Objective: Despite varying opinions, little research has examined how to best write pediatric neuropsychology reports. Method: This study gathered input from 230 parents on how text difficulty (reading level) and visual emphasis (bullets, underline, italics) affect report readability and utility. We focused on the most-read report section: summary/impressions. Each parent rated the readability and usefulness of a generic summary/impressions section written in four different styles. The four styles crossed text difficulty (high school-vs-collegiate) with use of visual emphasis (absent-vs-present). Results: Parents found versions with easier text to be more clearly written, easier to follow, and easier to find information (p<.001). Parents rated those with harder text to be overly detailed, complex, hard to understand, and hard to read (p<.001). Visual emphasis made it easier to find key information and the text easier to follow and understand - but primarily for versions that were written in difficult text (interaction p <=.026). After rating all four styles, parents picked their preference. They most often picked versions written in easier text with visual emphasis (p<.001). Conclusions: Findings support writing styles that use easier text difficulty and visual emphasis.

Objective: The handful of studies examining parent satisfaction after pediatric neuropsychological evaluations have focused on post-evaluation appraisals. By examining parent experiences across the course of their child's evaluation, this study aimed to provide important insights into how and when parents experience changes in knowledge, understanding of care options, and efficacy during evaluation process. Method: Parents of youth receiving neuropsychological evaluation completed questionnaires at four time points (prior to evaluation [n = 363], day of testing [n = 300], prior to feedback [n = 250], and post-report [n = 99]). Parents rated aspects of their knowledge and efficacy regarding their child's functioning. Parents also rated their perception of the neuropsychologist, medical provider, and school along the same domains. The resulting longitudinal data were analyzed using structural equation modeling and ANCOVA. Although primary analyses focused on the entire sample, differences between first-time evaluations and re-evaluations were also examined. Results: Families receiving an initial evaluation showed lower ratings in knowledge, awareness of options, and efficacy at the beginning of the evaluation and a significant increase in ratings by the end of the evaluation. Families returning for re-evaluation showed higher initial ratings that changed comparatively little during the evaluation. Parents receiving initial evaluations also perceived increased knowledge of their child by medical providers and school. Conclusion: The study supports the clinical assumption that parents gain knowledge about their child and treatment options during a neuropsychological evaluation. The difference between initial and re-evaluation warrants further study. Studying the process and experience of neuropsychological evaluation may provide more nuanced findings than post hoc satisfaction measures.

Internationally adopted children are at greater risk for cognitive difficulties. While age at adoption is an established significant predictor of cognitive outcomes, considerable variation persists. The present study focused on whether parenting and family factors explain additional variance in cognitive and linguistic catch-up in this group of children. In total, 46 children were examined at two time points, approximately 12 months apart. Cognitive and linguistic abilities were measured at both time points, with parenting and family factors examined at follow-up, using hierarchical linear regression. Age at adoption and baseline cognitive abilities were the best predictors of cognitive and linguistic catch-up; parenting and family factors generally did not account for a significant increase in explained variance.

The objectives of this study were to systematically develop and evaluate the psychometric properties of an abbreviated version of the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF) Parent Report; a questionnaire widely used by pediatric neuropsychologists. A total of 24 items from the original BRIEF Parent Form were selected for the short-form, which was then evaluated in three complementary samples, according to six a priori psychometric criteria. The short-form generally demonstrated appropriate psychometric qualities, with convincing evidence for the reliability and validity of the three composite indices: Behavioral Regulation, Metacognition, and the Global Executive Composite. Potential clinical applications include screening at-risk children in medical clinics to facilitate appropriate referrals for further psychological consultation. In research settings, the short-form can be easily integrated into studies involving mass collection of data (e.g., large-scale epidemiological research), facilitating advancements in the scientific understanding of neuropsychological morbidity in medically involved populations.