Clinical neuropsychology has been slow in adopting novelties in psychometrics, statistics, and technology. Researchers have indicated that the stationary nature of clinical neuropsychology endangers its evidence-based character. In addition to a technological crisis, there may be a statistical crisis affecting clinical neuropsychology. That is, the frequentist null hypothesis significance testing framework remains the dominant approach in clinical practice, despite a recent surge in critique on this framework. While the Bayesian framework has been put forward as a viable alternative in psychology in general, the possibilities it offers to clinical neuropsychology have not received much attention.

In the current position paper, we discuss and reflect on the value of Bayesian methods for the advancement of evidence-based clinical neuropsychology.

We aim to familiarize clinical neuropsychologists and neuropsychological researchers to Bayesian methods of inference and provide a clear rationale for why these methods are valuable for clinical neuropsychology.

We argue that Bayesian methods allow for a more intuitive answer to our diagnostic questions and form a more solid foundation for sequential and adaptive diagnostic testing, representing uncertainty about patients’ observed test scores and cognitive modeling of test results.

To diagnose egocentric neglect after stroke, the spatial bias of performance on cancellation tasks is typically compared to a single cutoff. This standard procedure relies on the assumption that the measurement error of cancellation performance does not depend on non-spatial impairments affecting the total number of cancelled targets. Here we assessed the impact of this assumption on false-positive diagnoses.

We estimated false positives by simulating cancellation data using a binomial model. Performance was summarised by the difference in left and right cancelled targets (R-L) and the Centre of Cancellation (CoC). Diagnosis was based on a fixed cutoff versus cutoffs adjusted for the total number of cancelled targets and on single test performance versus unanimous or proportional agreement across multiple tests. Finally, we compared the simulation findings to empirical cancellation data acquired from 651 stroke patients.

Using a fixed cutoff, the rate of false positives depended on the total number of cancelled targets and ranged from 10% to 30% for R-L scores and from 10% to 90% for CoC scores. The rate of false positives increased even further when diagnosis was based on proportional agreement across multiple tests. Adjusted cutoffs and unanimous agreement across multiple tests were effective at controlling false positives. For empirical data, fixed versus adjusted cutoffs differ in estimation of neglect prevalence by 13%, and this difference was largest for patients with non-spatial impairments.

Our findings demonstrate the importance of considering non-spatial impairments when diagnosing neglect based on cancellation performance.