Background/Objectives: The evaluation of cognition is central to many neurological conditions, including traumatic brain injury, Alzheimer’s disease, Lewy body disease, frontotemporal degeneration, and vascular disorders. In clinical practice, particularly in aging populations, cognitive complaints often arise in the context of mixed neurological processes, requiring careful integration of cognitive and non-cognitive findings. Despite this, there remains limited clarity regarding the respective roles of neurologists and clinical neuropsychologists and the distinction between cognitive and neuropsychological assessments, terms that are often used interchangeably despite important differences in methodology and scope. This lack of a shared framework has practical consequences. Cognitive test results, when interpreted in isolation for diagnosis, may be misconstrued as comprehensive measures of brain function, particularly when non-cognitive neurological features such as motor, cerebellar, or vestibular abnormalities should have been considered (but were not). Methods: In this narrative review, we synthesize clinical guidelines, consensus statements, regulatory sources, and representative empirical literature to articulate a competence-based framework in which cognitive assessment is a medically integrated process incorporating history, functional evaluation, neurological examination, and the targeted use of standardized neuropsychological instruments. Results: Neurologists are trained to establish medical diagnoses and integrate cognitive findings into the context of neurological disease, while neuropsychologists contribute detailed psychometric characterization, culturally and demographically informed interpretation, cognitive phenotyping, functional characterization, and validity assessment in complex clinical and medicolegal contexts. Although neuropsychologists are qualified to diagnose neurocognitive disorders using standardized diagnostic criteria, attribution to specific neurological etiologies requires a comprehensive medical evaluation that extends beyond cognitive testing alone. Conclusions: We outline a tiered approach to evaluation that aligns assessment methods with clinical questions and supports accurate diagnosis, interdisciplinary collaboration, and patient-centered care.
Pappolla et al. (Fri,) studied this question.