The tests listed below are for informational purposes only, and this is not an exhaus- tive list. The final decision about which tests to use must be left to the evaluator.
Within each section, tests are listed in alphabetical order.
Assessment TaskTestNotesaDescription Brief Assessments of EmotionThese tests are useful when the assessment of a patient’s emotional status is desired. BDI IIS J B GBeck Depression Inventory II: Well-researched measure of depression, widely used clinically and in research. A brief measure that assesses a broad range of cognitive, affective, and physical depressive symptoms. 21 items, 1 scale, no validity measures. 5 min, hand scoring, computerized scoring and report BSI 18S J B G NBrief Symptom Inventory 18: Brief measure of depression, anxiety, and somatization. Community and cancer patient norms. 18 items, 3 scales, no validity measures, computerized scoring and report, and hand scoring. 2–3 min CES-DJ GCenter for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale: Brief measure of depression that has been widely used in research. Assesses depression without reliance on physical symptoms, reducing the risk of false positive findings. No norms. 20 items, 1 scale, no validity measures, 3 min, hand scoring HDIJ GHamilton Depression Inventory: Brief measure of depression, widely used in research. Assesses a broad range of cognitive, affective, and physical depressive symptoms. Uses community norms. 23 items, 1 scale, fifth grade reading level, no validity measures, 5 min. A variation of this is the Hamilton Rating Scale, which is a 17 or 21 item measure filled out by the professional STAIS J B G NState-Trait Anxiety Inventory: Well-researched measure of both anxious states and anxious tendencies. A brief measure that assesses a broad range of cognitive, affective, and physical anxiety symptoms. Community norms. 40 items, 2 scales, no validity measures, 8–10 min ZungJ GZung Depression Scale: Brief measure of depression that has been widely used in research. A brief measure that assesses a broad range of cognitive, affective, and physical depressive symptoms. Uses cutoff scores, not norms. 20 items, 1 scale, no validity measures, 5 min, hand scoring (continued)
Assessment TaskTestNotesaDescription Brief Assessment of Pain and Functioning
These tests are useful when the assessment of a patient’s ability to function is desired. BPI-SFS J GBrief Pain Inventory Short Form: Assesses pain, pain variation, and pain distribution through drawing. Also assesses degree to which pain interferes with functioning. Used in pain research, no norms. 20 items, multiple measures, no validity measures, 4–6 min OswestryJ GOswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire: Commonly used measure of functioning in research studies is known to be sensitive to assess change. Original version has been shown to be an effective research outcome measure, multiple modified versions, and no norms. 20 Items, 1 scale, no validity measures, 4–5 min PDQJ GPain Disability Questionnaire: Brief tool that appears to be a sensitive measure of disability associated with pain. 15 items, 1 scale, no norms, no validity measures, 3–4 min Roland and MorrisJ GRoland and Morris Disability Questionnaire: Commonly used measure of functioning in research studies is known to be able to assess change in functioning. Original version is a frequently used research outcome measure. 24 items, 1 scale, no norms, no validity measures, 4–5 min Translated into Arabic, Chinese, Croatian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Flemish, French, German, Greek, Hindi, Hungarian, Iranian, Italian, Japanese, Kannada, Korean, Marathi, Norwegian, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Russian, Spanish, Swedish, Tamil, Telugu, Thai, Tunisian, Turkish, and Urdu, 3–4 min SF 36 – V2S J G NShort Form 36 Questionnaire Version 2: Overall assessments of physical and mental health, Function scale is the strongest and it assesses subjective reports of impairment. Has scoring software. Original SF 36 is less well standardized. SF 36-V2 has an improved administration format, norms, and standardized scores. 36 items, 8 scales, no validity measures, 6–8 min Translated into English, Spanish, German, French, Chinese, Japanese, and for persons from the following countries: Armenia, Bangladesh, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Tanzania, Turkey, Wales (UK), and Vietnam MPQ-SFJ B GMcGill Pain Questionnaire Short Form: Assesses sensory, affective, and evaluative dimensions through the use of verbal descriptors of pain experience as opposed to pure pain intensity, no norms. 15 items, 2 scales, no norms, no validity measures, 3–5 min
(continued)
Translated into Amharic (Ethiopian), Arabic, Chinese, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, Flemish, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Italian, Japanese, Norwegian, Polish, Portuguese, Slovak, Spanish, and Swedish. NRSJ GPain Numerical Rating Scale: Ubiquitous pain rating scale is recommended by JCAHO. Extremely easy to use, usually administered verbally. Unstandardized test, with unknown number of variations. No agreement on scaling (e.g., 0–10 vs. 1–100), location (e.g., rating whole body vs. one body part) or time (e.g., right now vs. typical). No norms. <1 min VASJ GPain Visual Analog Scale: Sensitive measure of pain used extensively in research. Unstandardized test, with unknown number of variations. No agreement on graphic format of test (e.g., length of line; does the line have numbers on it), location (e.g., rating whole body vs. one body part) or time (e.g., right now vs. typical). No norms. <1 min Intermediate Length Assessments of Pain and Disability
Intermediate Length Assessments of Pain and Disability BBHI 2S J B G NBrief Battery for Health Improvement 2: Assesses depression, anxiety, somatization, pain and function. Also has validity measures for minimizing, exaggerating, and random responding. Pain measures include pain intensity, distribution, and tolerability. Normed on both community sample and a rehabilitation sample. Computer scored. Has Spanish version. 63 items, 6 scales, 15 critical items, 1 validity measure, fifth grade reading level, 8–10 min BPIS J GBrief Pain Inventory-Long Form: Assesses pain, pain variation, and pain distribution through drawing. Also assesses degree to which pain interferes with functioning. Includes demographic and medication short answer questions. 15–25 min BSIS J B G NBrief Symptom Inventory: Brief assessment of a broad range of psychopathology, including somatization, depression, anxiety, hostility obsessive-compulsiveness, paranoid ideation, and psychoticism. 53 items, 12 scales, no validity measures, computerized scoring and report, 7–8 min P3S J B G NPain Patient Profile: Measure of depression, anxiety and somatization with chronic pain patient and community norm groups. Validity measure checks for random or bizarre responding. Has Spanish version. 44 items, 3 scales, one validity measure, computerized scoring and report, 12–15 min (continued)
Assessment TaskTestNotesaDescription Comprehensive Assessment of Psychopathology
These tests are useful for the comprehensive assessment of psychopathology and were designed primarily for psychiatric patients. MCMI IIIS J B G NMillon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory III: Scales keyed to the DSM IV. Also has scales for DSM IV diagnoses of affective and psychotic disorders, and for each form of personality disorder. Base rate scoring attempts to adjust test findings to approximate the actual base rates of psychological disorders in the psychiatric population. Has Spanish version. 175 items, 25 scales, three validity measures, critical items, computerized scoring and report, eighth grade reading level, 25–30 min MMPI-2S J B G NMinnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2: Most researched psychological test, with well- established strengths and weaknesses. Over 100 scales and indices to assess a wide range of psychological conditions. Extensive validity assessment is valuable to assess conscious or unconscious exaggeration of reports. Has Spanish version. 567 items, 100+ scales and indices, critical items, computerized scoring and report, hand scoring, sixth grade reading level, 70–90 min MMPI-2-RFS J B G NMinnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory 2 – Revised Form: New version of MMPI 2 that has undergone radical revision to correct perceived MMPI 2 deficiencies. Extensive validity assessment is valuable to assess conscious or unconscious exaggeration of reports. May be stronger at psychiatric assessment, but some studies found it to be less capable when assessing somatoform disorders. (Butcher et al, 2006; Thomas & Youngjohn, 2009) 338 items, 50 scales including 8 validity scales, critical items, fifth grade reading level 45–50 min PAIS J B G NPersonality Assessment Inventory: A comprehensive personality test that is significantly shorter than the MMPI 2. Assesses a broad cross-section of affective, characterological, and psychotic conditions. Multiple validity measures. 340 items, 22 scales, including 4 validity scales, critical items, fourth grade reading level, 50–60 min
(continued)
Comprehensive Assessment of Medical Patients
These are psychological tests designed specifically for the comprehensive assessment of medical patients. BHI 2S J B G NBattery for Health Improvement 2: Assesses broad range of psychological symptoms, characterological risks, social conflicts, coping, and physical symptoms, such as pain and disability complaints. Pain measures include pain intensity, pain distribution, pain intolerance, and dysfunctional pain cognitions. Normed on both community sample and a rehabilitation sample, plus has eight other reference groups, including chronic pain, head injury, and fake bad. Has three validity measures for minimizing, exaggerating and random responding. Has Spanish version. 217 items, 18 scales, including 3 validity measures, 30 content areas, 25 critical items, computerized scoring and report. Sixth grade reading level, 30–35 min MBMDS J B G NMillon Behavioral Medicine Diagnostic: Assesses broad range of psychiatric and problematic behavioral comorbidities that may affect health management and compliance. Offers analysis of health habits, psychiatric indicators, coping styles, and stress moderators. Three validity scales were developed to detect exaggerating or minimizing of symptoms. Two patient norm groups, bariatric and chronic illness (heart disease, diabetes, HIV, neurological and others). Has Spanish version. 165 Items, 38 scales, 3 validity measures, computerized scoring, sixth grade reading level, 20–30 min Assessment of malingeringThese tests are used solely to detect malingering. CARBS J B G NComputerized Assessment of Response Bias: Used to assess whether an individual is falsifying symptoms of memory impairment. No norms HareS J B G NHare Psychopathy Checklist – Revised: The assessment can be used to help assess the degree to which an individual exhibits severe antisocial traits, in the form of a prototypical violent psychopath. May be useful if assessing patients who are making threats SIMSS J B G NStructured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology: Used for both malingered psychopathology and neuropsychological symptoms TOMMS J B G NTest of Memory Malingering: Used to assess whether an individual is falsifying symptoms of memory impairment. No norms VIPS J B G NValidity Indicator Profile: Employs independent verbal and nonverbal subtests to assess the validity of the patient’s reports. Computer scored. No norms WMTS J B G NWord Memory Test: Used to assess whether an individual is falsifying symptoms of verbal memory impairment. No norms (continued)
Assessment TaskTestNotesaDescription Assessment of Cognitive AbilityThese tests are measures of intelligence, memory, and cognitive processing ability. GAMAS J B G NGlobal Assessment of Mental Ability: Culture-free measure of general intellectual ability. Based on the scores on four subtest scales: Matching, Analogies, Sequences, and Construction. Community norms. 25 min timed test RBANSS J B G NRepeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status: Measures neuropsychological status and cognitive decline in individuals who have experienced stroke, head injury, dementia, or neurological injury or disease. Community norms. Less than 30 min WASIS J B G NWechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence: An abbreviated measurement of adult intelligence in short and very short forms. 15 min for 2 subtests IQ. 30 min for 4 subtest IQ WAIS-IVS J B G NWechsler Adult Intelligence Scale – IV: Common measure of adult intelligence assesses cognitive strengths and weaknesses. WAIS-IV and WMS-IV are the only conormed ability-memory instruments. 60–90 min WMS-IVS J B G NWechsler Memory Scale – IV: Measures visual and auditory memory, immediate versus delayed memory, and free recall versus cued recall as well as recognition. Normed on older adolescents and adults. 30–35 min WRAT-4S J B G NWide Range Achievement Test – 4: Achievement test assesses basic academic skills of reading, spelling, and math, with norms to age 94. The test has been validated against multiple other cognitive psychological tests. 35–45 min aNotes: S Standardized test materials; N Norms; J Peer reviewed journal publications; B Reviewed by Buros Institute; G Noted in Treatment Guidelines
(continued)
References
American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (2008). Occupational medicine practice guidelines (2nd Revised ed.). Beverly Farms, MA: OEM Press.
American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. (2008b). Chronic pain treatment guidelines. In K. Hegmann (Ed.), Occupational medicine practice guidelines (2nd ed.).
Beverly Farms, MA: OEM Press.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education, Joint Committee on Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (U.S.). (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing.
Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual on mental disorders, fourth edition, text revision (DSM-IV). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
American Psychiatric Association. Task Force on DSM-IV (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders : DSM-IV-TR (4th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
Arbisi, P. A., & Butcher, J. N. (2004). Psychometric perspectives on detection of malingering of pain: Use of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2. The Clinical Journal of Pain, 20(6), 383–391.
Aronoff, G. M., & Livengood, J. M. (2003). Pain: Psychiatric aspects of impairment and disability.
Current Pain and Headache Reports, 7(2), 105–115.
Aronoff, G. M., Mandel, S., Genovese, E., et al. (2007). Evaluating malingering in contested injury or illness. Pain Practice, 7(2), 178–204.
Artiola i Fortuny, L., & Mullaney, H. A. (1997). Neuropsychology with Spanish speakers:
Language use and proficiency issues for test development. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 19(4), 615–622.
Barsky, A. J., & Borus, J. F. (1995). Somatization and medicalization in the era of managed care.
The Journal of the American Medical Association, 274(24), 1931–1934.
Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Tellegen, A. (2008). MMPI-2-RF™ manual. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
Bernard, T. N., Jr. (1993). Repeat lumbar spine surgery. Factors influencing outcome. Spine, 18(15), 2196–2200.
Bianchini, K. J., Curtis, K. L., & Greve, K. W. (2006). Compensation and malingering in traumatic brain injury: A dose-response relationship? The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 20(4), 831–847.
Binder, L. M., & Rohling, M. L. (1996). Money matters: A meta-analytic review of the effects of financial incentives on recovery after closed-head injury. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 153(1), 7–10.
Block, A. R., Gatchel, R. J., Deardorff, W. W., & Guyer, R. D. (2003). The psychology of spine surgery. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Block, A. R., Ohnmeiss, D. D., Guyer, R. D., Rashbaum, R. F., & Hochschuler, S. H. (2001). The use of presurgical psychological screening to predict the outcome of spine surgery. The Spine Journal, 1(4), 274–282.
Boersma, K., & Linton, S. J. (2005). Screening to identify patients at risk: Profiles of psychologi- cal risk factors for early intervention. The Clinical Journal of Pain, 21(1), 38–43. discussion 69–72.
Bornstein, B. H., Whisenhunt, B. L., Nemeth, R. J., & Dunaway, D. L. (2002). Pretrial publicity and civil cases: A two-way street? Law and Human Behavior, 26(1), 3–17.
Bruns, D., & Disorbio, J. M. (2003). Battery for health improvement 2 manual. Minneapolis:
Pearson.
Bruns, D., & Disorbio, J. M. (2005). Chronic pain and biopsychosocial disorders: The BHI 2 approach to classification and assessment. Practical Pain Management, 5(7), 52–61.
Bruns, D., & Disorbio, J. M. (2009). Assessment of biopsychosocial risk factors for medical treat- ment: A collaborative approach. Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, 16(2), 127–147.
Burchiel, K. J., Anderson, V. C., Brown, F. D., et al. (1996). Prospective, multicenter study of spinal cord stimulation for relief of chronic back and extremity pain. Spine, 21(23), 2786–2794.
Burton, A. K., Tillotson, K. M., Main, C. J., & Hollis, S. (1995). Psychosocial predictors of out- come in acute and subchronic low back trouble. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 20(6), 722–728.
Butcher, J. N., Arbisi, P. A., Atlis, M. M., & McNulty, J. L. (2003). The construct validity of the Lees-Haley Fake Bad Scale. Does this scale measure somatic malingering and feigned emo- tional distress? Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 18(5), 473–485.
Butcher, J. N., Hamilton, C. K., Rouse, S. V., & Cumella, E. J. (2006). The deconstruction of the Hy Scale of MMPI-2: Failure of RC3 in measuring somatic symptom expression. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87(2), 186–192.
Butler, R. J., & Johnson, W. G. (2008). Satisfaction with low back pain care. The Spine Journal, 8(3), 510–521.
Butler, R. J., Johnson, W. G., & Gray, B. P. (2007). Timing makes a difference: Early nurse case management intervention and low back pain. Professional Case Management, 12(6), 316–327.
quiz 328-319.
California Division of Workers’ Compensation (2009). Chronic pain medical treatment guide- lines. Accessed July 20, 2009, from http://www.dir.ca.gov/dwc/DWCPropRegs/MTUS_
Regulations/MTUS_ChronicPainMedicalTreatmentGuidelines.pdf.
Campbell, L. C., Clauw, D. J., & Keefe, F. J. (2003). Persistent pain and depression: A biopsycho- social perspective. Biological Psychiatry, 54(3), 399–409.
Carragee, E. J., Alamin, T. F., Miller, J. L., & Carragee, J. M. (2005). Discographic, MRI and psychosocial determinants of low back pain disability and remission: A prospective study in subjects with benign persistent back pain. The Spine Journal, 5(1), 24–35.
Carragee, E. J., Barcohana, B., Alamin, T., & van den Haak, E. (2004). Prospective controlled study of the development of lower back pain in previously asymptomatic subjects undergoing experimental discography. Spine, 29(10), 1112–1117.
Chiu, T. T., Lam, T. H., & Hedley, A. J. (2005). Correlation among physical impairments, pain, disability, and patient satisfaction in patients with chronic neck pain. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 86(3), 534–540.
Chou, R., Baisden, J., Carragee, E. J., Resnick, D. K., Shaffer, W. O., & Loeser, J. D. (2009).
Surgery for low back pain: A review of the evidence for an American pain society clinical practice guideline. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 34(10), 1094–1109.
Colorado Division of Workers’ Compensation. Chronic Pain Task Force (2007). Rule 17, Exhibit 9: Chronic pain disorder medical treatment guidelines: Colorado Department of Labor and Employment: Division of Worker Compensation.
Colorado Division of Workers’ Compensation. (2009). Rule 17: Medical Treatment Guidelines.
Accessed June 9, 2009, from http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/CDLE-WorkComp/
CDLE/1248095316866.
DeBerard, M. S., Masters, K. S., Colledge, A. L., & Holmes, E. B. (2003). Presurgical biopsycho- social variables predict medical and compensation costs of lumbar fusion in Utah workers’
compensation patients. The Spine Journal, 3(6), 420–429.
den Boer, J. J., Oostendorp, R. A., Beems, T., Munneke, M., & Evers, A. W. (2006). Continued disability and pain after lumbar disc surgery: The role of cognitive-behavioral factors. Pain, 123(1–2), 45–52.
den Boer, J. J., Oostendorp, R. A., Beems, T., Munneke, M., Oerlemans, M., & Evers, A. W.
(2006). A systematic review of bio-psychosocial risk factors for an unfavourable outcome after lumbar disc surgery. European Spine Journal, 15(5), 527–536.
Deyo, R. A., Mirza, S. K., Heagerty, P. J., Turner, J. A., & Martin, B. I. (2005). A prospective cohort study of surgical treatment for back pain with degenerated discs; study protocol. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 6(1), 24.
Disorbio, J. M., & Bruns, D. (2002). Brief battery for health improvement 2 manual. Minneapolis:
Pearson.
Disorbio, J. M., Bruns, D., & Barolat, G. (2006). Assessment and treatment of chronic pain: A physician’s guide to a biopsychosocial approach. Practical Pain Management, 6(2), 11–27.
Epker, J., & Block, A. R. (2001). Presurgical psychological screening in back pain patients: A review. The Clinical Journal of Pain, 17(3), 200–205.
Fairbank, J. C., & Pynsent, P. B. (2000). The oswestry disability index. Spine, 25(22), 2940–2952.
discussion 2952.
Fejer, R., & Hartvigsen, J. (2008). Neck pain and disability due to neck pain: What is the relation?
European Spine Journal, 17(1), 80–88.
Fishbain, D. A., Cutler, R., Rosomoff, H. L., & Rosomoff, R. S. (1997). Chronic pain-associated depression: Antecedent or consequence of chronic pain? A review. The Clinical Journal of Pain, 13(2), 116–137.
Fishbain, D. A., Cutler, R., Rosomoff, H. L., & Rosomoff, R. S. (1999). Chronic pain disability exaggeration/malingering and submaximal effort research. The Clinical Journal of Pain, 15(4), 244–274.
Ford, C. V. (1986). The somatizing disorders. Psychosomatics, 27(5), 327–331. 335–327.
Frederick, R. I., & Bowden, S. C. (2009). Evaluating constructs represented by symptom validity tests in forensic neuropsychological assessment of traumatic brain injury. The Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 24(2), 105–122.
Frederick, R. I., & Crosby, R. D. (2000). Development and validation of the validity indicator profile. Law and Human Behavior, 24(1), 59–82.
Frederick, R. I., Crosby, R. D., & Wynkoop, T. F. (2000). Performance curve classification of invalid responding on the validity indicator profile. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 15(4), 281–300.
Frymoyer, J. W., & Cats-Baril, W. L. (1991). An overview of the incidences and costs of low back pain. The Orthopedic Clinics of North America, 22(2), 263–271.
Furr, R. M., & Bacharach, V. R. (2008). Psychometrics: An introduction. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Gallagher, R. M. (2004). Biopsychosocial pain medicine and mind-brain-body science. Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Clinics of North America, 15(4), 855–882. vii.
Gatchel, R. J. (2001). A biopsychosocial overview of pretreatment screening of patients with pain.
The Clinical Journal of Pain, 17(3), 192–199.
Gatchel, R. J. (2004). Comorbidity of chronic pain and mental health disorders: The biopsycho- social perspective. The American Psychologist, 59(8), 795–805.
Gatchel, R. J., & Mayer, T. G. (2008). Psychological evaluation of the spine patient. The Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 16(2), 107–112.
Gatchel, R. J., Mayer, T. G., & Eddington, A. (2006). MMPI disability profile: The least known, most useful screen for psychopathology in chronic occupational spinal disorders. Spine, 31(25), 2973–2978.
Gatchel, R. J., Polatin, P. B., & Mayer, T. G. (1995). The dominant role of psychosocial risk factors in the development of chronic low back pain disability. Spine, 20(24), 2702–2709.
Gervais, R. O., Rohling, M. L., Green, P., & Ford, W. (2004). A comparison of WMT, CARB, and TOMM failure rates in non-head injury disability claimants. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 19(4), 475–487.
Giordano, N., & Lofland, K. (2005a). A literature review of psychological predictors of spinal cord stimulator outcomes. The Journal of Pain, 6(3 Supplement), S67.
Giordano, N., & Lofland, K. (2005). A literature review of psychological predictors of spinal cord stimulator outcomes. American Pain Society 24th Annual Scientific Meeting, Boston.
Glassman, S. D., Minkow, R. E., Dimar, J. R., Puno, R. M., Raque, G. H., & Johnson, J. R. (1998).
Effect of prior lumbar discectomy on outcome of lumbar fusion: A prospective analysis using the SF-36 measure. Journal of Spinal Disorders, 11(5), 383–388.
Grace, V. M. (2000). Pitfalls of the medical paradigm in chronic pelvic pain. Baillière’s Best Practice & Research. Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 14(3), 525–539.
Greene Jackson, D., Hamilton, P., Hutchinson, S., & Huber, J. (2009). The effect of patients’ race on provider treatment choices in coronary care: A literature review for model development.
Policy, Politics & Nursing Practice, 10(1), 40–63.