{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020864381520119227, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.519417475728155, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Isn't everything in forensic neuropsychology controversial?

Even the most fundamental concepts and tools and terms are the subject of intense debate. Old controversies go on year after year without resolution. What is the cause of persistent postconcussive syndrome (PPCS)? What percent of mild TBI patients develop PPCS? Is the Halstead-Reitan battery more reliable and valid than any other, or is it an outdated antique that includes pointless tests that don’t measure anything useful? What is the best IQ test for English-speaking adults, or is IQ “meaningless” and not worth including in a neuropsychological battery? Which neurotoxicological studies use high quality scientific methodology and reach sound scientific conclusions, and which studies are junk science? How many mild brain injury plaintiffs are malingering, and do we dare admit it? Are actuarial or clinical methods superior in dealing with individual brain injury case evaluations? Are substantial numbers of postconcussive complaints iatrogenic effects of contact with lawyers and irresponsible clinicians? Attorneys shake their heads and comment that neuropsychology is “smoke and mirrors” by experts who “almost seem to make it up as they go along”. Their complaint is overstated but an objective reader will feel some sympathy for their reaction if one considers what