Opinion ID: 2532465
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Academic Underpinnings of the Flynn Effect

Text: The widely differing approaches taken by the above-cited courts emphasize the difficulties courts have in determining someone's true IQ score. Measuring IQ score is not like measuring height. While height is an objective measurement someone who is 5'11 will be 5'11 no matter who he stands next toIQ scores are based on a normal distribution curve, which means an individual's score is only meaningful in relation to the scores of the other people who took the test. See J.C. Oleson, The Insanity of Genius: Criminal Culpability and Right-Tail Psychometrics, 16 Geo. Mason L.Rev. 587, 598 (2009) Both the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS), administered to defendant by Dr. Gouvier and Dr. Hale, and the Stanford-Binet test, administered by Dr. Pellegrin, have a mean score of 100. Each time a new version of the WAIS test is developed, the administration of the test to a large, and ideally heterogenous and representative, sample of individuals is used to develop norms based on age and/or grade level. Lois A. Weithorn, Conceptual Hurdles to the Application of Atkins v. Virginia, 59 U.C. Hastings L.J. 1203, 1214 (2008). The average score of this sample group is thereafter defined as 100. The Flynn effect is named after political scientist James R. Flynn, who wrote The Mean IQ of Americans: Massive Gains 1932 to 1978, 95 Psychological Bulletin 29 (1984). Professor Flynn observed, over time, the mean IQ score in America rose at a rate of approximately 3 points per decade, or 0.3 points per year. Although the why and how of this phenomenon are hotly debated, [3] Flynn's original observation is widely accepted. What is not widely accepted is whether the Flynn effect should be applied to individual IQ scores. As noted above, Flynn observed a population wide increase of approximately 0.3 points per year. It does not follow that the IQ score of every single individual member of the population increases by the same amount. Flynn attempts to hand-wave away this very argument: I also wish to call attention to another argument put forward by prosecutors, namely, that the Flynn effect is a group phenomenon and cannot be applied to individuals. As the reader now knows, this is just a senseless mantra. When the group making the IQ gains is composed of Americans, those gains render test norms obsolete and inflate the IQ of every individual being scored against obsolete norms. James Flynn, Tethering the Elephant, 12 Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 170, 184 (2006). Even if we admit, for the purposes of argument, the Flynn effect inflate[s] the IQ of every individual being scored against obsolete norms, it most certainly does not follow that it inflates every individual's score equally or consistently on a year to year basis. Yet proponents of the Flynn effect would have courts apply a 0.3 points per year across the board. In Wiley v. Epps, 668 F.Supp.2d 848, 894 (N.D.Miss.2009), a federal district court explained: a controversy about the Flynn effect exists in its application. Professionals in the field do not disagree the phenomenon exists, but rather, there is professional disagreement regarding whether to adjust an individual's score. The Wiley court refused to require an examining psychologist to take the Flynn effect into account, but it also refused to preclude a psychologist from applying it. Id. at 894 n. 26. See also Dora W. Klein, Categorical Exclusions for Capital Punishment: How Many Wrongs Make a Right?, 72 Brooklin L.Rev. 1211, 1231 n. 89 (2007), citing I. Bruce Frumkin, Challenging Expert Testimony on Intelligence and Mental Retardation, 34 J. of Psychiatry & L. 51, 60 (2006) (This is not to say that a psychologist should `adjust' the IQ score to take into consideration the Flynn effect.) Indeed, there is some evidence the application of Flynn's formula to individual scores is limited primarily to defense psychologists in capital cases. See Ledford v. Head, 2008 WL 754486 -7, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21635,  (N.D.Ga.2008) ([E]xperts for both petitioner and respondent agreed that it is not used in clinical practice to reduce IQ scores.... Both Dr. King and Dr. Zimmermann testified that they have never seen it utilized except in capital cases.... The Court is hesitant to apply a theory that is used solely for the purpose of lowering IQ scores in a death penalty context.) A second, equally troubling, flaw, comes from the data in Flynn's own article. While the observed gains in IQ scores average approximately 0.3 points per year over the long run, they certainly do not proceed in a linear or predictable fashion. James Flynn, Tethering the Elephant, 12 Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 170, 177 (2006). The actual yearly rate of change ranges from 0.917 points per year to -0.117 points per year, depending on the time period and the particular version of the test used. Id. Specifically, the 0.3 point per year increase does not neatly fit with the scores from the Wechsler WAIS-III test, the version administered to the defendant by Dr. Hale and Dr. Pellegrin. James Flynn, Tethering the Elephant, 12 Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 170, 177 (2006). See also Ledford v. Head, 2008 WL 754486, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21635 (N.D.Ga.2008) ([T]he WAIS-III, in particular, does not appear to be subject to the 0.3 rate of IQ gain.... Flynn's data suggests that the yearly gain on the WAIS-III is closer to 0.17 than to 0.3.) Instead, the 0.3 points per year adjustment fits more closely with data gathered from the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC), which is designed for use from ages 6 to 16 only. James Flynn, Tethering the Elephant, 12 Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 170, 184 (2006). Defendant apparently has no WISC scores, as he did not take any formal IQ tests prior to the age of 16. Flynn admits the data on adult WAIS-III scores is less than perfect but argues courts should not ignore decent data just because it would be preferable to have perfect data. Id. Although courts cannot demand perfect data of anyone, we can and indeed must require a high level of scientific reliability before we accept a theory. In my opinion, the Flynn effect does not reach the requisite level of reliability as applied to the IQ scores of individual adult defendants.