CAPlANANDSHKtlERsional creativity, observational expertise, flexibility, and ingenuity in the service of developing a multidimensional understanding of patientstheir abilities and deficits, their emotional state, self-regulatory functions, the impact of environmental variables on test performance, and so forth.Thus, Although the merits of unvarying standardized procedures are unarguable for some purposes, we contend that clinical assessment of cognitively compromised or emotionally distressed patients frequently demands a more flexible approach. In this, we concur with the statement of two experienced neuropsychologists who wrote:In evaluating clinical patients, however, the neuropsychological examiner encounters a wide range of emotional and physical problems that can interfere with testing and sometimes cause the results to be invalid. Through sensitive handling of the patient and appropriate minor adjustments in testing procedures (emphasis added), such problems can usually be overcome, while still adhering to the essential standardized aspects of the test. (Heaton & Heaton, 1981, p. 526) Other authors have made similar points. In setting forth guidelines for the evaluation of stroke patients, Hibbard and Gordon (1992) explicitly stated, "Testing procedures should be modified to test maximal functioning and learning abilities" (p. 14). Barbara Wilson, a pediatric neuropsychologist, wrote There are situations in which the test administration procedures must be modified in order to obtain meaningful information . . . the whole issue of goals of an assessment enters here. For some, adherence to standardized procedures is important and a "cannot do" score is felt to be sufficient information. For others-and we generally find ourselves in this group-the goal of the assessment is to obtain all information possible about the functioning capacities of the child and to facilitate the production of maximum performance (pp. 157-158).A focal concept of this chapter is that cognitive, emotional, or physical limitations, though certainly worthy of assessment in their own right, may undercut the validity of certain tests, thereby forcing examiners to choose between (a) by-the-book administration that yields data of questionable meaning and (b) procedural modification in an attempt to derive some useful information from the measures. A major objective of this chapter is to suggest ways that clinicians may avoid this kind of psychometric showdown by viewing the evaluation process in a less constrained manner.By way of illustration, consider the hazards of attempting to assess verbal memory in a patient with expressive aphasia. The typical format for testing this function requires the individual to repeat material (e.g., story content, word lists, digit strings) that is read by the examiner. That