Commentary: Evidence-based Assessment is not Evidence-based Medicine--Commentary on Evidence-based Assessment of Cognitive Functioning in Pediatric Psychology

The authors are commended on a well-done review of instruments to assess cognitive functioning in pediatric psychology. The review follows the framework of a psychological assessment review, and it provides a concise compendium with good coverage of available tests and a compilation of their psychometric “vital statistics.” The article also goes beyond the tropes of routine review by identifying some themes and issues such as the potential value of having disorder specific (or other subgroup specific) norms. The choice of the words “evidence based” in the title invokes many associations, several perhaps unintended by the authors. For me, the phrase cued expectations developed from reading and teaching in an “Evidence-based Medicine” (EBM) framework (Guyatt & Rennie, 2002; Straus, Richardson, Glasziou, & Haynes, 2005). In this instance, my assumption was mistaken. However, as I read through the review, the mistake seems fortunate: it made me compare the methods we use to evaluate and describe evidence within the field of psychological assessment to the language and perspective that is evolving within EBM. Illuminating the discrepancies reveals many gaps that could be filled in ways that advance clinical practice as well as research. The structure of this commentary is as follows: first, I will address the numerous strengths of the review. There is much that is praiseworthy. Second, I will touch on the themes of short forms, retest intervals, and multigroup norms. These are important issues, and I believe that they have even more clinical relevance than indicated in the review. It is also likely that my recommendations may be different than what the authors would have provided if given the opportunity to expand their discussion of these issues. Third, I will briefly introduce EBM and sketch out some of the differences I see between EBA—the current approach within psychology—and EBM. Finally, I will close with suggestions for next steps in both clinical practice and research to assimilate some of the best features of both approaches.