Switch to
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| lifeskim:mentions | |
| pubmed:issue |
4
|
| pubmed:dateCreated |
1985-1-22
|
| pubmed:abstractText |
The Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery (LNNB) remains the subject of controversy among neuropsychologists. Substantial criticisms of a theoretical and applied nature have called into question its research basis as a clinical tool. In response to this, Stambrook (1983) has concluded that further research on the LNNB by neuropsychologists is required. The present commentary disputes this need, pointing to the test author's and publisher's primary responsibility for such research. Tests or batteries may be dropped from one's clinical practice without invoking an obligation on the part of neuropsychology.
|
| pubmed:language |
eng
|
| pubmed:journal | |
| pubmed:citationSubset |
IM
|
| pubmed:status |
MEDLINE
|
| pubmed:month |
Nov
|
| pubmed:issn |
0165-0475
|
| pubmed:author | |
| pubmed:issnType |
Print
|
| pubmed:volume |
6
|
| pubmed:owner |
NLM
|
| pubmed:authorsComplete |
Y
|
| pubmed:pagination |
455-8
|
| pubmed:dateRevised |
2004-11-17
|
| pubmed:meshHeading | |
| pubmed:year |
1984
|
| pubmed:articleTitle |
Luria left in the lurch: unfulfilled promises are not valid tests.
|
| pubmed:publicationType |
Journal Article
|