EVALUATION OF INTELLECTUAL

(DIS)ABILITIES IN SPANISH SPEAKERS:

DEATH PENALTY EVALUATIONS

ANTONIO E. PUENTEUNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA WILMINGTON

WITH ASSISTANCE OF SARA COHBRA - Habeas Corpus Resource Center, San Francisco

& MARGIE HERNANDEZ- UCSD

LATINOS AND THE DEATH PENALTY CONFERENCE

UNIVERSITY OF TEXASAPRIL 10. 2015

“A test that is fair does not unduly advantage or disadvantage certain examinees because of individual

characteristics that are irrelevant to the construct being measured.” (AERA, et al.,

2014)

Clinical Definitions of Intellectual Disability

AAIDD (American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities; 11th edition): Significant limitations in intellectual functioning and Significant limitations in adaptive behavior as expressed in conceptual,

social, and practical skills Originating before age 18

DSM-5 (American Psychiatric Association): Deficits in intellectual functioning, such as reasoning, problem solving,

planning, abstract thinking, judgment, academic learning, and learning from experience, confirmed by both clinical assessment and individualized, standardized intelligence testing;

Deficits in adaptive functioning that result in failure to meet developmental and sociocultural standards for personal independence and social responsibility in at least one or more activities of daily life such as communication, social participation, and independent living, across multiple environments; and

Onset of intellectual and adaptive deficits during the developmental period

Clinical Standards Vs. State Statutory Definitions

State statute(s) defining intellectual disability Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 317 & n.22

(2002)Ex parte Briseno, 135 S.W.3d 1

(Tex.Crim.App.2004); Chester v. Thaler, 666 F.3d 340, 343–50 (5th Cir.2011).

Hall v. Florida, 134 S.Ct. 1986, 2000 (2014) (“The legal determination of intellectual disability is distinct from a medical diagnosis, but it is informed by the medical community’s diagnostic framework.”).

Intelligence Testing“Intellectual functioning is typically measured with

individually administered and psychometrically valid, comprehensive, culturally appropriate, psychometrically sound tests of intelligence.” DSM-5

Accuracy of assessment requires that the assessment “[t]ake into account such factors as the individual’s culture, language, and any physical or other disabilities that may affect the validity of the assessment.” and “[u]se appropriate norms.” AAIDD (11th ed.)

Norms

“Instruments must be normed for the individual’s sociocultural background and native language.” DSM-5 .

Accuracy of assessment requires that those conducting the assessment “[u]se appropriate norms.” AAIDD (11th ed.) .

Re-Norming & Interpretation of Norms

Lizcano v. Texas, 2010 WL 1817772 (CCA) (unreported) (“Whether or not ‘Spanish speakers’ as a group tend to score below ‘Caucasians’ on IQ tests, has little relevance for the proposition that, on the tests administered to him, the appellant's scores were somehow inaccurate due to his particular culture and influences.”).

Maldonado v. Thaler, 625 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2010) (Assuming without deciding that Denkowski’s upward adjustment of IQ scores for a Spanish-speaking Mexican defendant based on his purported knowledge of Mexican cultural norms was improper)

8

Borderline ID70 – 85

Mild ID50 ~ 55 – 70

Normal Distribution Bell Curve:

Intelligence Test Results  

Adaptive Skills: AAIDD

Adaptive Behavior is comprised of the following three skill types:

Conceptual Skills: language and literacy; money, time, and

number concepts; and self direction.

Social Skills: interpersonal skills, social responsibility, self-

esteem, gullibility, naïveté (i.e. wariness), social problem

solving, and the ability to follow rules/obey laws and to

avoid being victimized.

Practical Skills: activities of daily living (personal care),

occupational skills, healthcare, travel/transportation,

schedules/routines, safety, use of money, use of the

telephone.

A Deconstructed Interpretation of Adaptive Functioning

(2 OF 10 are needed)

LIKELY LESS LIKELY

FUNCTIONAL ACADEMICS

COMMUNICATION

HEALTH & SAFETY COMMUNITY USE

SELF CARE HOME LIVING

SELF DIRECTION LEISURE

WORK SOCIAL

Challenges in Measuring of Adaptive Deficits

Retrospective Analyses

Completer of Form

Linguistic Translation vs. Adaption

Cultural Limitations

Normative Data Set

Intended Use for These Scales

Non-Standardized Approaches to Adaptive Functioning

Although both AAIDD (11th ed.) and DSM-5 recommend use of standardized measures of adaptive functioning when possible, both also recognize not always possible and allow for alternative methods of assessing adaptive functioning. AAIDD: Allows for review of records, interviews

with individuals who knew/know the client and have had opportunity to observe the client’s functioning in the community before the age of 18

See also DSM-5

Adaptive functioning assessment

U.S. v. Candelario-Santana, 916 F.Supp.2d 191, 216 (2013) (“Given the imperfect and amorphous nature of evaluating adaptive behaviors, courts have adhered to the ‘relative consensus that the best way to retroactively assess Candelario–Santana's adaptive functioning is to review the broadest set of data possible, and to look for consistency and convergence over time.’”).

ADAPTIVE DEFICITS: QUALITATIVE PERSPECTIVECOLLATERAL INTERVIEWS

MULTIPLE INTEVIEWS

PSYCHO-SOCIAL HISTORIES

EDUCATIONAL RECORDS

DIRECT VS. INDIRECT

FACE-TO-FACE/INTERNATIONAL

Spanish-speakers in the United StatesSpanish-speakers and Psychological TestingSpanish-speakers and Intelligence Testing

Wechsler’s Adult Intelligence Scales

The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales

Most widely used intelligence testHigh validity and reliabilityUser friendly administration and scoring guidelinesExcellent psychometric properties

WAIS-IV (2008)Most current version

WAIS-III (1997) (Spanish versions)Mexico (2003)

Puerto Rico (2008)

Spain (2001)

WAIS-III: English Version

Age range: 16 – 89

Administration Time: 60 – 90 minutes

14 Subtests:7 – Verbal7 – Performance

4 Indices

3 IQs

Literature on the Spanish Versions of the WAIS-III

WAIS-III is used in the U.S

LimitedA total of 7

4: Mexican version3: Spaniard version

ResultsOverestimated IQsLarge Confidence IntervalsTechnical problemsNon-representative sample

Example: WAIS-III in Capital Cases

Atkins v Virginia – execution of the intellectually disabled, a violation of the Eighth

Amendment Variable Mexican

Norms

English

Norms

Full Scale IQ 79 66

Confidence

Intervals

65 – 105 63 – 71

Intellectual

Disability

NO YES

Death Penalty YES NO

INITIAL STUDY ON THE SPANISH WAISA Qualitative Study

Standardization sampleStructure Concept of ItemsOrdering of ItemsResponse optionsHypothetical profile of 45-year-old

ResultsOn the surface, they appear to be similar,

but the qualitative analysis suggested unusually small to large differences.

Purpose of present study

To further examine equivalence across the Mexican, Puerto Rican, and Spaniard versions of the WAIS-III against each other and against the English version of the WAIS-III.

Qualitative analysisQuantitative analysis

Phase 1: Qualitative Comparison

Phase 1: Introduction

Teaching Items

Range of Scale Scores

Range of Index and IQ Scores

Confidence Intervals

Phase 1: Method Teaching Items

Item number Item content

Range of Subtest Scores

Range of IQ & Index Scores

Confidence Intervals 4 Indices3 IQs

Phase 1: Results Range of IQs and Indices

Mexican Narrow Sum of Scale Scores (11 – 209 vs. ≤ 60 – ≥ 188)Narrow IQ & Index Scores (~1 SD)

Puerto RicoIdentical Sum of Scale ScoresBroader IQ and Index scores

SpaniardIdentical Sum of Scale ScoresIdentical IQ and Index Scores except PSI (54 – 150 vs.

54 – 143)Comparison Sample: Perceptual Organization

Index English Mexican Puerto Rican Spaniard

Sum of Scale Scores 3 – 57 ≤ 16 – 113 3 – 57 3 – 57

Index Scores 50 – 150 69 – ≥ 294 44 – 158 50 – 150

Phase 1: Results Average Confidence Interval Ranges:

Version VIQ PIQ FSIQ VCI POI WMI PSI

English 9.6 14 8 11.2 14 14 17.8

Mexican 26.2 48.8 37.4 41 20.4 50 8.4

Puerto Rican 9.6 12.4 8 11.2 14 15 19

Spaniard 10 12 16 8 8 8.4 8

Phase 1: DiscussionSuperficially the same, however:

Categorization of standardization variables

Test structure Concept of items Order of itemsResponse types and scoring differencesTeaching ItemsRange of scoresConfidence IntervalsOverestimated IQ scores

Phase 2: Quantitative Analysis

Phase 2: Introduction

Determine extent to which the Spanish versions overestimate IQ and Index scores relative to the English version

Determine whether score differences are statistically significant.

Phase 2: Method Instruments

Four administration and scoring manuals 48 De-identified test profiles

N MalesFemale

sMage Medu

North Carolina

12 5 7 44.83 12.92

Mexico 12 5 7 38.00 15.33

Puerto Rico 10 5 5 45.40 15.30

Spain 14 7 5 22.50 9.86

Phase 2: ProcedureSubtest Raw Score English SS Mexican SS Puerto Rican

SS

Spaniard SS

Vocabulary 45 10 12 14 12

Similarities 23 10 12 13 13

Arithmetic 14 10 11 13 12

Digit Span 17 10 13 14 12

Information 17 10 11 11 10

Comprehension 22 10 12 12 12

L-N Sequence 10 10 11 13 11

Picture Completion 20 10 12 13 11

Digit Symbol 68 10 13 12 10

Block Design 35 10 11 12 10

Matrix Reasoning 13 10 10 11 9

Picture Arrangement 13 10 11 12 10

Symbol Search 28 10 12 11 10

Object Assembly 28 10 10 – 91 raw profile = 4 different profiles given the same raw scores

English Version

Mexican Version

Puerto Rican Version

Spaniard Version

1 profile = 4 profiles

12 profiles = 48 profiles

Therefore, 48 profiles from all four versions will yield 192 profiles

Phase 2: Results SummaryOverestimation of IQ and Index Scores

VariableMean

English Score

Total Point Overestimation

Mexican Puerto Rican Spaniard

Full Scale IQ 88.60 3.30 14.28 4.70

Verbal IQ 89.46 3.69 15.00 2.83

Performance IQ 89.40 7.20 10.89 (-0.21)

Verbal Comprehension Index 90.65 9.75 13.81 2.37

Perceptual Organization Index 92.23 6.23 10.54 (-1.98)

Working Memory Index 86.58 12.52 15.42 3.43

Processing Speed Index 88.15 13.10 7.27 3.50

Phase 2: Discussion

General PatternsSum of Scales Scores are differentIQs are different

English version overall yields the lowest scores

Puerto Rican overall yields the highest scores

General Discussion of WAIS Study

Phase 1:Tests are qualitatively different.

Phase 2:Tests are quantitatively different.

Phase 3:Subtests within tests are qualitatively and

quantitatively different.

Phase 4: Scores vary depending on the version being

administered.

Overall SummaryIQ Assessment

IQ TestingAdaptive DeficitsState Vs. Clinical Standards Interpretation

WAISGold Standard for IQ TestingLimitations & Challenges

ConclusionBest Vs. Perfect Research & Practices

Future DirectionsTranslation & Standardization of the

Wechsler Scales into Spanish

Alternative Methods of Intellectual Assessment (e.g., Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales)

Alternative Methods of Adaptive Functioning Assessment (e.g., Luria-Vygostsky)

State x State Challenge of DSM/AAIDD/WHO Definitions of ID

ResourcesAmerican Psychological Association

Ethical Standards for PsychologistsStandards for Educational and

Psychological Tests & AssessmentsGuidelines on Multicultural Education,

Training, Research, Practice, and Organizational Change for Psychologists

National Academy of NeuropsychologyHispanic Neuropsychological SocietyAvailable book chapters & articles

www.antonioepuente.comwww.alfredoardila.wordpress.com