Hold test

Hold tests are neuropsychological tests which tap abilities which are thought to be largely resistant to cognitive declines following neurological damage. As a result, these tests are widely used for estimating premorbid intelligence in conditions such as dementia, traumatic brain injury, and stroke. Hold tests are neuropsychological tests which tap abilities which are thought to be largely resistant to cognitive declines following neurological damage. As a result, these tests are widely used for estimating premorbid intelligence in conditions such as dementia, traumatic brain injury, and stroke. In neuropsychological assessment it is important to be able to accurately estimate premorbid intelligence. Accurate estimation allows the quantification of the impacts of neurological damage or decline, when compared to tests of current intelligence. The magnitude of decline is important for prognosis, rehabilitation planning and financial compensation. Hold tests typically measure crystallised intelligence, that is stored knowledge and skills, such as vocabulary and pronunciation.Of course, hold tests of abilities directly affected by neurological damage are likely to underestimate intelligence. For example, using reading tests in patients with aphasia. Examples of hold tests used: The use of hold tests is only one of a few possible methods of quantification of premorbid function. In practice a neuropsychologist may use a combination of methods to yield the most accurate estimate of premorbid intelligence. Some of the other methods used are: A review examined whether hold tests, best estimate or regression equation methods were most accurate in predicting overall IQ (full scale IQ) as determined by Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS-R) in a non-neurologically impaired population. It was found that different methods were more accurate depending on the IQ level of participants e.g. WRAT-3 (hold test) was most accurate for those of below average intelligence, NAART (hold test) was most accurate for those of average intelligence and the best estimate method was most accurate for above average intelligence. This provides support for the idea that no single method is superior in all cases and a combination of approaches is most appropriate in clinical practice.