iPost: Major rule change for discovery of experts documents

Story at link below

http://www.ims-expertservices.com/newsletters/feb/rule-26-major-changes-for-attorneys-and-experts-020810.asp

Sent from KMcGrew iPhone (IQMobile). (If message includes an image-
double click on it to make larger-if hard to see)

Court decisions: Walker v Kelly (VA, 2010)

Another Atkins court decision has been posted to the Court Decision sidebar.  Walker v Kelly (VA, 2010).

Technorati Tags: Psychology, forensic psychology, forensic psychiatry, neuropsychology, intelligence, IQ, IQ tests, IQ scores, adaptive behavior, intellectual disability, mental retardation, MR, ID, criminal psychology, criminal defense, ABA, American Bar Association, Atkins cases, death penalty, capital punishment, Walker v Kelly, Walker v VA

iPost: Emailing tweet from: StanfordCLB (StanfordCLB)

StanfordCLB: More on #Brain Imaging and the #DeathPenalty in prep for
Perlin talk: @wiredscience article quotes Hank Greely http://tinyurl.com/yllv942
Original Tweet: http://twitter.com/StanfordCLB/status/8870615645

Sent via TweetDeck (www.tweetdeck.com)

Sent from KMcGrew iPhone (IQMobile). (If message includes an image-
double click on it to make larger-if hard to see)

iPost: After 28 years man with MR spared from death in SC

Story at DPIC at link below.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/after-28-years-judge-spares-life-inmate-mental-disabilities

Sent from KMcGrew iPhone (IQMobile). (If message includes an image-
double click on it to make larger-if hard to see)

Court decisions: Lyons v Crawford/Nixon (MO, 2009) - Special masters reports

Two Special Masters reports in Lyons v Crawford/Nixon (MO, 2009) can be found by clicking here and here.  Of particular interest is the handling of the Flynn effect on IQ scores



Technorati Tags: Psychology, forensic psychology, forensic psychiatry, neuropsychology, intelligence, IQ, IQ tests, IQ scores, adaptive behavior, intellectual disability, mental retardation, MR, ID, criminal psychology, criminal defense, ABA, American Bar Association, Atkins cases, death penalty, capital punishment, Lyons v MO, Lysons v Crawford Mixon, special masters

State case and statute references for intellectual disability (ID)/mental retardation (MR)

Click here to access a document listing state case and statute references re: mental retardation/intellectual disabilities (MR/ID)

Technorati Tags: Psychology, forensic psychology, forensic psychiatry, neuropsychology, intelligence, IQ, IQ tests, IQ scores, adaptive behavior, intellectual disability, mental retardation, MR, ID, criminal psychology, criminal defense, ABA, American Bar Association, Atkins cases, death penalty, capital punishment, state MR statutes, state MR cases

MR and capital punishment cases: "Presiding over a capital case" (Elwyn & Piasecki, 2010)

This chapter is available on the internet.  Click here to access

Technorati Tags: Psychology, forensic psychology, forensic psychiatry, neuropsychology, intelligence, IQ, IQ tests, IQ scores, adaptive behavior, intellectual disability, mental retardation, MR, ID, criminal psychology, criminal defense, ABA, American Bar Association, Atkins cases, death penalty, capital punishment

Court Decision: Brumfield v Cain (LA, 2008, 2009)--aka, Warrick Dunn's mothers murder case

Court documents related to Brumfield v Cain (LA, 2008, 2009) have just be posted.  Some folks may recall this as the case of the murder of Warrick Dunn's (an NFL running back) mother (click here for excerpt from his book).  There are a lot of documents, much to digest, etc.  I continue to simply serve as the ICDP archivist of such court decisions---due to lack of time to do more.  If after reading all documents anyone would like to make any professional comments, raise issues, make a critique, etc., please email me with a draft.

• Brumfield (2008)
• Brumfield (2007)
• Brumfield (2009)
• Brumfield (2009b)
• Brumfield (2009c)
• Brumfield (2009d)
• Brumfield (2009e)

Technorati Tags: psychology, educational psychology, school psychology, forensic psychology, court decisions, criminal psychology, criminal defense, Atkins cases, MR, ID, mental retardation, intellectual disability, death penalty, capital punishment, IQ, IQ scores, ABA, American Bar Association, ISIR

Stephen Greenspan on "60 Minutes" to discuss gullibility

Stephen Greenspan (ANNALS OF GULLIBILITY, Praeger, 2009) is scheduled to appear on a  60 Minute segment scheduled to air on Sun, 2/14 @ 7 pm ET/PT; 6PM Central/ Mtn.  Greenspan has written extensively re: the critical importance of the concept of gullibility as it relates to the definition and identification of individuals with intellectual disabilities/mental retardation (ID/MR).

According to Greenspan, the segment will focus mainly on Ponzi scheme implications, and will not get much or all into other implications, such as criminal justice, cognitive disabilities, Atkins MR death penalty cases, etc.

Technorati Tags: Psychology, forensic psychology, forensic psychiatry, intellectual disabilities, mental retardation, social skills, social intelligence, social cognition, 60 minutes, gullibility, Ponzi schemes

AP101 Brief #6 supplement: Wechsler CHC test classification summaries

I should have included the following tables in my original AP101 Brief # 6 report re: my analysis of the CHC content of the FS IQ scores for the various editions of the WISC--WIS-IV/WAIS--WAIS-IV intelligence batteries.  Here they are: [double click on images to enlarge]

Technorati Tags: psychology, school psychology, educational psychology, forensic psychology, neuropsychology, clinical psychology, intelligence testing, intelligence, IQ, Wechsler batteries, WISC-R, WISC, WISC-III, WISC-IV, WAIS, WAIS-R, WAIS-III, WAIS-IV, IQ score differences, CHC theory, Cattell-Horn-Carroll, Flynn effect

iPost: Execution competency and comprehension of death

SSRN article at SLP blog link below

http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2010/02/the-undiscovered-country-execution-competency-comprehending-death.html

Sent from KMcGrew iPhone (IQMobile). (If message includes an image-
double click on it to make larger-if hard to see)

AP101 Brief #6: Understanding Wechsler IQ score differences--the CHC evolution of the Wechsler FS IQ score

[Note.  A typo in the original tables used to construct the WAIS figure below has been fixed.  Visual Puzzles on the WAIS-IV had been incorrectly designated as a measure of Gf----it should have been classified Gv.  This has now been changed and the corresponding text also modified.  Sorry for this error.  Changes in the text are so designated below via the strikeover]

Why do the IQ scores for the same individual often differ?

This question often perplexes both users and recipients of psychological reports. In a previous IAP Applied Psychometrics 101 report (AP101 #1:  Understanding IQ score differences) I discussed general statistical information related to the magnitude and frequency of expected IQ score differences for different tests (as a function of the correlation between tests).  In that report I mentioned the following general categories of possible reasons for IQ score differences/discrepancies.

Factors contributing to significant IQ differences are many, and include: (a) procedural or test administration issues (e.g., scoring errors; improper test administration; malingering; age vs grade norms), (b) test norm or standardization differences (e.g., possible errors in the norms; sampling plan for selecting subjects for developing the test norms; publication date of test), (c) content differences, and/or, (d) in the case of group research, research methodology issues (e.g., sample pre-selection effects on reported mean IQs) (McGrew, 1994).

At this time I  return to one of these factors--content differences. This brief report does not focus on content differences between different IQ tests but, instead, focuses on the changing content across the various editions of the two primary Wechsler intelligence batteries (WISC/WAIS). This information should be useful when individuals are comparing IQ scores (for the same person) based on different versions of the Wechsler's .

Of course, content differences will not be the only reason for possible IQ score differences across editions of the Wechsler's for an individual. Other possible reasons may include real changes in intelligence, serious scoring errors present in either one of the two test administration's, the Flynn effect, and other possible factors.   This post focuses only on the changing CHC content of the WISC and WAIS series of intelligence batteries.

As discussed previously in numerous posts, contemporary CHC theory is currently considered the consensus psychometric taxonomy of human cognitive abilities (click here for prior posts and information regarding the theory).  For this current brief report, I reviewed the extant CHC-organized factor analysis literature of the variousWechsler intelligence batteries. I then used this information as per the following steps:

1.  I identified the individual subtests in all editions of the WISC and WAIS batteries that contributed to the respective Full Scale (FS) IQ score for each battery.

2.  Using the accepted authoritative sources re: the CHC analysis of the Wechsler intelligence batteries (Flanagan, McGrew and Ortiz, 2000; Flanagan, Ortiz, and Alfonso, 2007; McGrew and Flanagan, 1998; Woodcock, 1990), I classified each of the above identified subtests as per the broad CHC ability (or abilities) measured by each subtest.  For readers who want a very brief CHC overview (and ability definition cheat-sheet), click here.

3.  I calculated the percentage of each broad CHC ability represented in each batteries respective FS IQ. For example, for the 1974 WISC-R, the FS IQ is calculated by summing the WISC-R scaled scores from 10 of the individual subtests. Four of these 10 subtests (Information, Comprehension, Similarities, and Vocabulary) have all been consistently classified as indicators of broad Gc. Since each of the individual subtests contribute equally to the FS IQ score, Gc represents at least 40%  (4 of 10) of the WISC-R FS IQ. 

• However, the extant CHC Wechsler research has consistently identified a few tests with dual CHC factor loadings. In particular, both Picture Completion and Picture Arrangement have been consistently reported to load on both the Gv (performance scale) and Gc (verbal scale) on the WISC-R. For tests that demonstrated consistent dual CHC factor loadings, I assigned each broad CHC ability measured as representing 1/2 (0.5) of the test. More precise proportional calculation might have been possible (via the calculation of the average factor loadings across all studies), but for the current purpose I used this  simple and (IMHO) reasonably approximate method.

• As a result, both the Picture Completion and Picture Arrangement subtests were each assigned a 1/2 (0.5) Gc and 1/2 (0.5) ability classifications. When added together these two 0.5 Gc test classifications sum to 1.0. When combined with the other four clear Gc tests mentioned above, the final Gc test indicator total is 5.  As a result, the total Gc proportional percentage of the WISC-R FS IQ was calculated as 50%.

4.  Although the Wechsler CHC classifications were based on the primary source sources noted above, I did revise some commonly accepted classifications based upon my professional opinion (when supported by empirical research). For example, the Arithmetic subtest has frequently been classified as a measure of Gf, Gsm, and sometimes Gs.   However, when valid factor indicators of Quantitative Knowledge (Gq) have been included in analyses, the Arithmetic subtest consistently displays a robust loading on the Gq factor and only minor loadings on other CHC abilities. I placed greater stock in these studies (e.g., Phelps at al, 2005: Woodcock, 1990) as I deem these to be better designed CHC studies (they included a broader array of CHC ability indicators).  My final determination for Arithmetic was that it is a test that measures both Gq and Gsm.

• In addition, where appropriate and consistent with published research, I modified a few other commonly accepted CHC Wechsler test classifications to reflect recent research (e.g.., Kaufman et al., 2001; Keith et al., 2006; Keith & Reynolds (in press--CHC abilities and cognitive tests: What we've learned from 20 years of research;  Psychology in the Schools); Lichtenberger & Kaufman, 2001; McGrew, 2009; Tulsky & Price, 2003; plus the factor studies reported in the respective technical manuals of each battery). Referring to the mixed measures of Picture Completion and Picture Arrangement mentioned above, research with the WISC-IV  has suggested that Picture Completion is primarily a measure Gv (Gc factor loading minimal or nonexistent) while Picture Arrangement continues to show significant loadings on both Gv and Gc. Thus, Picture Arrangement was classified as a mixed measure of Gc and Gv for all editions of the WISC. In contrast, in the case of the WISC-IV  Picture Completion was classified as a measure Gv.  

• It is not possible to describe in detail all of the minor "fine tunings" I did for select Wechsler CHC test classifications. The basis for all are included in the various reference sources cited above. In the final analysis the Wechsler CHC test classifications used in this brief report are those made by myself (Kevin McGrew) based on my integration and understanding of the extant empirical research regarding the CHC abilities measured by individual tests in both the WISC and WAIS series of intelligence batteries.

5.  Finally, I calculated the proportion of CHC abilities represented in the FS IQ scores for all editions of the WISC and WAIS.  These value were tabled and plotted on graphs.  The summary graphs are presented below. [Double click on images to enlarge]

Conclusions/observations:  A review of all information presented (in and across both graphs) produces a number of interesting conclusions and hypotheses. I only present a few at this time. I encourage others to review the documents and provide additional insights or commentary via the comment feature of the blog or on various listserv's where I have posted and FYI message regarding this set of analysis.

1.  Historically, the FS IQ score from the Wechsler batteries, which is typically interpreted as a measure of general intelligence (g), has been heavily weighted towards the measurement of Gc and Gv abilities. This should not be surprising given the original design blueprint specified by David Wechsler (the measurement of intelligence vis-a-vis two different modes of expression).

2.  The WISC series remained constant in the CHC FS IQ composition from 1949 to 1991. Although tests may have been revised or replaced, the differential CHC proportional contribution to the FS IQ was relatively equal across all three editions. Following the 80% combined contribution of Gc and Gv, much smaller contributions to the FS IQ came from measures of Gs (10%) and Gq and Gsm (5% respectively).

3.  The WISC-IV represents a significant change in the general intelligence FS IQ score provided. Gc representation has decreased approximately 20%, Gv representation was cut in half (30 % to 15 %) ,  Gs abilities increased slightly (5 %), and Gq was eliminated. More importantly, there was a fourfold increase in the contribution of the Gsm (from 5% to 20%) and a 20% increase in Gf representation (from 0 to 20%)! Clearly different FS IQ scores may be obtained by the same individual when comparing WISC-IV FS IQ to either WISC-R/WISC-III scores.  More importantly,the difference may be a function of the different mixture of CHC abilities represented in the different editions of the WISC series. 

4.  The first two editions of the WAIS (WAIS and WAIS-R) were identical in differential CHC ability contribution to the FS IQ score. However, starting with the WAIS-III significant changes in the adult Wechsler battery commenced and were later amplified in the WAIS-IV. Both the WAIS-III and WAIS-IV FS IQs reduced the amount of Gc representation by approximately 14% to 15%. The contribution of Gv decreased only slightly (27.3% to 22.7%) from the WAIS-R to WAIS-III, but there was a dramatic reduction (by one half) and then another 2% from the WAIS-III to the WAIS-IV (22.7% to 10% 20%). Offsetting reductions in Gc and Gv over these two editions was a trend towards greater measurement of Gs (has doubled from around 9% from the early two editions to approximately 18% to 20% in the last two editions). Gq FS IQ contribution has remained relatively similar throughout all editions. The most dramatic change, which is also consistent with the WISC series, is an approximate tenfold increase (0 % to 9.1%) in Gf from the WAIS-R to the WAIS-III, which was again doubled in magnitude with the publication of the and WAIS-IV (10% 20%). In general, similar to the WISC series, the adult WAIS series FS IQ has slowly evolved in the CHC abilities represented by the FS IQ. Both Gc and Gv abilities have been systematically reduced concurrently with a significant increases in the contribution of Gs and Gf.

Implications of the CHC evolution of the WISC and WAIS FS IQ scores are many if one attempts to compare a current IQ score from one battery to an older score from a earlier edition of the same battery (or compare an older score from the childrens version to the latest edition of the adult version). Before one can assume that significant changes from a childhood WISC-based IQ to a WAIS-III or WAIS-IV  are due to certain factors (neurological insult; malingering, the Flynn effect, etc.), one should review the above graphs and consider the possibility that the different FS IQ scores may both be valid indicators of functioning but may represent differ CHC mixes (flavors) of general intelligence.

The potential implications and  hypotheses that can be generated with the aid of the above graphs are numerous. For example, Flynn (2006) has suggested that there are problems with the WAIS-III standardization norms given that studies comparing the WAIS-R/WAIS-III scores are not consistent with Flynn effect expectations.  According to Weiss (2007), Flynn is ignoring data that does not fit his theory and instead is using theory to question data (and the integrity of a tests norms). According to Weiss (2007), "the only evidence Flynn provides for this statement is that WAIS-III scores do not fit expectations made based on the Flynn effect. However, the progress of science demands that theories be modified based on new data. Adjusting data to fit theory is an inappropriate scientific method, regardless of how well supported the theory may have been in previous studies." (p.1 from abstract).

I tend to concur with Weiss's arguments that the mere finding that the WAIS-III results were inconsistent with  Flynn effect expectations is insufficient evidence to claim that the a test norms are wrong. If the data don't fit--one may need to retrofit (your theory or hypothesis).  By inspecting the second graph above, one can see that a  viable explanation for the apparent lack of the WAIS-R-to-WAIS-III Flynn effect is that the WAIS-III FS IQ score represents a different proportional composite of CHC abilities. More specifically, the WAIS-III reduced the proportional representation of Gc from 45.5% to 31.8%, decreased the Gv representation by approximately 5%, doubled the impact of Gs, and for the first time ever introduced close to 10% Gf representation. CHC content changes of the FS IQ scores between batteries may be at play.   Can anyone say "comparing apples to apples+oranges?"

And so on.................more comments may be forthcoming.

PS - additional information not included in this original post has now been posted.  Click here.

Technorati Tags: psychology, school psychology, educational psychology, forensic psychology, neuropsychology, clinical psychology, intelligence testing, intelligence, IQ, Wechsler batteries, WISC-R, WISC, WISC-III, WISC-IV, WAIS, WAIS-R, WAIS-III, WAIS-IV, IQ score differences, CHC theory, Cattell-Horn-Carroll, Flynn effect

iPost: More on neurocriminology

More on increasing interest in use of neurotechnology in the criminal  
justice system. Check link below

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/eureka/article7011992.ece

Sent from KMcGrew iPhone (IQMobile). (If message includes an image-double click on it to make larger-if hard to see) 

iPost: AMA urged to oppose death penalty

From DPIC via link below

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/new-voices-medical-society-new-jersey-urges-ama-oppose-death-penalty

Sent from KMcGrew iPhone (IQMobile). (If message includes an image-
double click on it to make larger-if hard to see)

iPost: Perlin on mental disability law

Over at CPB via link below

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/crimprof_blog/2010/02/perlin-on-mental-disability-law.html

Sent from KMcGrew iPhone (IQMobile). (If message includes an image-
double click on it to make larger-if hard to see)

FYI from the legal blogosphere

Interesting tidbits from other blogs

• Deathy ineligibility and habeas corpus at SLP

• Racial geography of the federal death penalty at CPB

Technorati Tags: psychology, educational psychology, forensic psychology, school psychology, neuropsychology, criminal psychology, criminal defense, ABA, American Bar Associaton, ICDP blog, habeas corpus, race and death penalty, death penalty, capital punishment, race

iAbstract: Juror's discussions of defendants history in capital cases

Jurors' discussions of a defendant's history of child abuse and alcohol abuse in capital sentencing deliberations.

By Stevenson, Margaret C.; Bottoms, Bette L.; Diamond, Shari S. S.

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. Vol 16(1), Feb 2010, 1-38.

Abstract

We tested a novel theoretical model explaining the psychological processes underlying jurors' discussions about a defendant's history of child abuse and alcohol abuse in a capital case. We coded the extent to which jurors used child abuse and alcohol abuse as mitigating factors, as aggravating factors, or argued that they should be ignored. Relying on attribution theory, we coded the extent to which jurors rendered controllable or uncontrollable and stable or unstable attributions regarding the defendant's history of child abuse and alcohol abuse. Jurors were more likely to argue that child abuse and alcohol abuse should not be used as mitigators or to even use them against the defendant as aggravators than they were to use them as mitigators. Jurors made more controllable than uncontrollable attributions regarding child abuse and more stable than unstable attributions regarding both child abuse and alcohol abuse. The more jurors supported the death penalty, the more they argued to discount child abuse and alcohol abuse as mitigators or use them as aggravators and the more controllable and stable attributions they made. Political orientation predicted discussions and attributions about alcohol abuse, but not child abuse.

Sent from iPhone (IQMobile). (If message includes an image-double click on it to make larger-if hard to see) 

Legal research: Lexis partners with Microsoft

From ABA JOURNAL



Sent from KMcGrew iPhone (IQMobile). (If message includes an image-
double click on it to make larger-if hard to see)

Intellectual heterogeneity of MR/ID as evidence against AAIDD "stuck on g" green manual: Even in cleary genetic-based syndromes (Williams Syndrome)

In the last in my series of posts re: concerns I have with the AAIDD 11th Edition ID definition and classification manual, one  point I raised (re: my concern for the AAIDD "stuck on g" position) was the fact that individuals with ID/MR should not be stereotyped as having a single type of cognitive disability (simply poor g---which also implies, for many, a "flat profile" of cognitive abilities). 

Although not so stated in the AAIDD manual, the elevation of general intelligence to such high status, combined with statements that current intelligence measures are not available to reliably and validly assess multiple cognitive abilities (a statement that is simply wrong--see PPT show link in last post in series), implicitly has the potential to convey this stereotype.  I argued that individuals with ID/MR show just as much heterogeneity in profiles of cognitive abilities as individuals without ID/MR.

This past week a colleague reminded me of one article that makes my point clear.  Within the field of ID/MR, there are a number of rare genetic-based disorders.  Such genetically-based disorders typically result in a greater degree of similarity (homogeneity) among individuals with the condition.  Williams syndrome (WS) is one such ID/MR disorder.  Of course, individuals with WS are not those being evaluated in typical Atkins death penalty cases, but the common assumption and lore is that WS individuals show a "syndrome-specific pattern of cognitive strengths/weaknesses"----high verbal abilities and much lower visual-spatial abilities.

I would argue, as have others, that this WS syndrome-specific cognitive stereotype is largely due to the fact that historically MR/ID researchers only had the V/P organized Wechsler batteries as their primary IQ battery...and that the "profile" may be due to this research being constrained by batteries that did not validly measure a greater breadth of cognitive functioning.  This is not a criticism of the past research, as researchers had limited theories of intelligence and measures of constructs from which to work.  However, now that CHC theory has emerged as the consensus psychometric model of cognitive abilities and, more importantly, there are a significant number of well-standardized and psychometrically sound IQ batteries of multiple cognitive abilities, I'm not surprised that a syndrome with a strong genetic core, which typically results in more within-group similarity, when measured by more contemporary CHC-based IQ batteries display considerable variability/heterogeneity in patterns of cognitive abilities. 

Below is the abstract for  2005 study that reported that WS individuals do NOT display the classic and historical syndrome-specific pattern of cognitive strengths and weaknesses when measured with a more contemporary CHC-based cognitive battery (WJ-R:  conflict of interest note--I am a coauthor of the next edition..the WJ III).

This study clearly suggests that even a population of individuals with a shared genetic causal mechanism display significant individual differences in patterns of cognitive abilities.  If this is found in ID/MR populations with a strong shared genetic causal mechanism, one would be hard-pressed to argue that such variability does not exist for more milder forms of ID/MR and the general population.

My point (again)---I'm very concerned that the AAIDD 11th Edition ID manual's "stuck on g" position is out of synch with contemporary intelligence theory and measurement and has the potential to cause serious harm when potentially life-altering decisions are made on the basis of a single g-based composite IQ scores that ignores the heterogeneity of human cognitive abilities across the ability spectrum and different disorders.

Porter, M. A. & Coltheart, M.  Cognitive Heterogeneity in Williams Syndrome.  Developmental Neuropsychology, 27 (2), 275-306. (click here to view articlehttp://www.iapsych.com/articles/porter2005.pdf


Abstract

This study used the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Ability-Revised to investigate a wide range of cognitive abilities in people with Williams syndrome (WS). It involved a comparatively large sample of 31 people with WS, but took a case-series approach. The study addressed the widespread claims of a characteristic "WS cognitive profile" by looking for heterogeneity rather than homogeneity. People with WS showed a variety of preserved (significantly above mental age [MA]), expected (at MA), and significantly impaired (significantly below MA) levels of functioning. Such results provide clear evidence for heterogeneity in cognitive functions within WS. We found the most homogeneity on a test of phonological processing and a test of phonological short-term memory, with half of the WS sample performing at MA levels on these tests. Interestingly, no WS individual showed a weakness on a test of nonverbal reasoning, and only one WS individual showed a weakness on a test of verbal comprehension. In addition, we found that strengths on analysis-synthesis and verbal analogies occurred only for WS individuals with an MA less than 5.5 years (our sample median MA); people with an MA greater than 5.5 years performed at MA level on these 2 tests. Results also provided preliminary evidence for distinct subgroups of WS people based on their cognitive strengths and weaknesses on a broad range of cognitive functions. On the basis of the findings, caution should be made in declaring a single cognitive profile that is characteristic of all individuals with WS. Just as there is heterogeneity in genetic and physical anomalies within WS, not all WS individuals share the same cognitive strengths and weaknesses. Also, not all WS individuals show the profile of a strength in verbal abilities and a weakness in spatial functions.

Technorati Tags: pscyhology, school psychology, educational psychology, special education, developmental disabilities, IR, MR, intellectual disabiliity, mental retardtion, AAIDD, AAIDD manual, g, general intelligence, cognitive variability, Williams Syndrome, definition of ID, definition of MR, WJ-R, WJ III, CHC theory, intelligence, IQ tests, IQ scores, forensic psychology, forensicy psychiatric, neuropsychology, death penalty, capital punishment, ABA, American Bar Association

iPost: Conducting legal research with Google

From JUSTCRIM blog


Sent from KMcGrew iPhone (IQMobile). (If message includes an image-
double click on it to make larger-if hard to see)

iTech: iPhone App for legal research

From ABA JOURNAL


Sent from KMcGrew iPhone (IQMobile). (If message includes an image-
double click on it to make larger-if hard to see)

iPost: Book--Capital punishment on trial

Check it out at DPIC blog

Sent from KMcGrew iPhone (IQMobile). (If message includes an image-
double click on it to make larger-if hard to see)

iPost: Caution urged in admin of neuropsych tests to Spanish speaking individuals

More info at BRAIN INJURY blog

Sent from KMcGrew iPhone (IQMobile). (If message includes an image-
double click on it to make larger-if hard to see)

iAbstract: New Flynn Effect book

• PsycCRITIQUES:
 
• Citation and Abstract

View Book Review

How to make the world smarter.

Mayer, Richard E.

PsycCRITIQUES. Vol 55(4),2010, No Pagination Specified.

Reviews the book, Human intelligence and medical illness: Assessing the Flynn effect by R. Grant Steen (see record2009-19252-000). The Flynn effect is the empirical finding—first reported by James R. Flynn in 1984 (Flynn, 1984, 1987, 2009)—that average IQ scores have been rising at a substantial rate throughout most of the 20th century in every country for which adequate data are available. Is the Flynn effect real? What is the cause of the Flynn effect? What are the implications of the Flynn effect for improving human intelligence? These are the kinds of questions addressed in this book. The 218-page volume is divided into 13 chapters on topics ranging from whether people are getting smarter, what are the causes of the increase in intelligence test scores, and what are some ways to foster further increases in human intelligence. The author's thesis is that human intelligence is really increasing, that the main cause is an improvement in public health—what can be called the "medical environment" (p. 99)—and that countries that seek to improve the intelligence of their citizenry should invest in improving health care, particularly for children. Steen seeks to back up his conclusions with considerable amounts of research evidence, often grounded in rigorous scientific experiments and quantitative analyses. The book is concise, timely, and generally well written. The author offers a balance between facts and opinions, or between scientific research studies and compassionate analyses of their implications. Looking up a cited reference at the end of the book is a tedious process, and the title of the book may not provide a clear indication of the book's contents. Overall, Human Intelligence and Medical Illness is a thought-provoking book that is well worth reading. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved)

• Digital Object Identifier:
 
• 10.1037/a0018609

Note: Your library may have purchased access to this information through another service provider.

Sent from iPhone (IQMobile). (If message includes an image-double click on it to make larger-if hard to see) 

iPost: 4th Circuit Panels split over two VA Atkins cases

Story with links to cases at SLP blog


Sent from KMcGrew iPhone (IQMobile). (If message includes an image-
double click on it to make larger-if hard to see)

Research briefs 1-27-10: Relevance of neuroscience to criminal responsibility

The following article is available as "open access" from the Journal of criminal Law and Philosophy. The article can be accessed and read by clicking here.

Vincent, N. A. (2010).On the relevance of neuroscience to criminal responsibility

Abstract:  Various authors debate the question of whether neuroscience is relevant to criminal responsibility. However, a plethora of different techniques and technologies, each with their own abilities and drawbacks, lurks beneath the label “neuroscience”; and in criminal law responsibility is not a single, unitary and generic concept, but it is rather a syndrome of at least six different concepts. Consequently, there are at least six different responsibility questions that the criminal law asks—at least one for each responsibility concept—and, I will suggest, a multitude of ways in which the techniques and technologies that comprise neuroscience might help us to address those diverse questions. In a way, on my account neuroscience is relevant to criminal responsibility in many ways, but I hesitate to state my position like this because doing so obscures two points which I would rather highlight: one, neither neuroscience nor criminal responsibility are as unified as that; and two, the criminal law asks many different responsibility questions and not just one generic question.

Keywords  Responsibility - Neuroscience - Criminal law - Neurolaw

Technorati Tags: psychology, forensic psychology, neuropsychology, neuroscience, neurotechnology, neuroscience and law, criminal psychology, criminal justice, criminal responsibility, ABA, American Bar Association, Atkins cases, mental retardation, intellectual disability, MR, ID, death penalty, capital punishment, criminal law

15 Atkins MR/ID death penalty court decisions posted 1-26-10 (n=87)

I finally see the end of the light re: the file upload backlog.  The Court Decisions sidebar now has 15 new entries for a grand total of n=87.  Thanks to Karen Salekin and Kevin Foley for sending me all these files.  These are posted without comment or analysis---no time.

• Campbell v CA (2008, 2008b)
• Hedrick v True (VA, 2006)
  
• Hicks v GA (2004)
• Winston v Kelly (VA, 2007, 2009)
• Berry v Epps (MS, 2006)
• Beckworth v AL (2009)
  
• Bowling v Haeberline (KY, 2005)
• Black v TN (2005)
• Burns v VA (2010)
• Butler v Quarterman (TX, 2008)
• Coleman v TN (2010)
• Taylor v Quarterman (TX, 2006, 2006b, 2006c, 2007)
  
• Cole  v Branker (NC, 2007, 2008)
• Murphy v Ohio (2006, 2009)
• Mclaughlin v Polk (NC, 2006)

Technorati Tags: psychology, educational psychology, school psychology, forensic psychology, court decisions, criminal psychology, criminal defense, Atkins cases, MR, ID, mental retardation, intellectual disability, death penalty, capital punishment, IQ, IQ scores, Flynn Effect, Daubert standard, ABA, American Bar Association, ISIR

AAIDD intellectual disability manual (11th edition): Intelligence component -1 standard deviation below average: Final in 3-part series

This is my third (and final) comment in my series of comments re: the intellectual component of the new AAIDD ID/MR definition and classification manual.  I urge readers, if they have not done so, to read my original post.  In the first post I outlined the reason for the series.  I also highlighted positive features of the AAIDD component (chapter 4) of the manual and acknowledged that no manual will be perfect.  In the second post, I presented a comparative analysis of the literature cited in the 2002 and 2010 manuals regarding the nature and definition of intelligence. It was my conclusion that the 2010 manual (11th edition-the green book) failed to incorporate significant consensus-based advances regarding the nature of psychometric theories of intelligence and contemporary intelligence tests based upon these theories.

This final post is intended to provide the foundations for the conclusions in my second critical analysis post. To be honest, I've struggled with how to articulate these concerns in a brief format. This has been the major reason for the delay in this final post. I've struggled with not wanting to be a simple critic who does not offer substantive evidence or guidance. More importantly, I did not want to be a critic who did not try to help rectify the issues identified. Thus, I decided to take a more ambitious educational approach to my concerns regarding the AAIDD ID 2010 manual. Thus, my final post in the form of a lengthy PowerPoint presentation that is intended to educate and provide background information regarding my criticisms.

Below is a description of the PowerPoint presentation which is available via my SlideShare space.  This is an online  presentation that can also be downloaded to your respective hard drive for off-line viewing and use. In addition, I have made available a PDF copy of the slides presentation can be accessed by clicking here. [Warning....the PDF version is very large...30+MB....and should only be downloaded when you have a high speed connection]

Description of presentation:  This presentation traces the evolution of psychometric theories of intelligence from Spearman's g to contemporary CHC. In addition, it simultaneously tracks the evolution of psychometric tests of intelligence as they relate to psychometric theories. Finally, there is a special emphasis on tracking changes in the AAMR/AAIDD intellectual disability (mental retardation) classification manuals over the same period. It is concluded that despite significant advances in psychometric theories of intelligence and contemporary psychometric intelligence tests, the official 2010 AAIDD manual is significantly behind these developments. The 2010 AAIDD manual is "stuck on g" and has failed to incorporate advances in both psychometric theories and tests of intelligence.  A significant intelligence theory--AAIDD ID/MR definition gap exists tat has potential serious consequences for individuals with ID/MR.

Below is my final set of critical summary comments (2nd slide from the end) presented at the end of the presentation.

Despite the widespread acceptance and recognition of the contemporary CHC (aka Extended Gf-Gc) theory of intelligence by intelligence scholars, a 2002 national panel of MR/ID experts, and the clear movement in applied IQ test development to test batteries grounded in the CHC framework, AAIDD continues to be “stuck on g”

The AAIDD definition of intelligence is out-of-date.  A major intelligence theory—AAIDD ID definition gap exists

Contemporary intelligence scholars, experts, and test developers recognize that although g (general intelligence)  may exist at the apex of the CHC taxonomy of human cognitive abilities, there are broad (stratum II) abilities that are important (i.e., have differential validities) that can be assessed and, when interpreted appropriately, can provide a more valid and multidimensional picture of an individuals intellectual functioning.

AAIDD’s continued use of the statement (with regard to measurement of multiple cognitive abilities) that “until such measures of multiple intelligences can be assessed reliably and validly, it is the position of AAIDD that intellectual functioning…is best conceptualized and captured by a general factor of intelligence” is simply wrong!  Reliable and valid measures of the broad CHC ability domains exist and have been published  in most intelligence batteries published from 1989 to 2008. 

The AAIDD g-position is at odds with the known heterogeneity of abilities within the ID (and general) population and fails to recognize that although a g-based total composite score may often represent the best single index of a person’s intellectual functioning, often the g-based composite score may lead to inaccurate conclusions regarding a person’s intellectual functioning and in these cases more attention should be focused on the component part scores.  The stuck on g position has the potential to result in serious consequences for individuals, such as denial of special education services; denial of SS benefits, and unjust execution as in “Atkins MR/ID death penalty cases”.

As I stated in my original post, "ideally I hope that my forthcoming critical comments, combined with a spirited back-and-forth dialogue, will produce productive scholarly discourse, discourse that may result in AAIDD upgrading/revising their current written statement regarding the first prong of an ID diagnosis—intellectual functioning (Chapter 4) via new position papers or journal articles, web-based clarifications, and/or the publication of more specific professional guidelines."  Finally, I extend an invitation to members of the committee (that drafted the 2010 manual) to forward  me any professional responses to my series,  which I will post as "guest post responses" at the ICDP blog.

Technorati Tags: psychology, forensic psychology, school psychology, educational psychology, neuropsychology, criminal psychology, criminal justice, AAI DD, AAMR, MR, ID, mental retardation, intellectual disability, intelligence, g, general intelligence, IQ part scores, psychometric theories of intelligence, psychometric tests, IQ, IQ scores, IQ tests, history of IQ tests, mental retardation definition, intellectual disability definition, ABA, American Bar Association, AAIDD manual

Legal database search cites changing

Article in New York Times.




Sent from KMcGrew iPhone (IQMobile). (If message includes an image-
double click on it to make larger-if hard to see)

Prison Law Blog: Welcome to the blogosphere

In the past I've added new ICDP-related blogs to the blogroll without announcement.  Today I'm going to start posting brief FYI notes when I add a new blog the the blogroll.  Today I'm adding the Prison Law Blog.

Technorati Tags: psychology, forensic psychology, criminal psychology, criminal justice, death penalty, capital punishment, prisons