Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Atkins MR/ID death penalty court decision: Bell v LA (2010)







Another Atkins MR/ID death penalty decision today. Bell v LA (2010) posted at the ICDP Court Decision blogroll, without comment.


- iPost using BlogPress from my Kevin McGrew's iPad



iPost: Race and the Death Penalty

Crime and Consequences Blog
Charles Lane at The American Interest has an interesting article addressing the issue of race and the death penalty.  As he notes:

In fact, much of the statistical evidence cited by death-penalty critics to show that blacks and whites fare differently in capital cases does not necessarily prove racism at all. To the contrary, it could well reflect racial progress. 
Sent with Reeder


Sent from KMcGrew iPhone (IQMobile). (If message includes an image-double click on it to make larger-if hard to see) 

Monday, November 29, 2010

iPost: Attorney General Eric Holder Names 18 Experts to New Science Advisory Board

Story at link below

http://justcrim.typepad.com/deathpenalty/2010/11/attorney-general-eric-holder-names-18-experts-to-new-science-advisory-board.html


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

iPost: "Neuroscience, Cognitive Psychology and the Criminal Justice System"

Neuroethics & Law Blog
Deborah Denno (Fordham, Law) has posted Neuroscience, Cognitive Psychology, and the Criminal Justice System: Introduction (Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, Vol. 8, pp. 1-6, 2010) to SSRN. Here's the abstract: This introduction discusses a symposium on the linking of...
Sent with Reeder


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

Sunday, November 28, 2010

iPost: Top-Ten Recent SSRN Downloads

CrimProf Blog
are here. The usual disclaimers apply. Rank Downloads Paper Title 1 306 The Facade of FCPA Enforcement Mike Koehler, Butler University College of Business, Date posted to database: November 9, 2010 [new to top ten] 2 295 Good Faith, New...
Sent with Reeder


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

Saturday, November 27, 2010

iPost: Congressional Quarterly Publishes Death Penalty Review

Info at link below

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/new-resources-congressional-quarterly-publishes-death-penalty-review


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

Visual-graphic of how to develop psychological measures of constructs

I found this figure, which I had developed a few years ago for a specific grant process (thus the scratched out box that is not relevant to this post), which summarizes in a single figure the accepted/recommended approach to developing and validating tests. In simple terms, one starts with the specification of the theoretical domain construct(s) of interest, then examines the measurement domain for possible types of tests to operationalize the constructs, and then one develops and scales the test items (optimally using IRT scaling methods) Very basic. Thought I would share---I love visual-graphic explanations.

Double click on image to enlarge





- iPost using BlogPress from my Kevin McGrew's iPad


Friday, November 26, 2010

Atkins court decisions: Three in November--Henderson (TX), Kilgore (FL), Hardy (LA)







Three new Atkins decisions in November. Thanks to Kevin Foley (and a few others) for sending me these cases and comments/analysis that I've incorporated below.

Henderson v Thaler (TX, 2010). The Federal Fifth Circuit decided the latest round regarding James Lee Henderson. Previously, the Fifth Circuit remanded the case back to the district court (federal habeas court) to determine if (1) Henderson's claim was time barred, and if so, should it be allowed under the concept of equitable tolling; and (2) if tolled, did Atkins bar Henderson's death sentence because he is MR/ID. As related by this decision, the district concluded that equitable tolling did not apply, and thus it did not address the Atkins claim. The recent Holland v. Florida SCOTUS case, which sets forth a standard for equitable tolling, seems relevant to Henderson. Since the district court did not have the benefit of Holland at the time it denied Henderson's case, the Fifth Circuit remanded the case back to the district court to apply the Holland standard. If the district court finds equitable tolling applies, it will then examine the Atkins claim. A strong dissent argued that the Atkins claim should be addressed either way.

The dissent argued "If we were to condone the barring of Henderson's Atkins claim by the AEDPA's [habeas] statute of limitations, without ever affording him a federal opportunity to demonstrate his intellectual disability, then allowing the State to execute him would not only be 'fundamentally unjust'; it would be unconstitutional per se."


Kilgore v McNeil (FL, 2010). McNeil's claim was denied, but the decision touches on a number of interesting issues. First, the Florida court decided that in some instances there can be "outlier" test scores that should essentially be disregarded. Of course, the treatment of outlier scores has the potential downside for abuse. Second, the Florida court acknowledged that scores can be affected by the practice effect, although its application of the concept was a bit sloppy. Finally, Florida continues to not recognize the concept of SEM...a point that I find hard to accept (click here for prior comments on this issue) given the scientific and professional consensus regarding the importance of SEM in interpreting IQ test scores.

Hardy v US (LA, 2010). The Hardy decision is potentially very important given the acceptance of a correction for norm obsolesce (aka., Flynn Effect). The Flynn Effect discussion is worth the read alone as the research and professional literature discussed is quite current. This reminds me that I need to find time to update the Flynn Effect on-line archive project.


- iPost using BlogPress from my Kevin McGrew's iPad



iPost: Bandes on Neuroscience: Promise and Pitfalls

CrimProf Blog
Susan A. Bandes (DePaul University - College of Law) has posted The Promise and Pitfalls of Neuroscience for Criminal Law and Procedure (Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, Vol. 8, No. 1, 2010) on SSRN. Here is the abstract: This...
Sent with Reeder


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

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

iPost: Denno on Neuroscience, Cognitive Psychology and the Criminal Justice System

CrimProf Blog
Deborah W. Denno (Fordham University School of Law) has posted Neuroscience, Cognitive Psychology, and the Criminal Justice System: Introduction (Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, Vol. 8, pp. 1-6, 2010) on SSRN. Here is the abstract: This introduction discusses a...
Sent with Reeder


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

Saturday, November 20, 2010

iPost: Submission Deadline for 2011 APA Convention


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




American Psychological Association

Submission Deadline for 2011 Convention

IMPORTANT REMINDER: If you are planning to submit a proposal for the 2011 APA Convention in Washington, DC, the deadline is Wednesday, December 1, 2010.
 
To review the instructions and the Call for Programs, go to our website and click on the link "Submit program proposals by Dec. 1, 2010." All proposals must be submitted via the APA website. Submissions must be received no later than 11:59 p.m. EST on December 1.
 
Don't miss your opportunity to be on the program for another great APA Convention!



Convention Office
American Psychological Association
750 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20002-4242
(202) 336-6020 - Direct
(202) 336-5956 - Fax
convention@apa.org


Friday, November 19, 2010

Esparza Atkins decision – Or How the Fifth Circuit Showed a Lack of Understanding of ID Issues - Guest post by Kevin Foley

ICDP recently posted the Esparaza v Thaler (TX, 2010) Atkins decision.  As a result, Kevin Foley, a regular guest blogger here at ICDP, sent the following guest post regarding the decision.  As per all guest posts, the opinions rendered by the guest blogger are theirs, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the blogmaster.  Thank you Kevin Foley for yet again contributing to ICDP.




Gaudalupe Esparza sought a certificate of appealability with regard to an Atkins claim, as well as other claims.  The Fifth Circuit’s opinion – which denied the certificate - is, well, somewhat embarrassing.  This is not to say that Esparza is intellectually disabled; however, one thing is clear – the Fifth Circuit added little value to the jurisprudence of determining ID claims in death row inmates.

 Bizarre Comments Surrounding the Vineland Scales.  The court stated that a prosecution expert,
“concluded that Esparza’s motivation to do well on the I.Q. tests ‘was very low’ and that the test results were invalid or inaccurate. Esparza’s test score on the Vineland adaptive behavior scale, which had been previously administered by Tussay, indicated that he was profoundly retarded.” [1]

Again – in an apparent effort to show that Esparza was malingering – the court observed,
“In stark contrast to his previous I.Q. scores in the low average range in his penitentiary packets, Esparza (sic) scores fell within the range of mental retardation when he knew that he was being tested to determine whether he was eligible for the death penalty. Indeed, one test score placed him in the range of profoundly retarded.” [2]
   
The inference the court wants the reader to draw is that Esparza purposely did poorly – in fact, so poorly that he scored in the profoundly mentally retarded range - on the Vineland “test.”  This is nothing short of bizarre. First, the Vineland is not a test. It is a measure that is used to determine a person’s level of adaptive functioning.  The Vineland is a structured interview. There are no right or wrong answers as seen on “tests.” Most importantly, the Vineland is typically given, not to the individual being assessed, but to a person who is familiar with the assessed person’s functioning in everyday life. In fact, early on in the decision the Fifth Circuit stated that the Vineland was given to “Esparza’s older sister, Esther Moncado, who was Esparza’s primary caregiver when he was a child.” [3] 

So what the court ended up doing was using the results obtained by someone else, in this case Esparza’s sister, and imputing those results to Esparza himself for purposes of showing that Esparza supposedly malingered on testing.  This is akin to being charged with cheating on a test just because someone you know was caught cheating. 

Intellectual Functioning.   A person’s IQ scores are a crucial area of focus in determining the level of general intellectual functioning.  Incredibly, the court never once mentioned the name of any of the first line tests of intellectual functioning  - the Weschler tests, the Stanford-Binet, the Woodcock Johnson, or the Kaufman Adolescent and Adult Intelligence Test. This, of course, should be a red flag, since it may be an indication that the court was either uninformed about the nature of IQ tests, or that it simply did not care about which specific tests were given.  In a paragraph that was intended to address the testimony of  a defense expert (a licensed counselor with a master’s degree, not a psychologist with a Ph.D.) the court mentioned that Esparza “scored a71” on the Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices Test; a 73 on the Revised Minnesota Paper Formboard Test; between grades 4.7 and 6.3 on tests of  achievement;  a score better than the 58th percentile on the Comprehensive Trail-Making Test; and a 28.82 on the Controlled Oral Word Association Test – a score nearly 4 standard deviations below the mean.  However, the court made no mention of the fact that none of these tests are considered appropriate measures of a person’s level of general intellectual functioning for purposes of diagnosing intellectual disability.[4]

Considering that one of the claims facing the appeals court was whether Esparza did not get effective representation from his trial counsel, the first thing the court should have asked was, what were Esparza’s lawyers thinking when they employed a master’s degree counselor  (and not a Ph.D psychologist who is an expert in the diagnosis of ID)5, and why they allowed the so-called expert to employ the tests that she did and not one of the full-form, well-validated IQ tests that  are supposed  to be used when determining if an individual is mentally retarded.

    The next comment from the Fifth Circuit regarding mental testing involved two “penitentiary packets,” one from 1985 which indicated that Esparza had “an I.Q. score of 86.  The second packet provided that in 1993 Esparza had an I.Q. Score of 88.”6  The court did not care one iota that the “packets” –whatever a packet is -  ostensibly only mentioned a score; were bereft of any information about what tests were used and if they might have been obsolete when given; and provided no information about whether the persons who administered the tests were actually competent to do so.  And it is not like the court gave these tests scores little weight. The court actually used these barebones scores to impeach the later, lower scores obtained by Esparza. Worse, when the court noted that the defense expert raised questions about the use of the naked scores, the court, in a demeaning fashion, stated, “Tellingly, [the expert] admitted that this case was the first time she had evaluated an incarcerated individual for mental retardation.”7 The word “tellingly” feels like a wink followed by nod to indicate this lady doesn’t know what she’s talking about – when in fact what she said – that the scores were discounted “because the packets did not provide what test was used” is the better way of dealing with the scores than what the court did. Since other Atkins cases have shown that the Texas corrections personnel often used Beta IQ tests and short form tests, discounting may have been too weak of a word. Perhaps the scores should have been excluded from the mix entirely.

 According to the decision, the state’s experts administered two IQ tests and an achievement test. However, what specific tests were given is anyone’s guess – the court neglected to provide the names of the tests or what scores were obtained. Instead, the court reported that the state’s experts submitted a written report which argued that Esparza did not do his best and that “‘a clinical estimate of his intelligence based on both his general presentation and the available historical information would place it somewhere within the Low Average range.’”8

Non-Test Evidence of Intelligence.  Psychologists and judges alike should be concerned with non-test evidence that bears on the issue of a person’s level of intellectual functioning.  However, a disservice is done when experts and courts point to evidence which is not inconsistent with intellectual disability, or to evidence that is ambiguous, to try to show that the person is not intellectually disabled.   In Esparza, the court recited the following “facts” as evidence that Esparza is not intellectually disabled:

  1. Esparza was able to read and understand his rights. However, many cases have found that intellectually disabled persons and individuals with IQ scores of less than 70 have been able to knowingly and intelligently waive their Miranda rights.9 Thus, this fact is ambiguous at best.
  2. Esparza didn’t sound like he was intellectually disabled. Specifically, a defense expert “found that Esparza communicated very well.  Although Esparza does not write well, he ‘understands language better than a retarded person can.’”  Too, Esparza supposedly provided “coherent, even combative testimony that was responsive to both” lawyers’ questions.  This is a dangerous, ambiguous area of evidence. Just what is an intellectually disabled person supposed to sound like?  What are the cut-offs, or lines of demarcation, separating the language used by intellectually disabled persons as compared to those in the next two levels of intellectual functioning– those with borderline and low average intelligence? It does not appear that anyone has really provided accurate answers to these questions. 
  3. Esparza “informed one person that he could only have visitors on Mondays and Wednesdays.” That type of statement is beyond the ken of an intellectually disabled person? I doubt it.
  4. “Esparza retrieved his attorney’s business card from his cell and successfully contacted his attorney.” Again, who says that that type of conduct is beyond the capability of a person with mild mental retardation?  No one who knows, I would suggest.  The guy probably had the card taped to his cell wall, and it was probably the only card on the wall.
  5. Esparza “had long term gainful employment and knew how to drive and passed the driver’s test.”  Okay.  But the mildly intellectually disabled often drive (which also means they have passed the driver’s test). It is interesting that the report cited by the court for these facts was silent on how many tries it took before Esparza passed the driving test.  And the mildly retarded often work, albeit at unskilled jobs that do not require the processing of complex information.10  None of the jobs mentioned in the decision would seem to be beyond the capability of a person with mild intellectual disability.

There were facts referenced by the court that actually seem inconsistent with intellectual disability. The court should have left it to those facts, instead of including the above facts that are not necessarily inconsistent with intellectual disability. 

1 Esparza v. Thaler, No. 10-70009 (5th Cir., Nov. 9, 2010), at page 9.
2  Id. at 13.
3  Id. at 6. 
4  While the Raven’s matrices are considered highly g-loaded, they are a non-verbal measure, not a full –form IQ test.
5  This is not to say that the licensed counselor was not competent to administer and interpret the results of the tests that she gave to Esparza.  However, judges must be persuaded in these cases, and one would expect that judges would be more impressed with Ph.D. psychologists, particularly ones who are experts in the field.
6  Esparza v. Thaler, No. 10-70009 (5th Cir., Nov. 9, 2010) at page 6.
7  Id. at 13 (emphasis noted).
8  Id. at 8-9.
9  The court in Bone v. Polk, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69223 (W.D. N.C., July 9, 2010), which concluded that the state court did not err under federal habeas corpus standards in finding that Bone (who was held to be mentally retarded) validly waived his rights, noted that, “Although Petitioner had an IQ of 69, that IQ is higher than that of other defendants in the cases cited at length above who have been found to have intelligently and knowingly waived their Miranda rights.”
10 See Wiley v. Epps, 09-70037 (5th Cir., Oct. 27,  2010) and Thomas v. Allen, 607 F. 3d 749 (11th Cir. 2010). See also, Karen L. Salekin, et al, Offenders With Intellectual Disability: Characteristics, Prevalence, andIssues in Forensic Assessment, 3 J. Mental Health Res. Intell. Disab. 97, 100 (2010)  (“[I]ndividuals with IQs at the high end of the mild ID range often blend into the general population; they have friends, marry, have children, and only need assistance during periods of personal or economic stress”).






Thursday, November 18, 2010

Why the ASVAB should not be used in Dx of MR/ID: IAP Applied Psychometrics 101 # 9 report




I'm pleased to announce the posting of IAP Applied Psychometrics 101 Report No: 9 is now available. In addition to the written text, an appendix includes a dozen figures intended to help readers understand the fundamental and important difference between intelligence and aptitude batteries.

The Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB): Why it should not be used to in the determination of a diagnosis of mental retardation / intellectual disability Click here to access (due to the figures it is relatively large...weighing in at 7+ MB)

Abstract

ASVAB scores are often incorrectly interpreted as a measure of general intellectual functioning in the context of determining if a person is an individual with (or without) mental retardation (MR) / intellectual disability (ID). The ASVAB is an aptitude battery and not an intelligence test battery. Although the differentiation between aptitude and intelligence test batteries measures may (at times) sound fuzzy, the distinction between the two is critically important, particularly regarding how the different respective batteries are designed, the abilities they each measure, and how the resultant scores should be validly interpreted. The aptitude -intelligence test battery distinction is clearly defined in psychological measurement fields. Although aptitude and intelligence batteries often measure some overlapping abilities, the ASVAB-as-an-aptitude measure is often confused with the incorrect interpretation of the ASVAB-as-IQ (general intelligence) measure. This report explains the distinction.

- iPost using BlogPress from my Kevin McGrew's iPad



- iPost using BlogPress from my Kevin McGrew's iPad

iPost: Special journal issue on adjudicative competencies

I may have posted about this befor. Can't recall. A little blog amnesia

http://forensicpsychologist.blogspot.com/2010/11/special-journal-issue-on-adjudicative.html


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

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

SCOTUS decision limits death penalty



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

iPost: Miranda ruling book review

APA review of book on the past, present and future of the Miranda ruling at link below


http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=main.doiLanding&uid=2010-22314-001


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

iPost: LAST Call for Posters - The Second European Symposium on Symptom Validity Assessment (London, May 20-21 2011)

Conference with many papers on malingering

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

Begin forwarded message:



Dear colleagues,

 

The Second European Symposium on Symptom Validity Assessment will take place in London on May 20-21 2011.

Find the final programme: http://pdf.koenigundmueller.de/kurs/FB110520A.pdf

 

We are finally calling for posters. Dr. Thomas Merten is awaiting your ideas.

See the following link: http://pdf.koenigundmueller.de/Call-for-posters-SVA-Symposium-2011.pdf

 

The registration process has just been started.

Use http://www.koenigundmueller.de/?id=iaan

 

We would be pleased if you can spread this information among your workgroups and colleagues. Thank you!

 

Best regards and happy seeing you in London,

 

Stuart Anderson, Herbert König & Gerhard Müller

 

____________


International Academy

of Applied Neuropsychology

Semmelstr. 36/38
D-97070 Würzburg
Tel:  +49 931 46079033
Fax: +49 931 46079034
http://www.koenigundmueller.de

 

On the right course with us!

 

- Partnerschaftsgesellschaft -

(Amtsgericht Würzburg - Nr. 3)

 

 

 

 

 

  • **************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed as: iap@earthlink.net

Please sign all postings.
 


User settings, including email addresses, may be changed at http://www2.npsych.com or http://www3.npsych.com


The list's administrators are David Loring (dloring@emory.edu) and Laura Howe (lauralshowe@yahoo.com).

DO NOT FORWARD PEOPLE'S POSTS WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION.
Postings are intended to be for informal information exchange rather than formal presentation as would be expected in a publication or court proceeding.  PASSING POSTS TO ATTORNEYS FOR USE IN MEDICO-LEGAL APPLICATIONS WILL RESULT IN MEMBERSHIP TERMINATION. If anyone is aware of such violations alert the administrators.

THE OPINIONS AND IDEAS PRESENTED ON THIS SERVER ARE THOSE OF THE AUTHOR OF THE MESSAGE. THE MEDICAL COLLEGE OF GEORGIA, THE STATE OF GEORGIA, AND THE NEUROLOGY DEPARTMENT TAKE NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY MISINFORMATION PRESENTED BY ANY MESSAGE ECHOED BY THIS SERVER.

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

iPost: Retribution and the Experience of Punishment

California Law Review

The law regulates human life, so it should be informed by the best available understanding of how people experience their lives. The new field of hedonic psychology has made breakthroughs in improving that understanding, and it would be natural for scholars and policymakers to incorporate those improvements into their approaches to legal questions.

Sent with Reeder


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

Monday, November 15, 2010

Free articles for today only? Psychology Press

Psychology Press (@psypress)
11/15/10 3:21 AM
First thing #Monday? Check out this list of high quality free #psychology articles http://goo.gl/Qs7i6. There's something for everyone!


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

Sunday, November 14, 2010

iPost: Top-Ten Recent SSRN Downloads

CrimProf Blog
are here. The usual disclaimers apply. Rank Downloads Paper Title 1 270 Good Faith, New Law, and the Scope of the Exclusionary Rule Orin S. Kerr, George Washington University - Law School, Date posted to database: September 11, 2010 2...
Sent with Reeder


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

Saturday, November 13, 2010

Creating new psychometrically sound test score composites - the Compositator




Ever wanted to combine two or three tests from an intelligence or achievement battery into a cluster composite not provided by the authors/publisher of a test?

Most assessment clinicians have. Unfortunately, there has been no psychometrically sound method for doing so. As will be described in a future post, calculating the arithmetic average of individual test scaled or standard scores to generate a pseudo-composite is a psychometric no-no that results in inaccurate scores with serious psychometric flaws In order to calculate defensible composite scores from the standard scores from different subtests, users would need to engage in tedious calculations that include information regarding the intercorrelations between all tests for the desired new cluster, the standard deviations of the different tests (unless all are on a common scale), and the individual reliability of each test. Simply collecting the required information from the technical manual from a test battery took too much time.

Enter the Compositator by Dr. Joel Schneider. This has to be seen and played with to be believed!




The FREE Compositator was released yesterday by the Woodcock-Munoz-Foundation. The description at the WMF web page is:

The Compositator, by W. Joel Schneider, Ph.D., is a tool designed to provide assessment professionals who use the Woodcock-Johnson® III Normative Update Compuscore and Profiles Program, version 3.1 (WJ III NU) and the Woodcock Interpretation and Instructional Interventions Program, version 1.0 (WIIIP) with user-friendly statistical methods to create customized composite scores

So, for users of the WJ II NU, there is now a psychometrically defensible method for creating special clusters. But that is only the beginning and first level use of the program. Dr. Schneider has included a wide variety of features that allow users to create factor analysis scores, prediction equations of unique sets of norm-based or Compositator created composites (e.g., examining the predictive power of a set of variables for predicting basic reading skills, etc), etc.

The unique and innovative value of the program for all test professionals (just not those who use the WJ III NU) is that the program is loaded with all kinds of psychometric-based features that include instructional videos explaining how they work and the underlying basic statistics. I see the program as serving as a very powerful instructional tool in graduate level intelligence testing courses. Students can do "what if" scenarios with different test variables and see how different decisions result in different psychometric outcomes (e.g., different levels of prediction via multiple regression). Causal modeling scenarios can be simulated and compared. These examples only scratch the surface of the programs features.

The PDF manual associated with the program is worth a read if nothing else...as much can be learned about basic psychometric concepts.

Dr. Schneider's free software is highly innovative. IMHO it is a major innovation in intelligence test interpretation and instruction re: basic psychometric concepts.

Yes----the program only works with the WJ III NU. But it is FREE. WMF worked with Dr. Schneider as it saw the need to "push the edge of the envelope" of intelligence test instruction and interpretation. As a result, WMF provided Dr. Schneider access to all the electronic WJ III NU data files that provided the necessary test characteristic information required (as noted in the introduction to this post) to create psychometrically defensible composite scores. The intent is to pull the field of intelligent intelligence testing forward----with other test authors and publishers viewing the concepts embedded in the Compositator as ideas for incorporation in their respective test batteries and software.

The Compositator should be considered a prototype that will serve as a potential illustrative "tipping point" for new innovations in intelligence test interpretation and the teaching of current and future users of intelligence tests about basic psychometric concepts. The goal is to influence the field beyond the WJ III NU. The WJ III NU psychometric guts provided a means for Dr. Schneider to implement his creative and innovative ideas---hopefully to demonstrate what can and should be done to improve intelligence testing practice across the board.

Of course, being able to create any cluster one wants is not without caveats. Crafting new composite scores should only be based on sound clinical, theoretical or research-based evidence. In this sense the program is a dumb tool that cannot be separated from the expertise and skills of the user----after all, "if you give a monkey a Stradivarius violin and you get bad music--you don't blame the violin."

Finally, Dr. Schneider's unique approach to teaching the basics for using the program can be followed at his new blog (Psychometrics from the ground up) where he explains statistical and psychometric concepts via video tutorials...amazing stuff. Check it out and bookmark it for frequent visits (or put it in your RSS feed reader)

[Conflict of interest disclosure - I, Kevin McGrew, am a coauthor of the WJ III NU. I am also the Research Director for WMF].




- iPost using BlogPress from my Kevin McGrew's iPad

Friday, November 12, 2010

iPost: Psychologists on Twitter

Not sure how accurate this list is as I am not on the list and have 206 Twitter followers. Oh well

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/BpsResearchDigest/~3/6ArajPbvAvk/psychologists-on-twitter.html


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

Thursday, November 11, 2010

Atkins Court Decision: Esparaza v Thaler (TX, 2010)




Another new Atkins (Esparaza v Thaler: TX, 2010) decision has been added to the Court Decisions blogroll.




- iPost using BlogPress from my Kevin McGrew's iPad

iPost: "A Quantiative Look at Reasonable Doubt"

CrimProf Blog
Eugene Volokh at The Volokh Conspiracy notes this post by Steve Landsburg at The Big Questions. After setting forth a hypo that might be fruitfully used in class to show how bad most folks are at estimating likelihood, Landsburg offers...
Sent with Reeder


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

iPost: U.S. Military Death Penalty: Facts and Figures

See link below


http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/us-military-death-penalty-facts-and-figures


Sent from KMcGrew iPhone (IQMobile). (If message includes an image-double click on it to make larger-if hard to see)

iPost: The latest data on women on death row

Story link below

http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2010/11/the-latest-data-on-women-on-death-row.html


Sent from KMcGrew iPhone (IQMobile). (If message includes an image-double click on it to make larger-if hard to see)

Research brief: More support for Flynn effect --study with MR/ID adults




Nijman, E. E., Scheirs, J. G. M., Prinsen, M. J. H., Abbink, C. D., & Blok, J. B. (2010). Exploring the Flynn effect in mentally retarded adults by using a nonverbal intelligence test for children. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 31(6), 1404-1411.

Abstract

Increases in the scores on IQ tests across generations have been called the Flynn effect (FE). One of the unresolved questions is whether the FE affects all subsamples of the intellectual ability distribution equally. The present study was aimed at determining the size of the FE in moderately mentally retarded individuals. A nonverbal intelligence test developed for children, the Snijders-Oomen Nonverbal Intelligence Test (SON), was administered to 32 retarded adults with a mental age of 3–6 years. Sixty-nine children with a biological age in the same range and with normal intelligence served as a comparison group. Both an older and a more recent version of the SON were presented to all participants in a counterbalanced order. The proportion of items answered correctly was taken as a measure of the dependent variable. It was found that a FE existed in both the group of children and in the group of retarded adults, but that the FE was largest in the latter group. The importance of not using obsolete test norms when diagnosing mental retardation was stressed, and possible causes of the Flynn effect were discussed.
Article Outline




- iPost using BlogPress from my Kevin McGrew's iPad

Tuesday, November 9, 2010

Research briefs: Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Vol. 26, Issue 4 - New Issue Alert

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



Tuesday, November 9

Dear Valued Customer,
We are pleased to deliver your requested table of contents alert for Journal of Quantitative Criminology. Good news: now you will find quick links to the full text of the article in PDF or HTML. Choose your preferred format and access the article with only one click!

Volume 26 Number 4 is now available on SpringerLink

Register for Springer's email services providing you with info on the latest books in your field. ... More!
In this issue:
Editorial
Introduction
Alex R. Piquero & James P. Lynch
Abstract    Full text HTML    Full text PDF

Brief Essay
Remembering the Launch of JQC, 1985–1991
James Alan Fox
Abstract    Full text HTML    Full text PDF

Brief Essay
Nurturing the Journal of Quantitative Criminology Through Late Childhood: Retrospective Memories (Distorted?) from a Former Editor
John H. Laub
Abstract    Full text HTML    Full text PDF

Brief Essay
Picturing JQC's Future
Michael D. Maltz
Abstract    Full text HTML    Full text PDF

Brief Essay
The Present and Possible Future of Quantitative Criminology
David McDowall
Abstract    Full text HTML    Full text PDF

Original Paper
Longitudinal Criminology
David F. Greenberg
Abstract    Full text HTML    Full text PDF

Original Paper
Group-Based Trajectory Modeling (Nearly) Two Decades Later
Daniel S. Nagin & Candice L. Odgers
Abstract    Full text HTML    Full text PDF   

Original Paper
Communities, Crime, and Reactions to Crime Multilevel Models: Accomplishments and Meta-Challenges
Ralph B. Taylor
Abstract    Full text HTML    Full text PDF

Original Paper
Making Space for Theory: The Challenges of Theorizing Space and Place for Spatial Analysis in Criminology
George E. Tita & Steven M. Radil
Abstract    Full text HTML    Full text PDF   

Original Paper
What You Can and Can't Properly Do with Regression
Richard Berk
Abstract    Full text HTML    Full text PDF

Original Paper
Gold Standard Myths: Observations on the Experimental Turn in Quantitative Criminology
Robert J. Sampson
Abstract    Full text HTML    Full text PDF

Original Paper
Advances and Challenges in Empirical Studies of Victimization
Janet L. Lauritsen
Abstract    Full text HTML    Full text PDF

Original Paper
The Development and Impact of Self-Report Measures of Crime and Delinquency
Marvin D. Krohn, Terence P. Thornberry, Chris L. Gibson & Julie M. Baldwin
Abstract    Full text HTML    Full text PDF

Original Paper
The Use of Official Records to Measure Crime and Delinquency
Colin Loftin & David McDowall
Abstract    Full text HTML    Full text PDF

Original Paper
Linking the Crime and Arrest Processes to Measure Variations in Individual Arrest Risk per Crime (Q)
Alfred Blumstein, Jacqueline Cohen, Alex R. Piquero & Christy A. Visher
Abstract    Full text HTML    Full text PDF

Brief Essay
Some Perspectives on Quantitative Criminology Pre-JQC: and Then Some
Alfred Blumstein
Abstract    Full text HTML    Full text PDF
Request a free sample copy
If you are not a current subscriber to the journal, click here to read a free sample copy online.

Subscribers to a Springer publication are entitled to read the full-text articles online in SpringerLink. For registration information please contact your librarian or send us an e-mail:
In the Americas: springerlink-ny@springer.com
In all other countries: springerlink@springer.com