I feel like it's “time” for a shoddily-organized scratching-the-surface #neuropsychtwitter #tweetorial on clock drawing in dementia. 1/x I will focus on the most common (or arguably best) version of the clock drawing test (CDT): command (free) drawing of a “10 after 11” clock followed by copy of a clock stimulus. 2/x

1/ Low-tech process approach pro tip: clinicians and trainees have criticized the process approach for introducing too many variables and increasing risk of artificially low scores. I respond that the flaw in their reasoning is that process variables cannot function in a vacuum. 2/ The whole point is to explain the underlying reasons behind some error or faulty performance or skill. That means the achievement score needs to come first, and the process score is interpreted secondarily.

Process Approach Article of the Day v2.0, article 1: Lippa & Davis 2010: "Inhibition/Switching Is not Necessarily Harder than Inhibition: An Analysis of the D-KEFS Color-Word Interference Test" bit.ly/3rZcVVh This is a popular issue on the D-KEFS CWIT: what to make of it when the "harder" trial is counterintuitively easier for a patient.

The Barnes et al. TBI/dementia study has been making its way around Twitter again lately. I'm sure the authors are great epidemiologists, but there are some problems that I wanted to share with the world, or at least my 48 followers. bit.ly/2xRsRy7 /1 First, dementia “diagnosis” in someone’s VA chart can range from well-formed to completely arbitrary. Some people are diagnosed based on an appropriate diagnostic process. /2