FAQs

I have been seeing some questions about the MNB, so I decided to write up some answers. Feel free to use these answers. But be sure to check everything to make sure that I have not made a mistake. You are ultimately responsible for how you use the MNB, but I thought these answers might be helpful in some way.  I take no responsibility for how this information is used by you the MNB uses (or anyone else who uses it). 

  1. MNB uses unknown cutoffs and methods

ANSWER:  This is entirely false.

Correct information: All the cutoffs and methods used in the MNB are peer reviewed and published in professional journals.  The following are the list of many of the publications using all or part of the MNB.  This not a complete list, as more are being published by various authors every year.   

Piccolino, A. L., Piccolino, A. R., & Piccolino, S. G. (2023). Distinguishing Alzheimer’s disease from other dementias using pattern profile analysis in the Meyers Neuropsychological Battery: An exploratory study. Applied Neuropsychology: Adult, DOI: 10.1080/23279095.2023.2236742

Meyers, J.E., Miller, R.M., & Meyers, J.J. (2023) Ecological validity of the Meyers Neuropsychological Battery, Applied Neuropsychology: Adult, DOI: 10.1080/23279095.2023.2171795

English, J. V. (2022). Efficacy of several statistical methods in differentiating TBI and co-occurring conditions: A replication study. Applied Neuropsychology: Adult, DOI: 10.1080/23279095.2022.2109028

Meyers, J.E., and Miller, R.M., (2021).  Objective methods for matching neuropsychological patterns: Formulas and Comparisons.  Applied Neuropsychology: Adult.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2021.1929986

Rohling, M.L., Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., and Meyers, J.E., (2020) Effects of Premorbid Ability, Neuropsychological Impairment and Invalid Test Performance on the Frequency of Low Scores.  Volume Editors: Kyle B. Boone, Assessment of Feigned Cognitive Impairment: A Neuropsychological Perspective – Second Edition.  Guilford Publications, Inc.

Larrabee, G.L., Rohling, M.L., & Meyers, J.E., (2019): Use of multiple performance and symptom validity measures: Determining the optimal per test cutoff for determination of invalidity, analysis of skew, and inter-test correlations in valid and invalid performance groups, The Clinical Neuropsychologist, DOI: 10.1080/13854046.2019.1614227

Meyers, J.E., Miller, R.M., Rohling, M.L., Kalat, S.S. (2019).  Premorbid Estimates of Neuropsychological Functioning for Diverse Groups. Applied Neuropsychology: Adult, https://doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2018.1550412. 

Meyers, J.E. (2019): Time estimation: Close your eyes and tell me when a minute goes by. Applied Neuropsychology: Adult, DOI: 10.1080/23279095.2018.1535435

Meyers, J.E., (2018).  Presidential Address National Academy of Neuropsychology Conference Boston 2017.  Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 1–12., https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acy039

Meyers, J.E. (2017). Chronic Pain and Neuropsychological Assessment (Chapter 11).  APA Handbook of Forensic Neuropsychology. SS Bush (Editor in Chief), ML Rohling, GJ Demakis.  APA Handbooks in Psychology Series/APA Reference Books Collection.  American Psychological Association.  https://books.google.com/books?id=5SldnQAACAAJ.

Barth, R.J. and Meyers, J.E. Rating Cognitive Impairment, Part 2: Objective and Evidence-Based Integration of Neuropsychological Test data. AMA Guides Newsletter.  Updates, authoritative guidance, Practical Information, and rationales for proper use of AMA guides.  AMA Guidelines. 

Bulzacka, E., Meyers, J.E.,Boyer, L., Le Gloahec, T., Fond, G.,Szöke, A., Leboyer, M., and Schürhoff, F. (2016).  WAIS-IV Seven-Subtest Short Form: Validity and Clinical Use in Schizophrenia.  Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology,31, 8, Pages 915–925, https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acw063.

Rohling, M.L., Miller, R.M., Axelrod, B.N., Wall, J.R., Lee, A. J.H., Kinikini, D.T., (2015).  Is Co-Norming Required.  Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 30,7, 611-633, <https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acv039>.

Meyers J.E, English J., Miller R.M., Lee A.J. (2015). Normative Data for the Neurobehavioral Symptom Inventory. Applied Neuropsychol Adult. 22(6),427-34. doi: 10.1080/23279095.2014.968919.

Rohling, M.L., Meyers, J.E., Williams, G., Kalat, S.S., Williams, S.K., Keene, J., (2015). Application of the Daubert Standards to the Meyers Neuropsychological Battery Using the Rohling Interpretive Method.  Psychol. Inj. and Law, DOI 10.1007/s12207-015-9227-1

Sugarman, M.A., Holcomb, E.M., Axelrod, B.N., Meyers, J.E., & Liethen, P.C.  (2015): Embedded measures of performance validity in the Rey Complex Figure test in a clinical sample of veterans, Applied Neuropsychology: Adult, DOI:10.1080/23279095.2015.1014557

Bianchini,J.K., Aguerrevere,L.E., Guise, B,J.,Ord,J.S., Etherton,J.L., Meyers,J.E., Soignier,R.D., Greve, K. W., Curtis, K.L., Bui, J., (2014): Accuracy of the Modified Somatic Perception Questionnaire and Pain Disability Index in the Detection of Malingered Pain-Related Disability in Chronic Pain, The Clinical Neuropsychologist, DOI:10.1080/13854046.2014.986199

Miller, R. M., Rupp, Z. W., Lee, A. J., & Meyers, J. E. (2014). Tutorial P: Using neural network analysis to assist in classifying neuropsychological data. In Winter­-Miner, L. A., Bolding, P. S., Hilbe, J. M., Goldstein, M., Hill, T., Nisbet, R., Walton, N, & Miner, G. D. (Eds.), Practical predictive analytics and decisioning systems for medicine (pp. 745­-756).

Meyers, J.E., Miller, R. M., Thompson, L.M., Scalese, A.M., Allred, B.C., Lee, A.J., Rupp, Z.W., Dupaix, Z.P., and Junghyun, L. (2014).  Using Likelihood Ratios to Detect Invalid Data.  Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 29, 224-235.

Axelrod, B.N, Meyers, J.E., & Davis, j.J.,(2014): Finger Tapping Test Performance as a Measure of Performance Validity. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, DOI:10.1080/13854046.2014.907583

Meyers, J. E., Miller, R. M, Haws, N. A., Murphy-Tafti, J. L., Curtis, T. D., Rupp, Z. W., Smart, T. A., & Thompson, L. M. (2013). An adaptation of the MMPI-2 Meyers Index for the MMPI-2-RF. Applied Neuropsychology: Adult. doi: 10.1080/09084282.2013.780173.

Meyers, J.E., Miller, R.M., Tuita, A. R. R. (2013).  Using Pattern Analysis Matching to differentiate TBI and PTSD in a military sample.  Applied Neuropsychology: Adult, 21, 1, 60-68.

Meyers, J.E.,Grills,C.E., Zellinger, M.M., Miller, R.M., (2014).  Emotional Distress Affects Attention and Concentration:  The difference between mountains and valleys,  Applied  Neuropsychology: Adult, 21, 1, 28-35. 

Hill, B.D., Rohling, M.L., Boettcher, A.C., Meyers, J.E. (2013). Cognitive intra-individual variability has a positive association with traumatic brain injury severity and suboptimal effort. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 28, (7), 640-8.  

Meyers, J.E., Zellinger, M.M., Kockler, T., Wagner, M., Miller, R.M. (2013): A Validated seven-subtest short form for the WAIS-IV, Applied Neuropsychology, 20,249-256. 

Meyers, J. E., Reinsch-Boothby, L., Miller, R., Rohling,  M., & Axelrod, B., (2011).  Does the source of a forensic referral affect neuropsychological test performance on a standardized battery of tests?  The Clinical Neuropsychologist,  25, 477-487. 

Meyers,  J. E., Volbrecht, M. E., Axelrod, B. N., Reinsch-Boothby, L., (2011).  Embedded symptom validity tests and overall neuropsychological test performance,  Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology,  26, 8-15.

Meyers, J. E., Rohling, M. L., (2009). CT and MRI correlations with neuropsychological tests.  Applied Neuropsychology, 16 (4), 237-253.

Greve, K. W., Bianchini, K. J., Etherton, J. L., Meyers, J. E., Curtis, K. L. & Ord, J. S. (2010). The Reliable Digit Span Test in Chronic Pain: classification accuracy in detecting malingered pain-related disability. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 24, 137-52.

Larrabee G. J, Millis S. R, Meyers J. E. (2009). 40 plus or minus 10, a new magical number: reply to Russell. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 23 (5), 841-849.

Aguerrevere, L., Greve, K. W., Bianchini, K. J., & Meyers, J. E.  (2008). Detecting malingering in traumatic brain injury and chronic pain with an abbreviated version of the Meyers Index for the MMPI-2. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 23, 831–838.

Bianchini, K. J., Etherton, J. L., Greve, K. W., Heinly, M. T., & Meyers, J. E. (2008). Classification accuracy of MMPI-2 validity scales in the detection of pain-related malingering: a known-groups approach.  Assessment, 15, 435-449.

Larrabee, G. J., Millis, S. R., Meyers, J. E., (2008).  Sensitivity to brain dysfunction of the Halstead Reitan vs. an ability-focused neuropsychological battery, The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 22 (5), 813-825.

Meyers, J. E., (2007).  Malingering Mild Traumatic Brain Injury:  Behavioral Approaches Used by Both Malingering Actors and Probable Malingerers.  In Assessment of Feigned Cognitive Impairment: A Neuropsychological Perspective.  Kyle Boone, Ed. Guilford Press.

Meyers, J. E., & Rohling, M. L. (2004).  Validation of the Meyers Short Battery on mild TBI patients.  Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 19, 637-651.

McDowell, B. D., Bayless, J. D., Moser, D. J., Meyers, J. E., & Paulsen, J. S. (2004). Concordance between the CVLT and the WMS-III Word Lists Test. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 19, 319-324.

Rohling, M. L., Meyers, J. E., Millis, S. R.  (2003).  Neuropsychological impairment following traumatic brain injury:  a dose-response analysis.  The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 17, 289-302.

Meyers, J. E. & Volbrecht, M. E. (2003). A Validation of multiple malingering detection methods in a large clinical sample, Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 18 (3), 261-276.

Meyers, J.E., Millis, S. R., & Volkert, K. (2002).  A validity index for the MMPI-2.  Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 17 (2), 157-169. 

Meyers, J. E., Roberts, R. J., Bayless, J. D., Volkert, K. T., & Evitts, P. E.  (2002). Dichotic listening: Expanded norms and clinical application.  Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 17 (1), 79-90.

Meyers, J. E., Morrison, A. L. & Miller, J. C. (2001).  How low is too low, revisited:  Sentence Repetition and AVLT-Recognition in the detection of malingering.  Applied Neuropsychology, 8 (4), 234-241.

Meyers, J. E., Volkert, K., & Diep, A. (2000).  Sentence Repetition Test:  Updated norms and clinical utility.  Applied Neuropsychology, 7, 154-159.

Meyers, J. E. & Diep, A. (2000).  Assessment of malingering in chronic pain patients using neuropsychological tests.  Applied Neuropsychology, 7, 133-139.

Volbrecht, M., Meyers, J. E. & Kaster-Bundgaard, J. (2000).  Neuropsychological outcome of head injury using a short battery.  Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 15, 251-265.

Meyers, J. E. & Volbrecht, M. (1999).  Detection of malingerers using the Rey Complex Figure and Recognition Trial.  Applied Neuropsychology, 6 (4), 201-207.

Meyers, J. E., Galinsky, A. & Volbrecht, M.  (1999). Malingering and mild brain injury: how low is too low.  Applied Neuropsychology, 6, 208-216.

Pilgrim, B., Meyers, J. E., Bayless, J., & Whetstone, M. (1999).  Validity of the Ward Seven-Subtest WAIS-III Short Form in a neuropsychological population.  Applied Neuropsychology, 6, 243-246. 

Meyers, J. E, Volbrecht, M., & Kaster-Bundgaard, J., (1999).  Driving is more than pedal pushing.  Applied Neuropsychology, 6, 154-164. 

Meyers, J. E. & Volbrecht, M. (1998).  Validation of reliable digits for detection of malingering.  Assessment, 5, 301-305.

Meyers, J. E. & Volbrecht, M. (1998).  Validation of memory error patterns on the Rey Complex Figure and Recognition Trial.  Applied Neuropsychology, 5, 120-131.

Kozel, J. J. & Meyers, J. E. (1998).  A cross-validation study of the Victoria Revision of the Category Test.  Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 13, 327-332.

Bayless, J. D. & Meyers, J. E. (1998).  Dichotic word listening test performance and side of lesion in CVA.  Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 13, 17. 

Meyers, J. E., Bayless, J., & Meyers, K. R., (1996). The Rey Complex Figure: memory error patterns and functional abilities.  Applied Neuropsychology, 3, 89-92.

Meyers, J. E. & Meyers, K. R, (1995). Rey Complex Figure Test and Recognition Trial: Professional Manual.  Florida:  Psychological Assessment Resources.

Meyers, J. E. & Meyers, K. R. (1995). The Rey Complex Figure and Recognition Trial under four different administration procedures.  The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 9, 65 – 67.

Meyers, J. E. & Lange, D., (1994).  A recognition subtest for the Rey Osterrieth Complex Figure.  The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 8, 153-166.

  1. The MNB is not associated with any reputable publisher.

ANSWER:  All tests in the MNB are reviewed in all versions of Compendium of Neuropsychological Tests Volumes 1-4.  All are well established neuropsychological tests that are published by various publishers or are available in the public domain. See Sherman, Tan, and Hrabok, (2022), Strauss, Sherman and Spreen (2006), Spreen and Strauss (1998, 1991). 

The Meyers Neuropsychological Battery: A Comprehensive Systems Approach to Analyzing and Interpreting Tests for Practicing Clinicians (Meyers, 2025).  Contains a summary of the information about the MNB, including normative data, methods and performance validity and statistics and comparison groups among other information. 

The MNB has been positively reviewed by Bush (2017) in the APA Handbook of Forensic Neuropsychology, showing the well-constructed methods used in the MNB.  The tests, uses of the MNB, methods and performance validity measures were all reviewed and found to be appropriate for clinical and forensic use.  

Russell (2012) reviewed the MNB–RIM and noted consistently high levels of diagnostic accuracy, with a sensitivity of 93%, a specificity of 90%, and an overall predictive power of 92%. Russell concluded that, “Undoubtedly, the MNB will remain an excellent usable standardized battery” (p. 298).

The MNB is recognized as a formal battery of tests usable in the US VA system (www.oit.va.gov/Services/TRM/ToolPage.aspx?tid=8558)

The MNB and has been evaluated and found to meet Daubert Standards (Rohling et al. 2015).  

References

Bush, S. S., Demakis, G. J., & Rohling, M. L. (Eds.). (2017). APA handbook of forensic neuropsychology. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000032-000 (pp. 8,61,265-272, 419)

Meyers (2025). The Meyers Neuropsychological Battery: A Comprehensive Systems Approach to Analyzing and Interpreting Tests for Practicing Clinicians.  New York, Routledge.

Rohling, M.L., Meyers, J.E., Williams, G., Kalat, S.S., Williams, S.K., Keene, J., (2015). Application of the Daubert Standards to the Meyers Neuropsychological Battery Using the Rohling Interpretive Method.  Psychol. Inj. and Law, DOI 10.1007/s12207-015-9227-1

Russell, E. W. (2012). Scientific foundations of neuropsychological assessment: With application to forensic evaluation. Elsevier.

Sherman, E.M.S., Tan, J. E. and Hrabok, M.  (2022). A compendium of neuropsychological tests: Administration, norms, and commentary (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.

Strauss, E., Sherman, E. M. S., & Spreen, O. (2006). A compendium of neuropsychological tests: Administration, norms, and commentary (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.

Spreen, O., & Strauss, E. (1998). A compendium of neuropsychological tests: Administration, norms, and commentary. Oxford University Press.

Spreen, O., & Strauss, E. (1991). A compendium of neuropsychological tests: Administration, norms, and commentary. Oxford University Press.

  1. The MNB does not use the same cutoffs as published for the tests of performance validity.

ANSWER:  All cutoffs used in the MNB performance validity measures are published in peer reviewed professional journals and reviewed books.

Meyers (2025). The Meyers Neuropsychological Battery: A Comprehensive Systems Approach to Analyzing and Interpreting Tests for Practicing Clinicians.  New York, Routledge.

Meyers, J. E., Morrison, A. L. & Miller, J. C. (2001).  How low is too low, revisited:  Sentence Repetition and AVLT-Recognition in the detection of malingering.  Applied Neuropsychology, 8 (4), 234-241.

Meyers, J. E., Volkert, K., & Diep, A. (2000).  Sentence Repetition Test:  Updated norms and clinical utility.  Applied Neuropsychology, 7, 154-159.

Meyers,  J. E., Volbrecht, M. E., Axelrod, B. N., Reinsch-Boothby, L., (2011).  Embedded symptom validity tests and overall neuropsychological test performance,  Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology,  26, 8-15.

Meyers, J. E. & Volbrecht, M. E. (2003). A Validation of multiple malingering detection methods in a large clinical sample, Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 18 (3), 261-276.

Meyers, J. E. & Volbrecht, M. (1999).  Detection of malingerers using the Rey Complex Figure and Recognition Trial.  Applied Neuropsychology, 6 (4), 201-207.

Meyers, J. E., Galinsky, A. & Volbrecht, M.  (1999). Malingering and mild brain injury: how low is too low.  Applied Neuropsychology, 6, 208-216.

Meyers, J. E. & Volbrecht, M. (1998).  Validation of reliable digits for detection of malingering.  Assessment, 5, 301-305.

Meyers, J. E. & Volbrecht, M. (1998).  Validation of memory error patterns on the Rey Complex Figure and Recognition Trial.  Applied Neuropsychology, 5, 120-131.

  1. MNB users can’t reveal cut offs or give out the program, these are a secret known only to MNB users.

ANSWER: This is a misrepresentation of the End User Agreement (EUA).  The MNB software is copywritten, so users are not allowed to give out the software or files that are installed.  The actual statement from the EUA is “You agree not to give anyone, person, or organization, for any reason,  a copy of the MNS/MNB program or any files that are installed as part of the MNS/MNB software.”  The EUA also says “The raw scores totals are used for interpretation and can be printed out and given to lawyers as required. The  test protocols should only be provided to a licensed psychologist.” An individual patient’s scores are not an installed feature of the software and can be shared as needed. The user can share scores, cutoffs etc. as needed and appropriate. 

  1. Not allowed to show tests under protective video as is the standard in forensic psychology.

First of all, “is the standard in forensic psychology” this is not the standard of practice.  There is no such standard this is a false statement. 

Legal safeguards such as protective orders are ineffective. Please refer to the Release of Protected Test Information Under Protective  Order: Viable Solution or Illusory Safeguard? An Interorganizational Position Paper. (Boone et al. 2024). This excellent paper demonstrates why protective orders do not work to safeguard psychological and neuropsychological test materials especially in this digital age. Other legal scholars (Childs, 2007) have also pointed out that protective orders do not work to protect psychological and neuropsychological test information.

There are many peer-reviewed and published papers documenting the harm done by release of neuropsychological data to non-psychologists (Boone et al. 2024a & 2024b, Boone et al. 2022, Glen et al. 2021, Kaufmann, 2009, Lewandowski et al. 2016). The information from these papers is summarized below. 

All major neuropsychological organizations have published position papers opposing the use of TPO.  See the respective websites of the organizations: American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology (AACN), National Academy of Neuropsychology (NAN), and the American Board of Professional Neuropsychology (ABN). 

The presence of a Third Party Observer (TPO) is a source of potential distraction in the assessment. Even when third parties are not in the room, the knowledge that a third party is listening via electronic means creates an internal source of distraction. This undermines the ethical principle for psychologists of creating a distraction-free test environment.

Neuropsychological and psychological measures were developed under a specific set of highly controlled conditions that did not include third party observers. Their presence introduces an unknown variable that prevents the examinees’ scores from being meaningfully compared to established norms. A valid interpretation of the examinee’s test data may therefore be compromised.  The presence of third-party observers may obstruct the development of meaningful rapport between the neuropsychologist and examinee. When a third party is in the room or listening via an electronic recording device, an examinee’s rapport may be directed solely toward the unseen observer.

The content of the test questions is no longer secure. Anyone who listens to the recording of the assessment knows exactly what questions are asked during the standardized assessment. If the general public knows the test questions, then examinees can be coached to provide answers favorable to their claims. The tests lose their validity, much as the validity of a professional law or medical board examination would no longer have validity if the test questions were widely known.  Consider if the State BAR exam for lawyers should be made public.

Third-party observer testing compromises public safety. For example, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires cognitive testing of pilots who have experienced medical, neurologic, psychiatric, and substance abuse conditions to ensure that pilots are cognitively capable of flying safely. Similarly, individuals desiring to become police officers are required to undergo psychological testing to ensure that they do not have problematic personality characteristics or other psychiatric conditions that would compromise their ability to safely function as officers. If pilots and police academy candidates were to obtain psychological and cognitive test information prior to undergoing testing, they would be able to “study up” regarding how to perform well on the tests, thus rendering the tests ineffective in identifying individuals who might represent a public safety risk.

For these and other reasons which are articulated in the referenced articles, it is recommended that neuropsychologists not participate in evaluations that require TPO of the assessments phase of the evaluation.  Therefore, users of the MNB should refuse TPO of the assessment phase.

References

Boone, K.B., Sweet, J.J.,  Beattey, R.A., Kaufmann, P.M., Hebben, N., Marreiro, C., James, J., Silva, D., Victor, T., Hamilton, A., Glen, T., Kinsora, T.F., Bender, H.A.,Barisa, M. (2024a) Release of Protected Test Information Under Protective Order: Viable Solution or Illusory Safeguard? An Interorganizational Position Paper. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, acae101. https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acae101

Boone, K.B., Sweet, J.J., Byrd, D.A., Denney, R.L., Hanks, R.L., Kaufmann, P.M., Kirkwood, M.W., Larrabee, G.L., Marcopulos, B.A., Morgan, J.E., Paltzer, J.Y., Mindt, M.R., Schroeder, R.W., Sim, A.H. &  Suhr, J.A. (2022): Official position of the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology on test security. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, DOI: 10.1080/13854046.2021.2022214

Boone, K.B., Kaufmann, P. M., Sweet, J. J., Leatherberry, D., Beattey, R. A., Silva, D., … James, J. (2024b). Attorney demands for protected psychological test information: Is access necessary for cross examination or does it lead to misinformation? An interorganizational* position paper. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 38(4), 889–906. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2024.2323222

Childs, W.G. (2007). When the bell can’t be unrung: Document leaks and protective orders in mass tort litigation. The Review of Litigation, 27, 565–606.

Glen, T., Barisa, M., Ready, R., Peck, E. & Spencer, T.R. (2021): Update on Third Party Observers in Neuropsychological Evaluation: An Interorganizational Position Paper. The Clinical Neuropsychologist. DOI:10.1080/13854046.2021.1901992

Kaufmann, P.M. (2009). Protecting Raw Data and Psychological Tests from Wrongful Disclosure: A Primer on the Law and Other Persuasive Strategies. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 23(7), 1130-1159. DOI: 10.1080/13854040903107809

Lewandowski, A., Baker, W. J., Sewick, B., Knippa, J., Axelrod, B., & McCaffrey, R.J. (2016). Policy Statement of the American Board of Professional Neuropsychology regarding Third Party Observation and the recording of psychological test administration in neuropsychological evaluations. Applied Neuropsychology: Adult, 23(6), 391–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2016.1176366

  1. MNB users are not allowed to give out norms. The Norms can not be evaluated independently. 

The normative data for the MNB are discussed in Meyers (2025) and Rohling, et al. (2015).  The normative data used in the MNB were the same normative data as available in their respective manuals.  Thus, the normative data is available for review.  Additionally, the normative data were smoothed as described in Rohling et al. 2015.  The results of the Rohling et al (2015) study was that the MNB norms are more accurate than other normative systems. 

The smoothing process was similar to that used by Heaton, Miller, Taylor and Grant (2004).  They state on page 18, “ Using data from all available participants for each measure, fractional polynomial regression equations were generated to predict scale scores from age, education and sex. To account for the influence of ethnicity on the scale scores, separate regression analysis were conducted for each ethnic group.”  Similarly, the MNB uses regression based smoothing of the normative data. The smoothed normative data are regression based.  The number of calculations for each variable in the MNB varies based on the demographics for each individual.

The Heaton et. al (2004) manual provides the T scores for each test in their battery of tests, in the form of a look up table for each test.  The individual algorithm beta weights are not presented.  Similarly, the MNB has a look-up table method that can be used to look up T scores for each test.  Just as with the Heaton et al. (2004) manual, one must buy it to access the information.  One must have the perquisite training and skills, as an example Heaton et al (2004) is a level B test the requirements to purchase the manual are listed on the PAR website (https://www.parinc.com/customer-support/product-information).  The MNB also has minimum standards to purchase the software. 

The T scores are available to all users and viewable in the software program (again which is available for a fee to all who are qualified); however, publishing them in written format would be extremely burdensome if not insurmountable as more than 18,000 pages of printouts would be required for all of the regression-based norms for all the tests in the MNB.  As an example, there would be 349,440 permutations for only the Category Test norms to be printed out taking into consideration: (a) raw scores (0 to 208), (b) education level (0 to 20), (c) gender (male, female), (d) handedness (left, right), and (e) ethnicity (21 possible ethnicities). If this is multiplied by all 34 tests in the core MNB, it is obvious that the printed results would be impossible to organize. Again, the information is available and easily reviewed in the software.  Just as with the Heaton et al (2004), the individual beta weights are not printed as they are considered proprietary.  Nonetheless, the user can easily view the T scores that are a result of those beta weights. 

References

Heaton, R.K., Miller, S.W., Taylor, M.J. and Grant, I. (2004) Revised Comprehensive Norms for an Expanded Halstead-Reitan Battery: Demographically Adjusted Neuropsychological Norms for African American and Caucasian Adults. Lutz.

Meyers (2025). The Meyers Neuropsychological Battery: A Comprehensive Systems Approach to Analyzing and Interpreting Tests for Practicing Clinicians.  New York, Routledge. 

Rohling, M.L., Miller, R.M., Axelrod, B.N., Wall, J.R., Lee, A. J.H., Kinikini, D.T., (2015).  Is Co-Norming Required.  Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 30,7, 611-633, <https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acv039>.

  1. 5% Maximum error Rate for PVT’s

ANSWER: There is no consensus that the CLINICAL False Positive Error rate for PVT’s cannot exceed 5%. Note the recommendation for setting the clinical and PVT FP rate at 10% was “widely recommended” by Sherman et al., 2020; Sweet et al., 2021; Bhowmick et al., 2019; and Sollman & Berry, 2011.  In the MNB, the clinician can choose the level of FP rate they will accept. 

Sweet et al. (2021) states

“Consensus continues that diagnostic statistics are important in the research and application of PVTs and SVTs. More specifically, these investigations demonstrate the importance of maintaining a low false positive rate to improve diagnostic accuracy. Current consensus also supports a false positive rate of .10 (specificity of .90) per PVT or SVT. This is supported by the Sollman and Berry (2011) meta analysis yielding an average false positive of .10 per PVT, and by Larrabee et al. (2019) who varied the per-test false positive rate from 0.00 to 0.15, and found .10 to be the optimal rate. The Sherman et al. (2020) revision of the diagnostic criteria for malingered neuropsychological dysfunction also recommends a per-PVT and per SVT false positive rate of .10, as well as an aggregate false positive rate of .10 for use of combinations of multiple PVTs and SVTs.”

References

Sweet, J.J., Heilbronner, R.L., Morgan, J.E., Larrabee, G.L., Rohling, M.L., Boone, K. B., Rohling, M.L.,  Boone, K.B.,  Kirkwood, M. W., Schroeder, R.W., Suhr, J.A. & Conference Participants (2021) American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology (AACN) 2021 consensus statement on validity assessment: Update of the 2009 AACN consensus conference statement on neuropsychological assessment of effort, response bias, and malingering, The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 35:6, 1053-1106, DOI: 10.1080/13854046.2021.1896036

Sollman, M.J., and  Berry, D.T.R. (2011). Detection of Inadequate Effort on Neuropsychological Testing: A Meta-Analytic Update and Extension.  Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 26 , 774–789. 

Bhowmick, C., Hirst, R.,  & Green, P. (2019): Comparison of the Word Memory Test and the Test of Memory Malingering in detecting invalid performance in neuropsychological testing, Applied Neuropsychology: Adult, DOI:10.1080/23279095.2019.1658585

Sherman, E.M.S. , Slick, D.J., and Iverson, G. l. (2020). Multidimensional Malingering Criteria for Neuropsychological Assessment: A 20-Year Update of the Malingered Neuropsychological Dysfunction Criteria. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 28;35(6):735-764.  doi: 10.1093/arclin/acaa019.

8. The RIM method that is in the MNB is the legislatively defined method for all workers compensation neuropsychological claims in states that use the AMA Guides 6th edition (2024) https://ama-guides.ama-assn.org/configurable/home

  • Alaska
  • Arizona
  • Connecticut
  • District of Columbia
  • Idaho
  • Illinois
  • Indiana
  • Louisiana
  • Mississippi
  • Montana
  • New Mexico
  • Oklahoma
  • North Dakota
  • Pennsylvania
  • Rhode Island
  • South Dakota
  • Tennessee
  • Wyoming
  • Puerto Rico
  • All federal jurisdictions 
  • Maritime law

For more information about MNS or our seminars, please Contact Dr Meyers.

Dr Meyers is available for any MNB related customization and Report Generator customization. Click here to order online.

© 2013 – 2026 Meyers Neuropsychological Services
0
0
Your Cart
Your cart is emptyReturn to Products
Continue Shopping