Research Byte: Comparison of norms from three Spanish-language and one English-language WAIS-III tests (select subtests)

Norm Comparisons of the Spanish-Language and English-Language WAIS-III: Implications for Clinical Assessment and Test Adaptation.  Funes, Cynthia M.; Hernandez Rodriguez, Juventino; Lopez, Steven Regeser.  Psychological Assessment, Mar 7 , 2016, No Pagination Specified. http://dx.doi.org.ezp1.lib.umn.edu/10.1037/pas0000302

Abstract

1. This study provides a systematic comparison of the norms of 3 Spanish-language Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales (WAIS–III) batteries from Mexico, Spain, and Puerto Rico, and the U.S. English-language WAIS–III battery. Specifically, we examined the performance of the 4 normative samples on 2 identical subtests (Digit Span and Digit Symbol-Coding) and 1 nearly identical subtest (Block Design). We found that across most age groups the means associated with the Spanish-language versions of the 3 subtests were lower than the means of the U.S. English-language version. In addition, we found that for most age ranges the Mexican subsamples scored lower than the Spanish subsamples. Lower educational levels of Mexicans and Spaniards compared to U.S. residents are consistent with the general pattern of findings. These results suggest that because of the different norms, applying any of the 3 Spanish-language versions of the WAIS–III generally risks underestimating deficits, and that applying the English-language WAIS–III norms risks overestimating deficits of Spanish-speaking adults. There were a few exceptions to these general patterns. For example, the Mexican subsample ages 70 years and above performed significantly better on the Digit Symbol and Block Design than did the U.S. and Spanish subsamples. Implications for the clinical assessment of U.S. Spanish-speaking Latinos and test adaptation are discussed with an eye toward improving the clinical care for this community. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

Who is on death row (with focus on MR/IQ)? Cunningham and Vigen (2002) review

Who is on death row? What are the intellectual capabilities of individuals facing execution?

The following 2002 literature review attempted to answer the above (and more) questions. Whether the findings of this 7 year old survey hold true today is not known. If I can find relevant information I will post it.

• Cunningham, M. D. and Vigen, M. P. (2002). Death Row Inmate Characteristics, Adjustment, and Confinement: A Critical Review of the Literature. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 20, 191–210 (click here to view).

ARTICLE SUMMARY

[note: Italics are direct quotes. Underline is emphasis added by the blogmaster]

Abstract

This article reviews and summarizes research on death row inmates. The contributions and weaknesses of death row demographic data, clinical studies, and research based on institutional records are critiqued. Our analysis shows that death row inmates are overwhelmingly male and disproportionately Southern. Racial representation remains controversial. Frequently death row inmates are intellectually limited and academically deficient. Histories of significant neurological insult are common, as are developmental histories of trauma, family disruption, and substance abuse. Rates of psychological disorder among death row inmates are high, with conditions of confinement appearing to precipitate or aggravate these disorders. Contrary to expectation, the extant research indicates that the majority of death row inmates do not exhibit violence in prison even in more open institutional settings. These findings have implications for forensic mental health sentencing evaluations, competent attorney representation, provision of mental health services, racial disparity in death sentences, death row security and confinement policies, and moral culpability considerations. Future research directions on death row populations are suggested.

According to Cunningham and Vigen (hereafter referred to as the "authors"), the research "literature on death row inmates has not been comprehensively summarized and reviewed. This article attempts to fill that void by reviewing the extant literature on the characteristics of death row inmates, their adjustment to prison, and their conditions of confinement."

The scope of coverage of this review article is impossible to summarize in a single blog post. More importantly, the focus of this blog is on the mental retardation/intellectual competence characteristics of this population. As thus, this post will only summarize the information in this survey article related to this focus. Other topics discussed (methodological review of prior research; woman, race, psychological disorders, neurological disorders, drug use, etc. issues) will not be covered (readers can view the original article for this information)


According to the authors:

• Eleven of the 13 clinical studies reported data on the intellectual capability of death row samples. Mean IQ scores were in the average to low average range, generally consistent with the intellectual capabilities of general prison population inmates (Panton, 1976). A significant minority of death row inmates, though, exhibited marked intellectual limitations. For example, 27% of the Mississippi death row sample investigated by Cunningham and Vigen (1999) had WAIS-R Verbal IQ scores below 74.

• Similarly, Frierson et al. (1998) reported that 28% of their death row sample obtained IQ scores in the borderline or mentally retarded classifications.

• National demographic data (Snell, 2001) indicate that 52.3% of death row inmates did not finish high school and 12.7% attended only to the eighth grade or less. Median formal education was 11th grade. These rates of educational attainment are similar to or only modestly lower than those observed in the general state prison population nationwide

• Clinical studies on death row inmates found a somewhat lower level of formal education, typically reporting a mean of ninth grade schooling.

Authors Conclusions:

While much of the research on death row inmates has limitations in specificity, sampling, methodology, and reporting, there are a number of recurrent findings. To summarize these, death row inmates are overwhelmingly male and disproportionately Southern. Over half of death row inmates are non-whites. A majority did not graduate from high school. Mean IQ scores of death row inmates are in the low average-to-average range, but a disturbingly large minority exhibits IQ scores in the borderline and mental retardation ranges. Functional literacy capabilities are well below what would be expected from the years of schooling attended. Whether these literacy deficits are the result of learning disabilities or other factors cannot be determined from the current data. There is also a significant incidence of neurological and neuropsychological abnormalities among death row inmates. Psychological disorders are quite frequent among death row inmates. The particularly adverse conditions of death row confinement in some jurisdictions appear to not only undermine efforts to adaptively cope, but also act to aggravate psychological symptoms. Current prison mental health interventions are insufficient.

Policy Implications (as per authors)

given the conclusions of the clinical studies, mental health experts performing forensic evaluations at capital sentencing should be attentive to the presence of neurological abnormalities, learning disabilities, psychiatric disorders, and traumatic developmental histories. These vulnerabilities were more frequently identified in studies that undertook broader and more time intensive evaluations. This speaks to the need for comprehensive examinations as well as sufficient interview duration for reasonable self-disclosure to occur. Adequate forensic evaluation at sentencing, therefore, requires particularly careful assessment of the vulnerabilities of this population, as well as knowledge of the current literature regarding the behavioral implications of these deficiencies and underlying adverse developmental factors.

the intellectual, literacy, and psychological deficits of most death row inmates render them incapable of responding to the demands of direct appeals or postconviction proceedings without the assistance and representation of qualified legal counsel

the significant percentage of racial minorities, and particularly African– Americans, on death row nationwide has varying interpretations—the most disturbing of these asserting that racial bias in the application of the death penalty, whether by race of offender or race of victim, is both a historical legacy and a continuing social policy problem.

the incidence of psychological symptoms and mental health problems among death row inmates calls for comprehensive mental health services. Effective treatment of psychological symptoms and disorders among death row inmates is not only humane, but likely to facilitate institutional management and reduce disciplinary misconduct.

it is disturbing that so many inmates on death row are so obviously damaged—developmentally, intellectually, educationally, neurologically, and psychologically. To the extent that the death penalty is intended to punish those murderers who are most morally culpable, there would seem to be some miscarriage of that intent when it is visited upon individuals who are manifestly damaged, deficient, or disturbed in their psychological development and functioning.

Technorati Tags: psychology, forensic psychology, neuropsychology, educational psychology, developmental, IQ, intelligence, IQ scores, death penalty, capital punishment, mental retardation, MR, Atkins cases, U. S. Supreme Court

Competence issues in death penalty cases: Freedman (2009)

Freedman, D. (2009). When is a capitally charged defendant incompetent to stand trial? International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 32, 127–133. (click here to view/read entire article)

Abstract (emphasis to abstract and quotes added by blogmaster)

Competence to stand trial is a functional test rather than a bright line test, which therefore requires a case and fact specific assessment of a client's abilities in context. This article discusses competence in the context of capital trial cases. There are serious potential pitfalls for the client when raising incompetence and the decision to do so must be based on the specific ways in which the client's mental illness interferes with specific abilities to communicate with counsel and understand the proceedings. This article addresses counsel's duties in the context of assessing competence, but focuses on the little addressed issue of what abilities a client must have and what tasks a client must participate in so as to be engaged in a competent manner. It also discusses the types of conditions which may interfere with competence to stand trial.

According to the author, "Dusky set out a number of abilities and capacities required of a criminal defendant, yet it is the present ability to communicate with counsel based on a reasonable degree of rational understanding prong that has proven significantly more difficult to assess than the rational and factual understanding prong. How, exactly, are lawyers, judges and mental health professionals expected to assess the communication prong of the standard? There is little agreement as to what abilities ought to be required, how to assess them or even who bears responsibility for making the assessment. Most mental health professionals have little legal knowledge and few have, nor should they be expected to obtain, an understanding or proficiency in criminal defense representation, especially capital case representation. How, then, can they be expected to determine whether a defendant has sufficient ability to effectively communicate with counsel about a specific case? Similarly, most lawyers and judges have little training on mental illness or in determining what symptoms are significantly interfering with communication or a basic understanding of the cognitive and behavioral processes of decision-making and communication. Yet, competence to stand trial determinations rest primarily on the assessment of what a criminal defendant must be able to do with counsel."

Select highlights from article:

• What are the counsel's obligations in ascertaining competence is discussed.

• What abilities of the defendant are relevant to determining competence?

• According to Freedman, "the abilities required to be competent, as noted, may implicate a vast number of symptoms and illnesses. Take psychosis, the diagnosis most often found in those adjudicated incompetent, as an example. What are the symptoms that define the illness? DSM-IV-TR defines psychosis as referring to the presence of a set of symptoms, but the symptoms vary across the specific diagnostic categories."

• "A plethora of physical and psychological conditions can interfere with competence to stand trial. If the question of competence is, as suggested, one of a person's functional ability to engage in the interactive dialogue, a number of conditions must be considered, including, at the least:

• Executive functions: which are the neurocognitive processes that initiate and inhibit movement and behaviors, constitute the abilities to plan, initiate new tasks, stop, judge, assess options and consequences, reason, self-monitor and self-regulate, and recognize social cues; they also encompass language processing, mental flexibility, reasoning (deductive and inductive), working memory, abstract thinking, incorporating new information, and strategic inquiry. In short, executive functions are the very capacities necessary to be competent, although, oddly, they are rarely measured or tested when evaluations are conducted. Mood Disorders : include both depression and mania.

• Anxiety Disorders: include both anxiety and Post-traumatic Stress disorders.

• Language Abilities: include receptive and expressive language deficits, as well as fluency impairments. Associated with learning and language disorders are slowed information processing speeds, low self-esteem and deficits in social skills. Medication : as Sell recognized, medications can have an observable effect which may undermine competency by slowing responses to fast moving proceedings, by altering how the client looks and acts, or by interfering with communication.

• Medical conditions: Many medical conditions can adversely affect a person's ability to undertake the 10 necessary steps of rational communication and participation. Among others, Dementia's, Parkinson's, Huntington's, Wilson's, and Fahr's Diseases, strokes, seizure disorders may all have an adverse impact on functioning. Cognitive ability: which may include both people with mental retardation and people who have IQ's higher than the MR cut-off but function in a substantially impaired manner, as well as people where the cause of the impairment is known (traumatic brain injury, exposure to lead, neurotoxins or fetal-alcohol, or genetic disorders).

• Cognitive ability includes such capacities as memory and recall; organizing concepts and understanding how things relate to each other; communication (receptive and expressive language); and flexibility in dealing with new information and a capacity to engage with new information. Although ruling that people with mental retardation may be competent, in Atkins, the Court noted: Because of their impairments, however, by definition they have diminished capacities to understand and process information, to communicate, to abstract from mistakes and learn from experience, to engage in logical reasoning, to control impulses, and to understand the reactions of others. These are the disabilities that may also render some people with cognitive impairment functionally not competent in the specific context of working with counsel. Typically, cognitively impaired people attempt to mask their illnesses, often by making decisions which have long-term negative consequences but in the short-term permit them to avoid being fully assessed; they may confabulate (filling in details to portray a coherent story despite not having actual knowledge of details provided); and often exhibit passivity, compliance and deference (likely to agree with interviewer in effort to please) in the face of a lack of understanding and competence; exhibit rigidity in the face of contradictory evidence; and, as the hallmark of low cognitive ability, they have a fundamental lack of comprehension."

Authors conclusion

"Competence to stand trial is a functional test rather than a bright line test, which therefore requires a case and fact specific assessment of a client's abilities in context. While there are serious pitfalls to raising incompetence, and while the decision to do so must be based on the specific ways in which the client's mental illness interferes with specific abilities to communicate with counsel, it is also clear that some of our clients are functionally unable to engage in the interactive dialogue required—that is, they are unable to see, hear and digest the trial related information and communicate with counsel about that information. Nevertheless, these issues require pursuit in a coherent and thorough manner because the outcome of trying a capital case in which the client is unable to participate is an appalling affront to due process."

Technorati Tags: psychology, law, legal, death penalty, Atkins cases, educational psychology, school psychology, forensic psychology, competence, intelligence, IQ, IQ tests,