paragraph be separated into two different paragraphs? Right now it talks about what the Boston Process Approach is and also who came up and contributed with it. I feel like those two topics could be separated.

Read up on the lead paragraph. (See Assignment 6 on Bb.) This section should summarize the article. You can split this up, but it should be made more succinct. Some of the info should go in the body of the article.

Also, what other sections would you consider adding about this neuropsychological assessment, if you have any thoughts? Emilee.andersen (talk) 23:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't see a need to add more sections. Just clean up what is there and flesh out the information.J.R. Council (talk) 03:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

1. At first glance, the article looks like it needs some work. The banner at the top saying that it requires "cleanup" is a good indication of this! The suggested cleanup is for the reference section. So that is what my choice is for improvement. It appears that each citation has its own reference in the reference section even if some of the citations come from the same source. I think that's why the reference list appears so large even though there is not a lot of content present in the article. 2. A lot of the sources I found when researching were already cited in the Wikipedia article, which the assignment says not to use. However, I did find one source on an NDSU database that I think will have some useful information. Here is the reference: Libon, D., Swenson, R., Ashendorf, L., Bauer, R., & Bowers, D. (2013). Edith Kaplan and the Boston process approach. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 27, 1223-1233. 3. Two questions: (1) Is there an aspect to the Boston Process Approach that you would like us to include in the article?

I'm not a neuropsychologist. I'll leave that up to you.

(2) The 'Modification' section just lists a bunch of different tests. Do you think this section is useful to the article or could we possibly take this section out? JadeyKappes (talk) 03:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

This is an approach, not a test. The examiner chooses tests and they can be modified for the BPA. Maybe the best way to deal with this issue is to title the section, 'Test battery and modifications.' Then just flesh the section out to indicate that all of these tests have been used in the battery, and some have been modified.J.R. Council (talk) 03:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

A problem I found with the Boston Process Approach article was how they had so many sources, but not a lot of information. Wikipedia even mentions that this source requires clean up due to the sources. Something that could help improve this would be to view each source and make sure it's reliable. Also, as we’re checking out the source, we should check to see if there’s other information this source can provide us with. The more information we can get out of each source, the better it will be for us. I also struggled trying to find sources that weren’t already listed. However, one I found on google scholar is: Igor Grant; Kenneth Adams (March 10, 2009). Neuropsychological Assessment of Neuropsychiatric and Neuromedical Disorders. Oxford University Press, USA. ISBN 978-0-19-537854-2. This source is a book that discusses the Boston Process Approach. I’m hoping there’s a way to access this book fully, otherwise I will continue to look at books at the library. Questions/comments: Should we go in depth discussing Dr. Edith Kaplan and her colleagues on this page? If so, how much?

It's best to check whether there are already pages about Kaplan and colleagues, and then just link to them. Whatever you put on this page should be directly relevant to the BPA.

Also, other than adding more information under each of the current headings, is there another heading, or something we should discuss about this topic that hasn’t been brought up? PsychMajorFall19 (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm no expert in this area. I'll leave this up to you. As you do your research, it should become apparent what's missing. J.R. Council (talk) 03:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

The problem that stuck out to me the most would be the reference section, as Jadey has already commented on. I also agree with her that the Modifications section could be problematic; however, I think instead of getting rid of it, we could revise it? I'm not entirely sure what it's purpose is, so that would be my first question.

See my comment above to Jadey.

Secondly, the interpretation section is quite short and seemingly vague. I wonder if you're satisfied with it, or if you agree it could be elaborated on?

Interpretation section could definitely use some elaboration. This should be much more specific and informative.J.R. Council (talk) 03:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

The two sources I think could be of good use here are Leposavić, I., Leposavić, L., & Šaula-Marojević, B. (2010). NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT: COMPUTERIZES BATTERIES OR STANDARD TESTS. Psychiatria Danubina, 22(2), 145-152. and Bauer, R. M. (1994). The flexible battery approach to neuropsychological assessment. Clinician’s guide to neuropsychological assessment, 259-290. Mckenzie.l.mann (talk) 04:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

To Do List

1. Reference list cleanup JadeyKappes (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
2. Fix up the interpretation section, elaborate it more Emilee.andersen (talk) 21:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
3. Make sure lead paragraph is a succinct summary of the whole article. Mckenzie.l.mann (talk) 00:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
4. Flesh it out. Mckenzie.l.mann (talk) 00:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
5. Look for pictures to help visualize some of the batteries being explained Mckenzie.l.mann (talk) 00:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
6. Also make sure the lead paragraph isn't elaborating too much. Some information can be further explained in the body of the article. PsychMajorFall19 (talk) 05:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
7. If people are mentioned, or there are some people we want to mention, be sure that the people are relevant and directly related to the BPA. PsychMajorFall19 (talk) 05:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Learn to format! A bulleted or numbered list is very easy to do, and will help organize your work. I've done that for you here for the first few items on your list. J.R. Council (talk) 07:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Division of work: Jadey: I don't mind cleaning up the references. I am not very familiar with how to edit them yet, but I'm sure it won't be too difficult once I figure it out. JadeyKappes (talk) 01:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Look in Bb Wikipedia resources for some help on references. J.R. Council (talk) 07:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Emilee: I can fix up the interpretation section, there is not a lot of detail on what the results of the BPA may conclude about the patient. I think that adding examples of interpretations and elaborations would be something this section really needs. Emilee.andersen (talk) 16:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

McKenzie: I will look for pictures to add and clean up the modifications section. They will sort of go hand-in-hand, so it makes sense. I'd like to break up the ridiculously long sentence of the mod section and explain each test they mention. I can also possibly refer to any pictures I find in this section as well. Mckenzie.l.mann (talk) 01:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Look in Bb Wikipedia resources for some help on illustrations. J.R. Council (talk) 07:16, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Sarah: Mckenzie, I can help you make sure the lead paragraph has what's needed and not overloaded with information. Just to make sure anything extremely detailed can go into the body paragraph instead. I can also look to see if there's people mentioned in this article that aren't relevant, as well as add people that may need to be mentioned. PsychMajorFall19 (talk) 05:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Outline

Lead section-- we each have to write one for assignment 6 so whichever one is the best is the one that should be used. JadeyKappes (talk) 01:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

These solid blocks of text are really hard to read. Again, use a numbered or bulleted list, or at least break it up. Put two blank lines between sections. I'll do these things below to ahow you.J.R. Council (talk) 07:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Here are the list of sections already present in the article: Administration: Here it gives a brief overview of how the approach is administered, but little else. I think it would be great to add an example and maybe even cite some of our references in how they approached it with their tests, etc. Mckenzie.l.mann (talk) 00:39, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree, I think an example of administration would be something good to add in this section, especially since the BPA is not exactly the same for every person it is used on, meaning that the administrator picks out different standardized tests to use on different patients. That is the one part that I have a little bit of a hard time understanding, so elaborating on that is a good idea.Emilee.andersen (talk) 16:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• Qualitative Analysis: for this one, it's pretty well laid out already in my opinion. However, after the first sentence, I think it would be beneficial to add a more detailed description of what qualitative analysis is, as the description is still a little too vague for someone to really understand it, in it's entirety. Mckenzie.l.mann (talk) 00:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

1. I think this section is done well too, but I think some of the sentencing could be cleaned up in it. There is one sentence in there that is particularly long and makes it hard to understand what they are trying to explain in their example. I think if we clean up the sentence structure a little bit, it would be easier to understand and also add in a better definition of qualitative analysis as McKenzie said. Emilee.andersen (talk) 16:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Modifications: This section is a little hard to understand. I think it needs to be more explanatory as to why it is added in the BPA wiki page. I'm not sure if listing all those scales are needed, and it does not necessarily explain that those scales are possibly used in the BPA. Emilee.andersen (talk) 16:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

  •I don't necessarily disagree, Emilee, but I do think this section can be helpful; specifically for easy referral of the different types of tests involved in the approach. I think what we need to do is clean it up and elaborate about each one. Also adding pictures should help, when applicable. Mckenzie.l.mann (talk) 02:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Interpretations: this section is very short. I think it could be fleshed out a lot more by adding details from our references about different types of interpretations and why, etc. We can make it really interesting by using case studies if they happen to be available. Mckenzie.l.mann (talk) 00:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Critiques: I think this section could use better wording/sentence structure, and maybe a little more detail about why there are no supporting norms or standardized methods of assessing deficits. Emilee.andersen (talk) 16:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

We should decide what we want to do with these already existing sections and also discuss whether we want to add any new ones. JadeyKappes (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Some of Professor Council's comments mentioned he doesn't think we need to add more sections, but just to flesh out more information on existing ones. He also talked about if we think something needs to be added, add it. It'll be more apparent once we get farther into editing our article. So for now, I think we should just try our best with what information we have now, elaborate it and go from there. PsychMajorFall19 (talk) 05:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the to-do list, I will see if there are people in this article that need to be elaborated on further, or if they can be removed. If there's someone extremely important in the BPA, do you think we should have a small section for them, or just mention them inside another paragraph? Just asking this so if we need to add this into our outline somewhere, we can. Whatever you guys think! PsychMajorFall19 (talk) 05:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I am not exactly sure if we need a section for them, if anything I think if there was a section to be added about someone, it would be about Edith Kaplan and how she came to founding the BPA. But maybe that would be something that could be kept to her page on wiki rather than the BPA page and then that info would just be added briefly to a section that already exists instead of creating a whole new one...if that makes sense. Emilee.andersen (talk) 16:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Libon, D., Swenson, R., Ashendorf, L., Bauer, R., & Bowers, D. (2013). Edith Kaplan and the Boston process approach. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 27, 1223-1233. 3 JadeyKappes (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Grant, I., & Adams, K. (2009). Neuropsychological Assessment of Neuropsychiatric and Neuromedical Disorders. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Emilee.andersen (talk) 21:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC) Adams, K., & Gabel, N. (2014). Review of The Boston Process Approach to neuropsychological assessment. Archives Of Clinical Neuropsychology, 29(1), 121-123.Emilee.andersen (talk) 21:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Leposavić, I., Leposavić, L., & Šaula-Marojević, B. (2010). Neuropsychological assessment: computerizes batteries or standard tests. Psychiatria Danubina, 22(2), 145-152. and Bauer, R. M. (1994). The flexible battery approach to neuropsychological assessment. Clinician’s guide to neuropsychological assessment, 259-290. Mckenzie.l.mann (talk) 00:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Igor Grant; Kenneth Adams (March 10, 2009). Neuropsychological Assessment of Neuropsychiatric and Neuromedical Disorders. Oxford University Press, USA. ISBN 978-0-19-537854-2. PsychMajorFall19 (talk) 05:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Dr. Council's comments on Assignment 5

You seem to have found lots of information and have good ideas about developing the article. Need to do a better job of organizing what you've found.

1. First, see comments above in italics. You guys need to start formatting correctly. That will make things a lot easier to follow.
   1. Starting with your outline. Put this in a proper outline and the article will be much easier to write.
2. I can't tell that you have each contributed to each part of the assignment. Jadey seems to have done the most. I can give each of you partial credit for this assignment. If you deserve more, please go back and sign your contributions or otherwise indicate what you've done. J.R. Council (talk) 07:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Lead Section- JadeyKappes

The Boston Process Approach is a neurological assessment founded by Edith Kaplan in the 1960s. Kaplan's colleagues; Harold Goodglass, Nelson Butters, Laird Cermak, and Norman Geschwind all made important contributions to the development of this approach as well (Libon et. al, 2013). The main purpose of The Boston Process Approach is to assess brain damage as well as cognitive impairments in patients through a series of tests that are related to memory, attention, intelligence, and other aspects of information processing. This approach is one of the more flexible and qualitative neurological assessments because it emphasizes how a patient performs a task instead of whether they succeeded or failed at it (Ashendorf, Libon, & Swenseon, 2013). The best examples of this can be seen in the Block Design test (Milberg & Hebben, 2013). One criticism that faces the Boston Process Approach is whether it is reliable and valid enough to be used as a neurological assessment. With that being said, the Boston Process Approach revolutionized the field of clinical psychology and is still widely used today (Milberg & Hebben, 2013). JadeyKappes (talk) 23:21, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Dr. Council's comments: I like this one. It's a good length and very concise. J.R. Council (talk) 20:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Lead Section- SarahKlein

The Boston Process Approach is defined as a tactic to help strengthen a skill that determines what part of the brain may be injured, or have some kind of disorder. This method was developed by Dr. Edith Kaplan and her colleagues, which included Drs. Harold Goodglass, Nelson Butters, Laird Cermak, and Norman Geschwind (Hebben, Kaplan, & Milberg, 2009). The purpose of this approach is to look at the patient’s intellectual advantages and disadvantages in a more in depth way (Milberg & Hebben, 2013). It’s currently being used to help further knowledge in clinical neuropsychology (Mittenberg, Odland, Ritchie, A., & Ritchie, D., 2012). In order to start this procedure, the neuropsychologist first has to look at the patient’s behaviors and what kind of complications they may be having. Based off of that information, they will have the patient perform a standardized test. While the participant is performing the test, the neuropsychologist examines how they are answering each question. The neuropsychologist will scrutinize the process to see if there are any intellectual problems. There can be alterations made to the test simply by adding, or lessening the time the patient has to complete the test. After using the Boston process approach, the clinician will try to understand the outcomes and make conclusions on what was going on in the patient’s brain. It will be based off of the errors that occurred during the test. The point of looking at the errors is to see what issues may have occurred when trying to process the information and answer the question. Certain inaccuracies may infer that there’s damage to a definite part of the brain.There have been a couple of criticisms mentioned about the Boston process approach. Those who have reviewed this method believe that there isn’t a consistent technique to obtain the participant’s discrepancies. Also, while performing this approach, there aren’t any reliable patterns. It was mentioned that when Dr. Kaplan performed this procedure, her colleagues couldn’t get the same results either (Milberg & Hebben, 2013). Quite a few people have questioned how valid her approach is. PsychMajorFall19 (talk) 22:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Dr. Council's comments: This lead is a bit too detailed and long. I would move the detailed description of procedure to the main body of the article, and just use a general statement for the lead. J.R. Council (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Lead Section- EmileeAndersen

The Boston process approach is an approach used in neuropsychological assessment which embodies a philosophical ideal concerning the optimal means of examining patients with suspected brain damage or cognitive deficiencies. This assessment approach was developed at the Boston Veterans Medical Center by the American psychologist, Dr. Edith Kaplan, along with her colleagues, Drs. Harold Goodglass, Nelson Butters, Laird Cermak, and Norman Geschwind (Hebben, Kaplan, & Milberg, 2009). It focuses on the qualitative measurements of behavior (Ashendorf, Libon, & Swenson, 2013) and arises from the premise that “equal performance on any given mental task can be accomplished by different processes or strategies” (Milberg & Hebben, 2013). That is, patients may differ in errors being made during the assessment, but they may also be able to attain the same score on a test. So, the Boston process approach is used to analyze the different strategies and underlying processes of the individual when making mistakes to understand what difficulties they are having. The main goal of the approach is to create an understanding of the cognitive strengths and weaknesses of a patient (Milberg & Hebben, 2013). It is a flexible-battery approach to neuropsychological testing, meaning that there is not one specific test used, rather there can be many tests chosen to use on a patient, and they are chosen according to the patients specific deficits. The Boston process approach is currently used as a method of neuropsychological assessment, with experience in its use being considered by some to be essential for applicants to internships in clinical neuropsychology (Mittenberg, Odland, Ritchie, A., & Ritchie, D., 2012). However, this approach does have its criticisms in that it is not considered by some to be a consistent technique when assessing patients cognitive abilities. Final results may differ from administrator to administrator on the same patient, so there is questioning on whether or not this approach is a reliable method. Emilee.andersen (talk) 22:29, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Dr. Council's comments: This is also a bit long, but it is well written and organized. If some of the non-essential details were moved to the main text, this could make a nice lead. J.R. Council (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Lead Section- McKenzieMann

The Boston Process Approach is a method of neuropsychological assessment. Developed by Dr. Edith Kaplan and colleagues, this type of testing aims to understand the nature of the brain's problems by using an assortment of tests and techniques (Hebben, Kaplan, & Milberg, 2009; Libon et. al, 2013). Qualitative analysis is employed for the observation of how the patient arrives at their answer, not the answer itself (Kaplan, 1988). A goal of the approach is to understand the cognitive strengths and weaknesses of the patient (Milberg & Hebben, 2013). Often, the psychologist will use a more general test that covers a broad spectrum of cognitive functions. The following test will be chosen based on the score of the patient and the problematic area that needs further testing for a diagnosis (Sherman, Spreen, & Straus, 2006). Tests may also be slightly altered to retest specific areas if there were to have been doubt or inconclusive data; adjusting the time of the test is one type of alteration. This procedure continues until the doctor feels comfortable diagnosing the patient, given their test scores. A major criticism of this approach is on it's external validity. The problems occur due to differences in outcome between administrators. There have also been issues in regards to the lack of consistent patterns and methods for each diagnosis (Milberg & Hebben, 2013). This is a flexible battery approach, which allows for administrators to choose which tests they want to use, however, it makes room for the lack of consistency in choosing the tests for each type of neurological issue. Accordingly, there are questions about the empirical validity of the Boston Process Approach. Mckenzie.l.mann (talk) 22:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Dr. Council's comments: This could also benefit from editing. I would certainly keep the parts at the end regarding validity and consistency. J.R. Council (talk) 20:23, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Lead Section- Combined

The Boston Process Approach is a neurological assessment founded by Edith Kaplan in the 1960s. This method was developed by Dr. Edith Kaplan and her colleagues, which included Drs. Harold Goodglass, Nelson Butters, Laird Cermak, and Norman Geschwind at the Boston Veterans Medical Center. The main purpose of The Boston Process Approach is to assess brain damage as well as cognitive impairments in patients through a series of tests that are related to memory, attention, intelligence, and other aspects of information processing. This approach is one of the more flexible and qualitative neurological assessments because it emphasizes how a patient performs a task instead of whether they succeeded or failed at it.

The best examples of this can be seen in the Block Design test (Milberg & Hebben, 2013). A major criticism of this approach is on it's external validity. The problems occur due to differences in outcome between administrators. There have also been issues in regards to the lack of consistent patterns and methods for each diagnosis (Milberg & Hebben, 2013). This neuropsychological flexible battery approach allows for administrators to choose which tests they want to use, however, it makes room for the lack of consistency in choosing the tests for each type of neurological issue. Accordingly, there are questions about the empirical validity of the Boston Process Approach. With that being said, the Boston Process Approach revolutionized the field of clinical psychology and is still widely used today (Milberg & Hebben, 2013). JadeyKappes (talk) 23:21, 27 March 2018 (UTC) Mckenzie.l.mann (talk) 16:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC) PsychMajorFall19 (talk) 02:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC) Emilee.andersen (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Dr. Council's comments: This is still too long and detailed, but overall is an excellent job. I have separated the section that I think would be a great lead. The rest can be elaborated in the main body of the article. Other comments:

• Link to other articles relevant to the lead, including the authors, cognitive impairment, and neurological assessment.
• Put reference citations in proper Wikipedia format. This will automatically generate a ref list. J.R. Council (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Not ready yet J.R. Council (talk) 21:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I really like Sarah's way of introducing who founded the Boston Process Approach and how she worded all of the colleagues' names. I think her way should replace what I originally had. Sarah do you want to change it or should I? JadeyKappes (talk) 18:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Jadey! I can replace what you had and put mine in. PsychMajorFall19 (talk) 02:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC) I just replaced it! I just put my name after Jadey's and Mckenzie's, did I do that correctly, or do I have to do something else? PsychMajorFall19 (talk) 02:22, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I just edited a few sentences to make flow better. Mckenzie.l.mann (talk) 14:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I had also added in a few little details here and there throughout the lead to add for significance to some areas. Emilee.andersen (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Dr. Council's comments

Time to get moving on this. If you take the first paragraph and edit a bit, it will serve fine as your lead. The piece I separated will give you a fine start on the main article. Just add in headings and fill in details. Use proper references and links to relevant articles. J.R. Council (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Main Article Development

Lead Section

The Boston Process Approach is a neurological assessment developed by Dr. Edith Kaplan and her colleagues, which included Drs. Harold Goodglass, Nelson Butters, Laird Cermak, and Norman Geschwind at the Boston Veterans Medical Center . The main purpose of The Boston Process Approach is to assess brain damage as well as cognitive impairments in patients through a series of tests that are related to memory, attention, intelligence, and other aspects of information processing. This approach is one of the more flexible and qualitative neurological assessments because it emphasizes how a patient performs a task instead of whether they succeeded or failed at it .

Administration

In order to start this procedure, the neuropsychologist first looks at the participant’s behaviors and what kind of complications they may have. Based off of the given information, the person performs a standardized test. While the participant is performing the test, the neuropsychologist examines how they are answering each question. The neuropsychologist scrutinizes the process to see if there are any intellectual problems exhibited. Alterations can be made to the test by simply adding, or lessening the time the person has to complete the test. After using the Boston process approach, the clinician looks at the outcomes to make conclusions on what is going on in the brain. These conclusions are based off of the errors that occurred during the test. The point of looking at the errors is to see what issues may have occurred when trying to process the information and answer the question in order to evaluate the specific deficit(s). Certain inaccuracies may infer that there’s damage to a definite part of the brain, like speech difficulties implicating the speech area in the left hemisphere.

Qualitative Analysis

The qualitative analysis focuses on closely observing the process by which a patient arrives at a final answer. An example of qualitative analysis is in regard to the Block design test, which measures spatial visualization ability and motor skills. During the task the patient is asked to recreate a viewed pattern by arranging a set of blocks that have colored patterns on each side, The examiner observes the method by which the patient approaches and solves the problem, focusing, for example, on what quadrant the patient started at, which hand was used to arrange the blocks, whether the patient rotated the blocks on the table or had to lift them into space, if the image produced was either a mirror image or reversal of the pattern that the patient was supposed to create, and which side the patient made more errors on. This is considered qualitative analysis because it focuses on how the patient came to their final design, rather than the final design itself.

Modifications

The modifications made to standardized tests can include repetition of test questions and allowing more time than allotted in the standardized version. Many standardized tests have been subject to process-based modifications. There are many types of modifications that have been created for the battery approach, but not all of them are listed. Some of the main modifications are listed below:

• Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale Revised as a Neuropsychological Instrument (WAIS-R NI)
• Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-IV)
• Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST)
• Wechsler Memory Scale-Revised (WMS-R)
• California Verbal Learning Test (CVLT)
• Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure (ROCF)
• Consonant Trigrams Test
• Boston Naming Test (BNT)
• Judgment of Line Orientation (JLO)
• Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT4)
• Stroop Task
• Luria Three-Step Motor Program
• Geriatric Evaluation of Mental Status

Interpretation

The Boston process approach is known to be a flexible battery approach when assessing brain function of a person, meaning that there can be many different standardized tests that can be administered to the individual depending on their existing deficiencies. Data interpretation from this approach does not necessarily look at the final score on the tests, rather it focuses on what kind of errors were made by the individual during the assessment . Results from the Boston process approach allow the clinician to make inferences about what brain areas may not be working properly in the individual. The clinician can then also make inferences about how severe the damage to the brain is by determining whether there is low-level or higher-level deficits in their cognitive processing .

Critiques

A major criticism of this approach is on it's external validity. The problems occur due to differences in outcome between administrators. There have also been issues in regards to the lack of consistent patterns and methods for each diagnosis (Milberg & Hebben, 2013). This neuropsychological flexible battery approach allows for administrators to choose which tests they want to use, however, it makes room for the lack of consistency in choosing the tests for each type of neurological issue. Accordingly, there are questions about the empirical validity of the Boston Process Approach. With that being said, the Boston Process Approach revolutionized the field of clinical psychology and is still widely used today (Milberg & Hebben, 2013).