Intellectual Competence & the Death Penalty

Monday, September 6, 2021

Professional Pitfalls in Malingering Determinations | Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law

Professional Pitfalls in Malingering Determinations | Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
http://jaapl.org/content/49/3/296?etoc

******************************************
Kevin S. McGrew, PhD
Educational & School Psychologist
Director
Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP)
https://www.themindhub.com
******************************************

Thursday, September 2, 2021

Ernest Johnson eligible for death penalty, Missouri Supreme Court says

https://themissouritimes.com/ernest-johnson-eligible-for-death-penalty-missouri-supreme-court-says/

******************************************************
Kevin McGrew, PhD
Educational Psychologist
Director, Institute for Applied Psychometrics
IAP
www.themindhub.com
******************************************************

Friday, August 27, 2021

Forensic evaluators’ opinions on the use of videoconferencing technology for competency to stand trial evaluations after the onset of COVID-19. - PsycNET

Forensic evaluators' opinions on the use of videoconferencing technology for competency to stand trial evaluations after the onset of COVID-19. - PsycNET
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2021-77667-001

Trupp, G. F., Ricardo, M. M., Boccaccini, M. T., & Murrie, D. C. (2021). Forensic evaluators' opinions on the use of videoconferencing technology for competency to stand trial evaluations after the onset of COVID-19. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000322

Abstract
We surveyed practicing forensic psychologists (N = 176) in the United States after the onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic to obtain their opinions about using videoconferencing for competence to stand trial evaluations. The survey included a broad range of questions to identify perceived concerns about, and benefits of, videoconferencing. Many of the evaluators who reported having conducted a competence evaluation using videoconferencing had done so only after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic (79.7%). Evaluators expressed concerns that the results of videoconferencing evaluations were slightly less reliable (M = 73.6% agreement) than in-person evaluations (M = 79.2%, d = .57 [.43, .70]), but agreed that videoconferencing has the potential to make the evaluation process more efficient for evaluators (77.2%) and to reduce evaluation wait times for defendants (83.8%). The most common concerns were about the ability to assess general mental health symptoms (42.7%) and feigning (68.1%), as opposed to specific psycholegal abilities (10% to 30%). Overall, those who had used videoconferencing for a competence evaluation or had received training related to videoconferencing were less likely to endorse concerns about its use. Findings represent a first step in providing data to inform ongoing discussions about professional standards for using videoconferencing for competence evaluations. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved)

Wednesday, August 4, 2021

Discontinuing the Flynn effect reference archive project.

Due to the lack of use of this resource by others, and time constraints on the blog master, the Flynn effect reference archive project is now terminated. The last update was 6-21-21.

Sunday, June 20, 2021

Flynn effect reference project: 06-21-21

I had previously maintained a "Flynn effect archive" project at this blog. In its prior form, it included a reference list and hyperlinks to almost all articles. I have now found it necessary to remove all posts (and index tag terms) related to that project. It's purpose has changed.

Originally the idea was to make available most the available research on the Flynn effect. Over time I noticed (via the hit counter tracker) that fewer and fewer people were consulting it to obtain copies of articles. The time necessary to maintain the archive, especially after I switched domain servers (which resulted in a ton of obsolete and broken hyperlinks), was not cost-effective. Thus, that archive is no longer available.

In its place I am now maintaining (and will update periodically) a simple working list of Flynn effect (aka, norm obsolescence) references. The current version, dated 06-20-21, can be downloaded by clicking here. It includesv317 references. I will refer to this as the Flynn Effect Reference Project. I will update it on a regular basis, especially since it is now much easier to maintain.

The reference list should not be considered exhaustive of all possible published and unpublished research regarding the Flynn effect. It is the best I can put together. Any readers who locate missing articles, or new publications, should contact me via email (go to the MindHub and contact me via the contact info). I will then add those to the next update.

Enjoy.

'No Defendant Has Ever Met This Burden': Inside Georgia's Death Sentence Ruling

Opinion enclosed. Best. -E.

www.law.com/daily...uling/
'No Defendant Has Ever Met This Burden': Inside Georgia's Death Sentence Ruling
"Georgia's uniquely high and onerous burden means that people with intellectual disability will be executed," said Brian Stull, senior staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union Capital Punishment Project.
By Cedra Mayfield | June 01, 2021 at 04:11 PM

It's not a matter of appealing his guilt. It's been agreed Rodney Renia Young is guilty of traveling across state lines to kill his former girlfriend's son in 2008.

Whether he should die for his actions, however, has birthed a war between the American Civil Liberties Union and the courts, as battles to prove Young's intellectual disability—and have it honored by the Georgia judicial system with a death penalty exemption—continue.

Young's latest battle, an appeal before the Supreme Court of Georgia, ended with the court upholding his death sentence, finding in Young v. State that Young failed to prove his intellectual disability beyond a reasonable doubt.

"We are not called upon here to make a pronouncement on the wisdom of Georgia's burden of proof from a policy perspective, and to do so would be beyond this court's constitutional power," Supreme Court of Georgia Chief Justice Harold Melton wrote in a plurality opinion. "Instead, we are called upon to apply the Georgia Constitution and the United States Constitution."

It's a Catch-22 the ACLU attributed to the state's interpretation of the 2002 United States Supreme Court decision in Atkins v. Virginia. In it, the nation's highest court granted states discretion in developing "appropriate ways" to enforce the constitutional restriction on executing intellectually disabled individuals, after determining that doing so violated the U.S. Constitution.

"No defendant has ever met this burden and successfully proven their intellectual disability," said Brian Stull, senior staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union Capital Punishment Project. "Georgia's uniquely high and onerous burden means that people with intellectual disability will be executed, just as Warren Hill was executed in 2015, despite every expert who interviewed him affirming his intellectual disability."

Across the aisle, Alcovy Circuit District Attorney Randal McGinley helped represent the state.

"While it is the decision of Young and his attorneys as to whether they seek review by the Supreme Court of the United States, I would not be surprised if a petition for cert is filed asking that court to weigh in on the legal issue of the burden of proof regarding intellectual disability," McGinley said. "However, all three opinions (the plurality, concurrence, and dissent) make it clear that the trials followed precedent from both the Supreme Courts of Georgia and the United States on this issue."

'I Would Obediently Accept'

Supreme Court of Georgia Presiding Justice David E. Nahmias welcomed the case escalation.

.

In his special concurrence, Nahmias said, "Of course I (and the majority of this court) could be wrong. Young is welcome to seek certiorari from the United States Supreme Court to have that Court tell us that we are wrong. I would obediently accept and forthrightly apply such a decision."

Nahmias cited that in the more than 30 years since the statute used to handle such cases had been enacted, developments in the science of intellectual disability had occurred. He welcomed Young and those advocating on his behalf to "try to persuade the people of Georgia, through their elected representatives to revisit" the statute.

"If the General Assembly takes a further humane step with regard to criminal defendants who are potentially intellectually disabled, I would embrace that change," Nahmias wrote. "In the meantime, however, I see no compelling reason for this court to overrule our well-established precedent on this issue."

Divided Court

Rather than deter, the court's split decision further motivated the ACLU's quest to fight for Young's exemption from the death penalty.

"[The] decision violates the reasoning of recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions forbidding states from upholding procedures that create unacceptable risks of executing persons with intellectual disability," Stull said.

Justice Charles Bethel agreed, standing alone in his dissent.

Bethel highlighted Stripling v. State in 2011 and Head v. Hill in 2003.

In these decisions, the Supreme Court of Georgia rejected arguments that the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard is unconstitutional under the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Atkins, because it lacked state instructions to apply any particular standard of proof to intellectual disability claims.

Bethel said Young's suggestion that subsequent decisions of the high court "cast doubt" on those earlier decisions, compelling a different conclusion.

"The question before us, then, is whether Georgia's requirement that a defendant prove his or her own intellectual disability beyond a reasonable doubt creates 'an unacceptable risk that an intellectually disabled person will be executed,'" Bethel's dissent said. "Here, the existence of such a risk seems plain."

Friday, June 18, 2021

Full article: Considering the boundaries of intellectual disability: Using philosophy of science to make sense of borderline cases

Considering the boundaries of intellectual disability: Using philosophy of science to make sense of borderline cases
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09515089.2021.1914832

ABSTRACT

Who should be diagnosed with intellectual disability and who should not? For borderline cases, the answer to this question may be as difficult to decide on as determining the borderline between being bald or not. While going bald may be upsetting to some, it is also an inevitable and relatively undramatic course of nature. In contrast, getting a diagnosis of intellectual disability is likely to have more far- reaching consequences. This makes the question of where the cutoff point for intellectual disability lies more imperative. Philosophy of science may help psychologists to understand the nature of this dilemma in a more profound manner. This article builds on the sorites paradox to explore the vagueness that surrounds the concept of intellectual disability and the consequences of this vagueness for the diagnostic process. While epistemicists argue that vagueness is a consequence of our limited knowledge of the world that we live in, semantic theorists claim that there is nothing that we do not know, but that our language allows for indecisiveness. What these different lines of understanding mean for psychologists who are diagnosing intellectual disability, is described in this article. Furthermore, the article discusses practical implications of these philosophical underpinnings.

Atkins Court Decisions: Webster v US (2021), Haliburton v FL (2021)

Two more Atkins decisions I forgot to include in yesterday's batch.

Webster v US (2021). Prior decisions available here.

Haliburton v FL (2021).

Thursday, June 17, 2021

Two recent Atkins related articles: Johnson et al (2019) and LaPrade & Worrall (2020)

LaPrade, J., & Worrall, J. L. (2020). Determining Intellectual Disability in Death Penalty Cases: A State-by-State Analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice and Law.

In Moore v. Texas (2017), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Texas death penalty definitions of intellectual disability were inadequate because they strayed too far from clinical definitions. This study examines how each state defines intellectual disability with regard to death penalty eligibility. It reveals a wide variation in the standards used by states, with no clear consensus on definitions of intellectual disability or who should measure it. Variations pertain to age at onset, proof of intellectual disability status at the time of the crime, burden of proof required to make the intellectual disability determination, and who makes the final decision. Implications and suggestions for the future are discussed.

Johnson, S. L., Blume, J. H., Hritz, A. C., & Royer, C. E. (2019). Race, intellectual disability, and death: an empirical inquiry into invidious influences on Atkins determinations. UCLA L. Rev., 66, 1506.

Atkins Court Decisions: Bourgeois v US (2020), Milam v TX (2021), Reeves v AL (2020), Petetan v TX (2021)

Recent Atkins related court decisions at links below.

Petetan v TX (2021; one and two)

Bourgeois v US (2020). Prior decision (2011)

Milam v TX (2021)

Reeves v AL (2020)

Tuesday, May 25, 2021

That the powerful play goes on: Advances in forensic psychology, and next steps. - PsycNET

That the powerful play goes on: Advances in forensic psychology, and next steps. - PsycNET
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2021-48822-002

Friday, May 21, 2021

The future of intelligence research and gifted education - ScienceDirect

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289621000301

--
***********************************************
Kevin S. McGrew, PhD
Educational Psychologist
Director
Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP)
www.themindhub.com
************************************************

The Flynn effect in Germanophone preschoolers (1996–2018): Small effects, erratic directions, and questionable interpretations - ScienceDirect

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289621000283

Monday, April 5, 2021

Intellectual and developmental disabilities and the criminal justice system. - PsycNET

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2020-80415-012

Citation
Olley, J. G., & Cox, A. W. (2021). Intellectual and developmental disabilities and the criminal justice system. In L. M. Glidden, L. Abbeduto, L. L. McIntyre, & M. J. Tassé (Eds.), APA handbooks in psychology® series. APA handbook of intellectual and developmental disabilities: Clinical and educational implications: Prevention, intervention, and treatment (p. 299–331). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000195-012

Abstract
Research and clinical practice related to people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) and the criminal justice system have grown remarkably in the past 30 years. This chapter addresses the literature on intellectual disability (ID), with mention of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) where research exists. It builds upon these and other reviews and focuses on the more recent empirical literature. Children and adults with IDD may encounter the criminal justice system in one or more of several ways. The joint Position Statement on the Criminal Justice System by the Arc of the United States and the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (The Arc, 2018) currently identifies the following five: people with ID as victims, witnesses, suspects, defendants, and incarcerated individuals. The chapter reviews the published clinical and research literature on people with IDD in each of these roles, beginning with a historical perspective. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved)

Friday, April 2, 2021

Theories and measurement of intelligence. - PsycNET

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2020-80416-015

Citation
Floyd, R. G., Farmer, R. L., Schneider, W. J., & McGrew, K. S. (2021). Theories and measurement of intelligence. In L. M. Glidden, L. Abbeduto, L. L. McIntyre, & M. J. Tassé (Eds.), APA handbooks in psychology®. APA handbook of intellectual and developmental disabilities: Foundations (p. 385–424). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000194-015

Abstract
Advancements in the measurement of intellectual functioning via individually administered intelligence tests during the early 1900s led to reliance on IQs to represent the deficits in intellectual functioning during the past century. Concurrent development of models of intelligence also advanced understanding and measurement of intellectual functioning, and the current consensus is that intellectual functioning is best represented by a latent ability referred to as general intelligence (or psychometric g), as well as numerous broad and narrow abilities. As a result of these developments, the practice of identification of persons with intellectual disability (ID) is now based on a stronger scientific foundation. This chapter discusses three models of intelligence and reviews the genetic and environmental influences on intellectual functioning across the population, and persons with ID in particular. It culminates with a description of best practices and emerging methods in the assessment of intellectual functioning. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved)

Saturday, March 20, 2021

Lawyers to GA Supreme Court: Overturn intellectual disability standard

https://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-news/high-court-to-be-asked-to-overturn-intellectual-disability-threshold/ZB6RYRIDFBCVHAEPYSZI7L7TCU/

Wednesday, February 10, 2021

Atkins Law Review Article: Race, Intellectual Disability, and Death: An Empirical Inquiry Into Invidious Influences on Atkins Determinations (Johnson et al., 2020)

Race, Intellectual Disability, and Death: An Empirical Inquiry Into Invidious Influences on Atkins Determinations (2020). UCLA Law Review. Sheri Lynn Johnson, John H. Blume, Amelia Courtney Hritz, &Caisa Elizabeth Royer

Link

ABSTRACT

In Atkins v. Virginia,the U.S. Supreme Court held that the execution of a person with intellectual
disability violates the Eighth Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause. After more than a decade of Atkins litigation, we perceived there to be a substantial risk that race influences intellectual disability-and consequently, life and death-determinations. Due to the difficulty of demonstrating the influence of race in a particular case, we decided to investigate its potential effects in a controlled experiment. We did so by manipulating race in three different ways and by presenting cases with both strong and ambiguous evidence of intellectual disability. We found statistically significant race effects when we showed the face of the defendant and when the evidence of intellectual disability we provided was ambiguous. The influence of race was more pronounced when we limited our sample to white mock jurors. Even with a relatively weak manipulation, the size of the race effect is substantial. We also discovered that many participants weighed the facts of the criminal case and the consequences of their decision (death penalty eligibility), even though it was not relevant to the determination of whether the claimant was (or was not) a person with intellectual disability. These findings shed light on why claims of intellectual disability almostnever succeed before juries: death-qualified jurors may not make the diagnostic determination based on the evidence, but instead likely upon their own assessment of death-worthiness.

Atkins article: Determining Intellectual Disability in Death Penalty Cases: A State-by-State Analysis (2020). Jennifer LaPrade & John L. Worrall

Determining Intellectual Disability in Death Penalty Cases: A State-by-State Analysis. Jennifer LaPrade
John L. Worrall, 2020.

Journal of Criminal Justice and Law: Official
Journal of the Law and Public Policy Section
of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences
Volume 3, Issue 2, pp. 1-28 (2020)

Link.

Abstract

In Moore v. Texas (2017), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Texas death penalty definitions of intellectual disability were inadequate because they strayed too far from clinical definitions. This study examines how each state defines intellectual disability with regard to death penalty eligibility. It reveals a wide variation in the standards used by states, with no clear consensus on definitions of intellectual disability or who should measure it. Variations pertain to age at onset, proof of intellectual disability status at the time of the crime, burden of proof required to make the intellectual disability determination, and who makes the final decision. Implications and suggestions for the future are discussed.

Atkins article: "Man is opposed to fair play": An empirical analysis of how the Fifth Circuit has failed to take seriosly Atkins v Virginia - Perlin et al (2020)

'Man is Opposed to Fair Play': An Empirical Analysis of How the Fifth Circuit Has Failed to Take Seriously Atkins v. Virginia. Perlin, Harmon & Wetzel

Revised: 9 Dec 2020

Link.

Atkins ID after Moore V Texas Redux article - 2029

I'm trying to clean up my "to post" inbox. I may have already shared this recent article. If not, here it is.

Evaluating Intellectual Disability after the Moore v. Texas Redux

Alexander H. Updegrove, PhD, and Michael S. Vaughn, PhD

This article reviews the history of the U.S. Supreme Court's rulings on intellectual disability in capital cases, highlighting the difficulty states have had in devising a workable definition that meets constitu-tional standards. The Court's decisions in Penry v. Lynaugh (1989), Atkins v. Virginia (2002), and Hall v. Florida (2014) are briefly summarized. Next, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals' ruling in Ex parte Briseno (2004) is discussed as a prelude to the Supreme Court's decision in Moore v. Texas I (2017). On remand, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals interpreted the Supreme Court's Moore I ruling in a manner that resulted in finding Mr. Moore intellectually able, and therefore eligible for the death penalty, in Ex parte Moore II (2018). Finally, the importance of the Supreme Court's most recent ruling on intellectual disability in capital cases, Moore v. Texas II (2019), is explored in depth. The article concludes with recommendations for best practices among forensic evaluators who assess capital defendants for intellectual disability

http://jaapl.org/content/early/2019/09/18/JAAPL.003884-19.abstract

Thursday, February 4, 2021

Atkins ID Death Penalty Court Decision: Texas High court stays execution of man with ID...1 week before he was set to die

Copy of story below.

Texas' top criminal court halted a man's execution Wednesday, exactly 1 week before he was scheduled to die.

Lawyers for Edward Busby, 48, had appealed to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, arguing Busby's execution would be illegal because he is mentally disabled, the Marshall Project reported.

Busby was convicted of killing Laura Crane, 77, in January 2004 by stuffing her in a car trunk and duct taping her mouth shut, resulting in her suffocating to death. Crane, a retired professor at Texas Christian University, was abducted in Fort Worth and police found her body in Oklahoma.

Busby's prior appeals were rejected, according to court documents obtained by the Marshall Project, but his last ditch appeal for a stay was granted. Busby's intellectual disability claim will be reviewed by a lower court. Texas executed 3 people in 2020 and 9 people in 2019. The state has yet to execute anyone in 2021.

Busby's execution was previously set for May 6, 2020, but was rescheduled because of the coronavirus pandemic. It was planned for Feb. 10 until Wednesday's court ruling.

Monday, February 1, 2021

The IOP-29 and the IOP-M: New Generation Symptom and Performance Validity Tests for Malingering Evaluations – Workshop O 3.5 CE Credits

The IOP-29 and the IOP-M: New Generation Symptom and Performance Validity Tests for Malingering Evaluations – Workshop O 3.5 CE Credits
https://spa-convention.org/2021/01/20/the-iop-29-and-the-iop-m-new-generation-symptom-and-performance-validity-tests-for-malingering-evaluations-workshop-o/

Workshop Information:
The Inventory of Problems-29 (IOP-29; Viglione, Giromini & Landis, 2017) is a new, brief, self-report measure designed to assist practitioners evaluating the credibility of various symptom presentations, including those related to (1) depression/anxiety, (2) psychosis/schizophrenia, (3) post-traumatic reactions, and (4) neuropsychological/intellectual dysfunction. It is comprised of 29 items, administered via classic, paper-and-pencil format, or online, using a tablet or a PC. By analyzing the responses to each of these 29 items, a logistic regression-derived formula generates the False Disorder Probability Score (FDS), a probability value reflecting the likelihood of drawing that specific IOP-29 from a group of experimental feigners versus a group of bona fide patients. Based on emerging research attesting to the utility of combining symptom validity with performance validity measures a new "add-on" feature of the IOP-29 has recently been developed. Named "IOP-M," its purpose is to detect malingered memory deficits. This half-day workshop will describe the research foundation for the IOP-29 and IOP-M in malingering evaluations and will present guidelines for their use in applied practice. Together, these two brief tests, each taking five to ten minutes, provide the most efficient symptom and performance measure for the busy practitioner. No prior experience with the IOP instruments is required.

Saturday, January 30, 2021

New Burros MMY

https://www.nebraskapress.unl.edu/buros-center-for-testing/9780910674683/

Sent from my iPhone

Monday, January 25, 2021

James R. Flynn, Who Found We Are Getting Smarter, Dies at 86

James R. Flynn, Who Found We Are Getting Smarter, Dies at 86
https://flip.it/HQ6wrM

The secular trend of intelligence test scores in the present century: The Danish experience - ScienceDirect

The secular trend of intelligence test scores in the present century: The Danish experience - ScienceDirect
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S016028962100009X

Highlights

•
Changes in mean intelligence test scores were minimal in Denmark in 2006–2019.
•
A change in the format of the intelligence test resulted in a sudden drop in scores.
•
Neither changes in parental age, dysgenics, or immigration can explain the findings.
•
Changes in sample composition may conceal a true decline in intelligence test scores.

Abstract
The present register-based study investigated the secular trend of intelligence test scores during the period from 2006 through 2019 in a Danish population-representative sample, as well as whether the observed trend could be explained by changes in parental age, dysgenics, and immigration or changes in the format of the intelligence test and sample characteristics. The study population consisted of all Danish men appearing before a draft board during the study period (N = 400,288). Intelligence test scores were obtained by the use of Børge Priens Prøve, typically at age 19. For each of the included draft board cohorts, the intelligence test score mean and standard deviation were estimated. The results showed that changes in mean intelligence test scores were minimal during the study period. A slight decline was observed from 2006 to 2010. Furthermore, there was a drop of 1.5 IQ points from 2010 to 2011, which coincided with the change in the format of the intelligence test from paper-and-pencil to computer-based, but there was essentially no change after 2011. Neither changes in parental age, dysgenics, or immigration seem to have influenced the observations. However, changes in sample composition may conceal a true decline in intelligence test scores given that a larger proportion of individuals with low intelligence seems to be exempted from testing. In conclusion, the study findings suggest no systematic change in intelligence test scores during the last decade, but due to changes in sample composition, it cannot be excluded that there has been a negative secular trend.

Thursday, January 21, 2021

Webinar on new AAIDD classification manual

https://www.aaidd.org/education/event-details/2021/01/28/default-calendar/intellectual-disability-definition-diagnosis-classification-and-systems-of-supports-12th-edition

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

Kevin McGrew, PhD

Educational Psychologist

Director, Institute for Applied Psychometrics

IAP

www.themindhub.com

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

Tuesday, January 19, 2021

AAIDD Announces the Publication of the 12th Edition of its Manual

https://www.aaidd.org/news-policy/news/article/2021/01/15/aaidd-announces-the-publication-of-the-12th-edition-of-its-manual

Friday, January 15, 2021

12th Edition of the AAIDD Manual Now Available!

Intellectual Disability: Definition, Diagnosis, Classification, and Systems of Supports, 12th Edition, has just been published and can be purchased from our bookstore.

All professionals in the field need this important reference book, which integrates the findings and developments of the last 10 years in a systematic approach to diagnosis, optional subgroup classification, and planning of systems of supports for people with ID.

In addition, the 12th edition examines the construct of age of onset as a criterion in diagnosis and presents the operational definition in a way that will be critically important to professionals in the field.

Buy your copy now in the AAIDD Bookstore!

To explore our other titles, visit our online bookstore by clicking here.

Members get even more savings!
Join or Renew AAIDD Membership for Journal Access and Discounts
on All AAIDD Books & Curriculum

**Members: Login for your member discount to also be applied at checkout**

American Association on Intellectual
and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD)
8403 Colesville Road, Suite 900
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone: 202-387-1968
Fax: 202-387-2193
www.aaidd.org

This email was sent to iap@earthlink.net by books@aaidd.org

American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities • 8403 Colesville Road, Suite 900, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910, United States

Remove My Email or Manage Preferences • Privacy Policy