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.
Wednesday, June 29, 2016
Morse on Neuroscientific Evidence
The Clinical Neuropsychologist | Call for Papers--New stat and psychometric advances
The Clinical Neuropsychologist | Call for Papers
The primary objectives of this special issue are to: (1) highlight new statistical and psychometric advances that are relevant to the practice of…
Read it on Flipboard
Read it on explore.tandfonline.com
Sunday, June 26, 2016
Research byte: A cross-syndrome evaluation of a new attention rating scale: The Scale of Attention in intellectual Disability via BrowZine
Freeman, Nerelie C.; Gray, Kylie M.; Taffe, John R.; Cornish, Kim M.
Research in Developmental Disabilities, Vol. 57 – 2016: 18 - 28
10.1016/j.ridd.2016.06.005
University of Minnesota Users:
http://login.ezproxy.lib.umn.edu/login?url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0891422216301172
Non-University of Minnesota Users: (Full text may not be available)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0891422216301172
Tuesday, June 7, 2016
Texas Courts Rely on “Of Mice and Men” to Define Intellectual Disability and Sentence People to Death
Texas Courts Rely on "Of Mice and Men" to Define Intellectual Disability and Sentence People to Death
This piece originally appeared at Salon. Bobby James Moore has a lifelong intellectual disability,…
Read it on Flipboard
Read it on aclu.org
Monday, June 6, 2016
SCOTUS Atkins activity: MOORE, BOBBY J. V. TEXAS The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted
MOORE, BOBBY J. V. TEXAS The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. One question presented relates to Texas’s problematic, non scientific Briseno factors for adjudicating Atkins claims. SCOTUS Blog has all the papers here.
David Kaye on Hall v Florida-- "Deadly statistics: Quantifying an "unacceptable risk in capital punishment" - In press article in Law, Probability and Statistics
Quantifying an “Unacceptable Risk” in Capital Punishment
David H. Kaye*
Law, Probability & Risk
Vol. 15, No. 4, Dec. 2016 (in press)
Abstract: In Atkins v. Virginia, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment ban on
cruel and unusual punishment precludes capital punishment for intellectually disabled offenders.
Death-penalty states responded with laws defining intellectual disability in various ways. In Hall v.
Florida, the Court narrowly struck down the use of a measured IQ of 70 to mark the upper limit of
intellectual disability because it created “an unacceptable risk that persons with intellectual disability
will be executed.” But the Court was unclear if not inconsistent in its description of an upper limit
that would be acceptable. Four dissenting Justices accused the majority not only of misconstruing
the Eighth Amendment, but also of misunderstanding elementary statistics and psychometrics. This
article uses more complete statistical reasoning to explicate the Court’s concept of unacceptable risk.
It describes better ways to control the risk of error than the Court’s confidence intervals, and it argues
that, to the extent that the Eighth Amendment allows any quantitative cut score in determining an
offender’s intellectual disability, these more technically appropriate methods are constitutionally
permissible.
Keywords: Hall v. Florida, cruel and unusual, Eighth Amendment, capital punishment, intellectual
disability, IQ, psychometrics, cut-score, measurement error, standard error, confidence interval,
shrinkage estimator, Bayesian inference, credible region, burden of persuasion
Contents
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
I. The Intellectual Disability Trilogy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
II. The Need to Allow States to Use Cut Scores and the Meaning of “Significantly Subaverage”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
III. True Scores and Single-measurement Error Within Classical Test Theory.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
A. First- and Second-order Questions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
B. True Scores and Measurement Error.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
C. Reliability and Standard Error of Measurement (SEM). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
D. Confidence Intervals from the SEM (SEM-IS).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
E. SEM-adjusted-maximum Score (SEM-AM).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
F. Confidence Intervals from the Standard Error of Estimate (SEE-IS). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
IV. Other Statistical Issues in and Outside of Hall. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
A. Multiple Scores. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
B. Credible Regions (BCR). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Summary and Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Wednesday, June 1, 2016
Only Two Justices Want To Tackle Whether The Death Penalty Should End
Only Two Justices Want To Tackle Whether The Death Penalty Should End
From News, a Flipboard magazine by Flipboard Newsdesk
Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg are virtually alone in this effort. Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer: Alone in their…