By Dr. Bob Uttl (March 3, 2025)
state-of-the-art, adj., very modern and using the most recent ideas and methods
dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/state-of-the-art
Mandel & Associates Ltd. is a company established in 1997 by Dr. Allan Mandel, President and owner of Mandel & Associat. In Dr. Allan Mandel’s own words (Dr. Mandel’s Response to Ms. T’s Complaint, dated 29 March 2021):
… Since 1997 (24 years), I have continuously held a contract with the Assured Income for Severely Handicapped (AISH) program in Alberta to assist with the adjudication of applications for AISH benefits. A major part of this work involved determination of a person’s capacity for work using vocational assessment methodology. Every two to three years the contract for this work is tendered for competition – and I have succeeded in winning the contract every time.
In 1997, I established my company, Mandel & Associates, and over the years I have employed dozens of psychologists to perform assessments under its aegis. In this regard, I have regularly provided training, supervision, and oversight to those who work for me. I have taught those who work at my company the methodology for vocational assessments, provided supervision in the form of case discussions and written reviews of reports, and provided ongoing continuing education. To date, we have conducted more than 7,500 assessments, the vast majority of which are high-stakes assessments in that they involve determination of eligibility for significant financial benefits via the AISH [Alberta’s “Assured Income for Severely Handicapped”] program, or significant settlement dollars in the case of personal injury litigation…
…
We use an evidence-based practice model. All of the assessments that we do are formal assessments, and are conducted on an independent basis. Our mission statement is to provide independent, objective, state-of-the-art assessments that assist in decision-making and planning. We did no less than this in the case of Ms. T.
Dr. Allan Mandel, Response to Ms. T’s Complaint, 29 March 2021
In Dr. Allan Mandel’s own words the quality of Ms. T’s assessment conducted by Dr. Mary Westcott (Mandel & Associates Ltd., Westcott Psychology) under Dr. Mandel’s close supervision was at least as much “independent, objective, state-of-the art” as were the other 7,499 assessments that Mandel & Associates Ltd. conducted between 1997 and 2021, a span of over two decades.
Are Mandel & Associates Ltd.’s assessments really “evidence-based” and “state-of-the-art?
Dr. Mary Westcott’s assessment of Ms. T demonstrates that the “evidence-based”, “state-of-the-art assessments” methodology that Dr. Allan Mandel trained his staff to use include:
- Use of outdated and obsolete – 40 to 80 years obsolete — tests and norms – for example, USES GATB (DOL, 1970); GCT (US Adjutant General, 1941); WPT (Wonderlic, 1992); and WAIS (Wechsler, 1955),
- Use of outdated and obsolete Geneal Aptitude Test Battery Canadian Edition (GATB CDN; Nelson 1986) – for example, the GATB CDN norms were demonstrated to be incorrect, obsolete and outdated, mere 10 years after they were published by Yeasting (1996),
- Use of outdated and obsolete Aptitude Level data published in the Career Handbook, a component of the National Occupational Classification – the data published in the Career Handbook were copied from Conger (1970) and obviously could not have been based on the GATB CDN developed and published 15 years after Conger (1970) but were loosely based on the USES GATB developed and normed in 1940s/1950s in US (not on Canadians),
- Misrepresenting Aptitude Level data published in the Career Handbook as “required” aptitudes for various occupations – the Career Handbook itself clearly states that the Aptitude Levels represent “the most frequent” levels of aptitude lies, that is, where the center of the distribution lies (mean, median, mode given the symmetrical bell shaped distribution),
- Misrepresenting Aptitude Level data in the Career Handbook as “norms”, that is, the empirical data based on testing representative samples of “actual workers” in various occupations – the Career Handbook itself states clearly that the Aptitude Levels published in it are not norms and were not based on testing of any representative samples of any actual workers.
It should be obvious to anyone that using 40 to 80 yearsoutdated and obsolete tests and norms; using outdated, obsolete, and invalidated GATB CDN norms (Nelson, 1986); and using outdated and obsolete data in the Career Handbook is not “evidence based”, not “state-of-the-art” because the evidence used was decades outdated and obsolete, irrelevant, and superseded and invalidated by decades of far more recent research and evidence.
It should also be obvious to anyone that stating that Aptitude Levels in the Career Handbook are “requirements” is bold face lie given that the Career Handbook itself states they are “the most frequently” observed aptitude levels (in judgment of some people sitting around the table many decades ago).
It should also be obvious to anyone that Aptitude Levels in the Career Handbook do NOT permit the comparison of the GATB CDN scores to “those of actual workers in specific occupation” because the Career Handbook itself states that these Aptitude Levels are not based on any testing of any representative samples of actual workers.
As evidenced by Ms. T’s assessments, Mandel & Associates Ltd. assessments are neither “evidence-based” nor “state-of-the-art.” Mandel & Associates Ltd. assessments are based on junk science, pseudoscience, and/or quackery.
Who is the source of the misrepresentation that the GATB CDN scores and the Career Handbook “permits comparison of client characteristis with those of actual workers in specific occupations”?
In Dr. Westcott’s September 2010 Report on Ms. T, Dr. Mary Westcott described the GATB CDN and the NOC/the Career Handbook as follows:
The General Aptitude Test Battery (GATB) is the most widely-used aptitude test in North America. It consists of nine sub-tests that are grouped together into three major areas of functioning: cognitive abilities; perceptual abilities; and psychomotor abilities. Scores on the nine aptitude areas of the GATB are related to the requirements of specific jobs which are listed in the National Occupational Classifications (NOC), and as such it is possible to draw conclusions about the jobs a person might be capable of performing (from an aptitude point of view) by comparing GATB scores with aptitude requirements listed in the NOC. The GATB does what very few other tests do: it permits comparison of client characteristics with those of actual workers in specific occupations.
Dr. Mary Westcott’s September 15, 2010 Report
Where did this striking falsehood that “The GATB [CDN] does what very few other tests do: it permits comparison of client characteristics with those of actual workers in specific occupation.” come from?
I first inserted the phrase “permits comparison of client characteristics with those of actual workers” into Google and obtained exactly zero results. Next, I inserted the same phrase into canlii.org, a public depository of Canadian legal cases, and obtained Vespa v. Dynes, 2002 ABQB 25. Vespa v. Dynes, para 137, is nearly verbatim identical to Dr. Mary Westcott’s paragraph above. The phrase in question is verbatim identical (you can verify this yourself by going to canlii.org and inserting the phrase in the search, and hitting enter). Notably, the para 137 appears in the section discussing a high-stakes ssessment report dated “13 March 2001” authored by “Dr. Michael Boissevain – Vocational Psychologist”, one of Dr. Allan Mandel’s associates at the time.
Thus, the evidence is that Dr. Westcott plagiarized the paragraph quoted above nearly verbatim and the phrase itself verbatim from either Vespa v. Dynes or from the same source the Vespa and Dynes paragraph was plagiarized from. Either way, “the source” existed and was written by someone in 2002 or prior to 2002 already, eight years before Dr. Westcott used the source in her report and falsely presented it as her own.
Who was the source?
In 2024, questioned under oath and penalty for perjury, Dr. Westcott testified that the source was in the Mandel & Associates Ltd. library. Dr. Westcott testified:
Q: My first question is where does most of the text in this come from?
DR. MARY WESTCOTT: The test library so when as part of the company [Mandel & Associates Ltd] when associates join we share a test library. We’re provided with brief summaries of just like this brief summary of the tests to maintain a standard across you know the different associates at that time there was 15 working in the practice so generally that’s where these um you know when you join the firm it’s part of the company it’s part of the business practice that we presented these in the same manner
Q: Who authored that standard description?
DR: MARY WESTCOTT: Who? Sorry?
Q: Who authored who wrote that standard description which you copied from?
Dr. MARY WESTCOTT: Um, likely Dr. Mandel
Cross-examination of Dr. Mary Westcott
Thus, according to Dr. Mary Westcott, the source of the falsehood was “likely Dr. Mandel” and the standard description, including the falsehood, was disseminated by Mandel & Associates Ltd. associates in their reports “to maintain a standard across you know the different associates”. It apparently occured to no associate that the description was obviously false. In turn, this suggests that no associate has ever read the manual, that is, the Career Handbook.
If Dr. Westcott’s testimony is accurate, this stunningly false claim that the GATB CDN scores and the NOC Career Handbook permit comparison of clients’ scores to “those of actual workers in specific occupation”, “likely” authored by Dr. Allan Mandel himself, was used to mislead readers and adjudicators, including the courts and tribunals, in potentially thousands of formal assessment reports generated by Dr. Mandel and his associates.
Moreover, according to Dr. Mandel, “the vast majority” of these formal assessment reports likely containing this stunning misinformation were “high-stakes assessments” involving “determination of eligibility for significant financial benefits via the AISH [Alberta’s “Assured Income for Severely Handicapped”].”
Using outdated and obsolete tests, norms, and data make examinees appear less intelligent, “impaired”, and “disabled”
By using outdated and obsolete tests, norms, and data, Dr. Allan Mandel and his associates, including Dr. Mary Westcott, have been artificially lowering their examinees apparent IQs and fabricating people with disabilities
To illustrate, when Dr. Westcott directly compared Ms. T’s WAIS-IV CDN (Wechsler, 2008) IQ to WAIS (Wechsler, 1955) mean IQ data of some teachers tested decades ago, Dr. Westcott artificially (a) shaved off 5 to 8 IQ points from Ms. T by comparing her performance to US norms, and (b) shaved off 13.3 to 15.9 IQ points from Ms. T by comparing her performance to outdated and obsolete WAIS (1955) mean IQ scores of some teachers somewhere in the USA. In total, Dr. Westcott artificially made Ms. T appear 18.3 to 23.9 IQ points less intelligent, “impaired”, and “disabled.”
Similarly, when Dr. Westcott directly compared Ms. T’s GATB CDN (Nelson, 1986) Aptitude scores to the non-experimental, non-scientific Career Handbook Aptitude Level data based on what someone thought about some teachers in 1960s or perhaps earlier, Dr. Westcott hit Ms. T with a double-whammy of the outdated and obsolete test norms and the outdated and obsolete data in the Career Handbook, again shaving off tens of IQ points. As Yeasting (1996) demonstrated, the university students scored approximately 1/2 SD below (rather than 1 SD above) the General Working Population Norms mere 10 years after the GATB CDN was normed, in 1995.
We (Uttl, Sikma, & Tat, 2024, 2025) have recently administered the GATB CDN (Nelson, 1986) to 104 undergraduate university students. We found that our students scored approximately 1 SD (equivalent to 15 IQ points on IQ scale) below the GATB CDN 1985 General Working Population norms, and that their performance declined even more than the declines reported in Yeasting (1996). In turn, our results confirm that the GATB CDN norms were outdated and obsolete by 1995 as demonstrated by Yeasting (1996). Our university students, with a few exception, performed so poorly on the GATB CDN that, using Dr. Mandel and his associates’ outdated and obsolete vocational methodology, our university students would never be accepted into university and their G (General Mental Ability or g) made them suitable for either no jobs at all or at best Aptitude Level 4 occupations such as Janitors, General Farm Workers, and Construction Trades Helpers. At the same time, our university students averaged 103 IQ points on more recently normed Shipley-2 (Shipley et al., 2008) IQ test.
The figure below show the actual distribution of our university students G, V, N, and S GATB CDN Standardized Scores. Only two students out of 104 scored at Aptitude Level 2 (or at higher Level 1), misrepresented by Dr. Westcott as “required” level for the elementary school teachers, and thus, only two met Dr. Mandel and his associates’ outdated and obsolete vocational methodology “standard” for the elementary school teacher for Aptitude G only. The G scores of the vast majority of the students are at Aptitude Level 4.
Making examinees artificially appear less intelligent, “impaired”, and “disabled” may cause harm or benefits to the examinees
In Ms. T’s case, Dr. Westcott made Ms. T, a Canadian woman of average intelligence, artificially appear less intelligent, “impaired”, and “disabled” by using outdated and obsolete tests, norms, and data. The SD5, Ms. T’s employer, was happy; they wanted to keep Ms. T. out of the classroom. In contrast, Ms. T was not happy; she lost her chosen career as the result of Drs. Westcott, Mandel, and Suffield’s use of outdated and obsolete tests, norms, and data.
However, as noted by Dr. Mandel, the vast majority of examinees assessed by Dr. Mandel and his associates seek “eligibility for significant financial benefits via the AISH [Alberta’s “Assured Income for Severely Handicapped”]”. The AISH applicants will likely be very satisfied with Dr. Mandel and his associates making them artificially appear less intelligent, impaired, disabled, and thus, more eligible for the AISH financial benefits they are seeking. If Alberta Health Services (AHS) ever sends them satisfaction surveys, the AISH applicants are likely to inform the AHS that they were very satisfied, even very pleased with Dr. Mandel and his associates assessments. In turn, the AHS is more likely to renew Dr. Mandel’s AISH contract. In contrast, Alberta taxpayers may not be happy at all if they learn that other Albertans are receiving benefits they were not entitled to at their expense.
Conclusions
Dr. Allan Mandel and his associates’ obsolete and outdated vocational assessment methods are obviously neither “evidence-based” nor “state-of-the art”.. As demonstrated by Dr. Westcott’s assessment of Ms. T (fully approved by Dr. Mandel himself), Dr. Mandel and his associates artificially manufacture people with disabilities out of perfectly normal Albertans with average IQ and cognitive abilities (and sometimes British Columbians such as Ms. T) by using 40 to 80 years outdated and obsolete tests, methods, and data sets. Moreover, if Dr. Westcott is the show case product of Dr. Mandel’s training and teaching “those who work” in his company “the methodology for vocational assessment”, Dr. Mandel’s associates have been taught and trained to practice junk science, that is, conduct vocational assessments using outdated, obsolete, and irrelevant tests, norms, and data sets, and causing harm to examinees and/or society.
If Dr. Mandel’s and Dr. Westcott’s statements are to be believed, the false descriptions of the GATB CDN and the obviously false claim that the GATB CDN, with the NOC/Career Handbook data, “permits comparison of client characteristics with those of actual workers in specific occupations” have been included in potentially thousands of assessment reports out of 7,500 originating from the Mandel & Associates Ltd., starting with at least Vespa and Dynes (2002).
How many of the 7,500 of high stakes assessments conducted by Dr. Mandel and his associates incorrectly opined that an examinee was eligible for the AISH financial benefits simply because Dr. Mandel and his associates were using outdated and obsolete tests, norms and data and making the examinees artificially appear less intelligent, impaired and disabled, and thus, eligible for the Alberta’s Assured Income for Severely Handicapped (AISH)? What is the cost to Alberta taxpayers? If Dr. Mandel and his associates artificially manufacture only 100 people with disabilities per year, the approximate costs to Alberta taxpayers is well over $2,000,000 per year given yearly financial benefit in excess of $20,000. Given that the AISH benefits are often lifetime benefits, the cost of even one such artificially manufactured person with disability over that person’s lifetime may be $1,000,000. For 100 such manufactured people with disabilities, the lifetime cost may be $100,000,000. However, to find out the true scope of this problem and the true costs to Alberta’s taxpayers, the Government of Alberta would need to establish a commission to examine Dr. Mandel and his associates assessments conducted over the last few decades, since 1997, to determine how many of them used Dr. Mandel’s outdated and obsolete vocational assessment methodology demonstrated in Ms. T’s assessment and how many of these examinees were artificially made disabled and eligible for the AISH benefits by Dr. Mandel and his associates.
Dr. Troy Janzen, Deputy Registrar and Complaints Director, College of Alberta Psychologists, dismissed all of Ms. T’s complaints against Dr. Westcott, Dr. Mandel and Dr. Suffield, and refused to examine even Dr. Westcott’s assessments only. In his view, the use of 40 to 80 years old, outdated and obsolete tests, norms, and data is at least the minimally professional and competent conduct. The Complaint Reviewe Committe (CRC), the College of Alberta Psychologists, chaired by Dr. Lorrain Breult upheld Dr. Janzen’s dismissal, although the CRC has not read the submissions before it in their entirety.