Intellectual Competence & the Death Penalty

An attempt to provide understandable and up-to-date information regarding intelligence testing, intelligence theories, personal competence, adaptive behavior and intellectual disability (mental retardation) as they relate to death penalty (capital punishment) issues. A particular focus will be on psychological measurement, statistical and psychometric issues.

Monday, September 8, 2014

Sharing The Legitimacy of the US Supreme Court: Conventional Wisdoms and Recent Challenges Thereto via BrowZine

The Legitimacy of the US Supreme Court: Conventional Wisdoms and Recent Challenges Thereto
Gibson, James L.; Nelson, Michael J.
Annual Review of Law and Social Science, Vol. 10 Issue 1 – 2014: 140906191720007

10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110413-030546

University of Minnesota Users:
http://login.ezproxy.lib.umn.edu/login?url=http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110413-030546

Non-University of Minnesota Users: (Full text may not be available)
http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110413-030546

Accessed with BrowZine, supported by University of Minnesota.
Posted by Kevin McGrew at 8:34 PM
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Saturday, September 6, 2014

Intelligence is in the Eye of the Beholder: Investigating Repeated IQ Measurements in Forensic Psychiatry - Habets - 2014 - Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities - Wiley Online Library

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jar.12120/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=true
Posted by Kevin McGrew at 9:01 AM
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Newer Posts Older Posts Home
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

About Me

My photo
Kevin McGrew
Dr. Kevin McGrew is Director of the Institute for Applied Psychometrics (llc). Additional information, including potential conflicts of interest resulting from commercial test development or other consultation, can be found at The MindHub(TM; http://www.themindhub.com ). General email contact is iqmcgrew@gmail.com
View my complete profile

This is an IAP blog

This is an IAP blog
Click for IAP home page

Google Page Rank

PageRank Checking Icon

About this blog & me

  • Blog purpose statement (5-12-09)
  • Kevin McGrew CV
  • Kevin McGrew Bio
  • Kevin McGrew Conflict of Interest Disclosure
  • My LinkedIn Profile

Flynn Effect Reference Project

  • Flynn Effect Reference Project

Applied Psychometrics 101 (AP101) Reports

  • AP101 #13: Problems with the 1960 and 1986 Stanford-Binet IQ scores in Atkins MR/ID death penalty cases
  • AP101 #11: Time to stop executing the mentally retarded--The case for applying the standard error of measurement (SEM)
  • AP101: #10: "Just say no" to averaging IQ subtest scores
  • AP101: # 1 Understanding IQ score differences
  • AP101 #2: What does the WAIS-IV measure?
  • AP101:#3 MDS of WJ III and CHC model implications
  • AP101:#4 Cluster analysis of WJ III: Theory and interp implications
  • AP101 #5: Standard error of measurement (SEM): An explanation and facts for "fact finders" in MR/ID death penalty proceedings
  • AP101 #6: Flynn Effect Series-What is the Flynn Effect?
  • AP101 #7: Flynn Effect Series--Is the Flynn Effect a Scientifically Accepted Fact?
  • AP101 #8: Flynn Effect Series: Brief History of FE--It was NOT given birth by Atkins SCOTUS decision
  • AP 101 #9: Why the ASVAB should not be used in the determination of a diagnosis of MR/ID

Applied Psychometrics 101 (AP101) Briefs

  • AP 101 Brief 18: Misunderstanding and misuse of achievement test scores in Atkins MR/ID death penalty cases: Part 2--Range of expected grade equivalents
  • AP 101 Brief # 18: Misunderstanding and misuse of achievement test scores in Atkins MR/ID death penalty cases: Part 1--Range of expected standard scores
  • AP 101 Brief # 14:Demographically adjusted neuropsych (Heaton) norm-based scores inappropriate for MR/ID Dx
  • AP 101 #12: Use of IQ component part scores as indicators of general intelligence in SLD and MR/ID diagnoses
  • AP101 Brief # 11: What is the typical IQ and adaptive behavior correlation?
  • AP101 Brief # 10: Understanding IQ score differecnes--Examiner errors
  • AP 101 Brief # 9: The problem with the 1/1.5 SD SS (15/22) subtest difference "rule-of-thumb"
  • AP101 Brief #8: Independent CFA of French WAIS-IV
  • AP101 Brief #5: The Wechsler-like IQ subtest scaled score metric: The potential for misuse, misinterpretation and impact on critical life decisions
  • AP101 Brief #2: IQ test battery descriptive comparison information
  • AP101 Brief #1: g or not to g
  • AP101 Brief # 7: Understandig IQ score differences via IQ Test CHC DNA Fingerprint analyses
  • AP101 Brief # 4: CHC theory and impact on IQ testing brief
  • AP 101 Brief # 6: Understanding Wechsler IQ score differences: The CHC evolution of the FS IQ's

Atkins-related PPT slide shows

  • D. Keyes & S. Blandino: Intellectual disability assessment: Malingering and retrodiagnosis in death penalty cases
  • F. Gresham: Intellectual assessment in Atkins cases and use of school diagnoses
  • J. Blume: An empirical look at Atkins v Virginia ands its application in capital cases
  • K. McGrew: [all other Slideshare PPT shows related to intelligence]
  • K. McGrew: IQ score interpretation in Atkins cases: The good, bad and the ugly
  • K. McGrew: The Flynn Effect in Atkins MR/ID cases: To adjust or not to adjust--that is the question
  • S. Greenspan: 2011 AAIDD Atkins symposium presentation

Atkins MR/ID Court Decisions & Related Doocuments

  • Agee v Oregon (2015)
  • Albarran v AL (2011)
  • Allen v IN (2012)
  • Altamirano (2019; Az)
  • Anderson v AR (2004; 2011)
  • Arbelaez v Florida (2010)
  • Atkins v VA (US Supreme Court, 2002)
  • Baer v Indiana (2011)
  • Bays v Ohio (2013)
  • Beckworth v AL (2009)
  • Bedford v Ohio (2011)
  • Bell v LA (2010)
  • Bell v MS (2011)
  • Bell v South Carolina (2016)
  • Berry v Epps (MS, 2006)
  • Bevel v FL (2008)
  • Bies v Bagley (OH; 2012)
  • Black v US (TN, 2005, 2011)
  • Blonner v OK (2006)
  • Blue v Thaler (TX, 2010, 2011)
  • Bourgeois v US (2020)
  • Bowles v FL (2019)
  • Bowling v Haeberline (KY, 2005)
  • Boyston v Az (2013)
  • Bracey v PA (2009)
  • Branch v Epps (204, 2007, 2011)
  • Briseno (exparte Briseno, TX, 2004)
  • Brown v FL (2007, 2009)
  • Brownlow v Texas (2020)
  • Brumfield v Cain (LA, 2008, 2009,2012, 2014,2015-SCOTUS)
  • Burke v OH (2005)
  • Burns v Fl (2006, 2011)
  • Burns v VA (2010)
  • Butler v Quarterman (TX, 2008, 2012)
  • Campbell v CA (2008, 2008b)
  • Candelerio-Santana (US-Puerto Rico; 2013)
  • Cathey v Texas (2013, 2017)
  • Cherry v FL (2007)
  • Chester v Thaler (TX, 2011)
  • Cole v Branker (NC, 2007, 2008)
  • Coleman v TN (2010)
  • Coleman v TN (2011)
  • Connor v Hall (GA, 2011)
  • Coonce v USA (2016)
  • Cribbs v TN (2009)
  • Daniel v AL (2011)
  • Davis v US (Maryland, 2009)
  • DeJesus v PA (2012)
  • Doss v MS (2009)
  • Dufour v FL(2008,2009,2011)
  • Dunn v LA (2010)
  • Elmore v SC (2010)
  • Engram v AR (2004)
  • Escobedo v Thaler (TX, 2012)
  • Esparaza v Thaler (TX, 2010)
  • Ford v OH (2019)
  • Foster v FL (2006)
  • Fraier v Bobby (Ohio, 2011)
  • Franqui v FL (2009)
  • Franqui v Florida (2011)
  • Frazier v OH (2007)
  • Frazier v OH (2008)
  • Fults v OK (2012)
  • Garcia v Thayer (TX, 2009)
  • Goodin v MS (2012, 2012)
  • Green v VA (2006,2007,2008)
  • Grell v AZ (2013)
  • Guevara v Thaler (TX, 2008, 2010)
  • Guevara v Thaler (TX, 2011)
  • Gumm v OH (2006)
  • Haliburton v FL (2021)
  • Hall v Thaler (TX, 2008, 2009, 2010)
  • Hall v TX (2012)
  • Hammond v OH (2008)
  • Hardy v US (LA, 2010)
  • Harris v OK (2019)
  • Harris v Thaler (TX, 2012)
  • Hearn v TX (2010, 2012)
  • Hedrick v True (VA, 2006)
  • Henderson v TX (2010, 2015)
  • Hernandez v Thaler (TX, 2011)
  • Herring v FL (2009)
  • Herring v FL (2011)
  • Hicks v GA (2004)
  • Hill v OH (2008)
  • Hill v Ohio (2011)
  • Hill v Schofield (GA,2010); Hill v Humphrey (2011); Hill v US (GA, 2013)
  • Hines v Thaler (TX, 2010, 2011, 2011b)
  • Hodges v Floridan (2010)
  • Holladay v Allen (AL, 2009)
  • Holmes v LA (2008)
  • Hooks v OK (2005, 2010, 2012)
  • Horak v NH (2010)
  • Howell v OK (2006)
  • Howell v TN (2011)
  • Hughes v Epps (MS, 2010)
  • Jackson v Norris (AR, 2010)
  • Jenkins v AL (2019)
  • Jimenez-Benceviz v USA (2013; Peurto Rico)
  • Johnson v Missouri (2013,2011, 2008)
  • Johnston v FL (2006, 2010)
  • Jones v FL (2007)
  • Jones v McNeil (Fl, 2011)
  • Jones v NC (2006-2008)
  • Keen v TN (2012)
  • Kilgore v McNeil (FL, 2010)
  • King v MS (2007,08,09)
  • Lambert v OK (2005)
  • Lane v Alabama (2018)
  • Lang v Ohio (2011)
  • Larry v Branker (NC, 2006, 2009)
  • Lewis v Ohio (2010)
  • Lewis v Thaler (TX, 2008, 2010, 2012)
  • Lizcano v TX (2010)
  • Long v Davis (TX: 2016)
  • Lorraine v OH (2007)
  • Lott v OH (2007)
  • Lynch v Hudson (OH, 2011)
  • Lynch v OH (2009)
  • Lyons v Crawford/Nixon (MO, 2009)
  • Maldonado vs Thaler (TX, 2009, 2010, 2012)
  • Matamoros v Thayer (TX, 2010)
  • Mathis v Thaler (2005, 2007, 2010, TX)
  • McCoy v OH (2009)
  • McDade v US (Al, 2010)
  • Mclaughlin v Polk (NC, 2006)
  • Meyers v Allen (AL, 2011, 2009, 2007)
  • Milam v TX (2021)
  • Miller v AR (2010)
  • Mitchell v Epps (MS, 2010)
  • Mitchell v Epps (MS, 2011)
  • Moore v Quarterman (TX, 2009) SCOTUS decision (2017), 2018 final decison, 2018 AG and ABA intervene
  • Moore v US (2011)
  • Moormann v Scriro (AZ, 2012)
  • Mundt v OH (2007)
  • Murphy v OH (2006, 2009)
  • Murphy v OK (2002, 2012
  • Myers v Workman (TX, 2010)
  • Nance v AR (2006)
  • Nelson v LA (2006)
  • Nicholson v Branker (NC, 2010)
  • Nixon v FL (2009, 2016, 2017)
  • O' Neal v Ohio (2010, 2011)
  • Ochoa v OK (2006)
  • Ochoa v Workman (OK, 2010)
  • Ortiz v US (2007, 2011)
  • Parker v US (Military, 2007)
  • Parrish v KY (2008, 2010)
  • Petetan v TX (2021)
  • Phillips v FL (2008. 2020)
  • Pickens v OK (2005)
  • Pierce v Thaler (TX, 2009, 2010)
  • Pizzuto v Idaho (2012, 2019)
  • Plata v TX (2007)
  • Pruitt v IN (2005, 2009, 2012, 2015(
  • Pruitt v TN (2011)
  • Ramirez v Ryan (AZ, 2010)
  • Raulerson (2019, Ga)
  • Reeves v AL (2020)
  • Richardson v Branker (NC, 2012)
  • Ripkowski v Thaler (TX, 2011)
  • Robinson v Schriro (Az, 2010)
  • Rodgers v FL (2006)
  • Rodrigues v Cook (CA, 2010)
  • Russell v Mississippi (2018)
  • Salazar v OK (2005)
  • Sanchez v PA (2010)
  • Sasser v Hobbs (AR, 2010, 2012)
  • Schoenwetter v FL (2010)
  • Shields v US (TN, 2012)
  • Smith v LA (2011)
  • Smith v OK (2010)
  • Smith v OK (2019)
  • Smith v TN (2010)
  • Sosa v TX (2012)
  • Stallings v OH (2008)
  • State v Duncan (AZ, 2009)
  • Stripling v GA (2011)
  • Tarver v Wilson (AL, 2012)
  • Taylor v Quarterman (TX, 2006, 2007)
  • Tharpe v Humphrey (GA, 2008, 2012)
  • Thomas v Allen (AL, 2009, 2010)
  • Thomas v FL (2004)
  • Thompson v Florida (2016)
  • Thorson v MS (2011)
  • Trevino v TX ( 2008, 2009)
  • Trotter v FL (2006)
  • Turner v US (FL, 2011)
  • Umana v US (2010)
  • Vela v NE (2010)
  • Vidal v CA (2005, 2007)
  • Waddy v Ohio (2011)
  • Walker v Kelly (VA, 2010)
  • Walker v True (VA 2005)
  • Walls v Florida (2016, 2019)
  • Watkins v NC (2011)
  • Webster (2019, IN)
  • Webster v US (2010, 2021)
  • Were v OH (2008)
  • Weston v AR (2006)
  • White v KY (2010)
  • White v OH (2008)
  • Wiley v Epps (MS, 2009, 2010)
  • Williams v LA (2009)
  • Williams v Mitchell (OH, 2011)
  • Williams v OH (2008)
  • Williams v PA (2013)
  • Williams v Thayer (TX,2007, 2008, 2010)
  • Wilson v Texas (2010, 2011)
  • Wilson v US (NY, 2014, 2016)
  • Winston v VA (2011, 2009, 2007, 2012)
  • Woods v TX (2008,20009)
  • Wright v Florida (2018)
  • Ybarra v NV (2011)

Atkins Related Articles

  • Benforado (2010): The geography of criminal law
  • Bilz (2010). Defending the (Mis)Use of Statistics in Law
  • Blume et al (2009). An empirical look at Atkins & its application in capital cases
  • Blume et al (2009). Of Atkins & Men: Deviatons from Clinical Defs of MR in DP cases
  • Bonnie (2004). AP(sychiatric)A resource doc on MR and capital sentencing
  • Bonnie & Gustafson (2007). Challenge of implementing Atkins: How legislatures and courts can promote accurate assessments and adjudications of MR in DP cases
  • Broderick (2022). Executing Defendants with Intellectual Disabilities: Unconstitutional in Theory, Persistent in Practice
  • Brown & Murphy (2010). Through a scanner darkley: Functional neuroimaging as evidence of a criminal defendant's past mental states
  • Cheung (2013): Defining intellectual disability and establishing a standard of proof: Suggestions for a national model standard
  • Church (2003). Mandating Dignity: The United States SupremeCourt’s Extreme Departure From Precedent Regarding the Eighth Amendment and the Death Penalty
  • Cohen (2010). The racial geography of the death penalty
  • Colon (2009). Capital crime: How CA admin of the death penalty violates the 8th ammendment
  • Crowell (2016) on the Texas Briseno adaptive behavior factors
  • Dillard (2011). How to achieve the categorical exception of MR subjects from execution
  • Ellis (2014); SCOTUS Hall v Florida decisions: Implementing Atkins
  • Ellis et all. (2018): Evaluating INtellectual Disability: Clinical Assessments in Atkins Cases
  • Garrett (2010). Substance of false confessions
  • Gershowitz (2010). Statewide capital punishment: The case for eliminating counties' role in death penalty
  • Hans (2009). The Twenty-First Century Jury: Worst of Times or Best of Times?
  • Harvard Law Review: Admiting Doubt: A New Standard for Evidence
  • Hashimoto (2010): Class matters
  • Haug & Baird (2011). Find the Error in Daubert
  • Haydt et al. (2014): Advantages of DSM-5 in Dx of Intellectual Disability
  • Hudson et al (2008). Lightning but no thunder: The need for clarity in military courts re: the def. of mental retardation in capital cases for procedures in implementing Atkins v Virginia
  • Johnson et al. (2019): Race, ID & death: Invidious influences on Atkins determinations
  • Kan (2009). Presenting information about mental retardation in the courtroom: A content analysis of pre-Atkins capital trial trancripts from Texas
  • Kaye (2016): Deadly statistics: Quantifying an “Unacceptable Risk” in Capital Punishment
  • Kirchmeier (2010: The undiscovered country: Execution competency and comprehending death
  • Kirchmeier et al. (2010). Vigilante Justice: Prosecutor Misconduct in Capital Cases.
  • LaPrade & Worrall (2020): Atkins State-by-state analysise
  • Lucas (2017): An Empirical Assessment of Georgia's Beyond a Reasonable Doubt Standard to Determine Intellectual Disability in Capital Cases
  • Markel (2009). Executing retributivism: Panetti & the future of the 8th Ammendment
  • Maroney (2011). Adolescent Brain Science since Graham v Florida
  • Monahan & Walker (2010). 25-years of social science and the law
  • Mossman (2003). Atkins-A psychiatric can of worms
  • Mulroy (2012): Execution by accident: Evidentiary & constitutional problems with the "childhood onset" requirement in Atkins claims
  • Nevins-Saunders (2010). Incomprehensible crimes: Defendants with mental retardation and statuatory rape
  • Perlin (2009): Can international rights laws be an effective source of rights in correctional conditions litigation?
  • Perlin (2009): Some Therapeutic jurisprudence dilemmas in the representation of criminal defendants in incompetency and insanity cases
  • Perlin (2020). “Man is Opposed to Fair Play”: An Empirical Analysis of How the Fifth Circuit Has Failed to Take Seriously Atkins v. Virginia
  • Primus (2010). Structural view of habeas corpus
  • Raffensperger (2013): Atkins v Virginia: The need for consistent substantive and procedural application of the ban on executing the intellectually disabled.
  • Roko (2010). Finality, habeas, innocence, and the death penalty: Can justice be done?
  • Rutledge (2010): Decisional Sequencing
  • Ryan (2009). Does the 8th amendment punishments clause prohibit only punishments that are both cruel and unusual?
  • Ryan (2010). Judging Cruelty
  • Sanger (2015). IQ, intelligence tests, "ethnic adjustments" and Atkins
  • Steiker & Steiker (2010). No More Tinkering with the Death Penalty
  • Sundby (2011): War & Peace in the Jury Room: How Capital Juries Reach Unanimity
  • Tuerkheimer (2010). Criminal justice at a crossroads: Science-dependent prosecution and the problem of epistemic contingency
  • Weithorn (2008). Conceptual hurdles in application of Atkins
  • Wexler (2010). Therapeutic jurisprudence and its application to criminal justice research and development
  • White (2009). Treated differently in life but not in death

Amicus Briefs

  • APA: Moore v Texas (2016)
  • AAIDD/ARC Lizcano v Texas (2015)
  • APA and AAIDD: Hall v Florida (2014)
  • ACLU: Wood v Allen (2009)
  • APA: Juvenile sentencing (2005,2009)
  • AAIDD: Dufour v Florida (2009)
  • AAIDD: Briseno v Quarterman (2008)
  • AAMR: Stripling v Head (2003)
  • AAMR et al: Tennard v. Dretke ( 2003)

Standards, Ethics, Guidelines & Position Statements

  • AAPL forensic guidelines for eval. of psychiatric disability
  • American Academy of Psychiatry (2005) Ethics for Forensic Psychiatry
  • ABA (2006) position statement
  • AERA/APA/NCME (2014) Joint Test Standards
  • Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology (2012)

Blog Archive

  • ►  2024 (2)
    • ►  November (2)
  • ►  2023 (5)
    • ►  June (1)
    • ►  May (1)
    • ►  March (1)
    • ►  February (1)
    • ►  January (1)
  • ►  2022 (10)
    • ►  December (2)
    • ►  November (2)
    • ►  October (1)
    • ►  September (1)
    • ►  August (1)
    • ►  February (1)
    • ►  January (2)
  • ►  2021 (34)
    • ►  December (2)
    • ►  November (1)
    • ►  October (3)
    • ►  September (2)
    • ►  August (2)
    • ►  June (6)
    • ►  May (3)
    • ►  April (2)
    • ►  March (1)
    • ►  February (6)
    • ►  January (6)
  • ►  2020 (36)
    • ►  December (3)
    • ►  November (2)
    • ►  October (2)
    • ►  September (3)
    • ►  August (6)
    • ►  July (1)
    • ►  June (2)
    • ►  May (5)
    • ►  March (6)
    • ►  February (5)
    • ►  January (1)
  • ►  2019 (31)
    • ►  December (5)
    • ►  November (6)
    • ►  September (5)
    • ►  August (4)
    • ►  July (6)
    • ►  June (2)
    • ►  May (2)
    • ►  April (1)
  • ►  2018 (46)
    • ►  November (7)
    • ►  October (5)
    • ►  September (1)
    • ►  August (3)
    • ►  July (8)
    • ►  June (3)
    • ►  May (2)
    • ►  April (8)
    • ►  March (3)
    • ►  February (1)
    • ►  January (5)
  • ►  2017 (65)
    • ►  December (4)
    • ►  November (3)
    • ►  October (7)
    • ►  September (6)
    • ►  August (5)
    • ►  July (7)
    • ►  June (6)
    • ►  May (4)
    • ►  April (3)
    • ►  March (10)
    • ►  February (1)
    • ►  January (9)
  • ►  2016 (58)
    • ►  December (6)
    • ►  November (14)
    • ►  October (2)
    • ►  September (2)
    • ►  August (3)
    • ►  July (3)
    • ►  June (7)
    • ►  May (2)
    • ►  April (2)
    • ►  March (9)
    • ►  February (3)
    • ►  January (5)
  • ►  2015 (58)
    • ►  December (5)
    • ►  November (5)
    • ►  October (3)
    • ►  September (7)
    • ►  August (9)
    • ►  July (4)
    • ►  June (6)
    • ►  April (5)
    • ►  March (4)
    • ►  February (3)
    • ►  January (7)
  • ▼  2014 (82)
    • ►  December (7)
    • ►  November (3)
    • ►  October (2)
    • ▼  September (2)
      • Sharing The Legitimacy of the US Supreme Court: Co...
      • Intelligence is in the Eye of the Beholder: Invest...
    • ►  August (13)
    • ►  July (9)
    • ►  June (7)
    • ►  May (7)
    • ►  April (3)
    • ►  March (6)
    • ►  February (10)
    • ►  January (13)
  • ►  2013 (221)
    • ►  December (14)
    • ►  November (19)
    • ►  October (13)
    • ►  September (19)
    • ►  August (17)
    • ►  July (28)
    • ►  June (27)
    • ►  May (17)
    • ►  April (21)
    • ►  March (11)
    • ►  February (14)
    • ►  January (21)
  • ►  2012 (250)
    • ►  December (15)
    • ►  November (16)
    • ►  October (13)
    • ►  September (21)
    • ►  August (21)
    • ►  July (21)
    • ►  June (23)
    • ►  May (15)
    • ►  April (18)
    • ►  March (36)
    • ►  February (22)
    • ►  January (29)
  • ►  2011 (346)
    • ►  December (38)
    • ►  November (15)
    • ►  October (26)
    • ►  September (46)
    • ►  August (40)
    • ►  July (15)
    • ►  June (29)
    • ►  May (23)
    • ►  April (18)
    • ►  March (37)
    • ►  February (29)
    • ►  January (30)
  • ►  2010 (502)
    • ►  December (53)
    • ►  November (46)
    • ►  October (46)
    • ►  September (34)
    • ►  August (59)
    • ►  July (23)
    • ►  June (26)
    • ►  May (36)
    • ►  April (36)
    • ►  March (45)
    • ►  February (48)
    • ►  January (50)
  • ►  2009 (209)
    • ►  December (51)
    • ►  November (57)
    • ►  October (39)
    • ►  September (35)
    • ►  August (12)
    • ►  July (2)
    • ►  June (4)
    • ►  May (9)

Labels

AAIDD (53) AAIDD Death Penalty Task Force (7) AB scores (4) AB tests (13) ABA (13) ABA Blawgs (2) ABAS (1) ABS-II (2) academic freedom (1) acculturation (1) achievement (5) ACLU (3) adaptive behavior (89) ADHD (1) AERA (1) AFQT (1) AJT COG test (1) Ake issue (1) Alabama (11) alternate forms equivalence (1) American Bar Association (ABA) (5) American Bar Foundation (1) American Board of Forensic Psychology (1) American Psychiatric Association (7) American Psychological Association (7) amicus briefs (14) Annual Review of Law and Social Sciences (1) anti-social personality (1) anxiety (1) AP101 (15) AP101 Brief # 7 (1) AP101 Brief #1 (2) AP101 Brief #10 (1) AP101 Brief #2 (1) AP101 Brief #6 (1) AP101 Brief #7 (1) AP101 Briefs (11) AP101 Reports (8) APA (23) APA Div 33 (4) APA Div 33 adhoc committee on DP (1) APA Div 41 (3) APA Division 33 (2) APD Div 41 (1) Applied Neuropsychology (7) Applied Psychometric 101 Reports (8) applied psychometrics (5) aptitude (5) ARC (2) Arithmetic (1) Arizona (6) Arkansas (8) articles (1) ASB (1) Aspergers (1) assessment (1) ASVAB (4) Atkins (188) Atkins MR listserv (4) attitudes (1) autism (2) Az (1) base rate (1) BAT III (4) BAT-R (4) Behavioral Sciences and Law (4) Beyond IQ (2) bias (7) biculturalism (1) BIF (1) Big 5 (1) bilingual (3) blind (1) blogroll (1) Blume (1) book nook (30) borderline intellectual functioning (2) borderline intelligence (1) Brain Clock (1) brain function (3) brain injury (2) brie (1) brief IQ tests (1) bright line (11) Briseno (26) Briseno standards (11) Brumfield (1) CA (1) California (2) California Law Review (1) Canada (2) Carroll (1) CAS (1) CAST (1) CAST-MR (1) Cattell (1) Cattell-Horn-Carroll (3) cause lawyering (1) Center for Death Penalty Litigation (1) CFA (3) CHC (7) CHC slide shows (1) CHC theory (77) CHC videos (1) classification (1) clemency (2) CLIM (1) clinical judgement (1) clinical judgment (5) cognitive efficiency (1) cognitive load (1) Comission on Mental and Physical Disability Law (CMPDL) (2) common sense (1) commutations (1) competence (15) competencies (1) Compositator (1) composite scores (5) conative (2) conceptual intelligence (1) conferences (7) confessions (6) conflict of interest disclosures (1) constituion (1) Cornell Death Penalty Project (1) Cornell Law School (2) correctional conditions (1) court decision (13) court decisions (177) court transcript (2) criminal law (6) criminal personalities (1) criminal responsibility (1) critical issues (47) cross-battery assessment (1) cultural issues (16) culture (1) D-KEFS (1) DAS (3) DAS-2 (5) database (1) Daubert standard (13) death penalty (61) Death Penalty Information Center (9) definitions (32) demeanor (1) demographically adjusted norms (3) Denver University Law Review (1) Detterman's bytes (4) developmental (4) diagnosis (3) difference scores (2) disability (3) discounting principle (1) dissertation dish (2) DPIC (1) DSM-V (12) dual diagnosis (1) Dusky standard (1) Effort testing (1) EFI (1) emotional intelligence (1) enculturation (1) ethics (11) Ethics and Behavior (1) examiner errors (1) executions (1) executive functions (3) expert testimony (8) expert witnesses (2) experts (23) factor analysis (8) false confessions (2) FAS (2) Florida (33) fluid intelligence (1) Flynn Effect (80) Flynn Effect Archive Project (7) Flynn Effect Reference Project (5) Flynn Effect series (4) fMRI (1) forensic psychiatry (2) forensic psychologists (1) forensic psychology (20) Forensic science (6) Forrest Gump (2) FYI (10) g (4) g+specific (1) Ga (2) Gc (5) Ge (1) Gei (1) gender (2) general intelligence (29) genetics (1) geography (3) Georgia (7) Gf (6) Gh (1) Glr (1) Gq (2) grade equivalents (1) Greenspan (2) Greenspan's Model of Personal Competence (3) Grw (1) Gs (8) Gsm (4) Gt (1) Guest posts (26) guidelines (3) gullibility (9) Gv (4) Gwm (5) habeas corpus (7) Hall v Florida (19) Heaton norms (3) Hispanic (9) history (5) Horn (1) Human Cognitve Abilities Project (1) IAP (1) iBlogging (6) ICDP status update (1) ID (5) Idaho (2) IN (1) inboxes (2) Indiana (4) indigent defense (2) individualism (1) Indonesia (1) intellectual assessment (4) intellectual disability (66) intelligence (56) intelligence testing (1) intention (1) international (2) International Journal of Law and Psychiatry (2) international rights (1) interrogation (2) interventions (1) IO (1) IQ score differences (10) IQ score stability (2) IQ scores (108) IQ scores cross-battery (1) IQ Test CHC DNA Fingerprints (4) IQ tests (62) IQ-Achievement fallacy (2) IQs Corner (6) IQs Reading (1) IRT (2) ISIR (18) job performance (1) Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice (1) journals (5) judges (2) judicial decision-making (2) junk science (1) juries (10) jurors (2) juveniles (8) KABC (2) KABC-II (3) KABC-III (1) KAIT (1) Kentucky (2) language abilities (3) law (10) Law and Human Behavior (1) Law and Psychology (2) law journal (2) law probability and risk (1) Law Review Article (10) Law review articles (56) LD (1) legal research (10) linguistic demand (1) longitudinal (1) Louisiana (3) MACM (1) maladaptive behavior (3) malingering (31) matrices Tests (1) MCAT (2) MDS (1) measurement invariance (1) media reports (1) medical conditions (2) medication (1) Mental and Physical Disability Law Reporter (1) mental health (1) Mental illness (4) mental incompetence (2) mental retardation (80) meta-analysis (8) Mexican WAIS-III (4) Mexico (2) military (1) Miranda (3) Mississippi (8) Missouri (2) mock trials (1) Moore v Texas (10) moral reasoning (1) motivation (1) MR (3) MR/ID characteristics (1) must read (1) NCME (1) NDRT (1) Nebraska (1) NEPSY (1) NERONORM (1) neuroforensics (1) neurology (1) neuropsychology (19) neuroscience (18) neurotechnology (10) Nevada (1) New Jersey (1) New York (2) NIH Toolbox (1) norm obselescence (2) norm obsolescence (15) norms (8) North Carolina (4) Obama (1) Ohio (12) Oklahoma (6) Op-Eds (1) Open Access Journal of Forensic Psychology (1) oral arguments (5) Oregon (1) Ortiz (1) P-FIT (1) part scores (15) patronizing effect (1) PCR (1) Pennslyvania (3) personal competence (5) personal observation (1) personality (3) Peurto Rico (2) Peurto Rico WAIS-III (1) PPIK (1) PPT (1) practice effects (11) presentations (1) prisoner privacy rights (1) prisons (1) professional associations (1) professional conferences (1) professional opportunities (1) Professional Psychology: Research Practice (1) progressive error practice effects (2) psychiatry (1) Psychology Public Policy and Law (2) psychometrics (58) psychosis (1) PTSD (1) public opinion (7) Punishment and Society (1) quantitative knowledge (1) Question (1) quotes to note (2) race (13) Rape (1) Rasch (2) Ravens (1) reading (1) recent lit (1) reliability (3) Research briefs (32) responsibility (1) restoration to competency (1) retroactive (1) retrospective assessment (3) retrospective Dx (5) review (1) RIAS (1) Richard Woodcock (1) ROCF test (1) sanity (1) SB (1) SB-IV (3) SB5 (13) scaled scores (1) Schechmeisiter Death Penalty College (1) school records (1) scientific evidence (5) SCOTUS (42) SEdiff (1) SEest (1) self-beliefs (1) SEM (42) Sentencing Law and Policy (3) SES (2) SIRS (1) SIRS-2 (1) SLD (1) SlideShare (1) slippery slope (2) SLODOR (3) Social awareness (2) social competence (2) social intelligence (1) social media (1) social security (1) social skills (5) social support (1) social-emotional learning (1) South Carolina (1) Spain (1) Spanish (8) Spanish WAIS-III (1) Spearman (2) special masters reports (1) SSA (1) SSRN (1) SSSQ (2) stability (1) standard error (1) standard error of measurement (2) standard scores (2) standards (14) standards of evidence (2) standards of proof (2) Stanford Binet (1) Stanford-Binet (4) States (12) statutes (3) stereotypes (1) Sueing psychologists (1) taxonomies (2) TBI (1) teaching (1) Tennessee (6) Tennessee Law Review (1) test authors (1) test norms (3) test scoring (3) testing (1) testing general (2) Texas (58) thank you (2) Theoretical Criminilogy (1) therapeutic jurisprudence (2) third party observer (1) Thurstone (1) tipping point (2) TN (1) TOMM (1) TONI-2 (1) training (2) training and education (4) trait complexes (1) trait stability (1) Twitter (1) U of Richmond Law Review (1) US Judiciary Committee (1) US Senate (1) Utah (1) VA (1) validity (4) VECI (1) videos (1) Virginia (4) visually impaired (1) voodoo psychometrics (14) WA (1) WAIS (2) WAIS-III (25) WAIS-IV (35) WAIS-R (4) WAIS-V (1) Washing University Law Review (1) Washington (1) Washington Times (1) WASI (1) webcasts (2) Wechsler batteries (75) WHO ICF (1) Williams Syndrome (1) WISC (3) WISC-III (8) WISC-IV (18) WISC-R (4) WISC-V (4) Witnesses (1) WJ (2) WJ III (31) WJ III NU (5) WJ IV (7) WJ IV EWOK (1) WJ IV SlideShows (1) WJ-R (6) WMF (2) WMS-IV (3) Woodcock (1) Woodcock Institute (2) Woodcock-Johnson (3) working memory (4) workshops (2) WRIT (1) WWJ III NU (1)

Followers

Google Analytics

Hit Counter
Awesome Inc. theme. Powered by Blogger.