Cognitive Rehabilitation Manual: Translating Evidence-Based Recommendations into Practice

issues as when should incapacity be evaluated and who should request such evaluations. This is discussed in general terms by Sullivan, but indications for specific capacities are lacking. A further limitation of the text concerns its coverage of capacities. For example, testamentary capacity is an important capability and is discussed in the book. However, it may also have been helpful to address ability to enter into contracts or business activities. For instance, individuals with neurocognitive compromise may sign contracts with potential personal or financial liability, and this may ultimately lead to legal proceedings. Likewise, with the advent of the Americans with Disability Act, capacity to continue employment subsequent to neuropsychological impairment is arguably a relevant and important topic to address. A further criticism concerns the empirical basis of capacity evaluations. In particular, from the chapter concerning testamentary capacity, there is no meaningful research pertaining to this topic. As such, some of the capacities are insufficiently defined and barely researched, thereby leaving confident assertions wanting. This is a shortcoming of the literature rather than the authors. Nonetheless, it highlights the fact that scientific evaluation of civil capacities has only begun, and some capacities are better delineated than others. If the text is to be criticized in this regard, it is because the authors offer inadequate acknowledgement of this weakness. These shortcomings notwithstanding, this is an essential text for the clinician. It clarifies basic assumptions, models, roles, and responsibilities, and it provides a rudimentary framework for conducting capacity evaluations. Furthermore, owing to the scientific blindspots it highlights, this text will also serve as a catalyst for subsequent research.