DMR Eligibility Decision by H.O. Adamo 4 21 08

Outcome: Ineligible
Keyword: Validity, reliability, IQ

Hearing Officer: Jeanne Adamo
Counsel present for Appellant: Alfred A. Gray
Counsel present for DMR: Kim La Due
Hearing Officer decision: April 21, 2008
Appeal confirmed by Commissioner: April 28. 2008

* Score not used in determining eligibility due to issues with reliability/validity.

SUMMARY

49-year-old Applicant residing with elderly parents appealing DMR decision of ineligibility based on failure to show that he has significantly sub-average intellectual function.  Applicant spent ages 5-14 in a residential educational/therapeutic program in Pennsylvania and returned to the MA public school system for high school when special education was introduced in MA public schools.  Attended Special Ed. Program in Lexington from which he received a "Certificate of Accomplishment" at age 27.

Has been diagnosed with Chronic Brain Syndrome with Mental Retardation and later was diagnosed with Autism.  As Applicant did not apply for DMR services prior to his 18th birthday, must determine whether he was a person with mental retardation (per DMR regulations, a person with a Full Scale IQ score of less than 70) prior to that birthday.

Initial determination of ineligibility was made without benefit of documentation of Applicant's IQ during his developmental years.  This information was subsequently presented, but could not be considered because the validity/reliability of these tests could not be determined.  Test scores and other information were presented through documents that referenced them, rather than actual Medical Records.  This was because parents could not legally obtain these records at the time of testing, and later attempts to obtain these tests failed because records had been destroyed.

Inability to determine Developmental IQ led to the DMR psychologist estimating Applicant's developmental IQ based on post-developmental tests.  Hearing Officer determined that testing done in 1995 and 2007 was the only testing that could be considered because prior testing was either invalid/unreliable (1986 testing), or the validity/reliability of the testing could not be determined (childhood testing.)  Further, based on testimony of DMR psychologist, testing closest to the developmental period should carry more weight in reconstructing an Applicant's developmental IQ.

This being the case, the Hearing Officer determined that 1995 testing would carry the most weight, with 2007 testing being considered of lesser value.  Considered that decline in scores could likely be due to normal decline in IQ seen with aging.  As 1995 testing showed that applicant had a Full Scale IQ in the range of 73-83, the applicant was not eligible per DMR regulations requiring a Full Scale IQ of 70 or less.  Further, Hearing Officer could not consider Applicants Adaptive Functioning abilities because Developmental IQ is the threshold question in determining eligibility once domicile has been established.