Dr. Jeremy Sharp (01:17)
Hey everybody, welcome back to the testing psychologist podcast. We have a return guest today that many of you have likely heard of and used many of his products. Cecil Reynolds is back on the podcast to talk with us about the BASC-4 and many other things. If you don’t know Cecil, he is the author of what is now four editions of the behavior assessment system for children.
The BASC-4 is releasing in, goodness, when this releases, probably another week or two. He is also the author of more than 30, sorry, more than 50 commercially published psychological tests and a frequent contributor to the testing psychologist community on Facebook. So if you have not heard of Cecil, you have been probably living under a rock for the past 30 to 40 years. So Cecil is a giant in our community and feel grateful to have him on the podcast to talk about updates to one of the most well-known behavior rating scales or systems in our field. So we talk about a lot of different things, of course, that’s just the nature of conversation with Cecil, but we dive into the BASC-4, we talk about the updates, we talk about the new narrowband rating scales that are gonna be a part of the BASC-4, talk about some of the enhancements to diagnosing autism in younger kids with the BASC-4.
We talk about the state of assessment in a way, and a few topics within that umbrella, including, you know, cost of assessment measures, process of developing new assessment measures, and the importance of academic and procedural rigor when we’re developing or updating new measures. So there is a lot to take away as usual. And as you’ll hear in the episode and the intro here,
The BASC-4 is releasing in another week or two and I myself am pretty, pretty interested in seeing this update. I know that we will be converting to it pretty quickly once it comes out. I’ve always enjoyed the BASC products and as you’ll hear in the episode, appreciate Cecil and his collaborators appreciation for clinical rigor and development and research in that whole process, making sure that they are generating.
well-supported standardized measures. So let’s see, before we get to the conversation with Cecil, what is going on? What’s going to be going on in mid-June? I think the biggest thing by that time, yes, crafted practice is full. We are done. All the spots are filled and I’ll be looking forward to seeing a nice group of psychologists in about a month here in Northern Colorado for a business retreat. If you missed it this year, you can certainly get on the interest list for next year. It happens every summer.
And the other big thing I think is that the enrollment window for Kraft will be open again. Kraft is my membership community. This is where we do small group coaching. We do twice monthly live Q &A calls. We have a resource vault with a bunch of paperwork and other resources that you can use in your practice. Enrollment opens twice a year in January and July. And this is now where I am doing all of my coaching, both one-on-one and small group.
So if you would like to join an ongoing community of psychologists and get in-depth support and guidance and connection. This is the way to do it. You can go to the testingpsychologist.com slash craft and get more info, join the wait list and be notified when those doors open. All right, enough of all this. Let’s get to my conversation with Dr. Cecil Reynolds.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (04:57)
Cecil, hey, welcome back to the podcast.
Cecil R Reynolds (05:00)
Well, thank you. appreciate you having me.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (05:02)
Yeah, always glad to have you here. You’ve got a lot to talk about. So it’s just a matter of picking what I’m interested in and you’ll probably have something to say about it. So glad to have you.
Cecil R Reynolds (05:11)
Yeah. Well, well,
yeah. Well, you seem to pick things that are interesting to me. So who doesn’t like to talk about what they’re interested in.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (05:19)
Right. Hey, that’s where that works. That works. So you got, mean, a lot of things that you’re doing, but today we are going to focus on the BASC-4. The BASC-4 is coming out in, is it June or July?
Cecil R Reynolds (05:31)
It will be during the last two weeks of June. At some one I don’t know the exact exact day in there but sometime the last two weeks of June.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (05:35)
Fantastic.
Okay, great. So yeah, by the time this releases, it should be coming out very soon. So, you know, always open with this question of why, why this topic is important to you. I’m going to, you know, switch that up just a little bit and, and ask, you know, you’re on the fourth version of the BASC. It’s, you know, kind of a classic measure. A lot of us know. So maybe the question is why is it important to continue updating these measures that, that we use?
Cecil R Reynolds (06:10)
Well, it’s important from multiple perspectives, actually, and we try to monitor those and, and we don’t have it just on a calendar. ⁓ we, we have it on a, science and practice watch, if you will. And what Randy and I try to do, and we get help with this from the publisher because it’s just, it’s too big for one person or even two to figure out.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (06:22)
Mm-hmm.
Cecil R Reynolds (06:36)
Monitor on any kind of regular basis. We continue to read the science. Randy and I continue to write and publish in this area. And we interact with students, even though I’m not at the university anymore, I still interact with students. And I get a lot of questions from folks doing dissertations and research related to children’s behavioral and emotional development.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (06:59)
Mm-hmm.
Cecil R Reynolds (06:59)
And I try to be responsive to that when I can. And so we stay on top of that. And I continue to be a journal editor. So I get to see a lot of new science. I also get to see a lot of really bad science, by the way, ⁓ that never sees the light of day. And that’s part of my role as a journal editor is to be sure that happens. So we monitor the science.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (07:14)
Ha ha ha ha.
Cecil R Reynolds (07:22)
What we learn through our science changes and it changes how we think about how we should be measuring children’s behavior and their behavioral and emotional development. And we want to be current with that while at the same time, evaluating those trends and doing our best to sort out what is a popular faddish change.
from what’s real science. And we’re pretty hardcore about that. We don’t change things we think are a passing fad. We look hard at the literature and it’s important to incorporate new science. I don’t know who first said it, but I have heard it many times and I can’t prove it.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (07:56)
Mm-hmm.
Cecil R Reynolds (08:13)
But it influences my thinking, and that is that the half-life of knowledge in our field is approximately seven years. So of everything you were taught, if you graduated with a PhD in psychology seven years ago, about 50 % of what you were taught is wrong.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (08:23)
That sounds about right.
Cecil R Reynolds (08:38)
And it takes about seven years to figure that out. And we have to figure out which, which half that is. Right. And, you know, so we try to follow that and look at that and pick things that are historically stable in our science to focus on and then look at what’s new and what has been replicated.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (08:38)
Well, that’s terrifying.
Haha,
Cecil R Reynolds (09:05)
Replication is a big deal. know, the splashy stuff you see in the newspaper sometimes reporting about science, you sometimes never hear about again because it failed to replicate and replication is important. So we look for replication. So we follow the science. So we want to be up to date. And that’s one of the things that
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (09:15)
Absolutely.
Cecil R Reynolds (09:28)
that most heavily influences our decision about, okay, it’s time to look at this anew and figure out how can we do this better based on our current knowledge from the science. But we also do track societal change and changes in clinical practice. The needs of practitioners change. The things like the DSM change.
things like the rules and regulations for IDEIA change, know, not that they haven’t changed radically in a long time, and there are court cases that influence how diagnostic decisions are made appropriately, particularly in the institutional settings like schools. And we also do our best to monitor those kinds of changes.
And ask ourselves, okay, is this something that needs our attention in creating a revision? it time? And give me an example of, a socio-political change that influence that’s really not steeped in the science of diagnostics, but that we decided was important.
And that is usually more person-friendly language.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (10:58)
Mmm, yes.
Cecil R Reynolds (11:00)
In arriving at a diagnosis of a disability such as autism. And there’ll be people who listen to this who tell me I shouldn’t refer to autism as a disability.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (11:11)
course.
Cecil R Reynolds (11:12)
But under federal law, is, it is under the DSM. It is under all those kinds of, of classifications. But one of the things that we, we do think about very hard is, you don’t want to offend people in the way you ask questions.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (11:32)
Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.
Cecil R Reynolds (11:34)
And in the initial diagnostic decision for things like autism, for ADHD, for other, for other disorders like that, that you have to balance is there’s phraseology that people clearly understand well, and we know is reliable.
We know that discriminates really well from a scientific perspective that really are objectionable terms now to parents and to the neuro affirming community of professionals. So as we see that happen, we try to be responsive to that. And you can’t just change those questions on existing forms because then you, then your normative data, your reliability data, your sensitivity and specificity data, all that stuff no longer apply.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (12:10)
Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.
Cecil R Reynolds (12:30)
Until you do a study to prove it still applies. Well, if you’re to do that, you’re better off doing that in a revision or a new edition. So, you know, that was part of the undertaking and that was part of driving, okay, it’s time. But that’s just one example. It’s a larger, psycho-sociopolitical landscape that you have to look at and find a way to blend that with the new science.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (13:05)
Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.
Cecil R Reynolds (13:06)
and retaining the old signs. So all of that becomes a critical interplay and it’s truly an interaction effect that drives this. It’s not any one of those, at least it hasn’t been. I could maybe think of a scenario for one of those things might be big enough at one time to drive it, but so far,
It’s been the synergy created by looking in those three spheres. And so that’s how, that’s how we decide. And particularly that decision may be more unique to things in the emotional and behavioral domain than into something like, like academic achievement tests. would give you a very different answer. For example, if you ask me, how would you know it’s time to revise an achievement test?
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (13:33)
Mmm.
Cecil R Reynolds (13:55)
I have radically different answer for that. You know, and even an IQ measure or so it is contextually dependent to on the type of instrument that you’re looking at. So, I hope that’s responsive. It’s probably more than you wanted to hear, but. ⁓
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (13:58)
Yeah, yeah, I bet.
Makes sense. It is, no it’s a good.
Well, I’m just struck by the depth and the complexity of a project like this, especially with, you talked about IQ or achievement. That’s a different process. But even a like a rating scale like the I don’t know, the SRS, let’s say, which is, you know, pretty, pretty focused on social social functioning, you know, like assessment of autism symptoms. I mean, the bass covers a pretty wide range of behavior and emotional functioning. And so I’m just thinking about all the different dimensions that
Cecil R Reynolds (14:29)
Mm-hmm.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (14:45)
y’all have to be aware of as you consider whether it’s time to update. mean, there any… It’s a big, yeah, that’s a good way to put it. So were there, I mean, can you think back, and this question may not go anywhere, but can you think of any, I don’t know, one, two, three things that sort of popped up initially that got you thinking, okay, things are really shifting in this realm, or…
Cecil R Reynolds (14:50)
It’s a big literature.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (15:12)
Hey, we need to start thinking about updating the BASC again.
Cecil R Reynolds (15:16)
Well, it’s, it’s interesting because a lot of the, there’s been a real growing emphasis on research and area of empathy and its impact on children’s development and an increasing emphasis on resiliency and, more emphasis on positive dimensions. And we have always from day one, when I wrote the original conceptualization plan for the original BASC in
1987, one of the things that was in that was that it would contain measures of strengths because my, my philosophy toward actually intervention has always been that it should be strength-based. I had written a band published about that is in the early 1980s about strength-based remediation. And so it was just.
of philosophical bent that I had had all the way along through graduate school and into my early career. So as we began to see more and more of that research over the last 10 to 15 years, as Randy and I discussed, we became convinced, for example, that we’re going to find a way to incorporate more of that into the BASC. So like with BASC 3, we added a resiliency scale.
We have a caring and empathy scale in basketball.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (16:39)
Hmm.
Cecil R Reynolds (16:41)
And we think that’s important. And we think it’s become more important to look at those kinds of domains now. And we also began to see emphases within some of the more narrow diagnosis like autism, like ADHD,
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (16:42)
I like that. Yeah.
Cecil R Reynolds (16:58)
in area of mood disorders with children where there’s not as much good research as you might like to have, or even think there is in terms of mood disorders, particularly with children. And so that also drove us not specific papers, but the broad collection of papers and emphasis growing in those areas, to decide that, okay, it’s time to add
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (17:06)
Hmm.
Cecil R Reynolds (17:24)
a set of narrowband scales to the the Basque family and to become part of the system.
While it is absolutely necessary in initial diagnosis to use broadband scales, if you want to be accurate, have any ability to do more detailed follow-up once you’re on the right trail of diagnosis so you can pin that down and understand it in a more comprehensive way.
is becoming more common and more needful in the profession as we have more science related to those individual diagnoses and how there might be, for example, subtypes within those. So that whole train, if you will, was something we decided, all right, it’s now time to get on board that because there’s enough. There’s enough science.
And there are enough practitioners who will pay attention to it to make it viable to do you. You know, you can’t just sit out to do something like this if there’s no place for it to go. Because as much as people don’t, don’t want to say it or acknowledge it, it costs a lot of money to do this. Yeah.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (18:28)
Got it.
Mm-hmm.
Mm-hmm.
to develop a measure. ⁓
Cecil R Reynolds (18:56)
Well, to do it well and to
make it applicable and collect all the data that’s necessary, just to throw out a number for you, the data collection for BAS 4 included just over 12,000 cases.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (19:13)
Yeah, that’s honor people.
Cecil R Reynolds (19:13)
Uh, that,
you know, uh, that that’s a lot of work and it’s a lot of cases and it’s an enormous expense. But when you are, uh, in the weeds of these exams and making critical decisions, mean, the decisions that are made in these evaluations with children are life changing decisions.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (19:17)
Yeah, that’s a lot of people.
Cecil R Reynolds (19:41)
School psychologists probably make more life-changing decisions about children than any other profession.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (19:49)
Yeah, I totally agree.
Cecil R Reynolds (19:52)
And we have an obligation to be as accurate as possible in that. So it’s critical that we engage that process and not do it in trendy, fashionable ways, but do it in ways that are supportable by our science and decide what is and isn’t supportable.
But there also have to be enough people in practice who know enough to be appreciative of that effort and be willing to try out the new things when it comes along. If I tell you a quick story about Basque, I think your audience would appreciate this. And I won’t name any names, but when we first proposed the Basque in 1987,
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (20:35)
Of course.
Cecil R Reynolds (20:47)
There was nothing like Basque out there. There was no integrated behavioral emotional assessment system available. There were some behavior rating scales out there and that was the extent of it. And they weren’t particularly well known, particularly in schools. And people were diagnosing emotional disturbance back then with sentence completions and TATs and kinetic family drawings. And you know, that was the state of the art in practice and even Rorschach.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (21:08)
Yes.
Cecil R Reynolds (21:17)
So I wanted to have something, and Randy agreed with me that this was really important, that was objective and data-based. So we put together this model that became BASC, and that was actually its original name, was the Behavioral Assessment System for Children. And we submitted it to one of the major publishing companies. And back then, there were six majors.
And we went to the major that we had worked with and actually where Randy had, had been employed as you know, he was the project director for the original K ABC and for the first revision of the violin, Randy was in charge of those projects. And so we, and, but he had left and taken an academic position. So we went, we went back to them with our proposal and as they do, they, they did their.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (21:53)
Mm-hmm.
Cecil R Reynolds (22:09)
marketing research and their internal analytics on it, did cost estimates and did, you know, all the things that a, you know, commercial company would do. And they came back to us and said, you know, this looks like a really great product. We, we love the conceptualization. This would be a wonderful thing. but there’s absolutely no market for it.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (22:33)
Ahaha
Cecil R Reynolds (22:33)
There would be, there would be no interest in it among clinicians. And we know there’s no market for it because if there was a market for it, there would already be one.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (22:46)
okay. Good reasoning. Yeah.
Cecil R Reynolds (22:48)
⁓
And so they rejected it.
and they, I guess we’re not as familiar with Randy and I’s personalities as they should have been. because we said, no, that’s, that’s the wrong answer. And we spent a year convincing them. They should, they should take this on and they finally agreed.
But they said, we don’t have the staff to do it. We’re not going to hire new staff. Here’s what we’ll do. You guys do everything that we would typically do as the publishing and development company. You guys do all of that and we’ll fund it.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (23:35)
Okay.
Cecil R Reynolds (23:35)
But we’re not going to hire new staff to do this. We can’t, we don’t have the staff to do it. So, so they funded Randy and I to develop the original bass under that premise. But, you know, they said there’s no market for this. There’s nobody, nobody will use something like this. It’s, it’s too big and it’s too complicated as good as it would be for them to do it. It won’t happen. Well, what I can tell you.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (23:42)
Okay.
Cecil R Reynolds (23:58)
Now I can’t give you specific numbers because of contractual, in ambitions, but what I can tell you is that, the bass as a system, is the number one product, at the company.
it, well, it, it, it’s used with more people annually than the MMPI. It’s used with more children than the Wexler scales. It’s used more than any other product. And the current survey data indicates that 98 % of the school psychologists in the United States use the Basque each year.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (24:16)
It’s gotta feel good. Yeah. I mean, I believe it.
Cecil R Reynolds (24:45)
So that I don’t know what crystal ball they were looking into when they said there’s no market for this and nobody will ever use it, but. ⁓
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (24:45)
That’s incredible.
It sounds
like it was a pretty murky, cloudy crystal ball. Whatever.
Cecil R Reynolds (24:58)
Well,
we thought so, but we finally wore them down. ⁓
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (25:02)
Good for you.
Good for you. I’m glad you did. Yeah. It’s been a great product. It might be a good segue to, I mean, I feel like, so I’ve used, I can’t remember, honestly. When did, do you remember when the BASC 2 came out? I can’t remember if I used the original BASC, like at the beginning of grad school. ⁓
Cecil R Reynolds (25:07)
Yeah.
Yeah, the,
the best I can’t, I can’t recall the exact date, but it would have been around a bass to would have been around 90 eight ish.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (25:30)
Okay, So yeah, so solidly in the BASC-2 realm, had a good, you know, five, six, seven years with that. And then, you know, the three came out and have been with that for a number of years. I feel like there’s been leaps, you know, there was a leap from two to three. And so I’m curious what some of the major updates are from three to four.
Cecil R Reynolds (25:46)
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
Yeah. Well, they’re not as big a leap as from two to three. ⁓ from, from two to three, we made more major structural changes. and, one of the things I did was, at the development office that we work with at Pearson, I made him print out a great big sign and put it up there that says, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (25:55)
Okay, okay.
Mm-hmm.
Cecil R Reynolds (26:15)
And, bass three ain’t broke. we didn’t fix it. So, there is a lot of continuity. and there are fewer big changes other than the advent of the narrow band scales, which is a huge deviation for us. ⁓ that’s the biggest, that that’s the biggest jump from bass three to bass four.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (26:19)
Yeah? Yeah.
Yeah.
I you mention that.
Cecil R Reynolds (26:41)
We, what we’ve done is fine tune a lot of things. And for example, we have reworded the items that were problematic to the newer affirming community. after trying out those items to be sure we weren’t sacrificing any diagnostic accuracy. that was a big deal. mean, we, you know, because,
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (26:46)
Okay.
Cecil R Reynolds (27:03)
The other items worked really well the way they were worded, even though some people were offended by the language. They were extremely good diagnostic items. So we had, we did a lot of work to figure out what wording is less offensive that retains the diagnostic accuracy in an initial exam. So there was a lot of that kind of work that was done.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (27:21)
Mm-hmm.
Mm-hmm.
Mm-hmm.
Cecil R Reynolds (27:31)
Uh, that is really fine tuning work. So we did a lot of that. We did add, we did add some things like, for example, as I mentioned, we have an empathy and caring scheme. Uh, we emphasize that more heavily. We added to, uh, our ability to discriminate, uh, autism as a diagnosis at a younger age. Uh, bass three is really.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (27:36)
That’s important.
Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.
Cecil R Reynolds (28:01)
excellent at discriminating autism from other disorders as well as comorbidities with ADHD starting around age six. ⁓ It wasn’t nearly as good with autism below age six. And so we didn’t provide, for example, our actuarial index for
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (28:12)
Mm-hmm.
Okay.
Cecil R Reynolds (28:26)
recommending autism as a diagnosis below age six with BASC-3. We were able to cure that with BASC-4. And so with BASC-4, we are much more accurate with that diagnosis in the three, four and five age group. And so we have now added our actuarial index to that age group because we were able to
to improve and solidify that and work through the item issues and make that work. And that was actually very much in response to the field and the need that the scientific literature keeps pointing out to make this diagnosis accurately earlier. The literature in this domain is very, clear. The earlier
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (29:11)
Absolutely.
Cecil R Reynolds (29:17)
You can get an accurate diagnosis of autism, the better the outcome in childhood and adolescence and on into adulthood. So we thought that was very compelling. We were getting so many requests from the field to add that at that age group, but we weren’t comfortable doing it yet. We could have done it with bass three. We, at any point we could have pulled the trigger and put that index in there, but we weren’t satisfied.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (29:31)
Mm-hmm.
Mm-hmm.
Cecil R Reynolds (29:44)
with the accuracy of the index at ages three, four and five. So we didn’t do it, but we were committed to seeing if it was possible with particular changes and item renovation, if you will, to cure that accuracy issue in BAS4. And we were able to do that. So that’s a big change to us anyway.
I mean, people who don’t work in that age group with, with, ASD referrals won’t notice, but that was a big deal to us. We think that’s a big change. and we were able to accomplish that. and we have enhanced, the DSM four matching, that we do. So that, but then again, that’s fine tuning.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (30:21)
Sure, absolutely.
Cecil R Reynolds (30:34)
So there’s an awful lot of fine tuning there. You won’t see the big leaps outside of the advent of the narrowband scales. you also though, we’ll see very shortly this, this will not happen in June, but it’s going to happen. you know, July, August, somewhere along there, you’re going to see, the bass.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (30:43)
Yeah.
Cecil R Reynolds (30:59)
for information is going to be integrated with all of its proprietary data, things that no one else can have access to into Pearson’s AI reporting system.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (31:11)
Mmm… Mm-hmm.
Cecil R Reynolds (31:13)
And that’s going to be a substantial advance in reporting. it’s going to lag the release of the other bass for materials because it’s encompassing lots of things other than bass for, but it’s not going to be a big delay. so, so that’s kind of,
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (31:18)
I can see them.
Cecil R Reynolds (31:34)
You know, lots and lots and lots of fine tuning, a few things that we thought were big. mean, it’s a big deal to add a new scale to the bass. You know, it is to us anyway. ⁓ cause you have, you have length constraints. If you make it too long, teachers aren’t going to do it. Or they’re going to blow it off at the end. Their ratings won’t be reliable. You know, a lot of things like that won’t happen because you lose their attention span.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (31:44)
sure. Sure.
Yes.
Cecil R Reynolds (32:00)
So you have to constrain yourself and you have to actually delete some things if you want to add some things. So lots and lots and lots of fine tuning, lots of replication and equivalency work to see are the things we did with Bass 3 still working in Bass 4?
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (32:21)
Mm-hmm.
Cecil R Reynolds (32:21)
The really good things like our sensitivity and specificity values for different disorders. We were able to replicate that. So it looks really strong. And then we do have equivalency tables in the manual, by the way. If you have BAS 3 data on a kid, you want to know what their profile would look like on BAS 4. There are conversion tables that we created.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (32:29)
Mm-hmm.
Cecil R Reynolds (32:44)
that will be in the manual and vice versa. If you have BAS4 data and you want to know, gee, I’m, you know, I’m still in this transition period. I wonder what their profile would look like if I’d use BAS3 instead. There are conversion tables in the manual. You can actually answer that question except for the new scale, like carrying an empathy. can’t see what they would have done on that. So, so we’ve created a lot of things like that that are in the manual that are going to really help people who think about that.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (32:55)
Mm-hmm.
Of
Cecil R Reynolds (33:11)
with the transition. ⁓ So, you know, we try to be user friendly with that. there’s another reason to do that is there are a lot of research projects underway using BAS 3 and they need to be able to think about that and think about conversions as they’re looking at that research. the really big leap
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (33:15)
Love that.
That makes sense.
Cecil R Reynolds (33:32)
is the advent of the Narban scales. Now they’re not going to be released until the end of the year. But they are, their norms are anchored in the other BAS4 norms. They’re not, they’re not co-normed, but we have sufficient overlap to where the norms will be equated. And then
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (33:38)
Yeah.
Cecil R Reynolds (33:53)
it will be linked and once they’re released, there are some things that will happen with the computerized scoring that will allow you, for example, it will tell you whether or not, and which forums we recommend as part of follow-up, if you didn’t already include them, to get at the more nuance of the diagnosis and to discriminate subtypes within, within mood disorders, for example.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (34:11)
Gotcha.
Cecil R Reynolds (34:19)
to discriminate subtypes of the ADHD to look at things like whatever it ends up being called then sluggish cognitive tempo, which is not what it’s going to be called. But, you know, those names are in flux a little bit, but we’ve added some, some scales like that. We’ve we’re including a PDA ⁓ as part of the narrowband autism assessment.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (34:19)
Mm-hmm.
Mm-hmm.
Mm-hmm.
Cecil R Reynolds (34:45)
to discriminate that for folks really well, we think. And we think there’s enough science behind that. You know, that really came out of a lot of European research camps. And it was not deemed sufficient to be in the DSM. We’ve been following that research and reading it. And there’s now just a lot more research on that that supports that concept.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (34:55)
Sure.
Okay. Okay.
Cecil R Reynolds (35:12)
And
so there are things like that that will, that will be available in the narrow bands, but even with our narrow bands, which are not going to overdiagnose the name of the disorder in the title, I promise that’s the big Hickey with narrow bands, right? That narrow bands are a hammer.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (35:33)
Right. Right.
Cecil R Reynolds (35:34)
And
you know, if, if, if what you’re using as a hammer, everything looks like a nail. And my complaint about narrow bands has always been including my own. have some narrow band scales out there. My first, first test I ever published was the RCMAS. They trend toward over diagnosing the name of the disorder in the title of the scale.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (35:40)
Of
Cecil R Reynolds (36:00)
And that’s why it’s critical in initial diagnosis to use broadband scales. You’ve got to rule out mimics and you’ve got to rule in comorbidities and narrowband scales are not good at that. So we have worked extremely hard to make that not a problem with our narrowband scales. And you know,
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (36:15)
Mm-hmm.
Cecil R Reynolds (36:26)
The publisher is going to not going to like our recommendation about that, but we, we recommend narrowband scales, even ours be used in combination with the broadband scale. If you want to be accurate in your final diagnosis, because you know, they’re going to want people to pick up and pick them up and use them independent of anything else. And that kind of thing. Cause you know, they’re interested in selling product and that’s, and that’s fine. That’s what they do. Right.
But, you know, we want to model.
premier practice, not, not, not quick and dirty practice. want to model premier practice and here’s what you really should be doing if you want to get it right. So we want them all tied together and we, and, and, and we know not all clinicians are going to do that. You know, and, and they’ll be able to use them independently, but we think all this needs to be tied together.
There’s a reason why 1987, when I wrote down a name for this, I wrote behavioral assessment system for children. If you’re not using a system systemic and systematic approach to evaluating the emotional and behavioral development of children, you’re not going to be accurate. You’re not going to get it right.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (37:32)
Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.
Cecil R Reynolds (37:52)
You know, it’s just, it’s why it’s one of the reasons we have a structured developmental history, which we’ve once again, fine tuned. If you don’t understand the history and context of a child’s life, I don’t care what actuarial data you have. You’re going to say some things that are just wrong. And you’re going to say some things that end up just making you look bad.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (37:58)
Yes.
Cecil R Reynolds (38:15)
If you don’t understand that context. So you’ve got to have data from a system and you can’t just look at how kids behave around their parents. You can’t just look at how kids behave around a teacher at school.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (38:16)
agreed.
Mm-hmm.
Cecil R Reynolds (38:33)
You’ve got to integrate that. You’ve got to look at the pervasiveness of behavior. And you’ve also got to understand that it’s absolutely true. Children behave differently in different settings with different people. And I have, I don’t know how many case studies I could, I could talk to you about that clearly demonstrate that where people didn’t get data.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (38:49)
of course.
Cecil R Reynolds (39:02)
in more than one setting and said what turned out to be really stupid things about kids because they looked at, they looked at them under a microscope instead of pointing their microscope in lots of different directions, which is what you have to do. You do eventually need a microscope, but you can’t just look at one slide.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (39:13)
Mm-hmm.
Agreed. Agreed. Can I go back to the narrowband scales for a second? ⁓ Just for folks, including myself, who don’t have like a great working knowledge of what this is going to look like. Can you give more details about these narrowbound scales? Like what exactly is that going to look like in the the Basque habit? Like how will they show up? How will we use them?
Cecil R Reynolds (39:28)
So.
Sure.
Well,
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (41:07)
Hey, everyone. I’m really excited that NovoPsych Psychometrics is sponsoring the show. NovoPsych is a platform for psychologists who care deeply about assessment and testing and want their self-report measures to be the very best. NovoPsych has an extensive library of 150 standardized instruments with strong coverage across the presentations many of us assess every day, like disability, functional impact, autism, ADHD, and a wide range of symptom measures.
You can also use it for broad personality assessments like the Big Five or go deeper when you’re looking to understand personality pathology. What makes NovoPsych different isn’t just the range of scales, it is the quality of the experience. So I really appreciate the depth of psychometric info that it provides and the clear graphs and visualizations that make results easier to interpret and communicate. If you want to try NovoPsych psychometrics, you can access a 15 day free trial via the link in the show notes, which is
novopsych.com slash testing psychologist. That’s N-O-V-O-P-S-Y-C-H dot com slash testing psychologist.
Cecil R Reynolds (42:12)
they’ll show up as separate tests that can be integrated in the computer scoring, if you want. If you’ve given those at the same time as the larger bass scales, you’ll be able to score those and integrate those into the reporting at the same time. You can also use them as a free independent standing scale, just like you would now with any other rating scale that’s narrowband.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (42:28)
Mm-hmm.
Okay.
Cecil R Reynolds (42:42)
So
that you’ll be able to use them as you would any other narrow band rating scale out there, but they are going to have teacher, parent, and self-report. You’ll have all three options with each of the narrow bands because, you know, as I was just saying, the pervasiveness of that is really important. so you’d be able to use them independently.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (42:48)
Mm-hmm.
Cecil R Reynolds (43:09)
But if you have larger BAS data, you’ll be able to integrate them. And that’s the way we desire them to be used, if you will. ⁓ But as far as the actual data collection, we haven’t seen the programming and that kind of thing. But one of our hopes is that people will have the option
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (43:15)
Gotcha.
Yeah.
Cecil R Reynolds (43:36)
For example, of having the computer scoring of the broadband. Bask people would have the, this would be an optional thing. Decide when the parent, for example, completes the last item on the broadband parent rating scale, the computer knows the score. It might automatically pull up the mood disorder scale.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (43:56)
Mm-hmm.
Okay, okay. Almost like a version of item response theory or something where it sort of knows what you’re, you know, how you’re answering and then guides you in a direction.
Cecil R Reynolds (44:06)
Narrowband.
Well, it’s
well, yes, essentially it’s what used to be called computerized adaptive testing.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (44:19)
Yes, yes, sorry. That’s right.
Cecil R Reynolds (44:21)
⁓
So we’re hoping that they’ll be able to have that functionality in the initial release, but it would be an option. People are a little leery of that. ⁓ They want to make their own decision. ⁓ I know in the market research they’re doing on that option, people
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (44:29)
Mm-hmm.
Also.
Hmm
Cecil R Reynolds (44:45)
don’t trust the computer basically to make that decision. ⁓ So that’s eventually gonna happen. That’s eventually gonna be available. At what point that’s gonna be available is gonna be driven by what clinicians are telling us they want.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (44:48)
Ha ha ha. ⁓ yeah.
Yeah, gotcha.
Cecil R Reynolds (45:04)
because that’s actually an expensive option, both internally and it, and it would be an add on cost to the, to the clinician. ⁓ so we’ll see how, you know, that’s eventually going to be an option, whether it’ll be an option on day one of the release or not has been decided yet. So, ⁓ but there are things like that that are going to happen.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (45:13)
Sure. Sure.
I see him.
Cecil R Reynolds (45:32)
And I think it happened very quickly over the next 12 to 18 months with these things. But you’ll be able to pick them up and use them independently, just like you use any other narrowband scale now. And then you’ll be able to integrate that into other Basq system data that you have on the same child.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (45:36)
I see. I see. So this is the…
Yeah, and when you say integrate into, what do you mean exactly?
Cecil R Reynolds (45:58)
Well, you can integrate that into a multi-form report that will take the data you already gathered, say from the BASC for PRS. And then if the parent’s done an Ariban autism scale, you’d be able to integrate that information. The computer scoring will then take that and integrate it. And just like we do a multi-rater report now, it’ll do a multi-form report integrating it for you.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (46:02)
Mm-hmm.
And how many, well maybe not how many, that’s a limited question. Which narrowband scales are available and for which diagnoses or concerns?
Cecil R Reynolds (46:30)
Well,
the three narrow bands that are going to be available are going to be autism, ADHD, and mood disorder.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (46:40)
Okay. That covers a lot of ground.
Cecil R Reynolds (46:43)
Yeah. Well, it, it certainly covers the area where there’s a sufficient number of referrals and sufficient, need and sufficient science.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (46:54)
Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.
Cecil R Reynolds (46:55)
So, you know, that those, all of those things have to have to come together to drive the cost of product development. I mean, I know that, you know, one, one of our favorite things to do as clinicians is complain about the price of, of assessments and materials. But, you know, we have to look at the quality of what we’re getting and look at the cost.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (46:56)
that’s the
Right.
Cecil R Reynolds (47:19)
of developing that, you know, collecting those 12,000 forms, for basketball is a substantial investment that goes on for years with no, no offset, no income offset that. So it’s a big risk. And, ⁓ and, and it’s, just one of things that people don’t think about. And then they say, well, but you know, I can use the such and such and it’s free. And, and one of the things I usually ask.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (47:34)
That’s a good reminder.
Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.
Cecil R Reynolds (47:45)
about that is can you give me a link to the manual for that? And I go, well, there is no manual. can you give me a link to the norms? Well, the norms are in a research article. And I go and look at the research article and it’s 125 kids who were all collected in one community.
And I’m like, are you sure you want to get on the witness stand and defend that a due process hearing? Uh, and, it’s interesting because then sometimes you say, well, no, but it’s free. Well, that, shouldn’t be what drives your desire to be accurate and reliable and giving the best possible service to the children. You know,
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (48:10)
Sure.
Good point.
Cecil R Reynolds (48:33)
⁓
it, it bugs me. And I just remind people that the way I train my students, and the way I choose tests personally is don’t ever administer something that you’re not comfortable defending the results of on cross examination. If I’m the expert that prepped the attorney.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (48:54)
Well, that’s a losing game, feel like, for a lot of us. my gosh. my gosh. I’m sure a lot of listeners just got real nervous.
Cecil R Reynolds (48:56)
Ha ha!
if you’re not comfortable,
if you’re not comfortable defending that, if you’re being cross-examined by a well-prepared attorney who has read the standards for educational and psychological testing and has an expert in their corner, which they all do now, don’t use it. Don’t use it. If you’re comfortable doing that.
then I’m comfortable with you doing it.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (49:28)
Sure, It’s a good reminder. and I include myself in that group. We were just talking yesterday about the cost of assessment. And you know, it just keeps going up. And I appreciate the reminder. mean, there is a, you you get what you pay for sort of phenomenon here, right? And I hope that folks hearing you describe the process, you know, it’s a little more validating or helps the price make sense.
Cecil R Reynolds (49:45)
Yeah.
Well, and the cost of development,
the actual cost of development, the investment in developing those instruments is part of what drives the price.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (50:01)
Of course. Of course.
Cecil R Reynolds (50:03)
I mean,
they, you know, they have to look at cost recovery models and things like that. And, you know, and that’s why the original Basque was turned down originally. They said, we, you know, we’ll lose my illness. We can’t do that.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (50:07)
Yeah. Yeah.
Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.
I get it. mean, it’s like a much, much smaller version of the pharmaceutical industry. It sounds like there’s some parallels there. You have to determine the market value and cost of development. Can you recoup that? I get it. It’s a business’s business.
Cecil R Reynolds (50:26)
Yeah.
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And, and, and,
and, and, you know, and, and I will, I’ll tell you the, the, the big five test publishers are not spin thrifts. They watch every penny because they do know that the market is price sensitive and we have to make a strong case. If we want to spend money on, a particular kind of validity study or a particular data collection or, or something like that.
it’s on us to convince them to spend that money.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (51:04)
Mm-hmm. That’s fair.
There’s a lot we could say about that and I would get out of my depth. think pretty quickly as far as pricing and market demand and development.
Cecil R Reynolds (51:15)
Well, I would too. I don’t understand
all the, all the mathematical models for pricing, but I know that development costs are important in that, in pricing and the more it costs to develop it, the more it’s going to cost you to use.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (51:26)
They’re substantial. Yeah, of course.
Absolutely. No, that makes sense. That makes sense. And I think, I mean, the takeaway from that little section of the discussion is just, hey, I mean, if you’re going to use open source measures or things that are free or low cost or whatever it may be, do that due diligence and dig in and figure out where is that manual? Does it have a manual? What’s the quality of the manual? What’s the research look like? What was the standardization? You got to check out all those factors.
Cecil R Reynolds (51:57)
Well, and, as a good guide to that, I, I routinely recommend to people when they are going to use something like that, take the information you have that led you to decide to use that and compare that information to the standards for educational and psychological testing. Because that is the standard you’re going to be held to one day, eventually with this.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (52:12)
Mm-hmm.
Mm-hmm.
Cecil R Reynolds (52:26)
And the standards are called standards for a reason. They’re not a collection of suggestions.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (52:36)
Right. Right.
Cecil R Reynolds (52:38)
They are the standards for educational and psychological testing. And is that then that’s what we should follow. If we’re members of the profession, professions have standards. It’s no different than following your ethical principles. And, and the standards are officially authored and officially adopted by APA in CME and AERA, but you’ll find that they are endorsed.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (52:47)
Yeah. Yeah.
Cecil R Reynolds (53:07)
by dozens of other professional organizations as the standards that should be followed. And most state licensing boards adopt those kinds of standards in general sweeping statements, by the way, they don’t name them individually, but they adopt standards documents like that in their practice rules.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (53:25)
Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.
Cecil R Reynolds (53:34)
as things that need to be followed in terms of the standard of care in your field. So if what you are able to gather about those instruments satisfies you, that the instrument concurs with and meets the standards for education, psychological testing.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (53:40)
Right.
Cecil R Reynolds (53:58)
Use it.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (53:58)
Great.
Great. Yeah. That’s a good way to look at it. So I want to pivot and ask you a question. I’m sure you’ve been asked a million times before, but I’m going to ask you here so we can just have this discussion for everyone.
Cecil R Reynolds (54:07)
Mm-hmm.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (54:14)
Have you considered, I’m sure you’ve considered, maybe the question is, why is there no adult equivalent of the BASC? Because we need, we desperately need some kind of broadband measure for adults.
Cecil R Reynolds (54:24)
Mm-hmm.
Well, I asked Pearson that on at least an annual basis. Randy and I have submitted proposals for that to the publisher on more than one occasion. And their response is they cannot establish that there’s a sufficient market to warrant the investment.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (54:37)
Okay. Okay.
That’s shocking. I feel like this question comes up at least once every couple of weeks in my Facebook group. Where is the adult broadband measure?
Cecil R Reynolds (54:50)
That’s well, what I,
what I, what I tell people is tell Pearson, need this and you want it and you would use it if it was available because the feedback we get is there’s not yet a sufficient base of practitioners who would use it to justify the development costs that they are not opposed to doing it.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (55:01)
Mm.
Mm-hmm.
Cecil R Reynolds (55:18)
when, some point when, that critical mass can be demonstrated to them, I disagree with them, by the way, I think that critical mass is apparent to me. but it has to be apparent to them. And the way to do that is for people to ask for it. Cause that, cause they don’t believe authors. Right. I mean, you know,
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (55:28)
Mm-hmm.
Yeah, yeah,
Cecil R Reynolds (55:42)
They’re just like,
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (55:42)
you want to publish everything
Cecil R Reynolds (55:43)
well, you want to do it because you like to do these things. You think it’s fun to spend our money developing tests. And they’re right. I do think it’s fun spending their money to develop new tests. it’s, it’s, you know, one of my favorite things to do in the whole world. I have over 50 commercially published tests out there now, and it’s something I really enjoy doing. And they’re like, yeah. And, and.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (55:46)
Yeah
Right.
Cecil R Reynolds (56:05)
We’re glad you enjoy doing that and want to continue to do it, but you can’t spend our money on this until we’re convinced there’s a critical mass of practitioners that will actually use it. So that has to come from the field. It can’t come exclusively from us.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (56:16)
Yeah, yeah.
Okay, that’s fair. listeners, you heard it. If you want this measure, tell Pearson. Yeah, I mean, I, of course, I have no knowledge of the market data and that kind of thing aside from anecdotal and, you know, just talking to folks and being a practitioner. But I would have to think it’s at least as large as, you know, an MMPI or an MCMI or, mean, any, you know, like we administer these measures for adults pretty broadly.
Cecil R Reynolds (56:26)
Tell person.
yeah. ⁓
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (56:47)
think a broadband
measure would be even more appropriate.
Cecil R Reynolds (56:50)
Yeah. I will
tell you that it’s more expensive than developing an MMPI or an NCMI. that’s, that’s one of the issues it is because it’s a system and it’s more comprehensive. And by the way, Pearson doesn’t fund the development cost on the MMPI. the MMPI is owned by the university of Minnesota press. And they have a very different business model. They licensed it to Pearson.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (56:55)
Okay, that’s fair.
Mm-hmm. That makes sense.
Mmm.
Yeah, yeah.
you
Cecil R Reynolds (57:21)
but since they are a, a, 501 C three not for profit organization that owns the MMPI, they have a very, very different financial structure for the MMPI than any other product out there. There’s no other product with that underlying financial structure. So.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (57:27)
that changes things.
Sure.
Mm-hmm.
Good to
know.
Cecil R Reynolds (57:46)
yeah, I mean that, won’t mean much to your, to your audience, but, but it influences what happens and how it happens with that. And the university of Minnesota press has to approve every single thing that happens with, with the MMPI. And for example, they work with, with Yossi and his team as opposed to Pearson working with Yossi and his team. It’s, it’s a radically different.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (57:54)
Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.
spoken.
I see.
Cecil R Reynolds (58:14)
for that. But, ⁓ but, but, the, you know, the, the Milan series and those things are all in house at Pearson and, and handled that way. But, but think about the comprehensiveness that you want with something like an adult bass and you can see that it’s going to be, you know, probably about double the cost of doing something like an MCMI.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (58:16)
hearing.
Cecil R Reynolds (58:38)
But we can do it. mean, we’ve got a model for it. We know how to do it. We’ve designed it. when, when the critical mass demonstrates itself to Pearson, Randy and I are ready to pull the trigger.
and have been.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (58:52)
And then
it would be a short five to six years before we get it. Is that right?
Cecil R Reynolds (58:56)
⁓ we think
we could do it in three to five, three to five years. well that that’s what it takes if you do it right.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (59:00)
Okay. Okay. Okay.
Yeah, yeah, of course, of course.
Cecil R Reynolds (59:06)
You know, you don’t just make this stuff up and start throwing it out there. you know.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (59:11)
Right, right,
right. I mean, I think that’s a theme from our discussion today. It’s come up in a bunch of different contexts, just sort of maybe the integrity or the rigor that y’all have implemented in developing this measure over time. And that’s something I’ve always appreciated, I think, with all of your measures. You speak very clearly about the research that goes into them. And I think that’s important to highlight, because people do ask those questions, like why would I pay for this? How is this different?
Cecil R Reynolds (59:29)
Well, thank you.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (59:39)
that kind of thing. And it is different, you know, at least as far as I can tell.
Cecil R Reynolds (59:43)
Well, that’s, that’s our goal. And you know, you’re more successful sometimes than others, but it’s, it’s not the thing you should be doing off the corner of your desk. because again, to, to, reiterate something I said earlier, the decisions that are being made about children on the basis of psychological exams are life changing decisions, not just for the kids.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (59:53)
Right.
Mm-hmm.
Yeah.
Cecil R Reynolds (1:00:09)
for the entire family ecosystem.
most profoundly for the kids. But these are life changing decisions for these families. And if you’re not interested in doing your best to get that right, I hope if you’re listening, you’ll go do something else instead, because it’s just too important not, not to do our best.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (1:00:31)
Yeah.
Cecil R Reynolds (1:00:37)
And we’re never going to be perfect. We’re always going to make mistakes. That’s part of it. And we have to be able to learn from those and get better. But if you’re not willing to do your best, if you’re not willing to strive for excellence, not perfection, if you’re not willing to strive for excellence in making these decisions about children, please go do something else.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (1:01:05)
Yeah, it’s a good reminder. This has come up in a couple different interviews lately, a few different interviews. I think we forget sometimes the weight of the work that we’re doing and the information and the decisions we’re making regarding kids and adults lives.
Cecil R Reynolds (1:01:21)
Well,
and it’s easy. Not that we so much forget, but that we get overwhelmed with demands on our time. have great empathy for school psychologists in particular, who just get overwhelmed with demands to get kids evaluated and get it done quickly and do this and do that. And now you got to do reavowals and
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (1:01:31)
Of course. Of course.
Cecil R Reynolds (1:01:50)
And they’re getting a lot of pressure from administrators who don’t understand what it takes to do this in a way that’s correct and to practice excellence in what we do. So many of their administrators just don’t have the comprehension of what’s required to do that. And so they’re constantly under stress and pressure.
And I sympathize with them and have empathy for them. And, you know, one of the things that, that we try to do with things like, like, like Basque and my other products, you know, like one of things we did with, developing the Rias, we want to streamline practice to the extent it’s feasible to do so without sacrificing quality.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (1:02:33)
Mm-hmm.
Cecil R Reynolds (1:02:45)
And that’s the key. Well, we have to be efficacious or we won’t be allowed to provide services, but efficacious, which is a word I love, ⁓ because it combines two concepts. combines efficiency with being accurate and reliable. Right. If you’re efficacious, you’re being both.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (1:02:45)
That’s the balance.
Mm-hmm.
Cecil R Reynolds (1:03:12)
and so we need to be efficacious in our practice and you know, that’s what we hope to promote and you still can’t get it down to the kind of time that, you know, the, the, people who pay the bills would like us to, which they’re just interested in, in, you know, kind of a quick and dirty, if you will. And.
We can’t be, and we have to resist that. But we also have an obligation to everybody to be efficacious.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (1:03:43)
It’s a good reminder and that may be a good note to end on. I think it’s easy to forget these things.
Cecil R Reynolds (1:03:49)
Yep,
it is. It is easy.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (1:03:54)
Yeah, this has been.
Cecil R Reynolds (1:03:55)
Well, thank you.
I appreciate the opportunity to give me a bit of a soapbox as it turned out on certain issues and for the opportunity to talk about MassFold.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (1:04:01)
You know, it’s all, this is part of the work.
Well, I really appreciate it. It’s always a good conversation. Yeah. And I like how we end up kind of spinning off into bigger, bigger picture issues. You know, it’s not just about one measure. It’s, you know, it’s part of the work that we’re doing in that whole fabric.
Cecil R Reynolds (1:04:09)
We’ll see.
Yeah.
Well, and maybe we can,
we can talk in the future about some other or big issue kind of things that.
Dr. Jeremy Sharp (1:04:24)
That sounds good.
Yeah. mean, I’m very willing to have you as long as you’re willing to come back. Yeah. Good to see you see. So thanks for being here.
Cecil R Reynolds (1:04:29)
Yeah, sure.
You
too. Thanks.
Click here to listen to the podcast instead.