J Am Acad Psychiatry Law Table of Contents for 1 January 2012; Vol. 40, No. 1

A new issue of Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online is available online:

1 January 2012; Vol. 40, No. 1

The below Table of Contents is available online at: http://www.jaapl.org/content/vol40/issue1/index.dtl?etoc

---

Editorial

---

Mental Illness, Criminality, and Citizenship Revisited

Michael Rowe and Jean-François Pelletier

J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2012;40 8-11
http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/full/40/1/8

Reflections and Narratives: New to The Journal and to Professional Ethics

Philip J. Candilis and Richard Martinez

J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2012;40 12-13
http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/full/40/1/12

---

Biography

---

Charles L. Scott, MD: Music, Military, and Medicine

William J. Newman

J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2012;40 14-20
http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/full/40/1/14

---

Special Article

---

But He Knew It Was Wrong: Evaluating Adolescent Culpability

Peter Ash

J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2012;40 21-32
http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/abstract/40/1/21

Commentary: Building a Developmental-Ecological Model of Criminal Culpability During Adolescence

Thomas J. McMahon

J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2012;40 33-40
http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/abstract/40/1/33

---

Regular Article

---

Defendant Remorse, Need for Affect, and Juror Sentencing Decisions

Emily P. Corwin, Robert J. Cramer, Desiree A. Griffin, and Stanley L. Brodsky

J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2012;40 41-49
http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/abstract/40/1/41

Commentary: Pursuing Justice in Death Penalty Trials

Clarence Watson, Spencer Eth, and Gregory B. Leong

J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2012;40 50-54
http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/abstract/40/1/50

Commentary: Perception of Remorse by Mock Jurors in a Capital Murder Trial

Leonardo M. Batista and Wade Myers

J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2012;40 55-58
http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/abstract/40/1/55

Physician Boundary Violations in a Physician's Health Program: A 19-Year Review

Elizabeth Brooks, Michael H. Gendel, Sarah R. Early, Doris C. Gundersen, and Jay H. Shore

J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2012;40 59-66
http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/abstract/40/1/59

Classics in Psychiatry and the Law: Francis Wharton on Involuntary Confessions

Kenneth J. Weiss

J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2012;40 67-80
http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/abstract/40/1/67

From Schadenfreude to Contemplation: Lessons for Forensic Experts

Graham D. Glancy and Cheryl Regehr

J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2012;40 81-88
http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/abstract/40/1/81

Competency Restoration Treatment: Differences Between Defendants Declared Competent or Incompetent to Stand Trial

Claire D. Advokat, Devan Guidry, Darla M. R. Burnett, Gina Manguno-Mire, and John W. Thompson, Jr

J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2012;40 89-97
http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/abstract/40/1/89

---

Analysis and Commentary

---

The Involuntary Medication of Jared Loughner and Pretrial Jail Detainees in Nonmedical Correctional Facilities

Alan R. Felthous

J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2012;40 98-112
http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/abstract/40/1/98

Adapting the Cultural Formulation for Clinical Assessments in Forensic Psychiatry

Neil Krishan Aggarwal

J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2012;40 113-118
http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/abstract/40/1/113

Intentional Ingestion and Insertion of Foreign Objects: A Forensic Perspective

Carolina A. Klein

J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2012;40 119-126
http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/abstract/40/1/119

The Parental Alienation Debate Belongs in the Courtroom, Not in DSM-5

Timothy M. Houchin, John Ranseen, Phillip A. K. Hash, and Daniel J. Bartnicki

J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2012;40 127-131
http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/abstract/40/1/127

---

Reflections and Narratives

---

Becoming a Real Doctor: My Transition From Fellowship to Faculty

Brian K. Cooke

J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2012;40 132-134
http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/full/40/1/132

---

Legal Digest

---

The Influence of Intoxication and Psychological Distress on the Inference of Intent to Kill

Cory Crane and Caroline Easton

J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2012;40 135-137
http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/full/40/1/135

Unwillingness Versus Inability to Assist in One's Own Defense in Assessments of Competency to Stand Trial

Sam Hawes and Laurie Edwards

J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2012;40 137-139
http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/full/40/1/137

Burden of Proof in Establishing Mental Retardation in Capital Cases

Alexander Westphal and Madelon Baranoski

J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2012;40 139-141
http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/full/40/1/139

Conditions of Release for Insanity Acquittees

Kavya Singareddy and Reena Kapoor

J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2012;40 141-143
http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/full/40/1/141

Improper Rejection of Evidence and Expert Testimony

Kathleen R. Rivera and Charles Dike

J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2012;40 143-145
http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/full/40/1/143

Dissociative Identity Disorder in the Courtroom

Marina Nakic and Paul Thomas

J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2012;40 146-148
http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/full/40/1/146

Once Found Dangerous, "How Dangerous" May Be Irrelevant

Joseph T. Smith and Kevin V. Trueblood

J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2012;40 148-150
http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/full/40/1/148

---

Books and Media

---

Assessing Dangerousness: Violence by Batterers and Child Abusers, Second Edition

Todd Tomita

J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2012;40 151-152
http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/full/40/1/151

Foundations of Forensic Mental Health Assessment

Gregory B. Leong

J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2012;40 152-153
http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/full/40/1/152

Explorations in Criminal Psychopathology: Clinical Syndromes With Forensic Implications, Second Edition

Joseph R. Simpson

J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2012;40 153-154
http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/full/40/1/153

A Comprehensive Guide to Child Custody Evaluations: Mental Health and Legal Perspectives

Stephen Paul Herman

J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2012;40 155
http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/full/40/1/155

---

Letters

---

Letters

Anthony Tamburello

J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2012;40 156
http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/full/40/1/156

Reply

Seth Powsner

J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2012;40 156-157
http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/full/40/1/156-a

Letters

Ray Blanchard

J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2012;40 157-158
http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/full/40/1/157

Reply

John Matthew Fabian

J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2012;40 158
http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/full/40/1/158

---

"Legal Reasoning"

http://kolber.typepad.com/ethics_law_blog/2012/03/legal-reasoning.html

Sent from my KMcGrew IPhone

Article: Mental Retardation Issues in a Capital Case: Appellate Review

Mental Retardation Issues in a Capital Case: Appellate Review
http://www.judges.org/news/news030112.html

(Sent from Flipboard)

Sent from Kevin McGrew's iPad

Kevin McGrew, PhD

Educational Psychologist

IAP101 Brief #12: Use of IQ component part scores as indicators of general intelligence in SLD and MR/ID diagnosis

   
            Historically the concept of general intelligence (g), as operationalized by intelligence test battery global “full scale” IQ scores, has been central to the definition and classification of individuals with a specific learning disability (SLD) as well as individuals with an intellectual disability (ID).  More recently, contemporary definitions and operational criteria have elevated intelligence test battery composite or part scores to a more prominent role in diagnosis and classification of SLD and more recently in ID.

            In the case of SLD, third-method “consistency” definitions prominently feature component or part scores in (a) the identification of consistency between low achievement and relevant cognitive abilities or processing disorders and (b) the requirement that an individual demonstrate relative cognitive and achievement strengths (see Flanagan, Fiorello & Ortiz, 2010).  The global IQ score is de-emphasized in the third-method SLD methods.

            In contrast, the 11^th edition of the AAIDD Intellectual Disability: Definition, Classification, and Systems of Supports manual (AAIDD, 2010) placed general intelligence, and thus global composite IQ scores, as central to the definition of intellectual functioning.  This has not been without challenge.  For example, the AAIDD ID definition has been criticized for an over-reliance on the construct of general intelligence and for ignoring contemporary psychometric theoretical and empirical research that has converged on a multidimensional hierarchical model of intelligence (viz., Cattell-Horn-Carroll or CHC theory).

The potential constraints of the “ID-as-a-general-intelligence-disability” definition was anticipated by the Committee on Disability Determination for Mental Retardation, in its National Research Council report “Mental Retardation:  Determining Eligibility for Social Security Benefits” (Reschly, Meyers & Hartel, 2001).  This national committee of experts concluded that “during the next decade, even greater alignment of intelligence tests and the IQ scores derived from them and the Horn-Cattell and Carroll models is likely.  As a result, the future will almost certainly see greater reliance on part scores, such as IQ scores for Gc and Gf, in addition to the traditional composite IQ.  That is, the traditional composite IQ may not be dropped, but greater emphasis will be placed on part scores than has been the case in the past” (Reschly et al., 2002, p. 94).  The committee stated that “whenever the validity of one or more part scores (subtests, scales) is questioned, examiners must also question whether the test’s total score is appropriate for guiding diagnostic decision making.  The total test score is usually considered the best estimate of a client’s overall intellectual functioning.  However, there are instances in which, and individuals for whom, the total test score may not be the best representation of overall cognitive functioning.” (p. 106-107).

            The increased emphasis on intelligence test battery composite part scores in SLD and ID diagnosis and classification raises a number of measurement and conceptual issues (Reschly et al., 2002).  For example, what are statistically significant differences?  What is a meaningful difference?  What appropriate cognitive abilities should serve as proxies of general intelligence when the global IQ is questioned?  What should be the magnitude of the total test score? 

Appropriate cognitive abilities will only be the only issue discussed here.  This issue addresses  which component or part scores are more correlated with general intelligence (g)—that is, what component part scores are high g-loaders?  The traditional consensus has been that measures of Gc (crystallized intelligence; comprehension-knowledge) and Gf (fluid intelligence or reasoning) are the highest g-loading measures and constructs and are the most likely candidates for elevated status when diagnosing ID (Reschly et al., 2002).  Although not always stated explicitly, the third method consistency SLD definitions specify that an individual must demonstrate “at least an average level of general cognitive ability or intelligence” (Flanagan et al., 2010, p.745), a statement that implicitly suggests cognitive abilities and component scores with high g-ness.

Table 1 is intended to provide guidance when using component part scores in the diagnosis and classification of SLD and ID (click on images to enlarge and use the browser zoom feature  to view; it is recommended you click here to access a PDF copy of the table..and also zoom in on it).  Table 1 presents a summary of the comprehensive, nationally normed, individually administered intelligence batteries that possess satisfactory psychometric characteristics (i.e., national norm samples, adequate reliability and validity for the composite g-score) for use in the diagnosis of ID and SLD.

The “Composite g-score” column lists the global general intelligence score provided by each intelligence battery.  This score is the best estimate of a person’s general intellectual ability, which currently is most relevant to the diagnosis of ID as per AAIDD.  All composite g-scores listed in Table 1 meet Jensen’s (1998) psychometric sampling error criteria as valid estimates of general intelligence.  As per Jensen’s number of tests criterion, all intelligence batteries g-composites are based on a minimum of nine tests that sample at least three primary cognitive ability domains.  As per Jensen’s variety of tests criterion (i.e., information content, skills and demands for a variety of mental operations), the batteries, when viewed from the perspective of CHC theory, vary in ability domain coverage—four (CAS, SB5), five (KABC-II, WISC-IV, WAIS-IV), six (DAS-II) and seven (WJ III) (Flanagan, Ortiz & Alfonso, 2007; Keith & Reynolds, 2010).   As recommended by Jensen (1998), “the particular collection of tests used to estimate g should come as close as possible, with some limited number of tests, to being a representative sample of all types of mental tests, and the various kinds of test should be represented as equally as possible” (p. 85).  Users should consult sources such as Flanagan et al. (2007) and Keith and Reynolds, 2010) to determine how each intelligence battery approximates Jensen’s optimal design criterion, the specific CHC domains measured, and the proportional representation of the CHC domains in each batteries composite g-score.

Also included in Table 1 are the component part scales provided by each battery (e.g., WAIS-IV Verbal Comprehension Index, Perceptual Reasoning Index, Working Memory Index, and Processing Speed Index), followed by their respective within-battery g-loadings.[1]  Examination of the g-ness of composite scores from existing batteries (see last three columns in Table 1) suggests the traditional assumption that measures of Gf and Gc are the best proxies of general intelligence may not hold across all intelligence batteries.[2] 

In the case of the SB5, all five composite part scores are very similar in g-loadings (h² = .72 to .79).  No single SB5 composite part score appears better than the other SB5 scores for suggesting average general intelligence (when the global IQ score is not used for this purpose).  At the other extreme is the WJ III where the Fluid Reasoning, Comprehension-Knowledge, Long-term Storage and Retrieval cluster scores are the best g-proxies for part-score based interpretation within the WJ III.  The WJ III Visual Processing and Processing Speed clusters are not composite part scores that should be emphasized as indicators of general intelligence.  Across all batteries that include a processing speed component part score (DAS-II, WAIS-IV, WISC-IV, WJ III) the respective processing speed scale is always the weakest proxy for general intelligence and thus, would not be viewed as a good estimate of general intelligence. 

            It is also clear that one cannot assume that composites with similar sounding names of measured abilities should have similar relative g-ness status within different batteries.  For example, the Gv (visual-spatial or visual processing) clusters in the DAS-II (Spatial Ability), SB5 (Visual-Spatial Processing) are relatively strong g-measures within their respective battery, but the same cannot be said for the WJ III Visual Processing cluster.  Even more interesting are the differences in the WAIS-IV and WISC-IV relative g-loadings for similarly sounding index scores. 

For example, the Working Memory Index is the highest g-loading component part score (tied with Perceptual Reasoning Index) in the WAIS-IV but is only third (out of four) in the WISC-IV.   The Working Memory Index is comprised of the Digit Span and Arithmetic subtests in the WAIS-IV and the Digit Span and the Letter-Number Sequencing subtests in the WISC-IV.  The Arithmetic subtest has been reported to be a factorially complex test which may tap fluid intelligence (Gf-RQ—quantitative reasoning), quantitative knowledge (Gq), working memory (Gsm), and possible processing speed (Gs; Keith & Reynolds, 2010; Phelps, McGrew, Knopik & Ford, 2005).   The factorially complex characteristics of the Arithmetic subtest (which, in essence, makes it function like a mini-g proxy) would explain why the WAIS-IV Working Memory Index is a good proxy for g in the WAIS-IV but not in the WISC-IV. The WAIS-IV and WISC-IV Working Memory Index scales, although named the same, are not measuring identical constructs.

A critical caveat is that the g-loadings cannot be compared across different batteries.  g-loadings may change when the mixture of measures included in the analyses change.  Different "flavors" of g can result (Carroll, 1993; Jensen, 1998). The only way to compare the g-ness across batteries is with appropriately designed cross- or joint-battery analysis (e.g., WAIS-IV, SB5 and WJ III analyzed in a common sample).

The above within and across intelligence battery examples illustrates that those who use component part scores as an estimate of a person’s general intelligence must be aware of the composition and psychometric g-ness of the component scores within each intelligence battery.  Not all component part scores in different intelligence batteries are created equal (with regard to g-ness).  Also, not all similarly named factor-based composite scores may measure the same identical construct and may vary in degree of within battery g-ness.  This is not a new problem in the context of naming factors in factor analysis, and by extension, factor-based intelligence test composite scores, Cliff (1983) described this nominalistic fallacy in simple language—“if we name something, this does not mean we understand it” (p. 120). 

---

[1] As noted in the footnotes in Table 1, all composite score g-loadings were computed by Kevin McGrew by entering the smallest number (and largest age ranges covered) of the published correlation matrices within each intelligence batteries technical manual (note the exception for the WJ III) in order to obtain an average g-loading estimate.  It would have been possible to calculate and report these values for each age-differentiated correlation matrix for each intelligence battery.  However, the purpose of this table is to provide the best possible average value across the entire age-range of each intelligence battery.  Floyd and colleagues have published age-differentiated g-loadings for the DAS-II and WJ III.  Those values were not used as they are based on the use of the principal common factor analysis method, a method that  analyzes the reliable shared variance among tests.  Although principal factor and principal component loadings typically will order measures in the same relative position, the principal factor loadings typically will be lower.  Given that the imperfect manifest composite scale scores are those that are utilized in practice, and to also allow uniformity in the calculation of the g-loadings reported in Table 1, principal component analysis was used in this work. The same rationale was used for not using the latent factor loadings on a higher-order g-factor in SEM/CFA analysis of each test battery.  Loadings from CFA analyses represent the relations between the underlying theoretical ability constructs and g purged of measurement error.  Also, frequently the final CFA solutions reported in a batteries technical manual (or independent journal articles) allow tests to be factorially complex (load on more than one latent factor), a measurement model that does not resemble the real world reality of the manifest/observed composite scores used in practice.  Latent factor loadings on a higher-order g-factor will often differ significantly from principal component loadings based on the manifest measures, both in absolute magnitude and relative size (e.g., see high Ga loading on g in WJ III technical manual which is at variance with the manifest variable based Ga loading reported in Table 1) 

[2] The h² values are the values that should be used to compare the relative amount of g-variance present in the component part scores within each intelligence battery.

New Dictionary App Available From the APA

This new app gives you all the power of a complete dictionary at your fingertips, along with great features that a print dictionary can't offer. Download a free but limited version of the app today, or the full version for just $29.99. The full version allows you to search more than 10,000 entries directly or browse an alphabetical list, add notes about definitions, mark terms as favorites, and link directly between cross-references. Entries cover concepts, processes, and therapies across 90 subareas of psychology. The full app also offers: "Word of the Day" and "Historical Figures in Psychology" pop-up features abbreviations and alternative spellings search term suggestions search history Download the APA Concise Dictionary of Psychology app today for your iOS or Android mobile device: FREE TRIAL VERSION: At the iTunes Store. At the Android Market. FULL VERSION: At the iTunes Store. At the Android Market. For more information about the print edition of this and other APA dictionaries and reference books, follow this link. You are receiving this message to help you make full use of APA resources. Your email address was obtained from the APA Membership Database. Electronic communication, which costs a fraction of printing and mailing, is cost effective and timely. This message is a one time mailing. We are developing a system by which you can identify preferences for the types of email you would like to receive from the Association. Until then, to unsubscribe to promotional email, send a message to this email contact: Membership@apa.org or send a regular mail post to the address: Unsubscribe Membership Department, 750 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002-4242. You may also call 202-336-5580.

Forensic psychologist blackballed over competency opinions

http://forensicpsychologist.blogspot.com/2012/02/forensic-psychologist-blackballed-over.html

Sent from my KMcGrew IPhone

Article: "Law and Neuroscience in the United States"

"Law and Neuroscience in the United States"
http://kolber.typepad.com/ethics_law_blog/2012/02/law-and-neuroscience-in-the-united-states.html

(Sent from Flipboard)

Sent from Kevin McGrew's iPad

Kevin McGrew, PhD

Educational Psychologist

Top-Ten Recent SSRN Downloads

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/crimprof_blog/2012/02/top-ten-recent-ssrn-downloads-2.html

Sent from my KMcGrew IPhone

Penney on Impulse Control, Criminal Responsibility, and Neuroscience

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/crimprof_blog/2012/02/penney-on-impulse-control-criminal-responsibility-and-neuroscience.html

Sent from my KMcGrew IPhone

Article: STUDIES: Military Death Sentence More Likely for Defendants of Color

STUDIES: Military Death Sentence More Likely for Defendants of Color
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/studies-military-death-sentence-more-likely-defendants-color

(Sent from Flipboard)

Sent from Kevin McGrew's iPad

Kevin McGrew, PhD

Educational Psychologist

On the road again: Blogging lite

I will be traveling to a professional conference starting tomorrow and extending thru the entire week. Thus, the only posting you may see might be "push" FYI posts.

I shall return







- Posted using BlogPress from Kevin McGrew's iPad

GALE CONTENT ALERT FOR : Law and Psychology Review

Your Gale Search Alert has updated content. Click here to view the complete list of articles matching your search.

1. Cooper, William E. "Social Science in Law: Cases and Materials." Law and Psychology Review Spring 1988: 123-127. LT. Web. 18 Feb. 2012.
2. Hughes, John Starrett. "The insanity defense: philosophical, historical and legal perspectives." Law and Psychology Review Spring 1985: 103-107. LT. Web. 18 Feb. 2012.
3. Powell, Gary. "Competency to stand trial." Law and Psychology Review Spring 1982: 87-95. LT. Web. 18 Feb. 2012.
4. Durham, Charles H., III. "The psychology of eyewitness testimony." Law and Psychology Review Spring 1982: 97-107. LT. Web. 18 Feb. 2012.
5. Alexander, Charysse L. "Judge, lawyer, victim, thief: women, gender roles, and criminal justice." Law and Psychology Review Spring 1985: 109-115. LT. Web. 18 Feb. 2012.
6. Ward, Walter G. "The psychology of the courtroom." Law and Psychology Review Spring 1984: 135-146. LT. Web. 18 Feb. 2012.
7. Durham, Charles H., III. "Eyewitness testimony: psychological perspectives." Law and Psychology Review Spring 1982: 97-107. LT. Web. 18 Feb. 2012.

Using Google Scholar to track impact of criminology articles

Info at link below

http://www.springerlink.com/content/rr602h2225739703/

Sent from Kevin McGrew's iPad
Kevin McGrew, PhD
Educational Psychologist

Article: A meeting of the minds on brain and law

A meeting of the minds on brain and law
http://www.vancouversun.com/health/meeting+minds+brain/6153387/story.html

(Sent from Flipboard)

Sent from Kevin McGrew's iPad

Kevin McGrew, PhD

Educational Psychologist

The First Richard Woodcock Institute For Advancement of Contemporary Cognitive Assessment - Sept 29, 2012

Below is the formal announcement (from Barb Wendling of the Woodcock-Munoz Foundation) of the first Richard Woodcock Institute For Advancement of Contemporary Cognitive Assessment. [Conflict of interest disclosure: I am a coauthor of the WJ III and also am the Research Director for WMF]
________________________________________________________________

The Woodcock-Muñoz Foundation has established an institute to support the advancement of contemporary cognitive assessment and to provide professional growth opportunities for practitioners, students, and faculty. In recognition of the many contributions that Dr. Richard Woodcock has made to the field of psychology and cognitive assessment, the institute is named in his honor.

We invite our university grant programs to collaborate with the WMF on this venture by serving as a host site. Our plan is to hold each Institute at a different university so that professionals in various geographic locations can have access to this opportunity for professional growth.

The Institute is a one-day event featuring nationally-known speakers and topics related to contemporary cognitive assessment and theory. The first Institute will feature Dr. Richard Woodcock as the keynote speaker and Dr. Kevin McGrew and Dr. Nancy Mather as the session presenters. Our first host site is Tufts University and the Institute will be held September 29, 2012. Details regarding the inaugural Institute will be available at the WMF website (www.woodcock-munoz-foundation.org) by March 30, 2012.

If you are interested in serving as a host site or have ideas for topics or speakers for future institutes, please contact Barbara Wendling, Director, Richard Woodcock Institute, at b.wendling@woodcock-munoz-foundation.org.


___________________________________________________________________________________

Barbara J. Wendling
Director, The Richard Woodcock Institute
b.wendling@woodcock-munoz-foundation.org



- Posted using BlogPress from Kevin McGrew's iPad

Book nook: Review of Specialty Competencies in Forensic Psychology

http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=main.doiLanding&uid=2011-27920-001

Sent from Kevin McGrew's iPad
Kevin McGrew, PhD
Educational Psychologist

Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) model of intelligence v2.0 - Model summary and definitions document updated

Dr. Joel Schneider and I have crafted an abridged summary of our "tweaking" of the CHC taxonomy of broad and narrow ability definitions (CHC v2.0) published in the 3rd edition of Flanagan and Harrison's Contemporary Intellectual Assessment (CIA; 2012) book. The book chapter is extensive and does not included a table of revised definitions. Nor does it include a grand figure.Thus, we have developed such a summary and make it available here.  Also, the slides are available for viewing via  SlideShare.

Please be careful in the use of the definitions. In our chapter we expand on the definitions and include a section on "unresolved issues"....as the taxonomy is fluid and evolving and should not be seen as cast in stone. Purchasing the book and reading the complete chapter, as well as a ton of other excellent chapters in CIA-3, is strongly recommended.


- iPost using BlogPress from my Kevin McGrew's iPad

intelligence IQ tests IQ testing IQ scores CHC intelligence theory CHC theory Cattell-Horn-Carroll human cognitive abilities psychology school psychology individual differences cognitive psychology neuropsychology neuroscience psychology special education educational psychology psychometrics psychological assessment psychological measurement IQs Corner general intelligence CHC definitions CHC v2.0 Contemporary Intellectual Assesment

Generated by: Tag Generator

IQ's Corner and Brain Clock "Times" daily e-newspaper...free

A number of months ago I started two different daily e-newspapers. It took a while to find feeds that provided good content related to each paper, but I think things are good now. However, I will continue to revise those feeds that are searched and incorporated with regularity.

The two papers are below with links to where you can subscribe by hitting the subscribe button at each page. You should be able to subsribe and have an email in your inbox each day. You do NOT need a Twitter or Facebook account to subsribe..which was a common complaint I had earlier. That problem turned out to be my error as I was providing people a link to my personal sign-in page.

Enjoy. There is some overlap in content.

IQ's Corner--Intelligent IQ Insights. This is associated with IQ's Corner Blog





The Brain Clock "Times." This is associated with the Brain Clock blog.





Posted via DraftCraft app

Mental Competency--Best Practices Model resource added to web/blog roll

See web/blog roll for link to this new resource.





Posted via DraftCraft app

Article: Ambitious competency project launched

Ambitious competency project launched
http://forensicpsychologist.blogspot.com/2012/02/ambitious-competency-project-launched.html

(Sent from Flipboard)

Sent from Kevin McGrew's iPad

Kevin McGrew, PhD

Educational Psychologist

Article: STUDY ALERT: Role of test motivation in intelligence testing

STUDY ALERT: Role of test motivation in intelligence testing
http://scottbarrykaufman.com/article/study-alert-role-of-test-motivation-in-intelligence-testing/

(Sent from Flipboard)

Sent from Kevin McGrew's iPad

Kevin McGrew, PhD

Educational Psychologist

Article: Do we need a diagnostic manual for mental illness?

Do we need a diagnostic manual for mental illness?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/10/diagnostic-manual-mental-illness?CMP=twt_gu

(Sent from Flipboard)

Sent from Kevin McGrew's iPad

Kevin McGrew, PhD

Educational Psychologist

Article: Rehavi & Starr on Racial Disparities in Charging and Sentencing

Rehavi & Starr on Racial Disparities in Charging and Sentencing
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/crimprof_blog/2012/02/rehavi-starr-on-racial-disparities-in-charging-and-sentencing.html

(Sent from Flipboard)

Sent from Kevin McGrew's iPad

Kevin McGrew, PhD

Educational Psychologist

Atkins MR/ID death penalty court decisions: Richardson v Branker (NC, 2012) and Hearn v Thaler (TX, 2012)

Thanks (again) to Kevin Foley for sending two more recent Atkins decsions.

Richardson v Branker (NC, 2012)

Hearn v Thaler (TX, 2012)

Of interest in the Hearn case is that he had two IQ scores (88, 93) well above the bright-line cut score of 70. Hearn's defense tried to argue for a more expansive definition of mental retardation based on neuropsychological testing and a diagnosis of fetal alchohol syndrome (FAS). Hearn's prior 2010 decision is also available.

Posted via DraftCraft app

IAP Applied Psychometrics 101 Brief Report # 11: What is the typical IQ and adaptive behavior correlation?

What is the typical relation (correlation) between standardized measures of adaptive behavior (AB)  and measures of intelligence (IQ)?  This is an important question given the role both play in the definition diagnosis of mental retardation (MR) / intellectual disability (ID). 

During the late 1970's and 1980's this was an active area of research.  Numerous studies were published that reported correlations between a wide variety of adaptive behavior scales and intelligence tests.  Probably the best synthesis of this research was provided by Harrison (1987).  Harrison's review included a table of over 40+ correlations.  This is Table 2 in the above referenced and linked article.  Harrison concluded, as have most others who have reviewed the literature, that "the majority of correlations fall in the moderate range" (p.39).  When the correlations with maladaptive measures are excluded from Harrison's table, the correlations range from .03 to .91.  This is a wide range.  Harrison could not identify a specific explanation for the variability or range of correlations.  Harrison speculated that variables might impact the magnitude of the correlations were the specific adaptive behavior or measure of intelligence used and differences in sample variability.

Subsequently the Committee on Disability Determination for Mental Retardation published a National Research Council report (Mental Retardation:  Determining Eligibility for Social Security Benefits; Reschly, Meyers & Hartel, 2001) that also addressed the AB/IQ relation. The report concluded that AB/IQ studies report correlations "ranging from 0 (indicating no relationship) to almost +1 (indicating a perfect relationship).  Data also suggest that the relationship between IQ and adaptive behavior varies significantly by age and levels of retardation, being strongest in the severe and moderate ranges and weakest in the mild range.  There is a dearth of data on the relationship of IQ and adaptive behavior functioning at the mild level of retardation" (p. 8).  Factors identified as moderating the AB/IQ correlation were scale content, measurement of competences versus perceptions, sample variability, ceiling and floor problems of the scales, and level of mental retardation.

Given the above, it is hard to render an objective statement on the approximate typical AB/IQ correlation.  With this in mind, an informal research synthesis was completed and is reported here.

First, only the AB/IQ correlations (IQ/maladaptive correlations were excluded) from Harrison's 1987 table were extracted (n = 43 correlations).  Then, the technical manuals for the current editions of the three most frequently used contemporary adaptive behavior scales were reviewed for additional correlations.  This included the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale (Sparrow, Cicchetti & Balla, 2005; n = 2 correlations of .12, .20) and the Adaptive Behavior Scales--II (Harrison & Oakland, 2008; n = 10 correlations ranging from .39 to .67; median = .51).

Although six different correlations were reported in the Scales of Independent Behavior-Revised manual (SIB-R; Bruininks, Woodcock, Weatherman & Hill, 1996), the values were not used as they are inflated estimates when compared to the type of correlations typically reported.  For example, very high correlations of .79, .82 and .91 are reported for certain groups.  A close reading of the tables reveals that the SIB-R correlations with either the WJ or WJ-R intelligence test were calculated on the basis of the W-score growth metric.   By definition, a growth metric includes age variance.  If correlations are reported across wide age groups the correlations convey variance related to the correlation between the AB  and IQ constructs but also contains shared variance due to the influence of general age-base development (age).  Thus, the SIB and SIB-R correlations with IQ, although not wrong and providing different information, are not comparable to all other reported correlations where age variance has been removed (typically by correlating age-based standard scores).  Clear evidence for this point comes from McGrew and Bruininks (1990) who used the same SIB/WJ subject data reported in the SIB and SIB-R manuals, but who removed the W-score confounded age variance prior to the calculation of latent factor correlations (via confirmatory factor analysis) between latent practical intelligence (SIB adaptive behavior) and conceptual intelligence (WJ IQ) factors.  The resulting AB/IQ correlations for three different age groups were .38, .56 and .58--far below the values in the .70 to .92 range.  Thus, the values from McGrew and Bruininks (1990) were included for estimates of the SIB/SIB-R IQ correlations in the current synthesis. 

Finally, latent AB/IQ correlations (as estimated from confirmatory factor analysis models)  of .27 and .39 were included from Ittenbach, Spiegel, McGrew and Bruininks (1992) and Keith, Fehrmann,Harrison and Pottebaum (1987), respectively.  This process resulted in the addition of 17 AB/IQ correlations to the 43 from Harrison, for a total of 60 correlations.

Descriptive statistics for this collection of 60 AB/IQ correlations are as follows: range of correlations from .12 to .90,  a mean of .51 and a median of .48, and a standard deviation of .20.  Below is a figure that includes a frequency polygon (and smoothed normal curve overlay) and a box-whisker plot of the data set.  A review of the box and whisker plot (at the bottom) shows the median correlation (.48) as a vertical line within the rectangle.  The rectangle includes the 50% middle of the distributions of correlations and shows an approximate range of just below .40 to just above .65.  Of particular note is the shape of the frequency polygon and smoothed normal curve.  The shape of the frequency polygon is consistent with a normal curve.  In quantitative research synthesis this type of normal distribution suggests that total data set included in the review is not biased--both studies that are likely under- or overestimates of the "true" population correlation (due to method or sampling factors) are included.  More importantly, the "bunching" up of the majority of the correlations in the middle provide confidence that the median of this distribution is a reasonable unbiased estimate of the populaiton correaltion.  This type of relatively normal distribution suggests that the current collection of 60 AB/IQ correlations is likely a reasonable approximation of the complete set of population AB/IQ correlations.

Based on this informal (and admittedly incomplete review of all possible AB/IQ correlation research) one can conclude that a reasonable estimate of the typical AB/IQ correlation is approximately .50 (mean = .51; median = .48), with most ranging from approximately .40 to .65.  This finding is consistent with Harrison's 1987 conclusion of a "moderate" correlation.  The current analysis continues to reinforce Harrison's (and others) conclusions that adaptive behavior and intelligence are statistically related constructs, but  they are still independent.   An average correlation of .50 indicates that AB and IQ share approximately 25 % common variance (approximately 15% to 40 % common variance if one looks at the range of the 50% middle of the distribution of values).  In practical terms this means that for any individual, standard scores from AB and IQ tests will frequently diverge and not always be consistent.  

Harrison (1987) provides a nice explanation for the primary reasons for the moderate correlation between AB and IQ.  Her quote is reproduced below

Numerous caveats need to be applied to this analysis and report.  The most important are:

• A comprehensive review of all possible published and unpublished AB/IQ research studies was not completed.  Clearly there are more studies "out there" that could be added to the synthesis. 
• The analysis makes no attempt to determine if there are moderator effects.  That is, is the typical correlation likely to systematically vary as a function of AB measures, IQ measures, variability in the sample's level of functioning, manifest/measured versus latent variable correlations, level of ability, etc.? 
•  This has not been peer reviewed.

 It is hoped that this ad hoc update of Harrison's (1987) review, augmented by quantitive organizational methods, will serve to stimulate a formal meta-analysis by others (hint---a nice study or thesis for someone?)

NY Times editorial on "Race and Death Penalty Juries"

NY Times editorial on "Race and Death Penalty Juries"
http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2012/02/ny-times-editorial-on-race-and-death-penalty-juries.html

(Sent from Flipboard)

Sent from Kevin McGrew's iPad

Kevin McGrew, PhD

Educational Psychologist

Article: California adopts Edwards: OK to deny self-representation to mentally ill

California adopts Edwards: OK to deny self-representation to mentally ill
http://forensicpsychologist.blogspot.com/2012/02/california-adopts-edwards-ok-to-deny.html

(Sent from Flipboard)

Sent from Kevin McGrew's iPad

Kevin McGrew, PhD

Educational Psychologist

Atkins death penalty court decision: Tharpe v Humphrey (GA, 2008, 2012)

Thanks to Kevin Foley for alerting me to a new decision re: Tharpe v Humphrey (GA; 2008, 2012).

I have not reviewed these documents and have no comments a this time.

Posted via DraftCraft app

Canadian WAIS-IV: New cognitive proficiency index scores now available

Double click on image to enlarge




Posted via DraftCraft app

Book nook: Forensic Psychology: Crime, Justice, Law, Interventions, 2nd Edition

Forensic Psychology: Crime, Justice, Law, Interventions, 2nd Edition
http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1119991951.html

(Sent from Flipboard)

Sent from Kevin McGrew's iPad

Kevin McGrew, PhD

Educational Psychologist