A study of Wechsler's concept of “normal deterioration” in older mental defectives

Bensberg, Gerard J.; Sloan, William

doi:10.1002/1097-4679(195010)6:4<359::aid-jclp2270060410>3.0.co;2-c

Cited by 10 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(Silverman et al, 2010, pp. 242, 247) The concern for test score validity has been raised for adults with ID throughout the past 65 years: Bensberg and Sloan (1950) found that WAIS IQs of a group of adults with ID were higher than their Stanford-Binet IQs by between 7 and 20 points, with the magnitude of difference increasing with age at test administration; Brengelmann and Kenny (1961) reported an advantage of 8 points; Spitz (1989) reported an advantage of 12.4 points; and Nelson and Dacey (1999) an advantage of 14.6 points (Silverman et al, 2010). This seems to be recognized by even the Stanford-Binet test officials, as the Fourth Edition Technical Manual describes a 9.3-point advantage for the WAIS for adults with ID (Silverman et al, 2010).…”

Section: The Uncertainty Of Intelligence Testingmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Standard of Proof of Intellectual Disability in Georgia

Ricciardelli

Ayres

2016

Journal of Disability Policy Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite being the first state to abolish the capital punishment of defendants with intellectual disability (ID), Georgia is currently the only state to uphold what is considered to be the most stringent standard of proof of ID in the United States: beyond a reasonable doubt. Other states have implemented less stringent standards of proof (i.e., a preponderance of the evidence and clear and convincing evidence). Although the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the execution of persons with ID unconstitutional in the 2002 Atkins decision, states are at this juncture considered to have a great deal of discretion in defining what constitutes ID. In addition to raising concerns about the Eighth Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment, variation between state-determined definitions of ID raises important questions of equal protection of the law. On January 27, 2015, Mr. Warren Lee Hill was executed by method of lethal injection in the state of Georgia after the U.S. Supreme Court denied Mr. Hill’s claim to have met the state’s legal definition of ID beyond a reasonable doubt. This article provides a historical and legislative background for the case of Warren Lee Hill, while examining the definitions of ID (including adaptive functioning) in the legal and clinical arenas. Last, this article will take a critical stance with regard to the current diagnostic criteria being used in the state of Georgia.

show abstract

Section: The Uncertainty Of Intelligence Testingmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Standard of Proof of Intellectual Disability in Georgia

Ricciardelli

Ayres

2016

Journal of Disability Policy Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Bensberg & Sloan (1950) found that WAIS IQs of a group of adults with ID were higher than their Stanford-Binet IQs by from 7 to 20 points, the magnitude of difference increasing with age at test administration. Brengelmann & Kenny (1961) reported an advantage of 8 points for the WAIS compared to the Stanford-Binet, Spitz (1986) an advantage of 12.4 points, and Nelson & Dacey (1999) an advantage of 14.6 points.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Stanford-Binet and WAIS IQ differences and their implications for adults with intellectual disability (aka mental retardation)

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Stanford-Binet and Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) IQs were compared for a group of 74 adults with intellectual disability (ID). In every case, WAIS Full Scale IQ was higher than the Stanford-Binet Composite IQ, with a mean difference of 16.7 points. These differences did not appear to be due to the lower minimum possible score for the Stanford-Binet. Additional comparisons with other measures suggested that the WAIS might systematically underestimate severity of intellectual impairment. Implications of these findings are discussed regarding determination of disability status, estimating prevalence of ID, assessing dementia and agingrelated cognitive declines, and diagnosis of ID in forensic cases involving a possible death penalty.Current definitions of intellectual disability (ID, mental retardation in previous terminology) have evolved from their predecessors to include three key features: (1) significantly subaverage intellectual functioning (IQ of 70 or below, allowing for measurement error), (b) Correspondence to: Wayne Silverman, Kennedy Krieger Institute, 707 North Broadway, Suite 222s, Baltimore, MD 21205. silvermanw@kennedykrieger.org. Charles Miezejeski is now in private practice, Staten Island, New York; Tiina Urv is now at the Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Branch, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute on Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. NIH Public Access Author ManuscriptIntelligence. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 March 1. NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript substantial impairments in adaptive functioning, and (c) onset prior to adulthood (e.g., American Association on Mental Retardation, 2002; American Psychiatric Association, 2000). While considerable debate has focused on characterization of adaptive deficits and associated criteria defining "substantial" impairment (e.g., Clausen, 1972; Reshly, Myers & Hartel, 2002; Widaman & Siperstein, in press), there has been a longstanding consensus regarding best practice for the assessment of intellectual impairment. The gold standard has been a broadly focused and individually administered IQ test that provides a comprehensive measure of overall intelligence (often with other scores reflecting more focused domains of cognitive competency). Historically and currently, the two instruments most widely used in the United States have been the Stanford-Binet (e.g., Roid, 2003) While Flynn (1984;1985) noted that populations improve ...

show abstract