Evidence-Based Use of Cognitive Testing for Academic Interventions: A Critical Appraisal of Meta-Analytic Methodologies

Research suggests Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD) are directly linked to specific neurocognitive deficits that result in unexpected learning delays in academic domains for children in schools. However, meta-analytic studies have failed to find supporting evidence for using neurocognitive tests and, consequently, have discouraged their inclusion in SLD identification policies. The current study critically reviews meta-analytic findings and the methodological validity of over 200 research studies used in previous meta-analytic studies to estimate the causal effect of neurocognitive tests on intervention outcomes. Results suggest that only a very small percentage (6–12%) of studies used in previous meta-analytic studies were methodologically valid to estimate a direct effect of cognitive tests on academic intervention outcomes, with the majority of studies having no causal link between neurocognitive tests and intervention outcomes. Additionally, significant reporting discrepancies and inaccurate effect size estimates were found that warranted legitimate concerns for conclusions and policy recommendations provided in several meta-analytic studies. Given the lack of methodological rigor linking cognitive testing to academic interventions in current research, removing neurocognitive testing from learning disability evaluations may be premature. Suggestions for future studies evaluating the impact of neurocognitive tests on intervention outcomes as well as guidelines for synthesizing meta-analytic findings are discussed.

Variant Interpretation in Current Pharmacogenetic Testing

In the current marketplace, there are now more than a dozen commercial companies providing pharmacogenetic tests. Each company varies in the panel of genes they test and the variants they are able to screen for. The reports generated by these companies provide phenotypic interpretations of pharmacogenes and clinically actionable gene–drug interactions based on internally curated data and proprietary algorithms. The freedom to choose the types of evidence to include versus exclude in interpreting genomics has created reporting discrepancies in the industry. The case report presented here reveals the discordant phenotype analysis provided by two pharmacogenetic testing companies. The uncertainty and unnecessary distress experienced by the patient highlights the need for consensus in phenotype reporting within the industry.

Factors Influencing Family Environment Reporting Concordance Among U.S. War Zone Veterans and Their Partners

A key challenge in the assessment of family variables is the discrepancies that arise between reports. Although prior research has observed levels of interpartner agreement on the family environment, no studies have investigated factors that may influence agreement. In this study, war zone veterans (WZVs) and their partners ( N = 207 couples) completed assessments of the family environment. We examined interpartner agreement in relation to WZV and partner posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms, WZV time away from home, and family size. More severe WZV PTSD symptoms were associated with greater interpartner agreement on family environment, whereas more severe partner PTSD symptoms were associated with reporting more negative perceptions of the family environment relative to WZV reports. Family size was associated with greater interpartner agreement. Factors associated with concordance in this study should be considered by clinicians and researchers seeking to understand and address reporting discrepancies on the family.

Patterns of Misreporting: Partner Violence Using Matched Pairs

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is an issue of serious public concern. However, policy interventions and theoretical development have been complicated by mixed evidence about whether men or women experience higher levels of IPV. Some of this discrepancy arises from measurement and whether abuse and victimization are asked of one or both partners. This study uses matched partner data from 1,393 heterosexual couples collected in Wave III of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health to examine partner IPV reporting discrepancies and develop hypotheses for why such discrepancies might exist. Consistent with expectations, the findings suggest that research on the prevalence of IPV should rely on reports from both partners, rather than just one, and that gendered patterns of social desirability create differences in men’s and women’s IPV reporting.