AAIDD's "Intellectual Disability and the Death Penalty: A Guide" now available!

The AAIDD ID and death penalty guide is now available at the AAIDD webpage!  Although the title is focused on the death penalty and ID (Atkins cases), having written two of the chapters (Flynn effect; Intellectual functioning), I believe all professionals in the field of psychological, assessment and ID should have this reference book--it presents recommendations for ID practice that go well beyond the official AAIDD classification book (the Green book) and are relevant to ID assessment practices in general.

Description of the guide at the AAIDD webpage.

• In the 2002 landmark decision Atkins v. Virginia 536 U.S. 304, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that executing a person with intellectual disability is a violation of the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits “cruel and unusual punishment,” but left states to determine their own criteria for intellectual disability. AAIDD has always advocated against the death penalty for people with intellectual disability and has long provided amicus curiae briefs in Supreme Court cases. Thus, in this comprehensive new book published by AAIDD, notable authors in the field of intellectual disability discuss all aspects of the issues, with a particular focus on foundational considerations, assessment factors and issues, and professional concerns in Atkins assessments.

Law Review Article: Defining intellectual disability and establishing a standard of proof: Suggestions for a national model standard

This article can be viewed here.

Click on images to enlarge. This article has been added to the Law Review blog roll.

Posted with Blogsy

Professional ethics and standards for assessment practices in Atkins MR/ID cases

Psychological assessment is serious business. This is particularly true in the life-or-death nature of Atkins MR/ID death penalty cases. The two primary relevant codes of ethics and standards are briefly summarized below. This summary does not include similar codes/standards that have been promulgated and are relevant to psychology specialties (e.g, forensic psychology; neuropsychology; school psychology; etc.). Professionals are responsible for knowing and following specialty specific codes and guidelines.

This is a summary of key assessment related principles and standards and is not intended to serve as a comprehensive single source to guide professional behavior.

Psychological testing and test score interpretation in general, and IQ testing in the current context of diagnosing MR/ID in an Atkins setting in particular, are serious professional activities with enormous potential positive and negative consequences for the individual being tested (AERA, APA, NCME, 1999). Aside from the guidelines specified in 11th edition of Intellectual Disability: Definition, Classification, and System of Supports (AAIDD, 2010), detailed professional codes of ethics and standards for developing psychological tests, selecting psychological tests, testing and test score interpretation have been promulgated by the relevant professional governing bodies. As set forth in the codes and standards (a select key set) described below, test users have a number of responsibilities to ensure that inferences drawn from test scores are valid and are based on existing scientific evidence.

The “gold standard” set of standards for the development, use and interpretation of psychological and education tests is the American Educational Research Association (AERA), American Psychological Association (APA), and National Council on Measurement (NCME), Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (1999: a revision of these standards is in progress; typically called the Joint Test Standards). As prescribed in the Joint Test Standards, test users have a number of responsibilities to ensure that inferences drawn from test scores are valid. These include (emphasis via italics added):

Standard 1.4: If a test is used in a way that has not been validated, it is incumbent on the user to justify the new use, collecting new evidence if necessary.

Standard 11.15: Test users should be alert to potential misinterpretations of test scores and to possible unintended consequences of test use; users should take steps to minimize or avoid foreseeable misinterpretations and unintended negative consequences.

The American Psychological Association (APA) Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (2010 Amendments) also sets forth important ethical principles governing the administration and interpretation of psychological assessment instruments. Principles relevant to assessment and diagnosis include (emphasis via italics added):

9.01 Bases for Assessments:

(a) Psychologists base the opinions contained in their recommendations, reports, and diagnostic or evaluative statements, including forensic testimony, on information and techniques sufficient to substantiate their findings.

9.02 Use of Assessments:

(a) Psychologists administer, adapt, score, interpret, or use assessment techniques, interviews, tests, or instruments in a manner and for purposes that are appropriate in light of the research on or evidence of the usefulness and proper application of the techniques.

(b) Psychologists use assessment instruments whose validity and reliability have been established for use with members of the population tested. When such validity or reliability has not been established, psychologists describe the strengths and limitations of test results and interpretation.

9.06 Interpreting Assessment Results:

When interpreting assessment results, including automated interpretations, psychologists take into account the purpose of the assessment as well as the various test factors, test-taking abilities, and other characteristics of the person being assessed, such as situational, personal, linguistic, and cultural differences, that might affect psychologists' judgments or reduce the accuracy of their interpretations. They indicate any significant limitations of their interpretations.

9.08 Obsolete Tests and Outdated Test Results:

Psychologists do not base their assessment or intervention decisions or recommendations on data or test results that are outdated for the current purpose.

(b) Psychologists do not base such decisions or recommendations on tests and measures that are obsolete and not useful for the current purpose.

Collectively, the Joint Test Standards and APA code of ethics prescribe that assessment professionals (a) use contemporary instruments and procedures, (b) base their test interpretations on scientific evidence supporting the reliability and validity of their interpretations, (c) be aware of the strengths and limitations of the assessment procedures they use, (d) document any limitations in the instruments used and scores provided that bear on their interpretation of results, (e) only interpret scores for purposes for which they have been validated, (f) be aware of, and take necessary steps to minimize, unintended negative consequences of their testing and test interpretation for individuals, particularly in high stakes settings, (g) and follow the assessment related principles and standards articulated in the Joint Test Standards and APA code of ethics.

Inherent in these principles and standards is the understanding that psychologists, when faced with discrepant test data, attempt to explain and hypothesize possible reasons for the divergent results based on scientific evidence and accepted professional standards. The Joint Test Standards in particular make it clear that psychologists must be aware of the basic psychometric characteristics, strengths and limitations of the assessment tools they use and apply that knowledge in their subsequent interpretation and presentation of conclusions in written or oral communication.



Posted using BlogPress from Kevin McGrew's iPad
www.themindhub.com

The AAPL practice guidelines for forensic eval. of psychiatric disability now posted

The 2008 AAPL guidelines for the forensic evaluation of a psychiatric disability have now been added to the standards, guidelines, etc. section of the ICDP blog. Click here to view.

Double click image to enlarge




- iPost using BlogPress from Kevin McGrew's iPad

Psychologists and ethics in international settings. Special issue of Ethics and Behavior

The journal Ethics and Behavior had a special issue devoted to ethical issues for psychologists working in international settings.  Below are abstracts and citations for three of the articles.  Anyone who would like to read one of the complete articles, in exchange for a subsequent "brief" guest blog post, should contact the blogmaster @ iap@earthlink.net

Foster, D. F. (2010). Worldwide Testing and Test Security Issues: Ethical Challenges and Solutions. Ethics &
Behavior, 20(3-4), 207-228.

As psychology ethics begins to become more standardized and formalized globally (e.g., Gauthier, 2007) there are still educational, political, and psychological areas that require significant discussion. For example, test security has become a global issue, as psychological tests and even college entrance and graduate school admission tests have found their way online.

Gauthier, J., Pettifor, J., & Ferrero, A. (2010). The Universal Declaration of Ethical Principles for Psychologists: A Culture-Sensitive Model for Creating and Reviewing a Code of Ethics. Ethics & Behavior, 20(3-4),
179-196.

Psychologists live in a globalizing world where traditional boundaries are fading and, therefore, increasingly work with persons from diverse cultural backgrounds. The Universal Declaration of Ethical Principles for Psychologists provides a moral framework of universally acceptable ethical principles based on shared human values across cultures. The application of its moral framework in developing codes of ethics and reviewing current codes may help psychologists to respond ethically in a rapidly changing world. In this article, a model is presented to demonstrate how to use the Universal Declaration as a guide for creating or reviewing a code of ethics. This model may assist psychologists in various parts of the world in establishing codes of ethics that will promote global understanding and cooperation while respecting cultural differences. The article describes the steps involved in the application of the model and provides concrete examples as well as several useful comments and suggestions. This guide for the application of the Universal Declaration may also be used for consultation, education, and training relative to the Universal Declaration of Ethical Principles for Psychologists.

Leach, M. M., & Oakland, T. (2010). Displaying Ethical Behaviors by Psychologists When Standards Are Unclear. Ethics & Behavior, 20(3-4), 197-206.

Psychologists recognize the need to know and adhere to the ethics code in the country or countries in which they work. However, most countries do not have ethics codes that govern the work of psychologists. Thus, psychologists working in countries that do not have an ethics code face a dilemma: They need to behave ethically yet do not know the guidelines or standards that govern these behaviors. This article highlights some cross-national conditions about which psychologists should be aware when working cross-nationally, especially in countries that may lack an ethics code. These include knowledge of the host country's prevailing moral values, its laws and administrative policies, and ethics codes as well as policies approved by international agencies and associations. Eight guidelines are provided for psychologists working in host countries that lack ethics codes.

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, ethics, standards

Court Decision: Hill v Schofield (GA, 2010): "Beyond reasonable doubt" in doubt in GA ID/MR Atkins ruling

As noted in a brief post yesterday, with a link to the Sentencing and Law Policy blog, a panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision (Hill v Schofield; GA, 2010) that potentially could have wide-ranging consequences for many Atkins cases. The court declared Georgia's intellectual disability/death penalty statute was unconstitutional insofar as it placed the burden of proof on the defendant "beyond a reasonable doubt" (the highest standard required in court).  The court stated,

By imposing the overwhelming majority of the risk of error on the defendant in its application of the most stringent standard possible, Georgia holds that it is far better to erroneously execute a mentally retarded person than to erroneously impose a life sentence on one not mentally retarded. Requiring a defendant to prove mental retardation beyond a reasonable doubt is appropriate only if the interests of a state in maximizing the number of death sentences outweigh the constitutional right of mentally retarded offenders not to be executed. This state interest, however, is not constitutionally permissible at the cost of violating the constitutional right of a  mentally retarded offender not to be executed.

Hill v. Schofield, __ F. 3d __ , Case No. 08-15444 (11th Cir., June 18, 2010), slip op. at pgs. 14-15.

However, the decision was not without strong dissent.  I am no lawyer, but a few folks I know withknowledge of these matters suggest that it is likely that the state will ask for a a rehearing in front of the entire array of the 11th circuit's judges, a procedure known as motion for rehearing en banc. A motion for rehearing is (according to my sources) a prerequisite for seeking review by the SCOTUS.

Although the case is limited to the 11th Circuit (Fla, Ala, Ga) it could potentially have impact elsewhere. The concept of limited powers to define and apply Atkins could possibly be extended beyond just the burden of proof (e.g., one could argue bright line cutoff scores, SEM, and courts claiming to know the types of behaviors the define the AB prong of the Dx--Briseno AB standards in Texas). 

Clearly this case warrants close monitoring.

I have added the case to the ICDP Court Decisions blogroll with a link to the decision.

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, beyond reasonable doubt, Georgia death penalty, Hill v Schofiled 2010, Hill v GA 2010, standards of proof

Research Brief 5-31-2010: Forensic psychology education and training

DeMatteo, D., Marczyk, G., Krauss, D. A., & Burl, J. (2009). Educational and Training Models in Forensic Psychology. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 3(3), 184-191. (click here to view)

The field of forensic psychology has experienced remarkable growth over the past three decades. Perhaps the best evidence of this growth is the number of forensic psychology training programs currently enrolling students. Those interested in forensic psychology can choose from several types of programs aimed at different educational outcomes. In addition, opportunities for postdoctoral fellowships, continuing education, and respecialization have become increasingly more available. Despite the increased availability of forensic psychology training programs, there is little consensus regarding the core substantive components of these programs. This article will summarize the existing educational and training models in forensic psychology programs and then identify a core set of competencies that should be considered for inclusion in doctoral-level forensic psychology training curricula to adequately prepare students for the increasingly varied roles assumed by forensic psychologists.

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

MUST READ: Atkins best practice and standard recommendations (McVaugh & Cunningham, 2009)

I've been toying with the idea of jotting down a list of suggested "best practice" recommendations and suggested professional standards based on the mass of literature that I've been reading since starting the ICDP blog.  Every time I think I should start, I have been paralyzed by the sheer scope of the task....reading and taking notes from all relevant literature sources would take massive time...and I have no grad. assistants or employees.  I was thus thrilled when the following article arrived in my email inbox today.

Although I may not agree 100% with everything these authors state, I must say that with regard to what I have read to date, this article is probably the best single and solid source on suggested best practice and professional standard recommendations for the assessment and Dx of MR/ID in Atkins cases.  The authors present 20 different recommended guidelines covering a large number of the critical issues in assessment and DX of MR/ID in a legal context (e.g., practice effects, SEM, Flynn Effect, retrospective assessment of AB, adaptive behavior domains, different state statutes, etc.). 

This is a MUST read for all mental health professionals and folks in the legal profession who are involved in Atkins cases.  I think this document could serve as a foundational starting point for any group working on the development of standards and practice recommendations in Atkins MR/ID cases.

Kudos to the authors for the excellent work.  I plan to reread numerous times, and may add "my variations on a theme" to some of the specific guidelines (when time permits).

MacVaugh, G. & Cunningham, M. (2009).  Atkins v. Virginia: Implications and recommendations for forensic practice. The Journal of Psychiatry the Law, 37, 131-187 (click here to view)

Abstract

In 2002, the United States Supreme Court held in the landmark case of Atkins v. Virginia that the execution of individuals who have mental retardation is unconstitutional. Following the Atkins holding, courts in death penalty jurisdictions have relied heavily upon mental health professionals in making a determination of whether or not capital offenders have mental retardation. The determination of mental retardation in death penalty cases, however, presents complex challenges for both courts and mental health professionals. In addition, there is variability in how death penalty states define mental retardation and in the assessment methods used by mental health professionals to diagnose mental retardation in such cases. The purpose of this article is to (a) describe how statutes in death penalty jurisdictions have operationalized the various clinical definitions of mental retardation, (b) discuss issues confronting examiners in assessing and diagnosing mental retardation in Atkins cases, and (c) provide recommendations for forensic practice.

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, standards, cultural issues, professional standards, best practice, Daubert standard, clinical judgment

More on Texas psychologist Dr. Death in Atkins MR/ID death penalty cases

More information re: Texas psychologist "Dr. Death" over at Karen Franklin's "In the news" Blog.

"Sunlight is the best disinfectant"

Technorati Tags: Psychology, forensic psychology, educational psychology, school psychology, neuropsychology, criminal psychology, criminal defense, Atkins cases, MR, ID, AAIDD, IQ, Texas, Texas and death penalty, intelligence tests, adaptive behavior, APA, American psychological Association, professional standards, psychological standards, psychological ethics, ICDP blog

Most recent Atkins decision. Garcia v Thayer (Texas, 2009): Should more have been done to explore discrepant IQ scores?

Garcia v Thayer (Texas, 2009) has been added to the Atkins-related Court Decisions blog sidebar.   A copy of the decision can be found by clicking here.  In addition, a copy of an psychological report can be found by clicking here.  Thanks to Kevin Foley for the files.

This case is interesting, if for no other reason that I got the feeling that the Atkins claim seemed to be given short shrift by all sides.  Apparently the only person who believed Garcia is ID/MR was his lawyer.  Even the psychological expert said he did not meet the diagnostic criteria for ID/MR despite a recent WAIS-IV of 55.  However, school records reported (before the age of 18--the third prong of MR/ID) WISC-R FS IQs of 90 and 85.  The current examiner pointed out the large discrepancy and indicated that the school-age IQ scores ruled out MR/ID before the age of 18 (third prong of definition).  However, the expert did not attempt to explain the significant discrepancies in scores.  The recommendation was made for neurological testing to determine possible reasons for the apparent drop in cognitive abilities....which is probably a good recommendation.

Of course, other issues should have been explored such as possible scoring errors and malingering to name a few.  As discussed in recent articles re: the responsibility of psychologists conducting Atkins evaluations, they have a professional responsibility to address discrepancies in scores when present.  I think more should have been done to investigate the possible reasons for such dramatic changes in scores.  Does the score drop reflect a real decline in cognitive functioning (due to environmental/neurological factors)...or...was the decrease NOT real and due to other measurement issues (e.g, scoring, malingering, etc.).  Curious minds want to know.

Do readers believe that more effort should have been expended to evaluate the large discrepancy between the childhood and adult IQ scores...or...is the presence of IQ scores in the "normal" range prior to 18 an immediate disqualification for MR/ID?  Should Atkins claims be based on intellectual potential or current level of intellectual functioning?  Not easy questions to answer.

Technorati Tags: psychology, forensic psychology, neuropsychology, educational psychology, school psychology, ID, MR, IQ, IQ tests, IQ scores, Wechslers, WAIS-IV, WISC-R, intellectual disability, mental retardation, death penalty, capital punishment, Atkins cases, Texas and death penalty, criminal psychology, criminal defense, ABA

Malingering in Atkins MR/ID DP cases: State-of-the art, malinger by proxy, and voodoo psychometrics

A quick reading of a small sample of Atkins MR/ID death penalty court decisions makes it clear that the issue of malingering is often a critical component of expert testimony.

The APA Dictionary of Psychology defines malingering as:

the deliberate feigning of an illness or disability to achieve a particular desired outcome (e.g., financial gain or escaping responsibility, punishment, impresonment, or military duty) (p.551)

    
I am not an expert on the state-of-the-art of the psychometric integrity of various malingering measures used to purportedly detect defendant malingering.  Clearly in capital punishment cases there is the possibility of a strong motivation to score low on IQ tests or standardized measures of adaptive behavior -- lower scores may make the difference between execution or life in prison without parole. Not being an expert in this area of forensic assessment, I'm going to try provide information from high quality sources re: the state-of-the art of malingering assessment.  Also, when appropriate, I will point out situations of inappropriate (unethical?) malingering assessment methods when they are obvious.  This current post contains a sampling of interesting malingering issues, research, and an example of inappropriate malingering assessment.  Click here for prior posts re: malingering issues, research and references.

What does the research say about malingering assessment in the context of intellectual disability determination?

I've found the scholarly work of Salekin and Doane to be of particular value in providing an evaluation of the research in this area. Below are two recent journal articles by Salekin and Doane.  I believe the abstracts/summaries speak for themselves.

Doane, B., & Salekin, K. L. (2009). Susceptibility of current adaptive behavior measures to feigned deficits. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 329-343.

Abstract

The current study examined the susceptibility of the Adaptive Behavior Assessment System—2nd edition (ABAS-II; Harrison & Oakland, 2003) and the Scales of Independent Behavior—Revised (S1B-R; Bruininks, Woodcock, Weatherman, & Hill, 1996) to the feigning of adaptive functioning deficits. Using four different instruction sets, the authors evaluated whether the provision of diagnostic information (a form of coaching) improved participants’ ability to simulate adaptive deficits commensurate with a diagnosis of mental retardation. The authors found that the ABAS-II was quite vulnerable to believable manipulation by raters, while the SIB-R was not. In fact, exaggeration on the SIB-R was easily detected regardless of the information provided. Implications regarding the use of these measures in Atkins mental retardation evaluations are discussed.

Salekin, K. L., & Doane, B. (2009). Malingering intellectual disability: The value of available measures and methods. Applied Neuropsychology, 16, 105-113.

Abstract

Atkins v. Virginia (2002) is a case that has changed the landscape in relation to the assessment of malingering in a legal context. This landmark decision abolished the death penalty for defendants found to have intellectual disability (ID; formally known as mental retardation), but limitations in our assessment techniques lead to questions regarding the veracity of ID claims. In fact, Justice Scalia noted with clarity that concerns exist regarding the ability of individuals to feign ID and to do so successfully. At the time of writing, little empirical research has been completed, but that which exists demonstrates an overall lack of validity for traditional measures of cognitive malingering for use with this population. This manuscript provides an overview of the utility of many of the traditional measures of malingering for use with an ID population and serves as a call for research in this very important area.

Summary

In closing, review of the research in the assessment of malingered ID demonstrates that effort tests and indices of cognitive malingering are not working with this population, and that true cases can be misidentified as malingered. Some would say that the inclusion of multiple measures of malingering and the interpretation of all of the data together, rather than tests in isolation, provide control for diagnostic error. But to date, we have no data to suggest that either of these techniques is protective and more importantly, we have no data on how a juror or a judge might be impacted by even the slightest mention of malingering. Though untested, these authors posit that it is very unlikely that a defense expert will succeed in supporting an Atkins claim if there is even a hint that malingering may have occurred.

Another interesting topic is malingering resulting from examiner bias.  I find the concept of "malingering by proxy" very interesting.  Below is a discussion of this phenomenon as described by Schlesinger:

Schlesinger, L. B. (2003).  A case study involving competency to stand trial:  Incompetent defendant, incompetent examiner, or "malingering by proxy" ? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 9 (3/4), 381-399.

The most blatant kind of examiner bias, however, is seen mostly in forensic cases: the deliberate, conscious intent to distort or misrepresent findings for partisan purposes. This sort of conduct is a breach of professional ethics (Committee on Ethical Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists, 1991), unlike the involuntary forms of bias resulting from patient attributes.

There is yet another variety of examiner bias that is not an automatic act of impaired judgment arising from patient demographics, nor is it an intentional falsification of results. Here, the forensic psychologist finds in the defendant (nonexistent) signs, symptoms, or disorders that were initially suggested by the referring attorney. External incentives (such as economic gain) are typically absent. The effect, which could be called “malingering by proxy,” derives from the forceful opinions of the legal advocate, which can be quite contagious. My impression is that this form of examiner bias is not an uncommon occurrence in forensic work, where the structure of relationships leaves the clinician particularly vulnerable to such (nonconscious) infection.

The genesis of this form of examiner bias begins when the clinician is first approached about the case. Most forensic referrals come from a lawyer who attempts to recruit the consultant for the defense or the prosecution team. For instance, an attorney might call and say:

• Hello Dr. Z; I was referred to you by a psychiatrist, Dr. Y. She told me you had worked with her on many cases. Your colleague regards you highly and said you are one of the top forensic psychologists in the area. I’d like to retain your services for help with a client I represent. Dr. Y. saw my client yesterday and thought he was mentally retarded. My law partner and I just came back from the county jail, and he seemed retarded to the both of us. We all think he is incompetent to stand trial. Can I count on you to be part of the defense team? By the way, don’t worry about your fee; my client’s family is very supportive of him, and they’ll be sure to pay you promptly.

After an introduction like this, some consultants may find it difficult to disregard the flattery or to challenge members of a “team” they are about to join. However, if forensic psychologists are not careful at this point, they could succumb to a form of examiner bias that could jeopardize the entire evaluation before they have even met the defendant.

Junk science malingering assessment--from actual cases

In two recent Atkins court decisions in the state of Oklahoma (see Salazar, 2005 and Lambert, 2005), the states prosecution psychologist (Dr. Prosecution Psychologist - Dr. PP) testified re: malingering based, in part, on non-normed, non-standardized malingering measures that Dr. PP had developed himself, and one which he named after his secretary (in an attempt to mask the purpose of the test to the defendant).  The two "instruments" in question were the non-standardized Blackwell Memory Test and the Oklahoma Spelling Test.  Apparently the Blackwell Memory test was modelsx after other formal instruments that use a "forced choice symptom validity" test format.   Similar to prior voodoo psychometric activities commented on at this blog, I'm dumb founded that a professional psychologist testifying in an Atkins hearing, or any other clinical or forensic setting, would attempt to assess a psychological construct (viz., malingering) via the development of their own special instrument that did not undergo the professional accepted and required test development procedures (as clearly spelled out the the Joint Test Standards).  This activity clearly violates a number of professional standards. Below are at least two (and I'm sure there are more when one examines all relevant professional codes of ethics/standards) from the Joint Test Standards:

Standard 1.4:  If a test is used in a way that has not been validated, it is incumbent on the user to justify the new use, collecting new evidence if necessary

Standard 11.2.  When a test is to be used for a purpose for which little or no documentation is available, the user is responsible for obtaining evidence of the test's validity and reliability for this purpose.

Unbelievable.

Technorati Tags: psychology, forensic psychology, criminal psychology, criminal justice, neuropsychology, school psychology, educational psychology, ABA, American Bar Association, criminal defense lawyers, MR, ID, mental retardation, intellectual disability, IQ, IQ tests, IQ scores, intelligence, adaptive behavior, malingering, Joint Test Standards

Atkins MR death penalty experts: Knowledge and exerience required (Olley, 2009)

What does it take to be an expert in Atkins MR death penalty cases? A good article outlining a number of the skills, knowledge, issues and expertise required is that by Olley (2009) in the special issue of the journal Applied Neuropsycholgy. Individuals considering testifying in Atkins MR death penalty cases should read this article in full.

• Olley, J. G. 2009. Knowledge and Experience Required for Experts in Atkins Cases. Applied Neuropsychology,16 (2), 135-140.

Abstract

The United States Supreme Court’s Atkins v. Virginia (2002) decision has created a need for experts who are knowledgeable and experienced in both mental retardation and forensic psychology. This article summarizes the issues that are critical to the diagnosis in the ‘‘close calls’’ that typify Atkins cases. A resolution of such close calls hinges upon the expert’s ability to testify with regard to the characteristics of mild mental retardation and the way that diagnostic standards may be applied differently in clinical versus forensic settings. The critical impairments are not in the form of physical stigmata. They are characterized by difficulties in judgment when engaged in typical community functioning. The keys to these close calls are the individual’s problems in functioning in the community with the degree of independence required for adults.

ARTICLE SUMMARY

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

According to the articles author:

Those who have been testifying in Atkins hearings have come from varied professional backgrounds. The knowledge and expertise needed for "expert testimony in Atkins involve an unusual mix of background in the field of developmental disabilities with a background in forensic psychology. This combination of credentials was rare before the Atkins decision, and, thus, psychologists and other experts who are asked to testify may have limited experience in some of the essential aspects of the diagnosis of mental retardation in this new context."

Forensic psychologists are most likely to be recognized and accepted by the courts as experts, but the majority of forensic psychologists have little training or experience in the field of developmental disabilites (mental retardation).

Given the lack of uniform training, the author suggests the following as key issues that Atkins experts need to be familiar with:

• Relevant professional standards (note--see Standards, Ethics and Position Statements" links in current blogs sidebar (right side of blog)
  

• Current definitions of mental retardation, and the recognition that different states may have different definitions and diagnostic criteria.

• Relevant ethical principles of their profession "(American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 2005; American Psychological Association, 2002), position statements made by professional organizations (e.g., American Bar Association Task Force on Mental Disability and the Death Penalty, 2006; Bonnie, 2004; Committee on the Revision of the Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology, 2008), and recommendations made by recognized authorities in the field (e.g., Bonnie & Gustafson, 2007; Ellis, 2003)."

• Understand a key difference between clinical and forensic settings. In clinical settings, typically definitions and criteria are used to identify individuals "who meet the criteria and would benefit from services and supports." In such situations professional standards allow psychologists to excercise clinical judgment and to take into consideration the potential benefits of services for the assesed invididual. In contrast, the most significant issues in court settings are likely to focus more on the application of professional definitions in a more narrowly circumscribed and constrained legal context.
  

The author notes that "most Atkins cases are close calls; that is, evidence exists for and against the diagnosis, and if the defendant has mental retardation, it is in the mild range with functioning between two and three standard deviations below the population mean." The author then lists a number of important issues that must be recognized in these "close calls." They include, but are not limited to:

Impairment in Typical Community Functioning. This is not an easy task an involves a variety of issues, including:

• Understanding that mild MR is primarily identified by impaired typical community functioning and not specific diagnostic signs or physical symptoms. The cause of mild MR is typically unnkown.

• Typical functioning is difficulty to assess given that the person is incarcerated in a structured environment and collecting pre-incarceration information re: typical commmunity functioning requires significant effort.

• An individuals typical functioning must be compared to the normative standards of the appropriate population (US population...not a prison population)

• Recognition that mild MR may coexist with other disorders or diagnoses.

• Self report information from the defendant "is of very questionable value in the diagnosis of mental retardation. The expert in an Atkins proceeding should, of course, meet with the defendant, interview him, and engage him in whatever activities might help to determine his understanding of his current situation, his ability to report on factual aspects of his history, and his ability to relate to others. However, the defendant’s assessment of his own functioning is not a valid source of data on which to form a diagnosis. Most people with mild mental retardation can engage in casual conversation and report on their experiences and other concrete topics. Limitations in understanding and communication become evident when the individual is asked to explain his statements or to discuss topics that require abstract reasoning or analysis."

• "the extent to which the individual was able to live independently with minimal assistance is key to the diagnosis of mental retardation in close calls."

• individuals with mild MR rarely have social relationshiops that are mutually beneficial and reciprocal. "In most cases, the individual has few friends and the existing relationships tend to be one-sided. That is, the individual depends on a parent or girlfriend or neighbor as a ‘benefactor’ or has acquaintances who try to exploit him for money, labor, drugs, or other resources."

Significant Impairment in General Intelligence. Select issues to recognize include:

• A cause-and-effect relationship betwen intelligence (IQ) and adaptive functioning is difficult to prove

• Atkins defendents typically have taken multiple IQ tests and the scores often fluctuate around the legal cut-off score. Experts need to recognize the potential reasons for this IQ variability and account for it in their interpretation and conclusions.

Training Issues in Forensic Psychology

• States and jurisdictions may specify different standards regarding who can testify as an expert in Atkins cases. Experts need to be aware of the professional standards involved in a specific case before deciding to serve as an expert witness.

• "psychologists preparing to testify in Atkins proceedings would benefit by becoming members of two divisions of the American Psychological Association. Division 33 (Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities) and Division 41 (American Psychology-Law Society) often provide information relevant to Atkins and offer the opportunity to become acquainted with colleagues with experience in this area."

Article summary

The expert in an Atkins proceeding must have experience with individuals with mild mental retardation, knowledge of the research on this population, and knowledge of the applicable laws and court procedures. This combination of knowledge and experience was rare before the Atkins decision, and experts who now work in this area must broaden their experiences to provide the most valid and objective information to the court. As the other articles in this issue have demonstrated, the diagnosis of mild mental retardation is complex and requires more than the rigid application of test scores. People with mild mental retardation may have basic academic skills and several areas of adequate community functioning. Their difficulties that set them apart are more likely located in their judgment than in their knowledge and skills. Reschly (2009, this issue) provides an excellent summary in noting that ‘‘The core issue is the use of abstract reasoning and judgment in coping with everyday demands in a socially and economically complex society.’’

Geography, MR and the death penatly: Ethics related issues for psychological experts

The state in which an individual with intellectual disabilities (MR) resides, when they commit a capital punishment crime, may have bearing on whether they are executed or not, and raises potential ethical issues for psychologists who conduct assessments as expert witnesses.

In the following 2006 journal article, Duvall and Morris outline a number of critical issues that psychologists must recognize when serving as expert witnesses in Atkin’s MR/death penalty cases. The primary focus of the article was on the U. S. Supreme Court Atkin's (2002) ruling that deferred to the states when defining mental retardation.

• Duvall, J. C. & Morris, R. J. (2006). Assessing Mental Retardation in Death Penalty Cases: Critical Issues for Psychology and Psychological Practice (2006). Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 37 (6), 658 – 665. (click here to view)
  

Abstract

In 2002, the United States Supreme Court decided the Atkins case, which held that mentally retarded defendants could not be executed. The opinion gave no guidance on the definition of mental retardation, preferring to leave to individual states the task of determining not only the definition of mental retardation but also the assessment procedures to be used in making the diagnosis. This lack of guidance has resulted in many issues, including varying definitions of what constitutes mental retardation across states, use of different assessment procedures to make the determination that a person has mental retardation, and numerous psychometric concerns regarding the provision of psychological assessment services to the courts in capital cases that involve a defendant who may have mental retardation. This article examines these latter issues in detail from both psychological and legal perspectives and makes recommendations for practicing psychologists.

ARTICLE HIGHLIGHTS
[note – italics designates direct quotes. Underlining reflects emphasis of the blogmaster].

MR Definition Issues:

The Atkins opinion recognized two different clinical definitions of mental retardation--the 1992 American Association on Mental Retardation (AAMR) defintion and, the 2000 definition published by the American Psychiatric Association in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed., text rev.; 2000).

The 1992 AAMR mental retardation definition requires substantial limitations in present functioning “characterized by significantly sub-average intellectual functioning, existing concurrently with related limitations in two or more of the following applicable adaptive skill areas: communication, self-care, home living, social skills, community use, self-direction, health and safety, functional academics, leisure and work.” Further, mental retardation must manifest before age 18 (Atkins v. Virginia, 2002, p. 308, n. 3).

The American Psychiatric Association formulation is as follows: The essential feature of mental retardation is significantly sub-average general intellectual functioning (Criterion A) that is accompanied by significant limitations in adaptive functioning in at least two of the following skill areas: communication, self-care, home living, social/ interpersonal skills, use of community resources, self-direction, functional academic skills, work, leisure, health, and safety (Criterion B). The onset must occur before age 18 years (Criterion C). (American Psychiatric Association, 2000, p. 41)

At the time of this 2006 article, according to the authors, the federal government and 38 states permitted the execution of defendants found guilty of capital crimes. Prior to Atkins only 19 states had enacted statutes prohibiting the execution of persons meeting a statutory definition of MR. After the SCOTUS decision an additional 10 states enacted such statutes. "In addition, 11 states that permit imposition of the death penalty still lack any express statutory bar to the execution of a person having mental retardation. These states are Alabama, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, and Wyoming (“Oklahoma Senate,” 2006; “Our Turn,” 2006; Rawls, 2005)."

An example of the post-Atkin's effect on states was the state of Texas which, via Atkins, "compelled the Texas Court of Appeals to make its own definition of mental retardation, and it chose the 1992 AAMR definition (Ex Parte Briseno, 2004). Courts in other states that still lack governing statutes have created their own definitions and procedures as well."

A valuable component of the this article was the provision (via a table) of a summary of the definitions, operational cut-off scores, and any mandated assessments in different states that had laws protecting individuals with MR from being executed (see Table 1 in article) As Duvall and Morris discuss, a situation can arise where a psychologist is faced with an ethical issue when a state has a different cut-off score for MR when compared to the AAMR and APA operational definitions.

many statutes appear to provide that an IQ score above 70 (or in Connecticut, above 69) would alone defeat a defendant’s claim that mental retardation exempts him or her from eligibility for the death penalty. These legislated cutoff scores directly conflict with American Psychiatric Association and AAMR definitions, which permit IQ scores of 70 to 75 as indicative of sufficiently subaverage intellectual functioning (Luckasson et al., 2002).

the use of a “70” IQ score as a cutoff score reflects a statistical convention rather than a natural boundary and that using precise cutoffs mistakenly suggests that a 1-point difference in two people’s scores reflects a significant difference in their cognitive capacities.

Flynn Effect issues:

According to Duvall and Morris, in 2006 no state statute specifically addressed the Flynn effect (see prior posts), an issue that can have a major impact on death penalty cases.

For example, in those cases in which a defendant was convicted during either the beginning or end of a renorming period, the defendant’s IQ could be artificially lower or higher.

Thus, a potentially important implication of the Flynn effect is that some borderline death row inmates or capital murder defendants who were not classified as mentally retarded in childhood because they were administered an older version of an IQ test will qualify as mentally retarded if they are administered a more recent test. Given the magnitude of the effect (nearly a full standard deviation decrease in IQ is associated with changing norms since the first edition of the WISC was phased out in the early 1970s), the shifts in eligibility for death row inmates could be significant.

Potential ethical issues:

As per the 2002 Ethics Code and Legally Mandated Procedures for Assessing Mental Retardation In the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (APA, 2002), Standard 9.02(a) states: “Psychologists administer, adapt, score, interpret, or use assessment techniques, interviews, tests, or instruments in a manner and for purposes that are appropriate in light of the research on or evidence of the usefulness and proper application of the techniques” (p. 1071).

Although this standard may sound simple in the abstract, Duvall and Morris discuss a number of potential ethical issues that may surface for psychologists as a function of the state in which they perform as an expert witness. For example:

the question arises whether the legally mandated practices in many states involving a number of test administrations by different experts within a short period are consistent with the “proper application” of the procedure for measuring IQ. Standard 2.04 of the ethics code states that “Psychologists’ work is based on established scientific and professional knowledge of the discipline” (APA, 2002, p. 1064). The question here is whether “established scientific and professional knowledge” supports psychologists performing multiple intellectual assessments within a short period of time, without communicating with other professionals regarding which tests were used, and without considering the impact of practice effects and related reliability and validity issues on the test results obtained. The concern is particularly pressing in states such as Kentucky and Tennessee where the case law appears to make the psychologist’s scoring of an IQ test the sole cause for disqualifying a defendant claiming mental retardation to escape

According to Duvall and Morris (in 2006):

it appears that no states whose statutes provide for more than one examination by different experts include any provision expressly addressing the psychological measurement issues or the test–retest reliability problems Moreover, no state statute mandates communication between the evaluators so multiple assessment using identical instruments can be avoided

A number of the issues raised by the authors boil down to “ how should a psychologist proceed who (a) is interested in providing psychological services to the court to determine whether a person has mental retardation and (b) desires to behave in a manner consistent with the APA ethics code?”

According to Duvall and Morris, the APA ethics code does provide some assistance for these situations via Standard 1.02:

which addresses what to do if ethical responsibilities conflict with law, regulations, or other governing authority. It states, psychologists must make known their commitment to the Ethics Code and take steps to resolve the conflict. If the conflict is not resolvable via such means, psychologists may adhere to the requirements of the law, regulations, or other governing legal authority. (APA, 2002, p. 1063)

However, Duvall and Morris point out that by following the law a psychologist could be violating basic principles and practices of accepted psychological testing practice—“therefore, a psychologist who provides psychological assessment services to a particular state, as well as any subsequent expert testimony, will conceivably act in accordance with the law while at the same time providing results and testimony that could very possibly be inconsistent with current professional standards of practice, or as the ethics code states, “established scientific and professional knowledge” (APA, 2002).”

So. What is a conflicted psychologist to do?

One way to counteract this conundrum is for the psychologist to follow Standard 1.02 of the APA ethics code by adhering to the law and stating in his or her psychological report, as well as indicating in his or her court testimony the limitations of his or her findings based on the standards of sound psychological testing practices. By informing the court, as well as the prosecution and defense, a decision can be made regarding the fairness of the psychologist’s assessment. A more simple solution is for psychologists to refuse appointments to provide assessments in those states whose statutes clearly violate sound psychometric practices. When the difference in a single IQ point can mean the difference between eligibility and ineligibility for the death penalty, it would appear to us that psychologists involved in these cases should apply the standard of psychological care advocated by the APA ethics code rather than the law.

Summary and Conclusion Section of Article

The lack of guidance in Atkins about definitions and procedures appears problematic for psychological practice because states have different definitions of mental retardation, cutoff score criterion, and assessment procedures. Moreover, some procedures mandated by statute appear to defy sound psychological measurement principles. These circumstances have created an ethical dilemma for those psychologists who choose to assist states in determining whether a defendant in a capital case has mental retardation. Psychologists must follow both the law and the ethics code of their profession. The problem is that the implementations of the Atkins decision in many states can cause psychologists to act in a manner that may violate the APA ethics code. In these instances, psychologists could refuse to accept a court appointment to provide such services and, therefore, avoid an ethical–legal conflict. In instances, however, where such an appointment is accepted, it would appear that psychologists should state clearly in their report to the courts (as well as in any subsequent testimony) the specific limitations associated with their findings that affect the external and internal validity of the test results.


Technorati Tags: psychology, educational psychology, neuropsychology, forensic psychology, intelligence, MR, mental retardation, IQ tests, IQ scores, Atkins cases, death penalty, capital punishment, AAIDD, APA, intellectual competence

Professional Standards: Joint Standards for Educatonal and Psychological Testing

A number of professional standards and codes of ethics need to be understood by professionals developing and using intelligence tests in death penalty cases. Probably the most important, from a measurement and psychometric perspective, are the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (often call the "Joint Standards"). These standards are the result of a cooperative joint effort of:

• American Educational Research Association (AERA)

• American Psychological Association (APA)

• National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME)

As described at the APA web page:

Revised significantly from the 1985 version, the 1999 Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing has more in-depth background material in each chapter, a greater number of standards, and a significantly expanded glossary and index. The new Standards reflects changes in federal law and measurement trends affecting validity; testing individuals with disabilities or different linguistic backgrounds; and new types of tests as well as new uses of existing tests. The Standards is written for the professional and for the educated layperson and addresses professional and technical issues of test development and use in education, psychology and employment. This book is a vitally important reference for professional test developers, sponsors, publishers, users, policymakers, employers, and students in education and psychology

Overview of organization and content:

Part I: Test Construction, Evaluation, and Documentation

1. Validity
2. Reliability and Errors of Measurement
3. Test Development and Revision
4. Scales, Norms, and Score Comparability
5. Test Administration, Scoring, and Reporting
6. Supporting Documentation for Tests

Part II: Fairness in Testing

7. Fairness in Testing and Test Use
8. The Rights and Responsibilities of Test Takers
9. Testing Individuals of Diverse Linguistic Backgrounds
10. Testing Individuals with Disabilities

Part III: Testing Applications

11. The Responsibilities of Test Users
12. Psychological Testing and Assessment
13. Educational Testing and Assessment
14. Testing in Employment and Credentialing
15. Testing in Program Evaluation and Public Policy

Over time some of these specific professional standards will be discussed in greater detail, particularly within the context of specific issues and or examples.

Technorati Tags: psychology, forensic psychology, clinical psychology, neuropsychology, school psychology, educational psychology, Joint Test Standards, testing standards, AERA, NCME, APA, MR, mental retardation, death penalty, standards, ethics