Myths of neuropsychology: Further considerations

The publication of "Myths of Neuropsychology" (Dodrill, 1997) has stimulate d three responses, each of which takes issue with points in the original pu blication. These three responses especially address Myth #4 ("Above-average performances on neuropsychological tests are expected when intellectual ab ilities are above average") and to a lesser degree Myth #1 ("We have a good knowledge of the constructs that our tests measure"). The present paper re views the thoughts and new data which these colleagues have provided in res ponse to the original paper, and it also presents additional data bearing o n the issues at hand. Based on the composite of information now available, it is conceded that Myth #4 was not accurately worded in the original paper . This was a mistake, and an alternate wording for Myth #4 is offered. Othe r changes in the original publication do not appear to be required. In orde r to resolve many of the issues at hand and thereby advance our profession, research in a number of areas is needed, many of which are specifically id entified in the present paper.