Atkins MR/ID Court Decision: Maldonado v TX (2012)

The Atkins MR/ID case of Maldonado in Texas has been commented on numerous times at this blog. A new hearing was held this past October and the court decision rendered yesterday. Having served as an expert witness in this last hearing, I post the decision without comment.

Maldonado v Texas (2012)

 

Posted with Blogsy

The legacy of Dr. Death and voodoo psychometrics in TX: Three remands for Atkins trial courts

The mess caused by voodoo psychometrics in select cases involving Dr. Denkowsi (sometimes called "Dr. Death") in Texas has resulted in remands for trial courts to reconsider the findings.

I just learned of the following three remands.

Maldonado (2012)

Hunter (2012)

Wesbrook(2012)






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

Psychologist who cleared inmates for death row reprimanded by Texas board

File under justice for those who practice voodoo psychometrics or what is typically called "junk science". Some of Dr. Denkowski's work has been previously mentioned at the ICDP blog under the label voodoo psychometrics.

The Texas Tribune: Psychologist Who Cleared Inmates for Death Row Is Reprimanded by Board

A psychologist who examined 14 inmates who are now on Texas’ Death Row — and two others who were subsequently executed — and found them intellectually competent enough to face the death penalty, agreed on Thursday never to perform such evaluations again. Lawyers for the 14 inmates hope the agreement will help their clients, who they argue are mentally handicapped, to escape lethal injection.

As part of a settlement, the Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists issued a reprimand against Dr. George Denkowski, whose testing methods have been sharply criticized by other psychologists and defense lawyers as unscientific. Dr. Denkowski agreed not to conduct intellectual disability evaluations in future criminal cases and to pay a fine of $5,500. In return, the board dismissed the complaints against him.

Texas defense lawyers and forensic psychologists across the nation have watched the case closely. Although Dr. Denkowski admitted no wrongdoing and defends his practice, those critical of his methods said the settlement could give those inmates still on death row an important appellate opportunity.

“It really suggests that he screwed up,” said Dick Burr, a lawyer who represents Steven Butler, a death row inmate, and who filed one of the complaints against Dr. Denkowski.

The United States Supreme Court ruled in 2002 that states cannot execute mentally handicapped people. But the court did not provide guidelines for determining whether a person is mentally handicapped, leaving it up to the states to create criteria. Texas courts have generally adopted a three-part definition that requires the convicted inmate to have below-average intellectual function, to lack adaptive behavior skills and to have had these problems since a young age.

Dr. Denkowski was an expert witness whom prosecutors — particularly in Harris County — relied upon to determine whether a murder defendant would be eligible for execution. In 2009, other psychologists and defense lawyers complained to the board of psychologist examiners that Dr. Denkowski used unscientific methods that artificially inflated intelligence scores to make defendants eligible for the death penalty.

Dr. Denkowski published a 2008 article in the American Journal of Forensic Psychology describing his technique for scoring defendants. He said traditional tests did not compensate for social and cultural factors. For example, he wrote, those who come from impoverished backgrounds may not have learned basic skills like using a thermometer or maintaining hygiene simply because those skills were not valued in their community. But that does not necessarily indicate a lack of intellectual function, he said.

Dr. Denkowski also explained why he deviated from the standard use of a test that evaluates adaptive behavior or life skills. The test is typically administered to family members and friends who know the person to ask about how the person functions — whether he is able to pay rent, fill out job applications, read menus, etc.

Dr. Denkowski administered that test to the inmate instead. People close to the individual, he wrote, “tend to understate a defendant’s actual functioning markedly” because they do not want him to face execution.

Other psychologists have rejected Dr. Denkowski’s methods, arguing that they have no scientific basis. The American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities in its 2010 manual for classifying intellectual disability strongly cautioned against using Dr. Denkowski’s methods “until firmly supported by empirical evidence.”

“What Denkowski has been doing is a pretty radical departure,” said Marc J. Tassé, director of the Ohio State University Nisonger Center and an expert in developmental disabilities. “There’s absolutely no scientific basis to his procedure.”

There is no evidence, Dr. Tassé said, that a person from a poor family is less likely to learn basic life skills. He said he knew of no other forensic psychologist who uses similar methods.

Jennifer Andrews, Dr. Denkowski’s lawyer, said her client vigorously denied that he violated any psychology board rules. Part of the problem, Ms. Andrews said, is that the board has not promulgated specific rules for conducting forensic evaluations for cases involving mentally handicapped individuals.

“Psychologists are left to use their best clinical judgment, which Dr. Denkowski used,” she said.

In 2007, Mark Ellis, a state district judge, concluded in the case of the death row inmate Daniel Plata that Dr. Denkowski’s methods did not align with accepted psychological practices and ethical guidelines. Judge Ellis threw out the 2005 evaluation by Dr. Denkowski, saying it “must be disregarded due to fatal errors in … administration and scoring.”

Mr. Plata’s sentence was commuted to life in 2008, and he is now at the Hodge Unit with other similarly disabled prisoners.

In a 2006 evaluation of Steven Butler, who was convicted in the killing of a store clerk, Dr. Denkowski rejected other I.Q. test scores that indicated Mr. Butler was well below average intelligence. He discounted behavioral evaluations from Mr. Butler’s family and friends, who said the young man could not understand the rules of basketball, had to have others read menus for him and had failed basic classes.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has stayed Mr. Butler’s execution pending the outcome of the complaint against Dr. Denkowski.

A clause in the settlement asserts that the agreement cannot be cited in capital punishment appeals, but Mr. Burr said he plans to use it — and Dr. Denkowski’s agreement not to conduct forensic evaluations again — to argue that Mr. Butler should be re-evaluated to ensure that Texas does not execute a mentally handicapped man.

State Senator Rodney Ellis, Democrat of Houston, chairman of the Innocence Project board and a member of the Criminal Justice Committee, said every case involving Dr. Denkowski should be reviewed by the courts.

“We cannot simply shrug our shoulders and sit by and watch while the state uses legal technicalities to execute these intellectually disabled men,” Mr. Ellis said, “especially on the word of someone who is no longer permitted to make these kinds of determinations.”


- 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 Dr. Denkowski voodoo psychometrics

Generated by: Tag Generator

Court decision: Maldonado v Thaler (2010) 5th circuit decision

On October 29 the Federal Appeals Court (5th Circuit) decided Virgilio Maldonado's Atkins appeal on Oct. 29 (click here to view) The district court opinion has previously been posted at the ICDP blog. In August, the appeals court granted a certificate of appeal on the intellectual disability issue, which it disposed of on the 29th. Interestingly, the court spent significant time discussing a psychologists credibility that was noted in a prior ICDP discussion of "voodoo psychometrics." However, in the end, the court concluded that even if Dr. Denkowski's testimony was tossed out.... “we conclude that Maldonado could not, with the evidence that would remain, meet his burden for obtaining federal habeas relief."

Again, the Flynn Effect was in play. Testimony indicated that all experts accepted the validity of the Flynn Effect phenomena, but differed on whether it should be used the adjust an individuals IQ score, which seems to be the central point of the debate of the Flynn Effect (aka norm obsolescence) in many Atkins cases. The final decision relied on a Texas case law which called the Flynn Effect an "unexamined scientific concept".

Finally, this decision made frequent reference to the case of Wiley v Epps (2009, 2010).

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 Maldonado v Texas Maldonado v Thaler


- iPost using BlogPress from my Kevin McGrew's iPad

Update: Maldonado v Thaler (2010) - a blow against voodooo psychometrics !

The Atkins case of Maldonado in Texas has been mentioned numerous times at the ICDP blog---primarily because of the unbelievable voodoooo psychometrics used by an expert for the state.  It appears that Dr. Death's psychological testing and interpretation procedures are becoming widely recognized for what they are by lawyers and the courts. 

I've just learned (thanks to Kevin Foley) that  two days ago, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals granted a Certificate of Appealability (COA) in Maldonado's case (click here to view).  Apparently, the issue of the state's expert testimony tipped the scales in Maldonado's favor.  But all the court's decision has accomplished is to allow Maldonado a chance to argue his Atkins claim. It is my understanding that this is an unusual procedure in habeas cases.

The appropriate challenge of the voodooo psychometrics that occurred is reflected on page 7 of the decision:

Maldonado argues that Dr. Denkowski’s performance was deficient in the following respects:

1. As in Plata, Dr. Denkowski improperly applied “cultural factors” to raise Maldonado’s raw IQ score;

2. Dr. Denkowski failed to take the “Flynn Effect” into account when calculating Maldonado’s IQ score;

3. As in Plata, Dr. Denkowski applied “idiosyncratic” protocols to raise Maldonado’s adaptive deficit score, improperly adjusting the score upward to account for ethnic, social, and cultural factors;

4. Dr. Denkowski improperly relied on a translator, who lacked prior experience in psychology or psychological test-taking, to administer Maldonado’s IQ and adaptive deficit tests.

All prior ICDP posts (including a guest post) that have made mention, or have discussed aspects of this case, can be found by clicking here,  here, here, here, here, and here.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

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, Atkins cases, Atkins death penalty, American Bar Association, Atkins cases, death penalty, capital punishment, AAIDD, Atkins MR/ID listserv, ICDP blog, psychiatry, psychiatry and criminal justice, Texas death penalty, Maldonado v Thaler, Maldonado v Texas, voodooo psychometrics, Dr. Death

Court Decisions: Pierce v Thaler (TX, 2010)

The Anthony Pierce v Thaler (TX, 2010) case has been decided.  The 2009 decision granted Pierce the right to argue his Atkins case, and directed further briefing by the parties. I am told that the new 2010 decision is the final word on the case from the Appeals Court, absent the court granting a rehearing in front of the entire array of judges.

Of interest, was the unsuccessful argument that new evidence had surfaced that had discredited the states experts testimony and techniques  (in a prior Atkins--see prior "voodoo psychometrics" post re: Plata decision).  The court felt that the facts of Plata and Pierce were distinguishable.

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, ICDP blog, voodoo psychometrics, Pierce v Thayer 2010, Pierce v TX 2010

Court Decisions: Williams v Thayer (TX, 2008, 2010) & Matamoros v Thayer (TX, 2010)

Two more Atkins decisions have been posted today to ICDP's Court Decisions blog roll.

A number of issues involved in the case of Williams versus Thayer (TX, 2008, 2010) has been discussed previously (with regard to the prior 2007 decision) by myself  and by Kevin Foley (guest blog post - "Judge Playing Psychologist"). This is clearly a case where there are a boatload of assessment related issues in the areas of an intelligence testing, academic achievement, and adaptive behavior (see two prior blog posts). The most recent 2010 decision denied Williams appeal.

The other is yet another Texas case that is posted "as is" (without comment or analysis).  Matamoros v Thayer (TX, 2010). I only briefly skimmed the ruling, but it appears to illustrate a quagmire of issues involved in ascertaining adaptive behavior functioning (prong two of MR/ID Dx), with the additional twist of the state of Texas' unique Briseno standard. Also, this case is complicated by the involvement of an expert for thie state whose methods of "adjusting scores "has been seriously questioned ("voodooo psychometrics") and challenged in the past (click here and here).

Technorati Tags: psychology, forensic psychology, forensic psychiatry, neuropsychology, intelligence, school psychology, psychometrics, educational psychology, IQ, IQ tests, IQ scores, intellectual disability, mental retardation, MR, ID, criminal psychology, criminal defense, criminal justice, ABA, American Bar Association, Atkins cases, death penalty, capital punishment, AAIDD, Briseno, Williams v Thayer, Williams v Texas, Matamoros v Thayer, Matamoros v Texas

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

Excellent article on role of "Dr. Death" psychologist and junk science in Texas Atkins MR death penalty cases

A January 8, 2010 article in the Texas Observer is probably the most accurate investigative story I've read regarding some of the voodoo psychometrics (aka., junk science by "Dr. Death") and questionable professional behavior by a psychological examiner in Atkins death penalty cases. René Feltz did an excellent job in covering the major issues and some of the crazy things that have occurred Atkins death penalty cases, particularly in the state of Texas.  The Plata case has been previously commented on at this blog (click here for comments and link to court decision file).

The article includes a number of embedded YouTube videos which are worth watching. The last video in the online article is a particularly good brief summary of the major issues in this story. Click here if you want to view this third video directly from YouTube (in case you do not want to take the time to read the newspaper article).

An excellent example of "sunlight is the best disinfectant."

Technorati Tags: psychology, forensic psychology, forensic psychiatry, neuropsychology, criminal psychology, criminal justice, American Bar Association, ABA, Atkins cases, Texas and death penalty, voodoo psychometrics, junk science, Dr. Death, Denkowski, Rene Feltz, mental retardation, intellectual disability, MR, ID, AAIDD, Texas Observer

Larry v Branker (NC, 2009). More voodoo psychometrics via SEM misuse/abuse and use of SSSQ

Another addition to the Atkins Court Decisions section of the ICDP blog. And, unfortunately, another case the reflects the courts failure to recognize professionally accepted psychometric standards (viz., failure to consider standard error of measurement--SEM; and the use of adaptive behavior instruments that are inappropriate for norm-referenced "relative standing" in a population comparisons).  Another case of voodoo psychometrics.


Thanks to Kevin Foley for sending the Larry v Branker (NC, 2009) decision.

Upon review, this appears to be yet another case where a bright line IQ score of 70 is used to render a Dx of MR.  That is....70 or below...DX=MR....71 to 75 = not MR.  The defendant obtained a Full Scale IQ score on the WAIS-III of 74, which is within the professionally accepted range for a Dx of MR (when taking into account "measurement error".)  Not taking into account the standard error of measurement (SEM) is at odds with the two major professional associations (AAMR/AAIDD; American Psychiatric Association DSM) that are always mentioned as providing the operational definition of MR in Atkins decisions.  APA and AAIDD (as well as all major measurement associations) make it extremely clear that SEM must be part of "best practices" when diagnosing MR.  The use of SEM is interpreted by professional associations, psychometric experts, and most psychological testing experts, as recognizing scores as high as 75 (70 plus or minus 5 IQ pts) in a possible Dx of MR. 

The continued failure of certain courts, judges, states, and some psychologist "experts" to recognize the well-established measurement concept of "measurement error" (as reflected by the SEM statistic) is troubling....very disturbing.  I will eventually be making a post re: the concept of SEM...in hopes of educating folks on the logic, statistics, and support for recognizing measurement error in MR Dx....esp. in Atkins cases.  The recent law review article by Blume is an excellent read regarding the failure of many courts to recognize the accepted practice of bracketing IQ scores with the SEM---and often in a manner that appears to be a deliberate attempt to circumvent the intention of the U.S. Supreme Courts original landmark Atkins v Virginia decision.  Some courts and judges continue to play foot-loose and fancy-free with psychometric concepts that they clearly fail to understand or, simply deliberately interpret inappropriately to justify a predetermined biased decision.  People with MR are continuing to be executed due to SEM misuse and abuse.   It appears the Larry Court hid behind statutory language: "The statute defines '[significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning' as '[a]n intelligence quotient of 70 or below.' Id" rather than employing reflective critical thinking in accordance with accepted professional standards. 

Also, as has been seen in other decisions,the SSSQ was inappropriately accepted as a measure of adaptive behavior.  Another example of voodoo psychometrics (click here for my prior comments on the use of the inappropriate use of the SSSQ in the formal Dx of MR. ) The SSSQ may be an appropriate instrument for which it was developed and/or normed, but is not an appropriate nationally normed measure of AB...which is required as per the Joint Test Standards when making inferences regarding a persons relative standing within the population.

Technorati Tags: psychology, forensic psychology, school psychology, educational psychology, neuropsychology, IQ, intelligence, IQ tests, IQ scores, standard error of measurement, SEM, MR, ID, mental retardation, intellectual disability, SSSQ, adaptive behavior, Atkins cases, Atkins hearings, death penalty, Atkiins v Virginia, capital punishment, Larry v Branker, voodoo psychometrics

Woods v Texas Standwown Texas update: May be executed after Thanksgiving break

The StandDown Texas Project just made a post indicating that after Thanksgiving the first person to possibly be executed may be mentally retarded (intellectual disability).  The initial ICDP post re: Woods v Texas (plus links to relevant court decisions) can be viewed by clicking here.  As one can surmise from my initial post, the Woods case contains a quagmire of psychometric issues.

The StandDown report includes a link to a Texas newspaper that has posted a brief online interview with Woods.

Technorati Tags: psychology, psychometrics, neuropsychology, forensic psychology, IQ, IQ tests, IQ scores, adaptive behavior, MR, ID, mental retardation, intellectual disability, Atkins cases, death penalty, capital punishment, StandDown Texas Project, Texas executions, Woods v Texas

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

Plata (2007) Atkins MR Texas decision: Another blow against voodoo psychometrics

Another Atkins court decisions (Plata, 2007, TX) is now available in the Court Decisions on the blog sidebar.  Of interest is the courts recognition of the voodoo psychometrics previously mentioned at ICDP re: the clinical n=1 upward adjustment of IQ scores.  It looks like the Plata's attorney persuaded the court that these magical measurement mis-adventures needed to stop.  Kudos to the attorney and judge for sheddding some sunlight on questionable psychometric practices.


In January, 2008, Plata was determined to be MR/ID and sentenced to life in prison..and not execution.

Technorati Tags: psychology, forensic psychology, criminal psychology, criminal justice, neuropsychology, school psychology, educational psychology, MR, mental retardation, ID, intellectual disability, Atkins cases, death penalty, capital punishment, Plata v Texas, voodoo psychometris, IQ, IQ tests, IQ scores, Wechclser batteries, WAIS-III, WASI, nonverbal IQ, ABA, American Bar Association, criminal defense

More voodoo psychometrics in Atkins MR death penalty cases? This time adaptive behavior

Voodoo psychometrics strikes again!

A few days ago I made a post (and a subsequent brief FYI follow-up post)  regarding a number of theoretical and psychometric issues that surfaced in the Maldonado (2009) Atkins MR death penalty court decision (click here and here).  It was my opinion that a number of questionable arguments and decisions had been made re: the entirety of the psychometric intelligence test data available in the Maldonado (2009) decision. I won't repeat them here.

Probably my biggest criticism was the use of a non-empirical, unvalidated n=1 psychologist clinical procedure to upwardly adjust IQ scores based on educational and cultural background variables.  Today I learned  that similar "social-cultural" upward adjustment of adaptive behavior scale scores, which are the foundation of the second prong of the determination of mental retardation (or not) in Atkins cases, has also occurred in a number of Atkins cases.  This time I was able to locate an article by Denkowski and Denkowski (2008) that outlined the logic and reasoning for the recommended "systematic" procedure.  I read it in psychometric disbelief!

There is no reason for me to outline my psychometric criticisms, as a number of authors replied with most of the arguments I would have made.  These response, in the same journal, are by Widaman & Siperstein (2009) and Olley (2009) (click here for post re: AB-related chapter by Olley &Cox, 2008). Denkowski and Denkowski (2009) then reply.

As an applied psychometrician, I concur with most of the reactions and arguements of Widaman, Siperstein and Olley.  There is simply insufficent scientifc and psychometric grounds for the upward adjustment of AB scores as outlined.  Yes, psychologists are trained to use clinical adjustment when interpreting test scores, and I so invoked such judgement when conducting countless intellectual assessments during my years as a practicing school psychologist, but clinical judgement is not the same as the development of special score adjustments of nationally standardized psychological instruments based primarily on logic and reason.

Technorati Tags: psychology, forensic psychology, criminal psychology, criminal justice, neuropsychology, adaptive behavior, ABS-II, MR, mental retardation, developmental disabilities, Atkins cases, capital punishment, death penalty