How We Work Now: Preliminary Review of a Pediatric Neuropsychology Hybrid Model in the Era of COVID-19 and Beyond.

OBJECTIVE: Although telehealth has become a central component of medical care in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, comprehensive pediatric neuropsychological assessment over virtual platforms lacks empirical efficacy. This paper presents: a) the results of a quality improvement project examining the feasibility of in-person evaluation in the context of safety measures that alter test standardization, b) the impact such changes had upon neuropsychological test scores, and c) how using a hybrid model of clinical service delivery affected access to care. METHOD: We compared demographic and outcome variables between patients seen during the pandemic (N = 87) to a group of patients seen in our service immediately prior to COVID-19 (N = 87). A subset of those patients were case-matched for age and diagnosis (N = 39 per group). Children seen for neuropsychological re-evaluation during the pandemic (N = 10) were examined using pairwise comparison. RESULTS: Groups did not differ on age, sex, or FSIQ. Despite changes to standardized administration, no group differences were found for any selected neuropsychological test variables in the larger sample or subsamples. In fact, all variables were moderately to highly correlated in the re-evaluation subgroup. The hybrid model expedited feedback sessions and increased face-to-face (telehealth) feedbacks. CONCLUSIONS: A hybrid model incorporating modified in-person testing and intake and feedback encounters via telehealth may be a feasible and effective way to provide pediatric neuropsychological services. These preliminary findings suggest such novel aspects of neuropsychological evaluation could represent an improvement over pre-COVID models, especially in rural settings.

Boston Naming Test: Lose the Noose.

OBJECTIVE: Administering the noose item of the Boston Naming Test (BNT) has been questioned given the cultural, historical, and emotional salience of the noose in American culture. In response, some have modified the BNT by skipping/removing this item and giving the point as if the examinee responded correctly. It is unknown, however, whether modifying standardized administration and scoring in this manner affects clinical interpretation. In the present study, we examined the prevalence of noose item failure, whether demographic and clinical characteristics differed between those who responded correctly versus failed the item, and whether giving a point to those who failed affected clinical interpretation. METHOD: Participants included a mixed clinical sample of 762 adults, ages 18-88 years, seen for neuropsychological evaluation at one of five sites within the USA. RESULTS: Those who failed the item (13.78%) were more likely to be female, non-White, and have primary diagnoses of major neurocognitive disorder, epilepsy, or neurodevelopmental disorder. Noose item failure was associated with lower BNT total score, fewer years of education and lower intellectual functioning, expressive vocabulary, and single word reading. Giving a point to those who failed the item resulted in descriptor category change for 17.1%, primarily for patients with poor overall BNT performance. CONCLUSIONS: Only a small percentage of patients fail the noose item, but adding a point for these has an impact on score interpretation. Factors associated with poorer overall performance on the BNT, rather than specific difficulty with the noose item, likely account for the findings.