Authors:

WILSON, B. A.

Reference:

Year of publication:

2000

CBU number:

3932

Abstract:

Sometimes there appears to be a division between academic research in neuropsychology and the actual clinical practice of neuropsychology. On the one hand, we have heard academic neuropsychologists suggest that neuropsychological assessment and rehabilitation should be theoretically driven. Their argument is that if there is no theoretical model to explain or provide an understanding of what is wrong, nor any model to help us plan treatment, then an inferior neuropsychology is being perpetrated. On the other hand, we occasionally hear clinical neuropsychologists - who are employed perhaps in busy health service practices, and who respond both sensitively and sensibly to clients' needs - suggest that their work is largely client driven. As a result, they are left with little time, or indeed need, for guidance from research. The purpose of this article is to try to show that this division is more apparent than real. I want to suggest that clinical practice can benefit from a knowledge and understanding of academic research and, at the same time, make its own contribution to that field of research.