Myths of neuropsychology: further considerations.

The publication of "Myths of Neuropsychology" (Dodrill, 1997) has stimulated three responses, each of which takes issue with points in the original publication. These three responses especially address Myth #4 ("Above-average performances on neuropsychological tests are expected when intellectual abilities 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 reviews the thoughts and new data which these colleagues have provided in response to the original paper, and it also presents additional data bearing on 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. Other changes in the original publication do not appear to be required. In order 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 identified in the present paper.