There is an Indian parable about six blind men who encounter different parts of a large elephant and are asked to describe what they feel. The man who grabs the trunk reports that he is holding a snake; the next man, who is holding one of the large tusks, insists that it is a spear; another man, grabbing one of the animal's large legs, says that it is a tree. The point of the parable is that incomplete evidence results in incomplete conclusions and a narrow perspective of the whole beast. As applied psychology becomes increasingly specialized, psychologists also run the risk of drawing incomplete conclusions about patients and their functioning. Understanding something as complex as human phenomenology through a single narrow lens ensures that our perceptions and conclusions will be equally narrow. I argue, like others (Meyer, 2002; Ready, Stieman, & Paulsen, 2001; Wilson, 1993), that we can and should have both breadth and depth as a goal in all clinical activities, including psychological evaluation. In this chapter, I discuss the current division between neuropsychology and personality assessment. I examine differences in training, test use, and scientific literature that result in somewhat different (and perhaps incomplete) perspectives of our patients. I then discuss the neuropsychological challenges posed by traditional personality assessment and behavioral measurement of children and adolescents, as well as the types of “lessons” that personality assessors can learn from neuropsychology. Likewise, I explore the ways in which the practice of neuropsychology can inform the assessment of child and adolescent personality and behavior. Finally, I present a case example and give some recommendations for...... middle of article...... International Society for Neuropsychology and APA Division 40 (Clinical Neuropsychology) to determine what measures are most commonly given by neuropsychologists. In this survey, respondents were asked to rate their top three evaluation metrics. A similar investigation was conducted by Camara, Nathan, and Puente (2000), who surveyed both APA neuropsychologists and clinical psychologists. The results of the two surveys are presented in Table 3.1. The question asked by the two surveys was slightly different (i.e. “top three” in Rabin et al. [2005] versus “most common” in Camara et al. [2000]), but it seems that neuropsychologists seem unlikely to use traditional measures. of personality and psychopathology(for example, the Rorschach was ranked 34th) and that most assessments performed by clinical psychologists focus on either personality or cognitive functioning.