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

Walls v Florida (2016) - remand based on Hall v Florida SCOUTS decision

I just noted that I had failed to post a copy of Walls v Florida (October 2016) decision to the blog roll of cases. It will be available under the Court Decisions blog role in a few moments. A copy can be accessed here.



- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad



- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Thompson v Florida: Hall v SCOTUS related new evidentiary hearing

Thompson v Florida decision for a new evidentiary hearing, in light of Hall v Florida, can be found here.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

David Kaye on Hall v Florida-- "Deadly statistics: Quantifying an "unacceptable risk in capital punishment" - In press article in Law, Probability and Statistics

The following article is "in press" in Law, Probability and Statistics.  A preview can be found here.

 

Deadly 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

ID is a "condition"...not a number. Ethics of IQ cut-off scores for ID Dx

Click on image to enlarge abstract.  Very thought provoking article (click to view) by Greenspan, Harris and Woods on the use of IQ cutoff scores to define ID.

Law Review Article: Dr. James Ellis on Hall v Florida (SCOTUS, 2014)--ID is a condition-not a number

Dr. James Ellis has presented a nice summary of the major change in the determination of ID in Atkins cases as a result of the Hall v Florida 2014 SCOTUS decision.  The main point is summarized by the statement that ID is a "condition" and "not a number."  Scientific and professional evidence and clinical judgement must be involved in the determination--no longer can "bright line" IQ cut-off scores be used in isolation.  Click here to read the article.

Victory for psychometrics in Hall v Florida SEM bright-line Atkins MR/ID SCOTUS decision

This morning SCOTUS rectified the long standing "bright line" (ignoring SEM) problem with Atkins ID/MR cases in Florida.  Click here for background information.  Click here for today's decision.

Hall v Florida SCOTUS case: Amicus Briefs by APA and AAIDD

 

The Atkins case of Hall v Florida will be heard by SCOTUS shortly. Like most Atkins cases, the issues are complex. But the essence of the case is Florida's "bright line" test for the first ID Dx prong...which, based on the FLorida Cherry Court decision, is set at a firm IQ score of 70 with no recognition of the standard error of measurement (SEM).

Both APA and AAIDD have spearheaded two separate Amicus Briefs, which also include other organizations. The two briefs have now been posted in the brief sidebar of this blog. They can also be found at the links below.

APA led Amicus Brief

AAIDD led Amicus Brief

 

 

Posted with Blogsy

SCOTUS Hall v Florida Atkins ID update: Petitioners and Amicus Briefs--major focus on IQ "bright line" and SEM

The Atkins MR/ID case of Hall v Florida, which is to be heard by SCOTUS this spring, had two mportant briefs posted within the last week.

The Hall v Florida petition was filed Dec 16. Today, an Amicus Brief was filed by a number of organizations, led by the American Psychological Association.
Click here for a variety of posts re: Atkins cases in Flordia, which have been problematic due to the Florida "Cherry court" establishment of a "bright line" score of 70, with no consiseration of the standard error of measurement (SEM)

Posted with Blogsy

Atkins MR/ID Court Decision: Florida's not-so-bright "bright-line" standard in action in Franqui v Florida (2011)

Another Florida Atkins MR/ID decision (Franqui v Florida, 2011) that reinforces the state of Florida's Cherry Court based "bright-line" (or what I think is a "not-so bright-approach") standard for evaluating IQ test scores. Again, one of the most accepted psychometric concepts in the arena of intelligence testing (SEM) is disregarded by Florida.

Also of interest is the apparent use of expert testimony only via written statements--no actual oral testimony. Haven't seen that one before, although I've not read all Atkins decisions.

This decision will be added to the ICDP Court Decisions blogroll.


- iPost using BlogPress from my Kevin McGrew's iPad

intelligence intelligence testing Atkins cases ICDP blog psychology school psychology neuropsychology Forensic psychology criminal psychology criminal justice death penalty capital punishment ABA IQ tests IQ scores adaptive behavior AAIDD mental retardation intellectual disability Flynn effect practice effects SEM standard error of measurement bright-line Florida death penalty Frangui v Florida

Dufour v Florida (2010): Webcast of April 7, 2010 hearing

In case you missed the live webcast of the Dufour hearing in Florida a couple days ago (April 7, 2010), you can still view it by clicking here.  Also, PDF copies of all background brief documents (for the hearing) can be found by clicking here.  I've stated my major concerns re: the case in a number of posts, links which can be found by clicking here. 

As I stated previously, and what comes through during portions of the hearing, is that a critical problem for the state of Florida is its bright-line rule for MR/ID Dx....a score must be 70 or below...no allowance for considering SEM.  In my opinion, this is the most important issue  at stake in the Dufour hearing, as is evidenced by the frequent reference to the Cherry court or decision (decision that established this scientifically unsupportable criteria in Atkins cases in Florida).

I am interested in the views of experienced viewers of such proceedings regarding their "take-away" impressions of the hearing.  I was particularly impressed with the lawyer representing AAIDD and her valiant and reasonably clear attempt to explain SEM to the court.  At times Justice Barbara P. appeared to be "getting it"....and in my observation, seemed to understand the possibility of the error of the Cherry based bright-line rule. 

On the other hand, my belief is that most psychologists who engage in intelligence testing will be a bit shocked at how IQ scores and names of IQ (and other) tests are tossed around as mere commodities....with little discussion of the fact that some measures are better than others.  Of course, this is a very time-constrained hearing and all participants have read hundreds of pages of briefs.....so I need to cut them some slack.  Still....it is bothersome to me, as an intelligence test developer, scholar, and applied psychometrician, how the term IQ is discussed in such simple language...which suggests that the courts are not well educated on the science of intelligence testing...which in turn makes them rely on the expertise of different experts in different cases...experts who vary in depth of knowledge of the science, research, and psychometric underpinnings of psychological assessment instruments.

As I said above, I'd like to hear the comments of others who have viewed the hearing.  I would suggest that this may be a good topic to discuss at the Atkins MR/ID Death Penalty listserv.

Technorati Tags: psychology, forensic psychology, forensic psychiatry, neuropsychology, intelligence, school psychology, psychometrics, educational psychology, IQ, IQ tests, IQ scores, adaptive behavior, adaptive functioning, intellectual disability, mental retardation, MR, ID, criminal psychology, criminal defense, criminal justice, ABA, American Bar Association, Atkins cases, death penalty, capital punishment, AAIDD, Atkins MR/ID listserv, ICDP blog, SEM, standard error of measurement, Dufour v Florida