Opinion ID: 2377543
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: 1981 IQ test

Text: Ybarra contends that the district court focused on the 1981 IQ test, disregarding the IQ test Dr. Schmidt administered, which resulted in a score (60) that is within the mild range of mental retardation. In this, Ybarra argues that the district court erroneously concluded that the 1981 IQ test, which yielded a score of 86, was valid and that even when adjusted to account for the Flynn effect, the adjusted score was not within the range of mental retardation. According to Ybarra, when the 1981 score is adjusted consistent with Dr. Schmidt's testimony, the result is an adjusted score that is within the mild range of mental retardation. As noted previously, the Flynn effect refers to a body of work suggesting that scores on a particular IQ test will drift upward over time until the test is re-normed. See Pruitt v. State, 903 N.E.2d 899, 910 n. 7 (Ind.2009) (noting that Flynn effect refers to the gradual escalation of intelligence test scores over long periods of time). Whether IQ scores should be adjusted to account for the Flynn effect is a matter of great dispute in other jurisdictions. See, e.g., Walker v. True, 399 F.3d 315, 322-23 (4th Cir.2005) (remanding for consideration of persuasiveness of Flynn effect where district court did not consider theory); Green v. Johnson, 515 F.3d 290, 300 n. 2 (4th Cir.2008) (noting that neither Atkins nor Virginia law appears to require expressly that [the Flynn effect and standard error of measurement] be accounted for in determining mental retardation status); In re Mathis, 483 F.3d 395, 398 n. 1 (5th Cir. 2007) (noting that Flynn effect has not been accepted as scientifically valid in Fifth Circuit); Thomas v. Allen, 614 F.Supp.2d 1257, 1281 (N.D.Ala.2009) (noting that even though recognized legal cutoff score for finding of significantly subaverage intellectual functioning is IQ of 70 or below, a court should not look at raw IQ score as precise measurement and must consider Flynn effect and standard error of measurement in determining whether IQ score falls within range containing scores less than 70); U.S. v. Davis, 611 F.Supp.2d 472, 488 (D.Md.2009) (concluding that Flynn effect evidence is relevant and persuasive and will consider Flynn-adjusted scores in evaluation of intellectual functioning); Wiley v. Epps, 668 F.Supp.2d 848, 894-95 (N.D.Miss.2009) (finding that regardless of whether `Flynn effect' is considered as a precise mathematical formula in this case, it will take into consideration the obsolescence of test norms in weighing the evidence concerning Petitioner's intellectual functioning but expressly declining to rule whether Flynn effect must be applied or that failing to apply theory is unreasonable), aff'd, 625 F.3d 199 (5th Cir.2010); Maldonado v. Thaler, 662 F.Supp.2d 684, 713 n. 27 (S.D.Tex. 2009) (declining to apply Flynn effect to results of petitioner's IQ scores), aff'd, 625 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2010); In re Salazar, 443 F.3d 430, 433 n. 1 (5th Cir.2006) (noting, without deciding whether Flynn effect is valid scientific theory, that petitioner's readjusted IQ score to account for score inflation was still above cutoff for mental retardation); State v. Dunn, 41 So.3d 454, 470 n. 16 (La.) (noting that court has not expressly accepted Flynn effect as scientifically valid), cert. denied, 562 U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 650, 178 L.Ed.2d 480 (2010). And the district court indicated that although the AAMR references the Flynn effect, it makes no recommendation to adjust IQ scores because of it. We need not, however, take sides in the dispute over the Flynn effect at this time for three reasons. First, the district court did not disregard Dr. Schmidt's testimony regarding the Flynn effect. Rather, the court found the testimony incredible considering (a) other sources that either rejected the theory or did not demand adjustments in IQ scores to account for it; and (b) other evidence in the record supporting the validity of the 1981 IQ score, including evaluations from mental health professionals and Ybarra's military records reporting that he was of dullnormal to borderline intelligence. And although the district court was not convinced [that] the scientific community is prepared to adjust the scores according to the Flynn effect, it nevertheless considered the Flynn effect and concluded that an adjustment for that effect reduced the 1981 IQ score to 78, which is outside the range of mental retardation. To the extent Ybarra challenges the district court's adjustment computation because it did not lower the IQ score by 15 points as suggested by Dr. Schmidt, we are not persuaded that the district court committed reversible error. In adjusting the IQ score to account for the Flynn effect, the district court used an adjustment rate of .31 per year (for 26 years per Dr. Schmidt), [16] which reduced Ybarra's IQ score from 86 to 78. Many courts have applied an adjustment rate of approximately .3 per year since the IQ test was re-normed. See Witt v. State, 938 N.E.2d 1193, 1200 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (citing The American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities' User's Guide: Mental Retardation Definition, Classification and Systems of Supports (10th ed. 2002)); Bowling v. Com., 163 S.W.3d 361, 374 (Ky.2005) (noting that Flynn effect suggests that as time passes and IQ test norms grow older, the mean IQ score tested by the same norm will increase by approximately three points per decade); Dunn, 41 So.3d at 462 (citing James Flynn, Tethering the Elephant: Capital Cases, IQ, and the Flynn Effect, 12 Psych., Pub. Pol., and L. 170, 176 (2006)). We conclude that the district court's adjustment calculation was not without foundation and does not indicate, as Ybarra suggests, that the district court acted not as an impartial arbiter but as an advocate for the state and was ill-informed. Second, the district court did not rely solely on the 1981 IQ test to determine that Ybarra had not proven that he suffers from significant subaverage intellectual functioning. As explained above, the district court also looked to Ybarra's school and other records, his writings, and evidence that he was malingering. In fact, the district court expressly observed in its order that [t]he record as a whole (irrespective of the various IQ test scores) portrays Robert Ybarra as a person who does not have significant subaverage intellectual functioning now or during his developmental years. And third, we need not decide the relevance, if any, of the Flynn effect and the necessity of adjusting the 1981 IQ score because the 1981 IQ test, as with all of Ybarra's IQ tests, was administered well after he turned 18 years of age. [17] Therefore, this issue has little value in evaluating whether Ybarra presented sufficient evidence to establish mental retardation as defined in NRS 174.098(7).