EVALUATION OF
INTELLECTUAL (DIS)ABILITIES
IN SPANISH SPEAKERS:
DEATH PENALTY EVALUATIONS
ANTONIO E. PUENTE
UNIVERSITY 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 TEXAS
APRIL 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; 11 th
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)
Normal Distribution Bell Curve:
Intelligence Test Results
Mild ID
50 ~ 55 – 70
Borderline ID
70 – 85
8
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
PERSPECTIVE
 COLLATERAL INTERVIEWS
 MULTIPLE INTEVIEWS
 PSYCHO-SOCIAL HISTORIES
 EDUCATIONAL RECORDS
 DIRECT VS. INDIRECT
 FACE-TO-FACE/INTERNATIONAL
Spanish-speakers in the United States
Spanish-speakers and Psychological Testing
Spanish-speakers and Intelligence Testing
Wechsler’s Adult Intelligence Scales
The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales
 Most widely used intelligence test
 High validity and reliability
 User friendly administration and scoring guidelines
 Excellent 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 – Verbal
 7 – Performance
 4 Indices
 3 IQs
Literature on the Spanish Versions
of the WAIS-III
 WAIS-III is used in the U.S
 Limited
 A total of 7
 4: Mexican version
 3: Spaniard version
 Results




Overestimated IQs
Large Confidence Intervals
Technical problems
Non-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 WAIS
 A Qualitative Study






Standardization sample
Structure
Concept of Items
Ordering of Items
Response options
Hypothetical profile of 45-year-old
 Results
 On 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 analysis
 Quantitative 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 Indices
 3 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 Rico
 Identical Sum of Scale Scores
 Broader IQ and Index scores
 Spaniard
 Identical Sum of Scale Scores
 Identical IQ and Index Scores except PSI (54 – 150 vs. 54 – 143)
 Comparison Sample: Perceptual Organization Index
Sum of Scale Scores
Index Scores
English
Mexican
Puerto Rican
Spaniard
3 – 57
≤ 16 – 113
3 – 57
3 – 57
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: Discussion
 Superficially the same, however:









Categorization of standardization variables
Test structure
Concept of items
Order of items
Response types and scoring differences
Teaching Items
Range of scores
Confidence Intervals
Overestimated 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
Males
Females
Mage
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: Procedure
Subtest
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
–
9
1 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 Summary
 Overestimation of IQ and Index Scores
Variable
Mean 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 Patterns
 Sum of Scales Scores are different
 IQs 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 Summary
 IQ Assessment
 IQ Testing
 Adaptive Deficits
 State Vs. Clinical Standards Interpretation
 WAIS
 Gold Standard for IQ Testing
 Limitations & Challenges
 Conclusion
 Best Vs. Perfect Research & Practices
Future Directions
 Translation & 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
Resources
 American Psychological Association
 Ethical Standards for Psychologists
 Standards for Educational and Psychological Tests &
Assessments
 Guidelines on Multicultural Education, Training,
Research, Practice, and Organizational Change for
Psychologists
 National Academy of Neuropsychology
 Hispanic Neuropsychological Society
 Available book chapters & articles
 www.antonioepuente.com
 www.alfredoardila.wordpress.com