Purpose: The construct of ‘cognitive rehabilitation’ has not been defined in a consensual manner and the variations in usage have produced misunderstanding and controversy. At one extreme, it refers to a paradigm of complex, sophisticated, integrated interventions and at the other to a poorly conceptualized and largely ineffectual service modality. A number of articles criticizing cognitive rehabilitation make little effort to differentiate between these usages, thus subjecting very different clinical procedures to the same complaints.
Methods: This article abstracts five major criticisms from this literature to examine the best-developed, ‘holistic’ versions.
Conclusion: A treatment selection standard is proposed, specifying the conditions under which a holistic model or the ‘contextualized’ training alternative is likely to be more viable.
