Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Article: Johnson, Blume, Eisenberg, Hans & Wells on The Delaware Death Penalty: An Empirical Study

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

Save 30% when you join IACFP!

FYI.  Not an official endorsement.  I am not a member

Get access to highly influential Psychology and Criminology research.

Trouble viewing? Try the web version. Mobile user? Try the mobile version.

International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

Save 30% when you JOIN* the International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology (IACFP)!

Join the IACFP and get access to SAGE's highly influential Psychology and Criminology/Criminal Justice content, including access to Criminal Justice and Behavior, official journal of the IACFP.

Join today and take advantage of this special discounted membership offer*—Save 30% on an IACFP membership, which includes online access to Criminal Justice and Behavior and more than 55 journals in Criminology and Psychology:

1-year membership = $75.00 $52.50*
2-year membership = $125.00 $87.50*

The IACFP is an organization of behavioral scientists and practitioners who are concerned with the delivery of high-quality mental health services to criminal offenders, and with promoting and disseminating research on the etiology, assessment, and treatment of criminal behavior.

Benefits of membership include:

  • Monthly subscription to the Association's highly ranked journal: Criminal Justice and Behavior (CJB)free sample issue
  • Free online research tools, including online access to CJB and more than 55 journals in Criminology and Psychology
  • Quarterly print subscription to The IACFP Newsletter, featuring timely articles, conference notices, and book reviews
  • Discounts on books from SAGE and other publishers
  • Various discounts on other forensic and correctional educational materials
  • Discounts on IACFP-sponsored conferences and events
  • Access to the Members-Only section of the Association's website at

Join online TODAY and save!*

*To receive your 30% discount you must enter Promo Code: MARCH30% in the "Comments and Special Instructions" field during the checkout process—the discounted rate will not be shown at time of checkout, but your credit card will be charged the discounted amount.

SAGE Criminology/Criminal Justice and IACFP

Forward Forward to a friend
Get email alerts
Forward Podcasts
Library Recommendation Form Library Recommendation Form
Journal Cover

Criminal Justice and Behavior

Highly Ranked!
Impact Factor*: 1.59
Ranked: 9/46 in Criminology & Penology and 48/104 in Psychology, Clinical
*Source: 2010 Journal Citation Reports® (Thomson Reuters, 2011)

International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology (IACFP)

International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology (IACFP)

Interact with the corrections community today! Read and comment on the IACFP Blog

IACFP on LinkedIn

IACFP Ethics Hotline

Sign up for CJB email alerts!

Follow us on Twitter


Click here to sign up for SAGE Library Newsletter

SAGE Offices:
Los Angeles: 2455 Teller Rd Thousand Oaks, CA 91320, USA
London: 1 Oliver's Yard, 55 City Road, London, EC1Y 1SP, UK. Registration No. 1017514
New Delhi: B 1/I 1 Mohan, Cooperative Industrial Area, Mathura Road, New Delhi 110 044 India Contact SAGE India
Singapore: 3 Church Street, #10-04 Samsung Hub, Singapore 049483


Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Research bytes: Two new Wechsler embedded malingering index studies

Click on images to enlarge

- Posted using BlogPress from Kevin McGrew's iPad

AAIDD 2012 Conference

The 2012 AAIDD Annual Conference offers four blocks of concurrent sessions featuring information on the outcomes of more than 60 projects, programs, and research studies!

See who is presenting on what at:

Concurrent Sessions A: Tuesday, June 19, 2012, from 10:45 -12:15 pm

Concurrent Sessions B: Tuesday, June 19, 2012, from 1:45 - 3:15 pm

Concurrent Sessions C: Tuesday, June 19, 2012, from 3:30 - 5:00 pm

Concurrent Sessions D: Wednesday, June 20, 2012, from 10:45 - 12:15 pm

See the full schedule of events, find hotel information, and register by clicking here.
AAIDD's 136th Annual Meeting, Research-Practice-Policy, in Charlotte this June is really the "must attend" meeting of the year! Join us for informative and inspiring plenary sessions, cutting edge concurrent sessions, posters addressing emerging issues, and in-depth pre- and post-conference meetings on a number of important topics.

The deadline to make hotel reservations at the preferred rate is May 24, 2012.

We're looking forward to seeing you in Charlotte!
Forward this message to a friend

Sunday, March 25, 2012

Research Bytes: Two new malingering studies

FYI. I can't access these is my library but thought others might be interested.

Wisdom, N. M., Brown, W. L., Chen, D. K., & Collins, R. L. (2012). The Use of All Three Test of Memory Malingering Trials in Establishing the Level of Effort. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 27(2), 208-212.

Young, J. C., Caron, J. E., Baughman, B. C., & Sawyer, R. J. (2012). Detection of Suboptimal Effort with Symbol Span: Development of a New Embedded Index. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 27(2), 159-164

- Posted using BlogPress from Kevin McGrew's iPad

Atkins MR/ID Death Penalty Court Decisions: Escobedo v Thaler (TX, 2012) and Harris v Thaler (TX, 2012)

Thanks to Kevin Foley (again) for sharing two recent Atkins decisions from Texas.

Escobedo v Thaler (TX, 2012) is an order from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals sending the case back to the trial court to reconsider the matter in light of the administrative proceeding against the state's expert, Dr. Denkowski.

Harris v Thaler (TX, 2012) is from the Federal Appeals Court for the Fifth Circuit. Again, he issue of the Flynn Effect is present in this case.

- Posted using BlogPress from Kevin McGrew's iPad

Friday, March 23, 2012

NEW RESOURCES: DEATH ROW USA Fall 2011 Now Available

Death Penalty Information Center

The latest edition of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund's Death Row USA shows a decrease of 52 inmates between January 1 and October 1, 2011.  Over the last decade, the total population of state and federal death rows has decreased significantly, from 3,682 inmates in 2000 to 3,199 inmates as of October 2011.  California continues to have the largest death row population (721), followed by Florida (402), Texas (317), Pennsylvania (213), and Alabama (204). Neither California nor Pennsylvania have carried out an execution in the past six years.  The report also contains information on the race of defendants and victims in the underlying murders for those executed since 1976.  Among those, there were 261 instances of a black defendant executed for the murder of a white victim (accounting for 20% of all executions since 1976).  Conversely, there were only 17 instances where a white defendant was executed for the murder of a black victim.

In jurisdictions having 10 or more inmates on death row, the states with the highest percent of minorities on death row were:

- Texas (71%)
- Delaware (71%)
- Connecticut (70%)
- Louisiana (69%)
- Pennsylvania (69%)

(NAACP Legal Defense Fund, "Death Row USA," October 1, 2011, posted March 23, 2012). See also Death Row and Studies.


Sent with Reeder

Sent from my KMcGrew IPhone

Article: Neuroscience and the pursuit of justice

Neuroscience and the pursuit of justice

(Sent from Flipboard)

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

Sasser (2012) files in 8th Circuit Court of Appeals

Sasser (2012) has filed an appeal in the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. Prior documents regarding this case can be found here. I can not comment on this case as I served as a witness in a prior evidentiary hearing.

- Posted using BlogPress from Kevin McGrew's iPad

Thursday, March 22, 2012

Supreme Court to Address Consequences of Mental Incompetency During Death Penalty Appeals

Death Penalty Information Center

The U.S. Supreme Court granted review in two cases from Arizona and Ohio to explore whether death penalty appeals can continue if the defendant is mentally incompetent.  Under the Court's prior rulings in Ford v. Wainwright (1986) and in Atkins v. Virginia (2002), defendants cannot be executed if they are insane or intellectually disabled (mentally retarded).  The new cases, Ryan v. Gonzalez and Tibbals v. Carter, will decide whether mentally incompetent death row inmates are entitled to a stay of federal habeas proceedings because they cannot assist their counsel.  The U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Ninth and Sixth Circuits, respectively, found that the defendants' competency was necessary during federal habeas review, thus staying the proceedings indefinitely. The states that asked the Court to review this question asserted that the appeals can go forward, despite the defendants inability to participate. The cases will be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in its next term beginning in October.

(L. Denniston, "Competency and death row challenges," SCOTUSblog, March 19, 2012).  Read more about Ryan v. Gonzalez ( No. 10-930) and Tibbals v. Carter (No. 11-218).  See Mental Illness and U.S. Supreme Court.

Sent with Reeder

Sent from my KMcGrew IPhone

Aging brain webinar with Dr. Lee Hyer


Begin forwarded message:


I would like to make you aware of the next webinar in the Cogmed Speaker Series hosted by Dr. Lee Hyer, Professor of Psychiatry at the Mercer Medical School and the Georgia Neurosurgical Institute.

Dr. Hyer will discuss the properties of the aging brain and the construct Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI). He will also present data collected with older adults using Cogmed Working Memory Training.

The online presentation will take place on Thursday, April 19th, 2012 at 11:00am Eastern Time.

Click here to register for the webinar.

If you are interested in incorporating Cogmed training into your practice, please fill out our online order form or give us a call at 1-800-627-7271 ext 263200.

I look forward to hearing from you. 

Best regards,



Charlie Burns
Clinical Assessment Representative


5601 Green Valley Drive
Bloomington, MN. 55437
D: 800-627-7271 ext. 263285
F: 800-632-9011

Always Learning
Learn more at

Copyright © 2012 Pearson Education or its affiliate(s). All rights reserved. Pearson, design for Psi, and PsychCorp are trademarks, in the U.S. and/or other countries, of Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliate(s). Privacy Policy | Pearson, 19500 Bulverde Road, San Antonio, TX 78259. | Unsubscribe | Email Preference Center

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Theorizing Mental Health Courts - Washington University Law Review

Sent from my KMcGrew IPhone

Arbitrary Death: An Empirical Study of Mitigation - Washington University Law Review

Sent from my KMcGrew IPhone

Get free access to criminology resources--Join CRIMSPACE today!

FYI.   I have not joined and this post is not an endorsement.  Just FYI.  I might join to see if it provides information relevant to the ICDP blog.

Subject: Get free access to criminology resources--Join CRIMSPACE today!
Reply-To: mailbox31670x24658 <>

Stay informed and connected—Join CRIMSPACE today!

Trouble viewing? Try the web version. Mobile user? Try the mobile version.

Forward Forward to a friend
Get email alerts
Follow Us Facebook Twitter


Have you joined* CRIMSPACE: the criminology and criminal justice network?

Dear Kevin McGrew,

With more than 3,000 members and growing daily, CRIMSPACE is the place to go to for resources in criminology or criminal justice, including discussions on a particular approach, or connections with other researchers, job and event listings, forums, groups, and more!

Connect with other criminologists in your field at

What's trending now in the Forum and Featured Content?

Join CRIMSPACE today and participate in engaging discussions, including:

What else can you do on CRIMSPACE?

Join CRIMSPACE and start a discussion on the forum, search for a job, upload a video, or join a group—you could become the next featured member!

We are busier than ever on Facebook and Twitter!

*If you have already joined, please continue to make use of the many facets of CRIMSPACE and invite your colleagues to join, too.





SAGE Offices:
Los Angeles: 2455 Teller Rd Thousand Oaks, CA 91320, USA
London: 1 Oliver's Yard, 55 City Road, London, EC1Y 1SP, UK. Registration No. 1017514
New Delhi: B 1/I 1 Mohan, Cooperative Industrial Area, Mathura Road, New Delhi 110 044 India Contact SAGE India
Singapore: Pte Ltd, 33 Pekin Street #02-01, Far East Square, Singapore 048763


IRD: Interrogation related decline -- problems for accurate "voluntary" confessions

Click on image

- Posted using BlogPress from Kevin McGrew's iPad

Risinger on Statisticians and Forensic Science

Sent from my KMcGrew IPhone

Monday, March 19, 2012

Article: Competency and death-row challenges

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

SCOTUS grants cert on two capital habeas cases

Sentencing Law and Policy

As reported here at SCOTUSblog, the Supreme Court this morning kick off a week that has lots of criminal justice issues afoot with certiorari grants in two capital habeas cases: Ryan v. Gonzales (SCOTUSblog case page here) and Tibbales v. Carter.

According to the folks at SCOTUSblog, "Ryan is about appointment of counsel for indigent capital defendants" and Tibbales concerns whether "capital prisoners have a right to competence in habeas proceedings, and can a court order an indefinite stay of habeas proceedings." Based on these descriptions, I surmise neither of these cases are likely to be blockbusters or even to have much impact outside of the technical world of federal habeas process.  But the cases may end up providing the newer Justices with an opportunity to articulate their views on just how different death penalty all and practice should be.

Sent with Reeder

Sent from my KMcGrew IPhone

Sunday, March 18, 2012

Atkins MR/ID death penalty court decision: Chester v Thaler (TX, 2011)

Another Atkins decision from Texas....Chester v Thaler (TX, 2011). The decision includes a rather lengthy discussion of Texas' Briseno adaptive behavior factors.

- Posted using BlogPress from Kevin McGrew's iPad

Atkins MR/ID Death Penalty court decision: Brumfield v Cain (LA, 2012)

Thanks to Kevin Foley for sending me a copy of Brumfield v Cain (LA, 2012). Information regarding prior court decisions for Brumfield are available here.

I have only skimmed the decision but a number of statements in the decision are of interest.

First, the court made a clear endorsement of the AAIDD's latest manual on ID classification as the authoritative source for defining ID.

Second, the importance of being a well prepared expert is evident in the following statement regarding one of the state's experts. The court said this about the state's lead expert: "The Court finds Dr. Hoppe’s failure (or inability, if counsel for the State was to blame) to 'obtain corroborating data from collateral sources' in this case renders his testimony here suspect." [pg 28, n.21].

Finally, the court appropriately endorsed the psychometric principle and methods of the standard error of measurement (SEM) and the Flynn Effect adjustment for norm obsolescence. Striking home here at the ICDP blog was the court's citation of IAP AP101 # 7 Report regarding the acceptance of the Flynn Effect by the majority of the scientific community. Starting on the bottom of page 33 and continuing on page 34.... "The Flynn Effect has been widely accepted as a fact in the scientific community, though explaining the cause of this phenomenon has proven more difficult. (Kevin S. McGrew, Is the Flynn Effect a Scientifically Accepted Fact?, Institute for Applied Psychometrics (2010)".

- Posted using BlogPress from Kevin McGrew's iPad

Friday, March 16, 2012

Tuesday, March 13, 2012

Call for use of CHC intelligence theory model to help with MR/ID diagnosis in criminal justice settings

The following article is very consistent with a constant theme of the ICDP blog...the importance of those involved in the assessment and Dx of individuals with MR/ID in the criminal justice to embrace the CHC theory of intelligence to improve the diagnostic and treatment practices in this environment.

I strongly encourage readers to read the article below. A copy is available here, via the IQs Corner reading feature. In the annotated copy I provide additional comments and many links to relevant posts, journal articles, and relevant resources.

Click on image to enlarge

- Posted using BlogPress from Kevin McGrew's iPad

Saturday, March 10, 2012

Breakthrough Science and the New Rehabilitation --Meghan Ryan

> TITLE: Breakthrough Science and the New Rehabilitation
> Breakthroughs in pharmacology, genetics, and neuroscience are transforming how society views criminals and thus how society should respond to criminal behavior. Although the criminal law has long been based on notions of culpability, science is undercutting the assumption that offenders are actually responsible for their criminal actions. Further, scientific advances have suggested that criminals can be changed at the biochemical level. The public has become well aware of these advances largely due to pervasive media reporting on these issues and also as a result of the pharmaceutical industry's incessant advertising of products designed to transform individuals by treating everything from depression to sexual dysfunction. This public familiarity with and expectation of scientific advances has set into motion the resurrection of the penological theory of rehabilitation that has lain dormant since the mid-1970s. The New Rehabilitation that is surfacing, however, differs in form from the rehabilitation of the earlier era by effecting change through biochemical interventions rather than through attempting to change an offender's character. This raises novel concerns about this New Rehabilitation that must be examined in light of the science that has sparked its revival.

DSM5 APA protests@sciammind, 3/10/12 12:21 PM

SciAm MIND (@sciammind)
3/10/12 12:21 PM
MT @vaughanbell: In-person DSM5 protests planned for the next APA meeting - 'Occupy the APA'

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

Friday, March 9, 2012

Video from Stanford conference on Law & the Developing Brain

Law and Biosciences Blog

Last month the CLB co-hosted a two-day conference on the law and policy of the developing brain throughout the human lifespan.  The first day, held at UC Hastings College of Law, focused on legal issues related to brain development from the womb to adulthood.  The second day, held at Stanford Law School, addressed issues related to senescence.  Video from the Stanford portion of this event is now available via the links below:

Sent with Reeder

Sent from my KMcGrew IPhone

Thursday, March 8, 2012

Research Bytes: Individuals with ID/MR in the criminal justice system

The journal Exceptionality had a small special issue addressing issues surrounding the involvement of individuals with disabilities in the criminal justice systems. The two key articles are featured below. Greenspan's article is a nice overview of the key issues in Atkins MR/ID death penalty cases.

Click on images to enlarge

- Posted using BlogPress from Kevin McGrew's iPad

Article: Campbell on Federalism and Capital Punishment

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

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

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

A new issue of Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online is available online:
1 January 2012; Vol. 40, No. 1

The below Table of Contents is available online at:

Mental Illness, Criminality, and Citizenship Revisited
Michael Rowe and Jean-Fran├žois Pelletier
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2012;40 8-11

Reflections and Narratives: New to The Journal and to Professional Ethics
Philip J. Candilis and Richard Martinez
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2012;40 12-13

Charles L. Scott, MD: Music, Military, and Medicine
William J. Newman
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2012;40 14-20

Special Article
But He Knew It Was Wrong: Evaluating Adolescent Culpability
Peter Ash
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2012;40 21-32

Commentary: Building a Developmental-Ecological Model of Criminal Culpability During Adolescence
Thomas J. McMahon
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2012;40 33-40

Regular Article
Defendant Remorse, Need for Affect, and Juror Sentencing Decisions
Emily P. Corwin, Robert J. Cramer, Desiree A. Griffin, and Stanley L. Brodsky
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2012;40 41-49

Commentary: Pursuing Justice in Death Penalty Trials
Clarence Watson, Spencer Eth, and Gregory B. Leong
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2012;40 50-54

Commentary: Perception of Remorse by Mock Jurors in a Capital Murder Trial
Leonardo M. Batista and Wade Myers
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2012;40 55-58

Physician Boundary Violations in a Physician's Health Program: A 19-Year Review
Elizabeth Brooks, Michael H. Gendel, Sarah R. Early, Doris C. Gundersen, and Jay H. Shore
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2012;40 59-66

Classics in Psychiatry and the Law: Francis Wharton on Involuntary Confessions
Kenneth J. Weiss
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2012;40 67-80

From Schadenfreude to Contemplation: Lessons for Forensic Experts
Graham D. Glancy and Cheryl Regehr
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2012;40 81-88

Competency Restoration Treatment: Differences Between Defendants Declared Competent or Incompetent to Stand Trial
Claire D. Advokat, Devan Guidry, Darla M. R. Burnett, Gina Manguno-Mire, and John W. Thompson, Jr
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2012;40 89-97

Analysis and Commentary
The Involuntary Medication of Jared Loughner and Pretrial Jail Detainees in Nonmedical Correctional Facilities
Alan R. Felthous
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2012;40 98-112

Adapting the Cultural Formulation for Clinical Assessments in Forensic Psychiatry
Neil Krishan Aggarwal
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2012;40 113-118

Intentional Ingestion and Insertion of Foreign Objects: A Forensic Perspective
Carolina A. Klein
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2012;40 119-126

The Parental Alienation Debate Belongs in the Courtroom, Not in DSM-5
Timothy M. Houchin, John Ranseen, Phillip A. K. Hash, and Daniel J. Bartnicki
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2012;40 127-131

Reflections and Narratives
Becoming a Real Doctor: My Transition From Fellowship to Faculty
Brian K. Cooke
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2012;40 132-134

Legal Digest
The Influence of Intoxication and Psychological Distress on the Inference of Intent to Kill
Cory Crane and Caroline Easton
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2012;40 135-137

Unwillingness Versus Inability to Assist in One's Own Defense in Assessments of Competency to Stand Trial
Sam Hawes and Laurie Edwards
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2012;40 137-139

Burden of Proof in Establishing Mental Retardation in Capital Cases
Alexander Westphal and Madelon Baranoski
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2012;40 139-141

Conditions of Release for Insanity Acquittees
Kavya Singareddy and Reena Kapoor
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2012;40 141-143

Improper Rejection of Evidence and Expert Testimony
Kathleen R. Rivera and Charles Dike
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2012;40 143-145

Dissociative Identity Disorder in the Courtroom
Marina Nakic and Paul Thomas
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2012;40 146-148

Once Found Dangerous, "How Dangerous" May Be Irrelevant
Joseph T. Smith and Kevin V. Trueblood
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2012;40 148-150

Books and Media
Assessing Dangerousness: Violence by Batterers and Child Abusers, Second Edition
Todd Tomita
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2012;40 151-152

Foundations of Forensic Mental Health Assessment
Gregory B. Leong
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2012;40 152-153

Explorations in Criminal Psychopathology: Clinical Syndromes With Forensic Implications, Second Edition
Joseph R. Simpson
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2012;40 153-154

A Comprehensive Guide to Child Custody Evaluations: Mental Health and Legal Perspectives
Stephen Paul Herman
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2012;40 155

Anthony Tamburello
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2012;40 156

Seth Powsner
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2012;40 156-157

Ray Blanchard
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2012;40 157-158

John Matthew Fabian
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2012;40 158


Friday, March 2, 2012

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

Mental Retardation Issues in a Capital Case: Appellate Review

(Sent from Flipboard)

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

Thursday, March 1, 2012

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

            Historically the concept of general intelligence (g), as operationalized by intelligence test battery global full scale IQ scores, has been central to the definition and classification of individuals with a specific learning disability (SLD) as well as individuals with an intellectual disability (ID).  More recently, contemporary definitions and operational criteria have elevated intelligence test battery composite or part scores to a more prominent role in diagnosis and classification of SLD and more recently in ID.
            In the case of SLD, third-method consistency definitions prominently feature component or part scores in (a) the identification of consistency between low achievement and relevant cognitive abilities or processing disorders and (b) the requirement that an individual demonstrate relative cognitive and achievement strengths (see Flanagan, Fiorello & Ortiz, 2010).  The global IQ score is de-emphasized in the third-method SLD methods.
            In contrast, the 11th edition of the AAIDD Intellectual Disability: Definition, Classification, and Systems of Supports manual (AAIDD, 2010) placed general intelligence, and thus global composite IQ scores, as central to the definition of intellectual functioning.  This has not been without challenge.  For example, the AAIDD ID definition has been criticized for an over-reliance on the construct of general intelligence and for ignoring contemporary psychometric theoretical and empirical research that has converged on a multidimensional hierarchical model of intelligence (viz., Cattell-Horn-Carroll or CHC theory).
The potential constraints of the “ID-as-a-general-intelligence-disability” definition was anticipated by the Committee on Disability Determination for Mental Retardation, in its National Research Council report “Mental Retardation:  Determining Eligibility for Social Security Benefits” (Reschly, Meyers & Hartel, 2001).  This national committee of experts concluded that “during the next decade, even greater alignment of intelligence tests and the IQ scores derived from them and the Horn-Cattell and Carroll models is likely.  As a result, the future will almost certainly see greater reliance on part scores, such as IQ scores for Gc and Gf, in addition to the traditional composite IQ.  That is, the traditional composite IQ may not be dropped, but greater emphasis will be placed on part scores than has been the case in the past” (Reschly et al., 2002, p. 94).  The committee stated that “whenever the validity of one or more part scores (subtests, scales) is questioned, examiners must also question whether the test’s total score is appropriate for guiding diagnostic decision making.  The total test score is usually considered the best estimate of a client’s overall intellectual functioning.  However, there are instances in which, and individuals for whom, the total test score may not be the best representation of overall cognitive functioning.” (p. 106-107).
            The increased emphasis on intelligence test battery composite part scores in SLD and ID diagnosis and classification raises a number of measurement and conceptual issues (Reschly et al., 2002).  For example, what are statistically significant differences?  What is a meaningful difference?  What appropriate cognitive abilities should serve as proxies of general intelligence when the global IQ is questioned?  What should be the magnitude of the total test score? 
Appropriate cognitive abilities will only be the only issue discussed here.  This issue addresses  which component or part scores are more correlated with general intelligence (g)—that is, what component part scores are high g-loaders?  The traditional consensus has been that measures of Gc (crystallized intelligence; comprehension-knowledge) and Gf (fluid intelligence or reasoning) are the highest g-loading measures and constructs and are the most likely candidates for elevated status when diagnosing ID (Reschly et al., 2002).  Although not always stated explicitly, the third method consistency SLD definitions specify that an individual must demonstrate “at least an average level of general cognitive ability or intelligence” (Flanagan et al., 2010, p.745), a statement that implicitly suggests cognitive abilities and component scores with high g-ness.
Table 1 is intended to provide guidance when using component part scores in the diagnosis and classification of SLD and ID (click on images to enlarge and use the browser zoom feature  to view; it is recommended you click here to access a PDF copy of the table..and also zoom in on it).  Table 1 presents a summary of the comprehensive, nationally normed, individually administered intelligence batteries that possess satisfactory psychometric characteristics (i.e., national norm samples, adequate reliability and validity for the composite g-score) for use in the diagnosis of ID and SLD.

The Composite g-score column lists the global general intelligence score provided by each intelligence battery.  This score is the best estimate of a persons general intellectual ability, which currently is most relevant to the diagnosis of ID as per AAIDD.  All composite g-scores listed in Table 1 meet Jensens (1998) psychometric sampling error criteria as valid estimates of general intelligence.  As per Jensens number of tests criterion, all intelligence batteries g-composites are based on a minimum of nine tests that sample at least three primary cognitive ability domains.  As per Jensens variety of tests criterion (i.e., information content, skills and demands for a variety of mental operations), the batteries, when viewed from the perspective of CHC theory, vary in ability domain coveragefour (CAS, SB5), five (KABC-II, WISC-IV, WAIS-IV), six (DAS-II) and seven (WJ III) (Flanagan, Ortiz & Alfonso, 2007; Keith & Reynolds, 2010).   As recommended by Jensen (1998), the particular collection of tests used to estimate g should come as close as possible, with some limited number of tests, to being a representative sample of all types of mental tests, and the various kinds of test should be represented as equally as possible (p. 85).  Users should consult sources such as Flanagan et al. (2007) and Keith and Reynolds, 2010) to determine how each intelligence battery approximates Jensens optimal design criterion, the specific CHC domains measured, and the proportional representation of the CHC domains in each batteries composite g-score.
Also included in Table 1 are the component part scales provided by each battery (e.g., WAIS-IV Verbal Comprehension Index, Perceptual Reasoning Index, Working Memory Index, and Processing Speed Index), followed by their respective within-battery g-loadings.[1]  Examination of the g-ness of composite scores from existing batteries (see last three columns in Table 1) suggests the traditional assumption that measures of Gf and Gc are the best proxies of general intelligence may not hold across all intelligence batteries.[2] 
In the case of the SB5, all five composite part scores are very similar in g-loadings (h2 = .72 to .79).  No single SB5 composite part score appears better than the other SB5 scores for suggesting average general intelligence (when the global IQ score is not used for this purpose).  At the other extreme is the WJ III where the Fluid Reasoning, Comprehension-Knowledge, Long-term Storage and Retrieval cluster scores are the best g-proxies for part-score based interpretation within the WJ III.  The WJ III Visual Processing and Processing Speed clusters are not composite part scores that should be emphasized as indicators of general intelligence.  Across all batteries that include a processing speed component part score (DAS-II, WAIS-IV, WISC-IV, WJ III) the respective processing speed scale is always the weakest proxy for general intelligence and thus, would not be viewed as a good estimate of general intelligence. 
            It is also clear that one cannot assume that composites with similar sounding names of measured abilities should have similar relative g-ness status within different batteries.  For example, the Gv (visual-spatial or visual processing) clusters in the DAS-II (Spatial Ability), SB5 (Visual-Spatial Processing) are relatively strong g-measures within their respective battery, but the same cannot be said for the WJ III Visual Processing cluster.  Even more interesting are the differences in the WAIS-IV and WISC-IV relative g-loadings for similarly sounding index scores. 
For example, the Working Memory Index is the highest g-loading component part score (tied with Perceptual Reasoning Index) in the WAIS-IV but is only third (out of four) in the WISC-IV.   The Working Memory Index is comprised of the Digit Span and Arithmetic subtests in the WAIS-IV and the Digit Span and the Letter-Number Sequencing subtests in the WISC-IV.  The Arithmetic subtest has been reported to be a factorially complex test which may tap fluid intelligence (Gf-RQ—quantitative reasoning), quantitative knowledge (Gq), working memory (Gsm), and possible processing speed (Gs; Keith & Reynolds, 2010; Phelps, McGrew, Knopik & Ford, 2005).   The factorially complex characteristics of the Arithmetic subtest (which, in essence, makes it function like a mini-g proxy) would explain why the WAIS-IV Working Memory Index is a good proxy for g in the WAIS-IV but not in the WISC-IV. The WAIS-IV and WISC-IV Working Memory Index scales, although named the same, are not measuring identical constructs.

A critical caveat is that the g-loadings cannot be compared across different batteries.  g-loadings may change when the mixture of measures included in the analyses change.  Different "flavors" of g can result (Carroll, 1993; Jensen, 1998). The only way to compare the g-ness across batteries is with appropriately designed cross- or joint-battery analysis (e.g., WAIS-IV, SB5 and WJ III analyzed in a common sample).
The above within and across intelligence battery examples illustrates that those who use component part scores as an estimate of a person’s general intelligence must be aware of the composition and psychometric g-ness of the component scores within each intelligence battery.  Not all component part scores in different intelligence batteries are created equal (with regard to g-ness).  Also, not all similarly named factor-based composite scores may measure the same identical construct and may vary in degree of within battery g-ness.  This is not a new problem in the context of naming factors in factor analysis, and by extension, factor-based intelligence test composite scores, Cliff (1983) described this nominalistic fallacy in simple language—“if we name something, this does not mean we understand it” (p. 120). 

[1] As noted in the footnotes in Table 1, all composite score g-loadings were computed by Kevin McGrew by entering the smallest number (and largest age ranges covered) of the published correlation matrices within each intelligence batteries technical manual (note the exception for the WJ III) in order to obtain an average g-loading estimate.  It would have been possible to calculate and report these values for each age-differentiated correlation matrix for each intelligence battery.  However, the purpose of this table is to provide the best possible average value across the entire age-range of each intelligence battery.  Floyd and colleagues have published age-differentiated g-loadings for the DAS-II and WJ III.  Those values were not used as they are based on the use of the principal common factor analysis method, a method that  analyzes the reliable shared variance among tests.  Although principal factor and principal component loadings typically will order measures in the same relative position, the principal factor loadings typically will be lower.  Given that the imperfect manifest composite scale scores are those that are utilized in practice, and to also allow uniformity in the calculation of the g-loadings reported in Table 1, principal component analysis was used in this work. The same rationale was used for not using the latent factor loadings on a higher-order g-factor in SEM/CFA analysis of each test battery.  Loadings from CFA analyses represent the relations between the underlying theoretical ability constructs and g purged of measurement error.  Also, frequently the final CFA solutions reported in a batteries technical manual (or independent journal articles) allow tests to be factorially complex (load on more than one latent factor), a measurement model that does not resemble the real world reality of the manifest/observed composite scores used in practice.  Latent factor loadings on a higher-order g-factor will often differ significantly from principal component loadings based on the manifest measures, both in absolute magnitude and relative size (e.g., see high Ga loading on g in WJ III technical manual which is at variance with the manifest variable based Ga loading reported in Table 1) 
[2] The h2 values are the values that should be used to compare the relative amount of g-variance present in the component part scores within each intelligence battery.