A Personal Perspective from an Appreciative Student.

My pathway to Dr. Reitan began when I was a psychometrist, working in the psychology department at Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital. Among other tasks, I was often asked to conduct psychological examinations with the goal of differentiating between “organic” or “functional” disorders in the patients referred to our department. This was generally accomplished with instruments such as the WAIS, Bender Gestalt, etc. One day while in the supply cupboard, I noticed a large grey box with a screen and numbered levers on the front. There was also a triangular box with odd shapes within, as well as other instruments that caught my attention. Psychologist Dr. Jean Wallace, kindly agreed to introduce me to these measures, using me as a test subject, further fuelling my curiosity. Coincidentally, a psychologist, Dr. Ray Daly from the University of Windsor, gave a lecture on epilepsy. That institution was added to my list of graduate programs that might fulfill my wish for further clinical training and additional education about neuropsychology. The late Dr. Byron Rourke was establishing a clinical neuropsychology curriculum at the University of Windsor and accepted me into the program and as my mentor, guided me throughout my studies there. I learned much more about those funny boxes in the cupboard and also was introduced to the person primarily responsible for their development and validation. My first meeting with Dr. Reitan occurred at the APA convention in Montréal and, as was typical of Ralph and Byron, occurred in a fine restaurant. My initial offering to the conversation was an observation that I had recently seen a shirtless bagpiper who seemed to me to have “an extra set of muscles on his chest.” Ralph’s comment was to the effect of having never seen “extra chest muscles” in any of his anatomical studies. This was my first lesson learned—this man does not suffer fools gladly! It also served as my initiation to increased precision and conciseness in the use of language in communication whether that be casual conversation, teaching, or writing. The rationale and methodology associated with the development and validation of the Halstead–Reitan Neuropsychological Test Battery has been well documented elsewhere in this edition. As a student, I recall his emphasis on empirical validation. During one seminar, the question of the Seashore Rhythm Test as an indicator of right hemisphere dysfunction was raised. Ralph’s response was an instruction to search the literature, as there we would find evidence that the performance of patients with vascular disease involving either the left or right hemispheres did not differ on this test. While there might be theoretical reasons for considering the role of the right hemisphere in music, it was not the case for this particular instrument. In a similar vein, a comment about the lengthy time required to administer the Category Test lead my colleagues Dr. Alfano, John Sullivan, and I to empirically examine the question. Our findings, based on two independent samples, indicated far less time is required than postulated. Furthermore, the mean Category Test scores for the patient samples were highly similar to those published by Dr. Reitan. This same approach to science was evident in a discussion of the methodology and work of Professor Luria. While it was clear to me that Ralph was impressed by Professor Luria’s findings and clinical intuition, he also expressed concern about the manner in which that methodology could be taught or studied. Sound methodology and standardized procedures were central to his teaching. It was critical that as examiners we knew both the tests and instructions sufficiently well that most of our attention could be directed toward observing actual performance. I recall one training session in which Ralph was serving as the patient and managed to contort his face in such a manner that he was able to see over the blindfold, while the student examiner was busy with the test manual. However, standardized procedures did not mean merely repeating the instructions. It was important for the examiner to ensure that the subject or patient was aware of the task requirements so that failure could be attributed to ability rather than misunderstanding. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 30 (2015) 764–765