The growth of clinical neuropsychology has been unprecedented. This
growth has been oriented more toward the provision of than toward the
foundation for services. Thus, while a greater number of psychologists
are performing a greater number of neuropsychological procedures, there
seems to us an uneven parallel growth between these services and the
empirical foundations for them. It should come to no one's surprise that
increasingly aggressive attacks on the field have been leveled. Despite
these attacks, clinical neuropsychology con- tinues to enjoy exceptional
growth within psychology and acceptance by other health practitioners,
insurance companies, legislators, judges, juries, and above all,
consumers of our services. Growth without self-reflection is a dangerous
enterprise, as is growth without directions. We find it disconcerting
that existing and limited "self- analysis" has assumed that
neuropsychological dysfunction is immune to the same variables that
affect psychological dysfunction. Some attention has been paid to the
most obvious ones, such as age, but all others have been ignored and/ or
misunderstood. This neglect has spawned a body of knowledge replete with
questionable data and unfounded conclusions. Hence, it is surprising
that clinical neuropsychologists consider themselves to be more
scientifically sound than their regular clinical counterparts.