Neuropsychological assessment of patients with severe neuromotor and verbal disabilities.

The team tested kids with severe cerebral palsy who could not speak or point. They gave each child a set of thinking games through a special switch the child could hit alone.

Every child was matched to a typically developing toddler of the same mental age. The games checked memory, picture puzzles, and understanding of long sentences.

The CP group scored lower on memory, picture puzzles, and hard sentences. Yet one child might do well on pictures while another did well on memory—profiles were scattered.

The big message: severe motor limits do not block testing; you just need a way for the child to answer without help.

Carter et al. (2011) followed CP kids for three years and saw raw Raven scores rise even though IQ stayed flat. Their later, larger study updates the 2001 snapshot by showing growth is possible when motor signs are milder.

Hopkins et al. (2023) used the same Raven test but looked at error types, not total scores. They found CP and typical kids earned similar totals, seeming to clash with the lower scores in Richman et al. (2001). The gap closes once you give kids enough time and let them point with eyes or switches—exactly the method M et al. pioneered.

McGonigle et al. (2014) widened the lens: CP plus autism brings extra social-communication weakness. So a full profile needs both cognitive games and social checks.

You can test non-verbal clients who have severe CP; just give them an independent response mode—switch, eye-gaze, or head mouse. Expect a mix of peaks and valleys instead of one flat delay. Use these scattered scores to pick targets: strengthen weak memory with extra trials, or use strong visual skills to teach new words. Share the profile with teachers so they know which tasks to simplify and which to stretch.