Abstract
An important development in the field of neuropsychological assessment is the quantification of the process by which individuals solve common neuropsychological tasks. The present article outlines the history leading to this development, the Quantified Process Approach, and suggests that this line of applied research bridges the gap between the clinical and statistical approaches to neuropsychological assessment. It is argued that the enterprise of quantifying the process approach proceeds via three major methodologies: (1) the "Satellite" Testing Paradigm: an approach by which new tasks are developed to complement existing tests so as to clarify a given test performance; (2) the Composition Paradigm: an approach by which data on a given test that have been largely overlooked are compiled and subsequently analyzed, resulting in new indices that are believed to reflect underlying constructs accounting for test performance; and (3) the Decomposition Paradigm: an approach which investigates the relationship between test items of a given measure according to underlying facets, resulting in the development of new subscores. The article illustrates each of the above paradigms, offers a critique of this new field according to prevailing professional standards for psychological measures, and provides suggestions for future research.