Commentary on “A motion to exclude and the ‘fixed’ versus ‘flexible’ battery in ‘forensic’ neuropsychology”

In a recent article Bigler criticized the utilization of the Daubert criterion in “motions to exclude”. He cited attempts to deny trial acceptability of assessment results derived from neuropsychological batteries that were not fixed or standardized. He argues that the Halstead–Reitan battery (HRB) would be the only acceptable battery. Also, he argues that the HRB is out of date, since it was originally ‘standardized’ 50 years ago. This argument commits the “archaeological fallacy”, that a procedure or information is invalid when it was originally developed some time in the past. To the contrary the HRB, along with several other fixed and standardized batteries have recently been validated as well as in the past. By contrast, flexible assessment procedures have never been validated at any time.