Opinion ID: 67011
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Flynn Effect

Text: Thomas argues that the state court erred in accepting his unadjusted IQ scores as accurate assessments of his intelligence. Instead of accepting those scores, Thomas argues that his IQ scores should be adjusted downward to account for the Flynn Effect. The Flynn Effect is a theory published by Dr. James R. Flynn that argues that IQ scores have gone up over the years, and that when a test is administered years after its publication, the results should be adjusted downward to account for the lapse in time between publication and its administration. Thomas argues that the Flynn Effect should be applied to his IQ scores, reducing them in proportion to the time elapsed since the publication date. Thomas has been tested with three different versions of the WAIS. In 1986, he took the WAIS-R, which was published in 1981. If the Flynn Effect were applied to this test, Thomas’s score of 75 would be reduced to 73. In 1987, Thomas took the WAIS, which was published in 1955. Applying the Flynn Effect 7 No. 08-70036 to this test would reduce his score of 77 to 67. Thomas took the WAIS-III in 2003, and this version of the test was published in 1997. The Flynn Effect would reduce his score on this test from 67 to 65. Both Thomas’s expert, Dr. Kessner, and the State’s expert, Dr. Price, testified about the Flynn Effect. Dr. Kessner opined that the reduction in scores based on the Flynn Effect should be applied to all of Thomas’s test scores, including the 2003 test that she administered. However, she acknowledged that there is some dispute as to the applicability of the Flynn Effect, particularly with regard to individuals of low intelligence. Dr. Price gave his own opinion of the Flynn Effect, and testified that while he was aware of its existence, it was inappropriate to apply it to an individual’s test scores. Price stated that the Flynn Effect captured a “group effect,” not an individual one, and that there was controversy over what caused the IQ scores to rise over time. Thomas argues that this panel’s previous decision granting him authorization to file a successive federal habeas petition recognized the Flynn Effect as an accepted scientific theory. We disagree. The panel did not make a determination about the reliability of the theory or if it was applicable to Thomas. It simply said that the claim “warrant[ed] further exploration by the district court.” Thomas, 225 F. App’x at 224. The district court conducted this exploration, and determined that the state court had made reasoned findings of fact as to the applicability of the Flynn Effect. We agree with the district court that the state court’s determination that the Flynn Effect should not be applied was not unreasonable. Thomas argues that the state court, despite its discussion and rejection of the Flynn Effect, should have made express findings that his unadjusted IQ scores represented a true measure of his intelligence. We read the state court’s findings as to the reliability of the 1986 score as sufficient, and nothing more explicit was necessary. IQ tests have long been accepted by courts as evidence 8 No. 08-70036 in evaluating mental retardation claims. See Atkins, 536 U.S. at 209 n.5; Morris v. Dretke, 413 F.3d 484, 489 (5th Cir. 2005). Thomas’s own expert acknowledged the WAIS-III is the current “gold standard” for assessing intellectual abilities. We agree with the district court that reasonable jurists would not debate that the state court’s decision that the 1986 test was an accurate assessment of Thomas’s IQ was reasonable based on the facts before it.