Intellectual Competence & the Death Penalty

iPost: Top 10 SSRN downloads

2010-07-26T07:32:00.001-07:00

Again from the CRIMPROF blog link below

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/crimprof_blog/2010/07/top-ten-recent-ssrn-downloads-3.html

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

iPost: More on race and the death penalty

2010-07-28T07:13:00.001-07:00

Story at IN THE NEWS (Karen Franklin) excellent blog link below

http://forensicpsychologist.blogspot.com/2010/07/victim-race-still-central-to-death_27.html

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

iPost: Judges intro guide to neuroscience

2010-07-30T08:00:00.001-07:00

Nice little intro at link below. And I've learned that I can view PDF file in my new iBooks app on my iPhone...sweet

http://bit.ly/9Fzxgz

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

The Flynn Effect report series: A biref history of the Flynn Effect--It was NOT given birth by Atkins V Virginia (2002) SCOTUS decision: IAP AP101 Report #8

2010-07-28T12:51:00.001-07:00

Another new IAP Applied Psychometrics 101 report (#8) is now available. The report [A brief history of the Flynn Effect: It was NOT given birth by Atkins v Virginia (2002) SCOTUS decision] is the third in the Flynn Effect series, a series of brief reports that define, explain and discuss the validity of the Flynn Effect (click here to access all prior FE related posts at the ICDP blog) and the issues surrounding the application of a FE "adjustment" for scores based on tests with date norms (norm obsolescence), particularly in the context of Atkins MR/ID capital punishment cases. The abstract for the brief report is presented below. The report can be accessed by clicking here .

The entire Flynn Effect series of reports can be accessed by clicking here.

Report # 1 (What is the Flynn Effect) can be found by clicking here.
Report # 2 (Is the Flynn Effect a Scientifically Accept Fact?) can be found by clicking here.

Abstract for third report.

This is the third in a series of brief reports to define, explain, and summarize the scholarly consensus regarding the validity of the Flynn Effect (FE). This report presents a brief historical summary of origins of the Flynn Effect (norm obsolescence). Historical facts indicate that the concern for IQ norm obsolescence and the concept of an IQ score adjustment procedure pre-dates the U. S. Supreme Court Atkins v Virginia (2002) MR/ID death penalty decision. The series will conclude with an evaluation of the question whether a professional consensus has emerged regarding the practice of adjusting dated IQ test scores for the Flynn Effect, an issue of increasing debate in Atkins MR/ID capital punishment hearings.

Technorati Tags: psychology, forensic psychology, forensic psychiatry, neuropsychology, intelligence, school psychology, psychometrics, educational psychology, IQ, IQ tests, IQ scores, adaptive behavior, adaptive functioning, intellectual disability, mental retardation, MR, ID, criminal psychology, criminal defense, criminal justice, ABA, American Bar Association, Atkins cases, death penalty, capital punishment, AAIDD, Atkins MR/ID listserv, ICDP blog, Flynn Effect, norm obselescence, Flynn Effect Series, IAP Applied Psychometric reports

The Flynn Effect report series: What is the Flynn Effect: IAP AP101 Report #6

2010-06-29T09:55:00.001-07:00

A new IAP Applied Psychometrics 101 report (#6) is now available. The report is the first in the Flynn Effect series, a series of brief reports that will define, explain and discuss the validity of the Flynn Effect (click here to access all prior FE related posts at the ICDP blog) and the issues surrounding the application of a FE "adjustment" for scores based on tests with date norms (norm obsolescence), particularly in the context of Atkins MR/ID capital punishment cases. The abstract for the brief report is presented below. The report can be accessed by clicking here.

Norm obsolescence is recognized in the intelligence testing literature as a potential source of error in global IQ scores. Psychological standards and assessment books recommend that assessment professionals use tests with the most current norms to minimize the possibility of norm obsolescence spuriously raising an individual’s measured IQ. This phenomenon is typically referred to as the Flynn Effect. This report is the first in a series of brief reports the will define, explain, and summarize the scholarly consensus regarding the validity of the Flynn Effect. The series will conclude with an evaluation of the question whether a professional consensus has emerged regarding the practice of adjusting dated IQ test scores for the Flynn Effect, an issue of increasing debate in Atkins MR/ID capital punishment hearings.

The Flynn Effect report series: Is the Flynn Effect a Scientifically Accepted Fact? IAP AP101 Report #7

2010-06-30T11:46:00.000-07:00

Another new IAP Applied Psychometrics 101 report (#7) is now available. The report is the second in the Flynn Effect series, a series of brief reports that will define, explain and discuss the validity of the Flynn Effect (click here to access all prior FE related posts at the ICDP blog) and the issues surrounding the application of a FE "adjustment" for scores based on tests with date norms (norm obsolescence), particularly in the context of Atkins MR/ID capital punishment cases. The abstract for the brief report is presented below. The report can be accessed by clicking here .

Report # 1 (What is the Flynn Effect) can be found by clicking here.

This report is the second in a series of brief reports the will define, explain, and summarize the scholarly consensus regarding the validity of the Flynn Effect (FE). This brief report presents a summary of the majority of FE research (in tabular form of n=113 publications) which indicates (via a simple “vote tally” method) that despite no consensus regarding the possible causes of the FE, it is overwhelming recognized as a fact by the scientific community. The series will conclude with an evaluation of the question whether a professional consensus has emerged regarding the practice of adjusting dated IQ test scores for the Flynn Effect, an issue of increasing debate in Atkins MR/ID capital punishment hearings.

Atkins MR/ID Capital Punishment Flynn Effect Archive Project update 7-22-2010

2010-07-22T13:41:00.001-07:00

A new and expanded version of the Atkins MR/ID Capital Punishment Flynn Effect Project has just been posted. You can access the special archive by visiting the first post where it was described and links provided.

The latest revision of this project is dated 7-21-2010. New material includes the following:

A significant number of additional references/articles were added. New references added since the last revision can be found in the "master reference list" branch listing of references. New additions are in bold font.

Of particular interest to professionals involved in Atkins MR/ID death penalty cases is the collection of "in press" articles in a special issue of the Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment. These can be found among the bold font references in the "Master reference list" section of the archive, as well as all being listed in the "Atkins-related" section. One of the articles (Hagan et al., 2010, in press) is not yet available but will be added as soon as it becomes available.

In addition, a branch (with links) has been added to the IDCP blog for a new series of special reports on the Flynn Effect.

Thanks to Karen Salekin for helping me locate a boat-load of the new references.

Technorati Tags: psychology, forensic psychology, forensic psychiatry, neuropsychology, intelligence, school psychology, psychometrics, educational psychology, IQ, IQ tests, IQ scores, adaptive behavior, adaptive functioning, intellectual disability, mental retardation, MR, ID, criminal psychology, criminal defense, criminal justice, ABA, American Bar Association, Atkins cases, death penalty, capital punishment, AAIDD, Atkins MR/ID listserv, ICDP blog, Flynn Effect, Flynn Effect Archive, Flynn Effect MR/ID Project

Research Briefs 7-26-10: CHC theory & measures (WJ III) invariant (no psychometric bias) across blacks and whites

2010-07-26T13:31:00.000-07:00

Kane, H. D., & Oakland, T. D. (2010). Group Differences in Cognitive Ability: A CHC Theory Framework. Mankind Quarterly, 50(4), 318-331.

Abstract

The Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) model of cognitive ability as represented in the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Ability-III (WJ-III) was examined for Black and White adults matched on various demographic variables. Although Whites performed higher than Blacks (i.e., race differences were found in test scores and accompanying factor means), the results of multisample confirmatory factor analyses found that the same constructs are measured in different groups. Therefore results are directly comparable, and in this sense measured differences can be interpreted as “real” differences on the dimensions that the test is meant to measure.

Part of authors conclusions:

With respect to the primary purpose of this study, although White-Black differences in cognitive ability are affirmed in favor of Whites, these analyses reveal no source of psychometric bias (i.e., differences in loadings, test intercepts, and error variance). Constructs are represented adequately and without undo influence of error. The structural fidelity of the WJ-III factor model is psychometrically sound, making it a suitable instrument for psychologists when estimating general and broad cognitive abilities for individuals and groups. The reported indices of fit (e.g., TLI, GFI, and RMSEA) suggest that the threestratum CHC model fits the WJ-III data fairly well and provides evidence of construct validity. This finding substantiates a growing body of research literature that upholds the WJ-III as a strong representation of CHC theory (e.g., Edwards & Oakland, 2006; McGrew & Woodcock, 2001). Further, the data support Carroll’s (1993) belief that the CHC theory is essentially invariant across racial-ethnic groups. Notably, the group differences in test performance are smaller than in most other studies (e.g., Osborne & McGurk, 1982). This particular result is likely due to the samples being matched by parental education and occupational status. In the US, this kind of control is expected to remove approximately one third of the Black-White difference that may be expected in demographically representative samples (Jensen, 1998;
Lynn, 1998).

Technorati Tags: Psychology, school psychology, developmental psychology, educational psychology, forensic psychology, neuropsychology, special education, intelligence, cognitive abilities, cognition, intelligence theories, CHC theory, CHC, Cattell-Horn-Carroll, intelligence, cognition, IQ, IQ tests, Gf, Gc, Gv, Ga, Gsm, Glr, Gs, Gq, Grw, WJ-R, WJ III, Woodcock-Johnson, WJ III NU, race and IQ, racial differences, psychometric bias, CFA, structural invariance

Research Briefs 7-23-10: Psychology and academic freedom

2010-07-23T07:56:00.001-07:00

Gottfredson, L. S. (2010). Lessons in academic freedom as lived experience. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(4), 272-280.

What is academic freedom, what guarantees it, and what would you do if your university violated yours? Few of us academics entertain these questions or ponder possible answers. This leaves us individually and collectively vulnerable to encroachments on our right to free and open inquiry. I use a case study from 1989–1994 to illustrate how violations of academic freedom develop, the typical pretexts used to justify them, and what is required to halt and reverse them. My aim is to help scholars recognize when academic freedom is at risk and how better to safeguard it in daily academic life. To this end, I describe the general social mechanisms that operate both inside and outside academe to selectively burden and suppress unpopular research. The case study provides concrete examples to illustrate six specific lessons. Like free speech in general, academic freedom (1) has maintenance costs, (2) is not self-enforcing, (3) is invoked today to stifle unwelcome speech, (4) is often violated by academic institutions, (5) is not often defended by academics themselves, and (6) yet, requires no heroic efforts for collective enjoyment if scholars consistently contribute small acts of support to prevent incursions.

Article Outline

1. Introduction
2. Preview of the six lessons and five sets of violations
3. Lesson 1. Academic freedom, like constitutionally-protected free speech, has maintenance costs
4. Lesson 2. Academic freedom is not self-enforcing
5. Lesson 3. Opposite to its intent, academic freedom is often invoked to restrict inquiry to “safe” ideas
6. Lesson 4. Academic freedom is often violated by academic institutions
7. Lesson 5. Academic freedom is often not defended by academic professionals themselves
8. Lesson 6. It does not take heroic efforts, just consistent ones, to sustain academic freedom

Hunt, E. (2010). The rights and responsibilities implied by academic freedom. Personality and Individual
Differences, 49(4), 264-271.

Academics enjoy freedom from retaliation for their statements that goes beyond the freedom accorded to other members of society. Academics are also often called upon to act as advisors, either to society as a whole or to public and private sector clients. This sets up a tension between freedom to speak and an obligation to speak responsibly. The problem can be acute in the field of individual differences, for findings related to individual differences touch upon the relations among different racial/ethnic groups, between genders, and have implications for educational and personnel policies. Examples are given of situations in which, in the author’s opinion, academics have abused their roles as expert advisors by speaking irresponsibly. At issue is not whether or not the person speaking reached a correct conclusion, but whether or not the evidence and reasoning about the evidence met reasonable standards for careful inquiry and analysis. Formal actions by governments or by university administration are seldom the answer. Standards enforced by professional societies are less problematical, but are far from complete solutions. The best way to handle the problem is to encourage open discussion of the issues involved, both between established academics and between faculty and students.

Article Outline

1. Introduction
2. The case of research on intelligence
3. Free speech protections and restrictions
4. The source of restrictions on free speech
5. The protection afforded by academic freedom
6. Illustrations
7. What to do about it

Technorati Tags: Psychology, school psychology, developmental psychology, educational psychology, forensic psychology, neuropsychology, special education, intelligence, cognitive abilities, cognition, intelligence theories, CHC theory, CHC, Cattell-Horn-Carroll, intelligence, cognition, IQ, IQ tests, academic freedom

iPost: Annual Review of Law & Social Science Upgrades Its LSN Partners in Publishing Journal

2010-07-20T06:24:00.000-07:00

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

Subject: Annual Review of Law & Social Science Upgrades Its LSN Partners in Publishing Journal

We are pleased to announce that Annual Review of Law & Social Science has upgraded its Partners in Publishing Journal within the Legal Scholarship Network (LSN), which includes, but is not limited to, a customized abstracting eJournal distributed to SSRN subscribers.

View Abstracts: http://www.ssrn.com/link/Annual-Review-of-Law-Soc-Science.html
Subscribe: http://hq.ssrn.com/jourInvite.cfm?link=Annual-Review-of-Law-Soc-Science

Annual Review of Law and Social Science(R) - http://lawsocsci.annualreviews.org The Annual Review of Law and Social Science, in publication since 2005, strives to enhance the understanding of the complex connections between law, culture, social structure, and society by focusing on social scientific studies of law and law-like systems of rules, institutions, processes, and behaviors. This groundbreaking series provides multidisciplinary insights into the impact of law, aggregated human behavior and interactions, analytic and normative jurisprudence, the dynamics of decision making and enforcement of authoritative rules, as well as the variations and changes in legal institutions and the management of social change by these institutions.

HOW TO SUBSCRIBE
You can subscribe to the eJournal by clicking on the "subscribe" link listed above.

You can change your journal subscriptions by logging into SSRN User HQ. If you have questions or problems with this process, please email UserSupport@SSRN.com or call 877-SSRNHelp (877.777.6435 or 585.442.8170). Outside of the United States, call 00+1+585+4428170.

SSRN's eLIBRARY
SSRN's searchable electronic library contains abstracts, full bibliographic data, and author contact information for more than 293,000 papers, more than 139,500 authors, and full text for more than 243,300 papers. The eLibrary can be accessed at http://ssrn.com/search.

SSRN supports open access by allowing authors to upload papers to the eLibrary for free through the SSRN User HeadQuarters at http://hq.ssrn.com, and by providing free downloading of those papers.

Downloads from the SSRN eLibrary in the past 12 months total more than 8.6 million, with more than 37.8 million downloads since inception. Downloads are currently running at a rate of 10.3 million per year.

SSRN's PROFESSIONAL DIRECTORY
Searching on an individual's name in the author field on our search page at http://ssrn.com/search provides the best single professional directory of scholars in the social sciences and humanities. Complete contact information for authors, including email, postal, telephone, and fax information, is available there.

SSRN's MISSION
SSRN's objective is to provide rapid, worldwide distribution of research to authors and their readers and to facilitate communication among them at the lowest possible cost. In pursuit of this objective, we allow authors to upload papers without charge. And, any paper an author uploads to SSRN is downloadable for free, worldwide.

LEGAL SCHOLARSHIP NETWORK
The Legal Scholarship Network (LSN) distributes other abstracting eJournals. You can subscribe to these eJournals through the SSRN User HeadQuarters at http://hq.ssrn.com.

Sincerely,

Bernard Black and Ronald J. Gilson
Directors
Legal Scholarship Network

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

This is a general network announcement. All subscribers to any other lists automatically receive these announcements and cannot be removed without removing all other subscriptions within this network. Please contact admin@ssrn.com to unsubscribe.
Search the SSRN eLibrary | Browse SSRN | Top Ten Downloads

Webster "deadly catch-22" update

2010-07-19T09:21:00.001-07:00

Update news story re: Bruce Carneil Webster case previously commented (Deadly Catch-22) on here at IDCP.

Technorati Tags: psychology, forensic psychology, forensic psychiatry, neuropsychology, intelligence, school psychology, psychometrics, educational psychology, IQ, IQ tests, IQ scores, adaptive behavior, adaptive functioning, intellectual disability, mental retardation, MR, ID, criminal psychology, criminal defense, criminal justice, ABA, American Bar Association, Atkins cases, death penalty, capital punishment, AAIDD, Atkins MR/ID listserv, ICDP blog, psychiatry, psychiatry and criminal justice, expert witnesses, Webster v Texas, Webster v US, Darniel Webster, deadly catch-22

On the road again--blogging lite July 18-21

2010-07-18T18:40:00.000-07:00

I will be on the road (working) again from July 18-21.

I don't expect much time to blog...except for possible "push" type FYI posts re: content posted at other blogs.....or...mobile blogging (iPosts: check out the link.....it is very cool...but, of course, I tend to be a tech nerd)......

I shall return.

Technorati Tags: psychology, IQs Corner, Intelligence, travel

Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) based intelligence testing in Atkins cases

2010-07-16T08:11:00.001-07:00

I've written frequently about the importance of psychologists involved in Atkins cases to get more up-to-date re: contemporary psychometric intelligence theory, especial the consensus Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory of intelligence (click here for all prior posts, this one included, so tagged at the ICDP blog). The gap between contemporary intelligence theory and testing practice in legal settings is troubling and needs to be narrowed.

Today I'm excited to announce the availability of a "taking stock" intelligence test/theory article that supports my frequent and persistent message...and it is NOT by me...but by other highly respected intelligence test research scholars.

I'm excited to announce that the special issue of Psychology in the Schools, Current Research in Cattell-Horn-Carroll-Based Assessment (guest editors where Jocelyn Newton and myself), is now published. Yippeee. To be honest, Dr. Newton deserves the major credit....she did all the heavy lifting and I road her coat tails. Also thanks to Dr. David McIntosh for suggesting and overseeing the special issue

A review of the TOC can be found by clicking here.

The article that I highly recommend as must reading is listed below (along with a link to a copy).

Keith, T. & Reynolds, M. (2010). Cattell-Horn-Carroll abilities and cognitive tests: What we've learned from 20 years of research. Psychology in the Schools, 47(4), 2010, 635-650 (also available via click here)

This article reviews factor-analytic research on individually administered intelligence tests from a Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) perspective. Although most new and revised tests of intelligence are based, at least in part, on CHC theory, earlier versions generally were not. Our review suggests that whether or not they were based on CHC theory, the factors derived from both new and previous versions of most tests are well explained by the theory. Especially useful for understanding the theory and tests are cross-battery analyses using multiple measures from multiple instruments. There are issues that need further explanation, of course, about CHC theory and tests derived from that theory. We address a few of these issues including those related to comprehension-knowledge (Gc) and memory factors, as well as issues related to factor retention in factor analysis.

Although the WAIS-IV is not specifically treated in the article, the authors do address the changing (and more CHC-like foundation) of the Wechsler batteries via research on the WISC-III/IV (which the WAIS-IV has been following in terms of structural organization since the WAIS-III/IV). The inescapable conclusion is that psychologists involved in Atkins cases need to "get current" on CHC theory and CHC-based test interpretation. It is nice to no longer be the sole voice yelling into the halls of justice.

The article makes reference to a master table of CHC abilities and definitions included in the introduction to this special issue I co-authored with Dr. Newton. It available here.

Technorati Tags: Psychology, school psychology, developmental psychology, educational psychology, forensic psychology, neuropsychology, special education, intelligence, cognitive abilities, cognition, intelligence theories, CHC theory, CHC, Cattell-Horn-Carroll, intelligence, cognition, IQ, IQ tests, school achievement, general intelligence, Gf, Gc, Gv, Ga, Gsm, Glr, Gs, Gq, Grw, Psychology in the Schools, learning disabilities, RTI

Spanish Woodcock-Johnson Battery III: Bateria III (BAT III) use in ID/MR assessmnet

2010-04-09T14:11:00.001-07:00

As a coauthor of the WJ III/BAT III, I've been receiving increasing emails and phone calls for information describing the BAT III and its appropriateness for assessing intelligence in Atkins ID/MR cases. I do have an obvious conflict of interest as a co-author, but I believe it is is one of the most psychometrically and theoretically sound measures of human intelligence for Spanish-speaking individuals where a Dx of ID/MR is in question.

To save everyone (including me) many e-mails and phone calls, I've decided to post everything I have (in e-form) regarding the BAT III. In addition, I'm posting information re: the prior edition (BAT-R) as the procedures used to adapt, translate and norm (via US-equated norm procedures) are the same.

Below are key documents.

Technical report for development of BAT III
Review of BAT III in APA Division 16 (School Psychology) newsletter
An earlier review of the BAT-R
A special report on the use of the WJ-R/BAT-R in neuropsychological assessment
Select portions of a BAT-R chapter by Dr. Woodcock in Dr. Marcel Ponton's hispanic neuropsychology book that is viewable on-line via Google Scholar.

I hope people find this information useful. I will also soon post a comparison of the CHC content of the two batteries (CHC DNA Fingerprint Analysis comparison of BAT-R and BAT III).

Finally, although I have not updated it for over a year, given that the BAT-III is parallel to the WJ III, individuals may want to review available published and unpublished research on the WJ III (and to a lessor extent the BAT III). This can be found at the WJ III EWOK (v3.0; Evolving Web of Knowledge) at IQs Corner blog.

Technorati Tags: psychology, forensic psychology, forensic psychiatry, neuropsychology, intelligence, school psychology, psychometrics, educational psychology, IQ, IQ tests, IQ scores, adaptive behavior, adaptive functioning, intellectual disability, mental retardation, MR, ID, criminal psychology, criminal defense, criminal justice, ABA, American Bar Association, Atkins cases, death penalty, capital punishment, AAIDD, Atkins MR/ID listserv, ICDP blog, WJ III, WJ-R, BAT III, BAT-R, Hispanic, Spanish

IQ Test DNA Fingerprints: Comparison of WJ III/BAT III, WISC-IV and WAIS-IV

2010-03-08T11:53:00.000-08:00

Here is another in the series of IQ's Corner "IQ Test CHC DNA Fingerprint" test comparison series. This particular CHC fingerprint figure compares the CHC composition of the respective full scale total composite IQ scores from the WJ III/BAT III and the WISC-IV and WAIS-IV.

Background information regarding the development, use and interpretation of this feature can be found at a prior post and in the IQ Test CHC DNA Fingerprint section on the blog side bar.

More to come. [Double click on image to enlarge]

Technorati Tags: psychology, school psychology, educational psychology, clinical psychology, neuropsychology, forensic psychology, forensic psychiatry, intelligence, IQ tests, IQ scores, IQ, IQ testing, WISC-IV, WAIS-IV, WJ III, WJ III NU, BAT III, BAT III NU, applied psychometrics, psychometrics, IQ Test CHC DNA Fingerprints, IQs Corner, Atkins cases, death penalty, or punishment, mental retardation, intellectual disability, MR, ID, special education, learning disabilities, LD

AP101 Brief # 7: Understanding IQ score differences via "IQ Test CHC DNA Fingerprints": Comment on Guevara v Thaler (TX, 2008, 2010)

2010-03-08T09:20:00.001-08:00

In a prior post re: Guevara v Thaler (TX, 2008, 2010), I mentioned that a number of individuals had asked me to explain why two different IQ scores were possible from two different tests. Before addressing this issue, I draw the readers attention to a number of AP101 briefs/reports previously posted (click here, here, and here). These prior posts provide important background information regarding the issue of IQ score differences (e.g., Flynn Effect, scoring errors, etc.).

What many layperson's do not understand, and unfortunately also some psychologists, is that different IQ test batteries are composite scores often based of different mixes of cognitive abilities. That is, many IQ tests may measure some of the same abilities (Tests A and B both measure apples), but test A may measure some other abilities (oranges) not measured by Test B. Conversely Test B may measure some abilities (bananas) not measured by Test A. And, even when two IQ test batteries have tests of similar abilities (apples), they may measure the abilities slightly differently or may measure a different subset or variety of abilities within the same ability domain (red delicious vs golden delicious).

Also, there is a significant difference between comprehensive IQ batteries (Wechsler's; Stanford Binet; Woodcock-Johnson; etc.) and special-purpose batteries that are deliberately designed to measure narrower and more restricted set of human abilities. Nonverbal IQ tests (actually, "tests that measure abilities via non-verbal methods" is a more accurate description---there is no such ability as "non-verbal" ability or IQ). Nonverbal tests are frequently used when a person comes from a different culture and has limited understanding of English language. The so-called nonverbal tests attempt to tap key aspects of a person's cognitive abilities via the use of directions and response formats that impose minimal or no language demands on the examinee (e.g., directions administered via gestures or pantomime).

Lets use two scores from the Geuevara cast to illustrate.

First, in order to determine if cognitive ability content coverage may explain all (or a part) of total IQ score differences, one needs a taxonomy to categorize the abilities measured by different IQ tests. As I've blogged about repeatedly, the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory of cognitive abilities is now considered the consensus psychometric taxonomy of human abilities (McGrew, 2009). Using the CHC taxonomy, I examined the type and amount of different CHC abilities (fruits) measured by the two primary IQ measures administered to Guevara.

On the Spanish version of the Woodcock Johnson-Revised cognitive battery (Bateria-R; BAT-R). Guevara obtained a total composite IQ score of 60 (+- 5 point confidence band: 55-65). On the Test of Nonverbal Intelligence-2nd Edition (TONI-2), a score of 77 (+- 5 point confidence band: 72-82). As one can see, even after accounting for unreliability in measurement via the application of the standard error of measurement (SEM) to the scores, the two respective confidence bands do not overlap (55-65 v 72-82). If the IQ score confidence bands did overlap, one would then assume that the difference in IQ scores is not a reliable difference and reflects the known degree of measurement error in each batteries score. However, in the current illustration,the bands do not overlap. There is a statistically significant reliable difference between the BAT-R and TONI-2 scores.

Using the recognized research-based extant CHC IQ test analysis literature (Flanagan, McGrew, & Ortiz, 2000; Flanagan, Ortiz, & Alfonso, 2007; McGrew & Flanagan, 1998; Woodcock, 1990 ), I developed the following figure. I call these figures the "IQ Test CHC DNA Fingerprints" for each intelligence battery. In the current figure I have superimposed the CHC IQ Test DNA Fingerprints for both the BAT-R and TONI-2. It should be immediately clear that the BAT-R and TONI-2 IQ scores are composed of dramatically different mixtures of cognitive abilities (different mixtures of fruit). The BAT-R, which is grounded in CHC theory, provides a total composite IQ score based on a combination of seven different tests that each measure a different CHC ability domain. Each contributes 14.3% to the composite IQ score. Conversely, the TONI-2 is a special purpose nonverbal battery that consists entirely of a single set of items that only measure one CHC ability domain (i.e., Gf). Clearly one would not expect that all individuals would receive similar total IQ scores from these two different IQ batteries given that people display variability in different CHC abilities (relative strengths and weaknesses). We clearly have a situation where the proverbial "apples and oranges" issue operating.

[Double click on image to enlarge]

The psychologist who interpreted the scores indicated that the TONI-2 results were "consistent" with those from the BAT-R. The psychologist was correct.

Below are the obtained standard scores for the seven BAT-R tests, along with their CHC ability designation:

Memory for Names (Glr): 60
Memory for Sentences (Gsm): 91
Visual Matching (Gs): 67
Incomplete Words (Ga): 70
Visual Closure (Gv): 67
Picture Vocabulary (Gc): 70
Analysis-Synthesis (Gf): 83

Note the BAT-R score (83) for the Gf test (Analysis-Synthesis) that taps the same CHC domain (and only CHC domain) as the TONI-2. The BAT-R Gf score of 83 is only 6 points different from the 100% Gf-focused TONI-2 score of 77. As discussed in a previous report, a difference of 6 standard score points is very typical across intelligence tests. Also, when one places confidence bands around the score of 77 and 83 they will overlap--indicating that one should conclude that there is no reliable statistically significant difference between these two respective Gf-indicator scores.

It should be obvious that one cannot directly compare a narrowly focused special purpose IQ score that only measures Gf (100%) to a composite IQ score that allows Gf to contribute 14.3 % to the composite score....and which also includes 14.3% contributions from 6 other human cognitive ability domains (Ga, Gc, Gs, Gv, Glr, Gsm). In this case we are comparing a measure of one type of fruit (TONI-2; Gf) to a measure that is a more complete produce market of fruits (BAT-R; Gf, Gv, Ga, Gsm, Glr, Gs, Gc)

So which is more accurate or valid? If one assumes that both tests were administered properly and the examinee understood all tests, the test battery that provides for the measurement of a more comprehensive range of CHC abilities should take precedence as the most valid and reliable indicator of the person's general intellectual ability.

When one compares the same "apples" (Gf coverage measures) from the BAT-R and TONI-2, the test results are "consistent" and validate one another.

Bottom line: One must be cautious when comparing total IQ scores from different IQ batteries, especially when one is a comprehensive IQ battery and the other is a narrowly focused special-purpose battery that measures only 1 (or maybe 2-3) CHC ability domains. Although not as dramatic as in this comparison, even total IQ scores from different comprehensive IQ batteries can produce different total scores if the total IQ score is "flavored" with different mixtures of abilities (fruits). This can even be seen in differences in scores between different editions of the same test that has changed its coverage of measured abilities across editions (see CHC analysis of evolving CHC content of Wechsler intelligence batteries across time, which are presented in the same IQ Test CHC Test DNA Fingerprint format.

I will soon be posting IQ Test CHC Test DNA Fingerprints for all the major IQ batteries and select special purpose batteries. Stay tunned.

Technorati Tags: psychology, forensic psychology, forensic psychiatry, neuropsychology, intelligence, school psychology, educational psychology, IQ, IQ tests, IQ scores, intellectual disability, mental retardation, MR, ID, criminal psychology, criminal defense, ABA, American Bar Association, Atkins cases, death penalty, capital punishment, AAIDD, Guevara v Thaler, Guevara v Texas, BAT-R, TONI-2, IQ score differences, CHC theory, Cattell-Horn-Carroll intelligence theory, IQ Test CHC DNA Fingerprints, psychometrics

Contemporary IQ theory and testing: FYI post at IQ's Corner

2010-02-24T10:10:00.001-08:00

For any readers of this blog that are very interested in the contemporary CHC theory of intelligence and it's measurement via the WJ III battery, you may find a new post at ICDP's sister blog (IQ's Corner) of interest. Click here.

Technorati Tags: psychology, school psychology, educational psychology, special education, neuropsychology, IQ, IQ tests, intelligence, intelligence testing, cognition, CHC, Cattell-Horn-Cattell, IQs Corner, WJ III, WJ III NU, Woodcock-Johnson

Why do IQ scores often differ? Check out IQ's Corner "IQ Test CHC DNA Fingerprint" analyses

2010-03-08T09:36:00.000-08:00

Understanding IQ score differences possibly related to differential CHC content difference coverage. See ICDP blog post where it is explained and illustrated. where new feature is introduced - IQ Test DNA CHC Fingerprints

[Double click on image to enlarge]

Court Decision: Johnston v Florida appeal denied--interesting expert opinions re: old vs new IQ scores

2010-04-06T09:18:00.001-07:00

Last month I passed along an urgent plea re: an appeal of the non-MR/ID determination of Johnstone (Johnstone v Florida, 2010). Yesterday the judge ruled against Johnstone an indicated that the burden of proof that he was MR/ID was not meet.

Although I have only glanced at the ruling (it was just yesterday), it provides some very interesting insights into how multiple IQ test scores across many years and different instruments are treated by different psychological experts and the court. An interesting twist in the appeal was an attempt to make the case that scores from a new version (WAIS-IV) of a previously administered WAIS-III constituted "new evidence" that should be used in the MR/ID determination. This brought up the issues of practice effects and the Flynn Effect...and the very interesting issue of how to treat scores on a new revision of a previously administered (but older) IQ test. The discussion of how to evaluate the old and new WAIS scores (and old vs new norms) by the different experts is interesting, and in some places troubling.

I find it amazing that two of the psychological experts did not know the correlation between the WAIS-III/WAIS-IV as reported in the WAIS-IV technical manual. One admitted not knowing the correlation and another suggested it was probably in the "mid .8." The correct value, as reported in the WAIS-IV technical manual is .94----a point accurately made by the states psychological expert. One would think that psychological experts testifying in Atkins cases would review the latest available research re: new instruments about which they are to testify...esp. the information in the technical manuals. On this point the states expert was much more credible.

Also of interest was the introduction of the controversial 2009 Flynn article where Flynn suggests that the WAIS-III test norms are flawed. Weiss (2007) has challenged the basis of Flynn's claim, and in an article I have "in press" (McGrew, in press; The Flynn Effect and Its Critics: Rusty Linchpins and “Lookin’ for g and Gf in Some of the Wrong Places”, Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment---special issue on the Flynn effect due to be published Dec 2010 or early 2011) I concur with Weiss's arguments. Issues surrounding the Flynn effect are starting to heat up among IQ scholars.

Finally, the defense argues that the newer norms of the WAIS-IV make it a more accurate measure. On this point I agree. They then further argue that the change in the factor scores from the WAIS-III/WAIS-IV, which results in a different interpretation system of major component scores, makes the WAIS-IV a better indicator of intelligence. Although I agree with the fact that the WAIS-IV factor-based index score system is a more valid system for interpreting cognitive strengths and weaknesses, this argument overlooks the more important central IQ score comparison issue..which is at the core of MR/ID Dx in Atkins cases. Namely, as I have reported previously, despite the new organizational structure of the WAIS-IV, the ability composition of the FS IQ score (which is the best indicator of general intelligence -- baring concerns for the validity of the FS score and the need to look at part scores) is nearly identical across editions.

Using the consensus CHC model of intelligence as the cognitive ability taxonomy for understanding what IQ tests measure, CHC analysis of the FS IQ scores reveals that the WAIS-III/WAIS-IV FS IQ scores are not dramatically different in CHC ability representation (Gc- 31.8 v 30 %; Gv - 22.7 v 20 %; Gs - 18.2 v 20%; Gq - 4.6 v 5 %; Gsm - 13.6 v 15 %; Gf - 9.1 v 10%). The high .94 WAIS-III/WAIS-IV correlation reported in the TM is not surprising given this CHC content comparative analysis.

Lots more to think about and discuss in the examination of all the IQ scores. Maybe a future post...or, if anyone is interested, a good opportunity for a guest post.

~~I think there is a good chance that this case may try to get before SCOTUS~~ Correction----this case needs to go to the FL Supreme Court first.

Technorati Tags: psychology, forensic psychology, forensic psychiatry, neuropsychology, intelligence, school psychology, psychometrics, educational psychology, IQ, IQ tests, IQ scores, intellectual disability, mental retardation, MR, ID, criminal psychology, criminal defense, criminal justice, ABA, American Bar Association, Atkins cases, death penalty, capital punishment, AAIDD, scientific evidence, Flynn effect, validity, norms, practice effects, Johnstone v Florida, WAIS-III, WAIS-IV, CHC intelligence theory, CHC, Cattell-Horn-Carroll, Daubert standard

AAIDD June conference sessions relevant to ID/MR Dx and Atkins death penalty cases

2010-04-19T12:20:00.001-07:00

A number of AAIDD conferences sessions/workshops related to ID/MR Dx and Atkins MR/ID Death Penalty cases.

Death Penalty Session - Wednesday June 9

Atkins v. Virginia : Challenges and Pitfalls in Diagnosing ID in a Forensic Context

Moderator: Marc J. Tassé, The Ohio State University Nisonger Center

A Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis of Post-Atkins Decisions by Juries and Judges
John H. Blume, Cornell Law School

Assessing Intellectual Functioning
Kevin S. McGrew, Institute for Applied Psychometrics

Assessing Adaptive Behavior in a Forensic Context
James R, Patton, University of Texas at Austin

Assessment of Malingering
Denis William Keyes, College Of Charleston

Retrospective Diagnosis
Sal Blandino, Licensed Psychologist

Closing Commentary
Stephen Greenspan, University of Colorado at Denve

Workshops--Friday June 11

Workshop #1:
Evaluations and Expert Testimony in Criminal Cases
James Ellis, UNM School of Law, University of NM
Disability professionals are increasingly called upon to provide evaluations and expert testimony in criminal cases, particularly in Atkins cases where the defendant's intellectual disability is at issue. Participating in these life-and-death proceedings can be a daunting prospect. This workshop will include explanation of the criminal law issues involved, diagnostic and classification issues under the new AAIDD (11th edition) manual, and practical suggestions from disability professionals who have participated in these cases.

Workshop #2
Understanding and Using the 11th Edition of Intellectual Disability: Definition, Classification, and Systems of Supports
Bob Schalock, PhD, Ruth Luckasson, JD, Wil Buntinx, PhD, Pat Craig, PhD, Alya Reeve, MD, Karrie Shogren, PhD, Marc Tasse, PhD, Jim Thompson, PhD
11th Edition Implementation Committee members will present and discuss in detail key issues in the field related to diagnosis, classification, and supports planning. As a basis for maximum interaction and problem solving, workshop participants will be required to bring or purchase a copy of the 11th edition of the Manual. The workshop format will involve presentations, interactions, and opportunities to problem solve.

Research Briefs 7-14-10: Psychiatric expert witness in the criminal justice system

2010-07-14T12:43:00.001-07:00

Mullen, P. E. (2010). The psychiatric expert witness in the criminal justice system. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 20(3), 165-176.

This essay examines the nature of being an expert witness as a psychiatrist or a psychologist. The critiques of the psychiatrist as expert in the criminal justice systems produced by Michel Foucault, and Robert Musil provide a starting point for this study. Today's mental health experts working in the criminal justice field have an increasing burden of responsibility as a result of their wider role, and potentially greater power to harm. This requires an awareness of the dangers of misusing that power in part from misunderstanding its source. The expert's legitimacy stems from the knowledge they mediate. In psychiatry, we have an important, but limited, body of relevant quantitative scientific data coupled to a mass of qualitative observations with which we fill the gaps and construct our professional narratives. Confusing the science with the poetry makes us foolish and even more open to manipulation by authorities pursuing legal, governmental and populist agenda. The choices that face us lie between being a ‘forensicist’, tied to the legal discourse, or a being a physician, committed to mediating medical science and clinical experience. The middle ground is a slippery slope in the direction of the power of the criminal justice system.

Technorati Tags: psychology, forensic psychology, forensic psychiatry, neuropsychology, intelligence, school psychology, psychometrics, educational psychology, IQ, IQ tests, IQ scores, adaptive behavior, adaptive functioning, intellectual disability, mental retardation, MR, ID, criminal psychology, criminal defense, criminal justice, ABA, American Bar Association, Atkins cases, death penalty, capital punishment, AAIDD, Atkins MR/ID listserv, ICDP blog, Flynn Effect, psychiatry, psychiatry and criminal justice, expert witnesses

iPost: Top 10 SSRN downloads

2010-07-13T07:15:00.000-07:00

Again...found via CRIMPROF blog link below

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/crimprof_blog/2010/07/top-ten-recent-ssrn-downloads-1.html

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

iPost: New book on intro to neuroethics

2010-07-08T07:38:00.001-07:00

Info at NEUROETHICS blog link below

http://kolber.typepad.com/ethics_law_blog/2010/07/martha-farahs-new-neuroethics-collection.html

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

iPost: NPR story on brain science and criminal behavior

2010-07-07T18:58:00.001-07:00

At SLP blog link below

http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2010/07/can-genes-and-brain-abnormalities-create-killers.html

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

On the road again--blogging lite July 7-10

2010-07-06T09:53:00.001-07:00

I will be on the road (working) again from July 7-10.

I don't expect much time to blog...except for possible "push" type FYI posts re: content posted at other blogs.....or...mobile blogging (iPosts: check out the link.....it is very cool...but, of course, I tend to be a tech nerd)......

I shall return.

Technorati Tags: psychology, IQs Corner, Intelligence, travel