Sunday, June 9, 2019

Communication and cross-examination in court for children and adults with intellectual disabilities: A systematic review - Joanne Morrison, Rachel Forrester-Jones, Jill Bradshaw, Glynis Murphy, 2019


Courts in England, Wales and Northern Ireland have identified children and adults with intellectual disabilities (ID) as vulnerable witnesses. The call from the English Court of Appeal is for advocates to adjust questioning during cross-examination according to individual needs. This review systematically examined previous empirical studies with the aim of delineating the particular communication needs of children and adults with ID during cross-examination. Studies utilising experimental methodology similar to examination/cross-examination processes, or which assessed the communication of actual cross-examinations in court were included. A range of communication challenges were highlighted, including: suggestibility to leading questions and negative feedback; acquiescence; accuracy; memory and understanding of court language. In addition, a number of influencing factors were identified, including: age; IQ level; question styles used. This review highlights the need for further research using cross-examination methodology and live practice, that take into consideration the impact on communication of the unique environment and situation of the cross-examination process.


Monday, May 27, 2019

Atkins court decisions: Busby v Davis (TX) and Smith v Alabama



FYI--two recent Atkins related decisions

Busby v Davis (TX: 2019)

Smith v Alabama (2019)

Texas ID death penalty update: Death Penalty Reform Bill Gets Watered Down to ‘Nothing’ Before Passing Senate After passing the House.


Death Penalty Reform Bill Gets Watered Down to ‘Nothing’ Before Passing Senate

After passing the House, HB 1139, meant to reform how Texas decides whether a defendant is too intellectually disabled to execute, was significantly softened in Senate committee.  Story at this link. 

Thursday, April 25, 2019

The mysterious disappearance of blogmaster of IQs Corner

My regular readers have noticed that I have not posted anything to my three blogs since last thanksgiving.  Why?

Well..I came down with a serious illness and spent 82 days in the hospital, 72 of which were at the world renowned Mayo Clinic in Rochester MN.  I have since returned home and am doing OT and PT rehab....that is now my full time job.  

I want to thank all who learned of my experience and sent kind words of support.  I shall return.

If you want more details you can check out the Caring Bridge log my lovely wife maintained.

https://www.caringbridge.org/visit/kevinmcgrewiq



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

Tuesday, November 20, 2018

Shriver op-ed on Moore v Texas continuing saga with SCOTUS

The LA Times published an excellent op-ed that explains, in simple understandable language, the issues and reasoning behind the recent legal saga of Moore v Texas.  A pdf copy is available here.

Here is link to the latest blog post that can lead you through the past and recent decisions in this case.

Tuesday, November 13, 2018

Atkins decisions: More on Moore v TX (2018). ABA files brief on behalf of Moore - UPDATED 11-20-18 to include APA amicus brief







Interesting turn of events re: Moore v. Texas. ABA story here.

The AG’s motion can be found here. The ABA amicus brief can be found here.

The trail of prior documents and decision can be found starting here.

11-20-18 UPDATE.  I previously did not have a copy of the APA amicus brief. A copy is now available here.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Friday, November 9, 2018

Law Review Article: Intellectual Disability in Capital Cases: Adjusting State Statutes After Moore v. Texas


Another new Atkins related law review article available here.


ABSTRACT

In Atkins v. Virginia (2002), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the execution of intellectually disabled inmates violates the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment. Twelve years later in Hall v. Florida (2014), the Court revisited its Atkins decision to provide further clarification on how states should assess intellectual disability. This article examines Moore v. Texas (2017), the latest development in the Court's rulings on capital determinations of intellectual disability. It also reviews state statutes and court cases from the thirty-one death penalty states to determine how they comport with the Court's Moore ruling. These statutes and cases shed light on issues with respect to intellectual disability in capital trials that the Court has yet to address. The article concludes with model language to help states make their capital punishment protocols constitutional, so that the intellectually disabled remain free from execution.

Tuesday, November 6, 2018

Research Byte: Flynn Effect in Kuwait, 1985-1998

This study will be added to the Flynn Effect Archive Project the next time it is update.






Law Review Article: Evaluating Intellectual Disability: Clinical Assessments in Atkins Cases (Ellis et al., 2018)




This new law review article is, IMHO, the best overview article regarding the history of ID, the legal issues in Atkins cases, and good discussion of the major conceptual and measurement issues found in many Atkins cases. An excellent introduction to ID issues in Atkins cases.

EVALUATING INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY: CLINICAL ASSESSMENTS IN ATKINS CASES

James W. Ellis, Caroline Everington, Ann M. Delpha

ABSTRACT

The intersection of intellectual disability and the death penalty is now clearly established. Both under the U.S. Supreme Court's constitutional decisions and under the terms of many state statutes, individual defendants who have that disability cannot be sentenced to death or executed. It now falls to trial, appellate, and post-conviction courts to determine which individual criminal defendants are entitled to the law's protection. This Article attempts to assist judges in performing that task. After a brief discussion of the Supreme Court's decisions in Atkins v. Virginia, Hall v. Florida, and Moore v. Texas, it analyzes the component parts and terminology of the clinical definition of intellectual disability. It then offers more detailed discussion of a number of the clinical issues that arise frequently in adjudicating these cases. For each of these issues, the Article's text and the accompanying notes attempt to provide judges with a thorough survey of the relevant clinical literature, and an explanation of the terminology used by clinical professionals. Our purpose is to help those judges to become more knowledgeable consumers of the clinical reports and expert testimony presented to them in individual cases, and to help them reach decisions that are consistent with what the clinical literature reveals about the nature of intellectual disability and best professional practices in the diagnostic process.

Click on images to enlarge







- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Saturday, October 20, 2018

Law Review Article: Comment post-Moore: Call for national standard for ID def in capital cases

Article can be found here.



CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court's decision in Moore served as little more than a lackluster attempt to provide states with guidance in creating a standard for determining intellectual disability for the purposes of capital punish-ment. While the Court attempted to narrow the leniency it provided to states with its holdings in both Moore and Hall, it has likely done nothing more than cause confusion as states attempt to create legislation that ad-heres to the Court's mandates. The Court's refusal to provide states with a functional definition of intellectual disability in capital cases might seem merely frustrating at first glance, but it is also potentially unconstitu-tional-arguably violating both the Eighth Amendment and the equal pro-tection clause. What is more, as each state creates its own test for deter-mining intellectual disability, the states increase their risk of violating the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. Thus, the Court should provide the states with a definition to avoid these pressing constitutional concerns.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Saturday, September 29, 2018

Atkins court decisions: Lane v Alabama (2028) and Wright v Florida (2018)





Two recent Atkins court decisions.

Lane v Alabama (2018)

Wright v Florida (2018)

As a reminder, when I first started this blog I would sometimes comment on psychometric issues in decisions. I believed it professionally responsible to stop this practice after I started to serve as an expert witness in Atkins cases.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Friday, August 17, 2018

Nature, Nurture, and Human Autonomy with James Flynn - Scott Barry Kaufman

Nature, Nurture, and Human Autonomy with James Flynn - Scott Barry Kaufman

Nature, Nurture, and Human Autonomy with James Flynn

"When you turn your back on reality you lose the ability to manipulate reality. One would think that is self-evident. I didn't go into this to not try to find the truth." — James Flynn*

Today it is an honor to have Dr. James Flynn on the podcast. Dr. Flynn is Professor Emeritus at the University of Otago and recipient of the University's Gold Medal for Distinguished Career Research. In 2007, the International Society for Intelligence Research named him its Distinguished Contributor. His TED talk on cognitive and moral progress has received over 3.5 million visits. His long list of books include Are We Getting Smarter?, What is Intelligence?, Where Have All the Liberals Gone?, Fate and PhilosophyHow to Improve Your Mind, and most recently, Does Your Family Make You Smarter?: Nature, Nurture, and Human Autonomy.

In this episode we cover a wide range of topics relating to intelligence and its determinants, including:

  • Flynn's attempts to clarify intelligence and its causes
  • The g factor, and what gives rise to it
  • The validity of multiple intelligences theory
  • Intergenerational trends (the "Flynn effect") vs. Within-generation trends
  • The "social multiplier" model of intergenerational trends in intelligence
  • Individual multipliers vs. social multipliers
  • The multiple causes of black-white differences in IQ
  • Charley Murray and the meritocracy thesis
  • Transcending the politics of intelligence research
  • The dangers of suppressing ideas and research
  • The 20% wiggle room of autonomy on IQ tests
  • The difference between internal and external environment
  • The impact of having a "family handicap" on SAT scores
  • What we can learn from astronomy about human intelligence
  • Toward a meta-theory of intelligence
  • Toward a more humane society

Links

Why our IQ levels are higher than our grandparents [TED Talk]

Reflection about intelligence over 40 years

Heritability Estimates Versus Large Environmental Effects": The IQ Paradox Resolved

IQ Bashing, Breadkdancing, the Flynn Effect, and Genes

Men, Women, and IQ: Setting the Record Straight 

The Flynn Effect and IQ Disparities Among Races, Ethnicities, and Nations: Are There Common Links?

The Role of Luck in Life Success Is Far Greater Than We Realized 

Twitter Q & A with James Flynn

  1. "Would a 100 IQ person today be a genius if transported to the year 1918? If not, why not." https://twitter.com/robkhenderson/status/1027707019317403650

Flynn: No, they would just be better adapted in their ability to meet educational demands.

  1. "Are you concerned with the growing misuse of genetic causal fallacies in heritability research, and what can be done to make sure that researchers do not assert implications that are not supported by the data? Is this a question of education?" https://twitter.com/NathanH90714587/status/1027690457504002048

Flynn: Whenever I catch them I am disturbed by both bad genetic hypotheses and bad environmental ones.

3. "What has caused the Flynn reversal in Nordic and some other rich countries? Markus Jokela suggested it could be health related." https://twitter.com/mark_ledwich/status/1027685177231695872

Flynn: See this article in Intelligence by myself and Shayer on IQ decline.

  1. "Prof. Flynn has written about the increase in non-verbal reasoning on IQ tests that is attributed to the exposure to analytical/sequential/logical reasoning through technology. What should we do, then, to increase the verbal side of our reasoning, or have we reached the peak?" https://twitter.com/jakub_ferenc/status/1027682377169076224

Flynn: Read good literature and stand out against the trend to read less and less (see Flynn, The Torchlight List  and The New Torchlight List.

5. "Could the Flynn effect be based at least partially on a trade off, meaning that with change in culture promoting development of skills associated with higher IQ scores, this rise is at a cost of eg working memory?" https://twitter.com/Kapusta2365/status/1027689783219380225

Flynn: I don't think there is a downward trend in working memory – see Does Your Family Make You Smarter?

6. "Do the intelligence gains the Flynn effect reveals show an in increase in the g factor?" https://twitter.com/DabneyPierce/status/1027684042022432768

Flynn: No – see "Reflection about intelligence over 40 years" just posted on the net.

7. "What do you make of American SAT/ACT trends, that is the Asian scores increases and the Native-American scores declines?" https://twitter.com/UnsilencedSci/status/1027682180737130497

Flynn: Sorry I have only looked at black and white.

8. "Does you ever think there will come a time when rational, non-bigoted people can publicly discuss race and gender topics relating to your research?" https://twitter.com/AFIChai/status/1027732647349547009

Flynn: Well I hope so – but there is no trend in that direction.

* Quote taken from a lecture Flynn gave at the University of Cambridge on July 20, 2012.





Saturday, August 11, 2018

Beyond IQ: Mining the “no-mans-land” between Intelligence and IQ: Journal of Intelligence special issue

I am pleased to see the Journal of Intelligence  addressing the integration of non-cognitive variables (personality; self-beliefs; motivational constructs; often called the “no-mans land” between intelligence and personality— I believe this catchy phrase was first used by Stankov) with intellectual constructs to better understanding human performance. I have had a long-standing interest in such comprehensive models as reflected by my articulation of the Model of Academic Competence and Motivation (MACM) and repeated posting of “beyond IQ” information at my blogs.

Joel Schneider and I briefly touched in this topic in our soon to be published CHC intelligence theory update chapter. Below is the select text and some awesome figures crafted by Joel.

Our simplified conceptual structure of knowledge abilities is presented in Figure 3.10. At the center of overlapping knowledge domains is general knowledge—knowledge and skills considered important for any member of the population to know (e.g., literacy, numeracy, self-care, budgeting, civics, etiquette, and much more). The bulk of each knowledge domain is the province of specialists, but some portion is considered important for all members of society to know. Drawing inspiration from F. L. Schmidt (2011, 2014), we posit that interests and experience drive acquisition of domain-specific knowledge.

In Schmidt's model, individual differences in general knowledge are driven largely by individual differences in fluid intelligence and general interest in learning, also known as typical intellectual engagement (Goff & Ackerman, 1992). In contrast, individual differences in domain-specific knowledge are more driven by domain-specific in-terests, and also by the “tilt” of one's specific abilities (Coyle, Purcell, Snyder, & Richmond, 2014; Pässler, Beinicke, & Hell, 2015). In Figure 3.11, we present a simplified hypothetical synthesis of several ability models in which abilities, interests, and personality traits predict general and specific knowledge (Ackerman, 1996a, 1996b, 2000; Ackerman, Bowen, Beier, & Kanfer, 2001; Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997; Ackerman & Rolfhus, 1999; Fry & Hale, 1996; Goff & Ackerman, 1992; Kail, 2007; Kane et al., 2004; Rolfhus & Ackerman, 1999; Schmidt, 2011, 2014; Schneider et al., 2016; Schneider & Newman, 2015; Woodcock, 1993; Ziegler, Danay, Heene, Asendorpf, & Bühner, 2012).


Click on images to enlarge.







- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Tuesday, August 7, 2018

Intellectual disability in capital (Atkins) cases: Adjusting state statutes after Moore v Texas

INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY IN CAPITAL CASES: ADJUSTING STATE STATUTES AFTER MOORE V. TEXAS.

  • Source: Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy . 2018, Vol. 32 Issue 2, p527-562. 36p.
  • Author(s): UPDEGROVE, ALEXANDER H.; VAUGHN, MICHAEL S.; DEL CARMEN, ROLANDO V.
  • Abstract: In Atkins v. Virginia (2002), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the execution of intellectually disabled inmates violates the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment. Twelve years later in Hall v. Florida (2014), the Court revisited its Atkins decision to provide fu rther clarification on how states should assess intellectual disability. This article examines Moore v. Texas (2017), the latest development in the Court, 's rulings on capital determinations of intellectual disability. It also reviews state statutes and court cases from the thirty-one death penalty states to determine how they comport with the Court's Moore ruling. These statutes and cases shed light on issues with respect to intellectual disability in capital trials that the Court has yet to address. The article concludes with model language to help states make their capital punishment protocols constitutional, so that the intellectually disabled remain free from execution.

Tuesday, July 31, 2018

Flynn Effect Reference Project has been updated 07-31-18


The Flynn Effect Reference Project document has just been updated.  It now includes 302 references.  Access can be found at this prior post (click here)

Monday, July 16, 2018

What is an applied psychometrician?

I wear a number of hats within the broad filed of educational psychology.  One is that of an applied psychometrician.  Whenever anyone asks what I do, I receive strange looks when that title rolls out of my mouth.  I then always need to provide a general explanation.

I've decided to take a little time and generate a brief explanation.  I hope this helps.

The online American Psychological Association (APA) Dictionary of Psychology defines psychometrics as: n. the branch of psychology concerned with the quantification and measurement of mental attributes, behavior, performance, and the like, as well as with the design, analysis, and improvement of the tests, questionnaires, and other instruments used in such measurement. Also called psychometric psychology; psychometry.

The definition can be understood from the two components of the word. Psycho refers to “psyche” or the human mind. Metrics refers to “measurement.” Thus, in simple terms, psychometrics means psychological measurement--it is the math and science behind psychological testing.  Applied psychometrics is concerned with the application of psychological theory, techniques, statistical methods, and psychological measurement to applied psychological test development, evaluation, and test interpretation. This compares to more pure or theoretical psychometrics which focuses on developing new measurement theories, methods, statistical procedures, etc. An applied psychometrician uses the various theories, tools and techniques developed by more theoretical psychometricians in the actual development, evaluation, and interpretation of psychological tests. By way of analogy, applied psychometrics is to theoretical psychometrics, as applied research is to pure research.

The principles of psychometric testing are very broad in their potential application., and have been applied to such areas as intelligence, personality, interest, attitudes, neuropsychological functioning, and diagnostic measures (Irwing & Hughes, 2018). As noted recently by Irwing and Hughes (2018), psychometrics is broad as “It applies to many more fields than psychology, indeed biomedical science, education, economics, communications theory, marketing, sociology, politics, business, and epidemiology amongst other disciplines, not only employ psychometric testing, but have also made important contributions to the subject” (p. 3).

Although there are many publications of relevance to the topic of test development and psychometrics, the most useful and important single source is “the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing” (aka., the Joint Test Standards; American Educational Research Association [AERA], American Psychological Association [APA], National Council on Measurement in Education [NCME], 2014). The Joint Test Standards outline standards and guidelines for test developers, publishers, and users (psychologists) of tests. Given that the principles and theories of psychometrics are generic (they cut across all subdisciplines of psychology that use psychological tests), and there is a standard professionally accepted set of standards (the Joint Test Standards), an expert in applied psychometrics has the skills and expertise to evaluate the fundamental, universal or core measurement integrity (i.e., quality of norms, reliability, validity, etc.) of various psychological tests and measures (e.g., surveys, IQ tests, neuropsychological tests, personality tests), although sub-disciplinary expertise and training would be required to engage in expert interpretation by sub-disciplines. For example, expertise in brain development, functioning and brain-behavior relations would be necessary to use neuropsychological tests to make clinical judgements regarding brain dysfunction, type of brain disorders, etc. However, the basic psychometric characteristics of most all psychological and educational tests (e.g., neuropsychological, IQ, achievement, personality, interest, etc.) assessment can be evaluated by professionals with expertise in applied psychometrics.

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education (2014). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Washington, DC: Author.

 Irwing, P. & Hughes, D. J. (2018). Test development. In P. Irwing, T. Booth, & D. J. Hughes (Eds.), The Wiley Handbook of Psychometric Testing: A Multidisciplinary Reference on Survey, Scale and Test Development (pp. 3-49. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons

Thursday, July 12, 2018

Great psychometric resource: The Wiley Handbook of Psychometric Testing

I just received my two volume set of this excellent resource on psychometric testing.  There are not many good books that cover such a broad array of psychometric measurement issues.  This is not what I would call "easy reading."  This is more like a "must have" resource book to have "at the ready" when seeking to understand contemporary psychometric test development issues.

National Academies Press: Neuroforensics: Exploring the legal implications of emerging technologies


This new publication is now available from the National Academies Press.

Court decision: Moore v Texas (2018) after SCOTUS vacated decison based on Briseno AB standards



I'm a bit behind in posting information regarding recent Atkins-related court decisions.

Despite SCOTUS recently vacating Moore v Texas based on Texas's Briseno standards not being consistent with prevailing medical and professional standards, Moore was still found to not be ID in the latest decision from Texas.  The majority opinion can be found here.  The dissenting opinion can be found here.

Wednesday, July 11, 2018

"Intellectual Disability, The Death Penalty, and Jurors"



----
"Intellectual Disability, The Death Penalty, and Jurors"
// Sentencing Law and Policy

The title of this post is the title of this new paper on SSRN authored by Emily Shaw, Nicholas Scurich and David Faigman. Here is its abstract:

In Atkins v. Virginia (2002), the United States Supreme Court held that intellectually disabled defendants cannot be sentenced to death; but since then, the Court has continued to grapple with how intellectual disability should be legally defined. Typically, however, it is jurors who determine whether a defendant is intellectually disabled and therefore categorically ineligible for the death penalty. Very little is known empirically about how jurors reason about and make these decisions.

This Article presents the results of a novel experiment in which venire jurors participated in an intellectual disability hearing and a capital sentencing hearing. The diagnosis of a court-appointed expert was experimentally manipulated (defendant is or is not intellectually disabled), as was the provision of information about the crime (present or absent). Jurors were considerably more likely to find the defendant not disabled when the expert opined that the defendant was not disabled.  They were also more likely to find the defendant not disabled when they learned about the details of the crime. Similarly, jurors were more likely to sentence the defendant to death after learning about the details of the crime, which increased perceptions of both the defendant's blameworthiness and his mental ability.  These findings highlight the reality that jurors' assessments of intellectual disability are influenced by crime information, contrary to pronouncements made by the United States Supreme Court, and they support the use of bifurcated disability proceedings, as some states have recently adopted.


----

Read in my feedly



Sunday, July 8, 2018

Practice or retest effects in measures of working memory capacity (Gwm): A meta-analysis

Retest effects in working memory capacity tests: A meta-analysis
Jana Scharfen, Katrin Jansen, Heinz Holling. Article link

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2018

Abstract

The repeated administration of working memory capacity tests is common in clinical and research settings. For cognitive ability tests and different neuropsychological tests, meta-analyses have shown that they are prone to retest effects, which have to be accounted for when interpreting retest scores. Using a multilevel approach, this meta-analysis aims at showing the reproducibility of retest effects in working memory capacity tests for up to seven test administrations, and examines the impact of the length of the test-retest interval, test modality, equivalence of test forms and participant age on the size of retest effects. Furthermore, it is assessed whether the size of retest effects depends on the test paradigm. An extensive literature search revealed 234 effect sizes from 95 samples and 68 studies, in which healthy participants between 12 and 70 years repeatedly performed a working memory capacity test. Results yield a weighted average of g = 0.28 for retest effects from the first to the second test administration, and a significant increase in effect sizes was observed up to the fourth test administration. The length of the test-retest interval and publication year were found to moderate the size of retest effects. Retest effects differed between the paradigms of working memory capacity tests. These findings call for the development and use of appropriate experimental or statistical methods to address retest effects in working memory capacity tests.

Keywords Meta-analysis · Retest effect · Practice effect · Working memory



- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Tuesday, June 12, 2018

Researchers find IQ scores dropping since the 1970s— Scandinavian countries

This reverse Flynn effect has been found primarily in Scandinavian countries and not the US.  

Researchers find IQ scores dropping since the 1970s
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-06-iq-scores-1970s.html

Sent from Flipboard



Saturday, June 2, 2018

Can emotional intelligence (Gei) be trained: A meta-analysis

Can emotional intelligence be trained? A meta-analysis

Please cite this article as: Mattingly, V., Human Resource Management Review (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2018.03.002

Victoria Mattingly, Kurt Kraiger

Keywords: Emotional intelligence, Training Meta-analysis

A B S T R A C T

Human resource practitioners place value on selecting and training a more emotionally in-telligent workforce. Despite this, research has yet to systematically investigate whether emo-tional intelligence can in fact be trained. This study addresses this question by conducting a meta-analysis to assess the effect of training on emotional intelligence, and whether effects are mod-erated by substantive and methodological moderators. We identified a total of 58 published and unpublished studies that included an emotional intelligence training program using either a pre-post or treatment-control design. We calculated Cohen's d to estimate the effect of formal training on emotional intelligence scores. The results showed a moderate positive effect for training, regardless of design. Effect sizes were larger for published studies than dissertations. Effect sizes were relatively robust over gender of participants, and type of EI measure (ability v. mix-edmodel). Further, our effect sizes are in line with other meta-analytic studies of competency-based training programs. Implications for practice and future research on EI training are discussed.

See prior Gei posts here and here.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad