11

The procedure consisting in comparing the individual's test score to a norm group has become the standard in the field of clinical neuropsychology, sometimes to the detriment of a clinical approach. Given the numerous tools of assessment available for clinicians, it is particularly important to precisely understand what underlies the concept of norms in order to adequately use them in clinical practice, without suffering their tyranny. To this end, we organized a workshop involving different experts on this topic. The present article is the fruit of their thoughts and provides some keys for gaining a better understanding of this concept. First, we present considerations on what are “normal scores,” as opposed to “pathological scores,” and discuss the issue of comparative and diagnostic norms, as well as the use of quantiles or means. We remind the reader that a norm is established for a given population and has a specific purpose. Regarding the tests themselves, their developments require specific criteria, and the discussion is oriented towards the criteria of validity and fidelity, whose importance is sometimes poorly understood and often neglected. Finally, the diversity of norms applied to widely used tests is addressed. We present the outcome of a reflection group constituted of specialists in clinical neuropsychology, attempting to define common criteria for specific tests in order to offer uniform decision criteria for a given pathological status in a given population.