Abstract
Objective
The US Supreme Court ruled against the application of the death penalty to individuals with intellectual disability (ID) (Atkins v. Virginia, 2002). Diagnostic criteria for ID require subnormal adaptive functioning (AF) in addition to IQ test scores (American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2013). The American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD) (2010, 2012) and APA (2013) recommend using culturally sensitive approaches. Assessing AF in immigrants is a challenge because their cultural backgrounds are different than those of the standardization samples of United States AF measures. When typical AF measures are not appropriate, AAIDD (2010) offers guidelines about appropriate sources such as school, work, and medical records, prior psychosocial evaluations, and qualitative adaptive behavior interviews with multiple informants. However, defendants facing the death penalty are often raised in impoverished areas with a paucity of pertinent documentation. This study identifies and discusses issues related to the use of self-report, selection of respondents, questions, collateral information, and clinical judgment in AF evaluations of immigrants facing the death penalty.
Case Description
We present a case study of an AF evaluation of a Mexican national seeking ID exemption from capital punishment.
Discussion
We offer a framework for developing and judging the quality of an AF evaluation that adheres to the (AAIDD) (2010, 2012) and APA (2013) guidelines, and includes 1) strengths and limitations of adaptive functioning in relation to others of his age group and culture; 2) reliable evidence concerning the individual’s history in specific periods of time; 3) an account of the individual’s cultural and linguistic differences; and 4) an account for potential bias on the respondents’ side.
References
Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002). American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. fifth ed. Washington, DC: APA; 2013. American Psychological Association. (2016). Revision of ethical standard 3.04 of the “Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct” (2002, as amended 2010). American Psychologist, 71, 900. Schalock, R.L., Borthwick-Duffy, S.A.,Bradley, V. J., Buntix, W.H.E.,.Coulter, D.L., Craig, E.M…..Yeager, M.H. (2010). Intellectual disability: Definition, classification, and systems of supports. (11th ed.).Washington, DC: American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. doi:978-1-935304-04-3. Schalock, R.L., Luckasson, R.A., Bradley, V., Buntinx, W.H.E., Lachapelle, Y., Shogren, K.A…Wehmeyer, M.L. (2012). Intellectual disability: Definition, classification, and system of supports: User's Guide. Washington, DC: American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.
Adaptive Functioning (AF) Evaluations of Foreign Nationals Facing Capital Punishment
