A picture is worth a thousand words. A fabricated graph is worth a thousand lies.
Adapted from “A picture is worth a thousand words”
In his December 30, 2011 report, Dr. John Braxton Suffield presented the figure below — a graph of Ms. T’s GATB CDN Aptitude profile relative to a profile of some unspecified “elementary teachers” somewhere. Dr. Suffield made the following statements (Please note: in the following quote from Dr. Suffield’s report the statements enclosed in [ ] are also Dr. Suffield’s.):
2.4.7 Vocational aptitudes (pages 15-17) were assessed using the GATB, a standard measure of vocational aptitudes. [Comment: Unfortunately, Dr. Westcott erred in interpreting the results. Although she stated she followed the standard practice of adding one standard error of measurement (SEM) to Ms. T’s scores, she did not.]
Dr. John Braxton Suffield’s December 30, 2011 Report, p. 9
2.4.7.1. Rescoring the test with this factor added increased Ms. T’s perceptual and motor aptitudes to the next highest level.
2.4.7.2. However, as shown in the Figure below, rescoring did not improve Ms. T’s performance on the two vocational aptitudes — general intellect and verbal skills — to within the high average range considered “important for success” for elementary school and kindergarten teachers (NOC 4142). The difference between her scores and those considered “important for success” for high school teachers (NOC 4141) — which Ms. T reports she is also qualified to teach through her 5-year degree — is even greater. While performance on this test cannot be used to exclude a person from a job post, if Ms. T had generated these scores in a career counseling setting, she would likely be advised against a career in teaching. I agree with Dr. Westcott, that her low average to average scores in these domains also stand in contrast to her previous completion of a bachelor’s degree at the University of Victoria. Note that this conclusion stands even after her scores were “bumped up,” per the test publisher’s recommendation.
2.4.7.3. Consistent with her performance elsewhere in the assessment, Ms. T was particularly slow and inaccurate in visualizing objects in three dimensions.
2.4.7.4. Ms. T’s very poor performance on measures of fine visuomotor and gross motor skills (ca. 2nd-6th percentile) was inconsistent with her previous experience as a flutist and percussionist.
Dr. Suffield‘s “Figure below” is copied below (with Ms. T’s name redacted and replaced with “Ms. T”):
For a layperson, Dr. Suffield‘s profile figure gives an impression that Ms. T’s Standard Scores were generally below the scores “important for success” relative to some unspecified “Elementary Teachers'”, and 20 – 30 GATB Standard Scores below those of “Elementary Teachers'” on G, V, and N Aptitudes.
In contrast, for a psychologist with at least a rudimentary knowledge of measurement, GATB CDN (Nelson, 1986), and the NOC Career Handbook, Dr. Suffield‘s profile figure is a demonstration of an astonishing level of incompetence or a work product of a hired gun whose task was to paint Ms. T’s cognitive skills as below those required for elementary school teachers.
Where did Dr. Suffield take “Elementary Teachers” data from?
Psychologists ought to cite their sources. Unfortunately, Dr. Suffield omitted to state in his December 30, 2011 Report where he took the “important for success” data for “Elementary Teachers” from. Just like Dr. Westcott, Dr. Suffield did not even mention which GATB test Ms. T was given as part of Dr. Westcott’s assessment (see How many licensed psychologists does it take to locate a correct test manual?). However, an examination of Dr. Westcott’s clinical file revealed that Ms. T was given the GATB CDN (Nelson, 1986) and not the USES GATB (DOL, 1970). Notably, the GATB CDN Manual (Nelson, 1986) does not provide any norms or aptitude profiles for elementary school teachers nor for any other occupation or job. Similarly, NOC Career Handbook also does not provide any norms for any teachers or any other occupation.
In 2018, Ms. T went to examine Dr. Suffield’s clinical file accompanied by Dr. Bob Uttl. Dr. Uttl asked Dr. Suffield where the “Elementary Teachers” data in Dr. Suffield’s figure came from. Dr. Suffield first claimed, falsely, that the data came from the “GATB Manual”. When Dr. Uttl pointed out to Dr. Suffield that the GATB CDN (Nelson, 1986) Manual did not have any such data, Dr. Suffield claimed that the data probably came from the NOC Career Handbook (NOC CH), but ultimately refused to and did not answer. The exchange proceeded as follows:
UTTL: Could you tell me where these elementary teacher scores come from? On your page, you know, 9 of your December 30th report.
SUFFIELD: Yeah, those would have come from the GATB manual and other material.
UTTL: What do they represent? Because I don’t think GATB manual provides anything like that, last time I checked.
SUFFIELD: It may also stand for the NOC. It’s probably…
UTTL: NOC Career Handbook? Okay. Because NOC Career Handbook does not provide this kind of stuff at all. It’s nowhere to be found there. So I wonder how you determined it, because it’s not cited here or anything.
SUFFIELD: Well, when you prepare your rebuttal, I’ll have an answer to that.
UTTL: Right now, you don’t know?
SUFFIELD: I do. I just want to be very careful because because of your tone your approach, Bob, I want to be very careful….
Meeting with Dr. John Braxton Suffield, September 4, 2018
More than six years after Dr. Suffield wrote his Suffield December 30, 2011 Report, Dr. Suffield continued to keep the source of the data in his figure above secret, refused to disclose it, and claimed that he would “have an answer” once Dr. Uttl prepared the rebuttal report. Dr. Suffield has the process wrong. Psychologists are required to cite the sources of their data in their reports. Without those sources, other psychologists cannot examine them and cannot even write effective rebuttals except to say that Dr. Suffield failed to do his job and did not cite his sources, refused to disclose his sources, and, as a result of Dr. Suffield’s failures and refusals, Dr. Suffield’s sources were unknown and secret.
The question arises: Why was Dr. Suffield waffling between the GATB CDN Manual and the NOC Career Handbook as the data source in Dr. Suffield’s figure? Did Dr. Suffield fabricate the GATB Elementary Teacher data in his figure on page 9? The “Elementary Teacher” values corresponding to Dr. Suffield’s figure data are NOT available in the GATB CDN Manual nor the NOC Career Handbook.
Stonewalled, Ms. T filed a series of complaints of unprofessional conduct against Dr. Mary Westcott, Dr. Allan Mandel (Dr. Westcott’s supervisor and President of Mandel and Associates Ltd.) and Dr. Braxton Suffield. In response to the complaints, Dr. Suffield finally disclosed where the gray bars representing “Elementary Teachers” came from. Dr. Suffield stated that they are from the Career Handbook Aptitude Levels for the NOC Elementary School Teachers (note that the blue printed text below is lifted verbatim from the Career Handbook without any quotes and without citation, in other words, plagiarized):
The ratings in the Career Handbook were assigned by trained occupational analysts using a modified Delphi procedure. The goal of Delphi methodologies is to establish group consensus about unknown quantitites or events [emphasis added]…
Thus, while the rated information in the Career Handbook is not based on experimental data collected from representative samples of the employed labour force for the occupations of the NOC…
Under the Main Characteristics, Elementary School Teachers are associated with General Learning Ability and Verbal Ability, indicating that these aptitudes are “important for success” in this occupation… The specific level of these aptitudes considered “important for success” is listed under the Aptitude Profile: level 2, High Average. This corresponds to the upper third of the general working population, exclusive of the top 10%: GATB standard scores ranging from 109 to 125. These are represented by the vertical bars for Elementary Teachers in the figure on page 9 of my report [emphasis added]. Other aptitude scores associated with the Elementary Teacher profile are also shown, but, per the criterion studies of teachers [with a different GATB test], and the more recent Delphi ratings [given by unknown group of individuals], these other aptitudes are not considered “important for success” in the post of elementary teacher.”
Dr. Suffield’s Response to Ms. T’s complaints, to the College of Alberta Psychologists, May 24, 2021, p. 53
Thus, it took 12 years and the complaints with the College of Alberta Psychologists against him for Dr. Suffield to disclose the source of his data.
Interestingly, we also learned that Dr. Suffield knew, at least by May 24, 2021, after presumably reading Ms. T’s complaints, that, according to the NOC Career Handbook:
- The only aptitudes “important for success” were G and V Aptitudes.
- The NOC Career Handbook specified only 5 ranges for each Aptitude, for example, for Aptitudes G and V, Aptitude Level 2 ranges from 109 to 125.
- The NOC Career Handbook Aptitude Levels were “not based on experimental data collected from representative samples of the employed labour force”, they were not norms.
Yet, Dr. Suffield omitted to mention, and thus, it is unclear whether he knew that “The Career Handbook is intended for career counselling, development and exploration purposes” and not for other uses. The Career Handbook itself is very explicit:
The Career Handbook is intended for career counselling, development and exploration purposes. ESDC neither condones nor recommends the use of this information for other purposes. The profiles presented here are not appropriate for other uses such as screening applicants for particular positions or determining insurance benefits. The data do not replace the use of criterion-referenced testing to establish performance requirements for work as it occurs in the labour market. There are three major reasons for this limitation:
Career Handbook, “Purpose of the Career Handbook”
- The conceptual foundation of the NOC and the Handbook is occupations, not jobs. An occupation is a collection of similar jobs that share some or all of a set of Main Duties. The tasks of specific jobs vary from establishment to establishment.
- The rated information in the Handbook is not based on experimental data collected from representative samples of the employed labour force for the occupations of the NOC.
- Development of the NOC and the Handbook did not include the collection of data on specific working conditions for jobs contained within occupational groups of the NOC.
Dr. Suffield’s only statement related to this limitation of the NOC CH data is the statement in his December 30, 2011 Report: “While performance on this test [GATB CDN] cannot be used to exclude a person from a job post, if Ms. T had generated these scores in a career counseling setting, she would likely be advised against a career in teaching.” Well, if GATB CDN cannot be used to “exclude a person from a job post”, why to even administer it? Ms. T did not see Dr. Westcott nor Dr. Suffield for “career counselling, development and exploration purposes.” She already had a career that she liked.
Dr. Suffield’s grey bars do not represent the NOC Career Handbook data
It turns out Dr. Suffield’s grey bars do not represent the NOC Career Handbook data contrary to Dr. Suffield’s statement to the College of Alberta Psychologists.
Dr. Suffield correctly stated that the NOC Career Handbook only gives ranges, for example, for Aptitude Level 2 it gives a range “from 109 to 125” in terms of the GATB Standard Scores. Astonishingly, Dr. Suffield next stated that these ranges “are represented by the vertical bars for Elementary Teachers in the figure on page 9” of his report. Dr. Suffield’s statement is patently false. As anyone even minimally familiar with bar graphs knows, in a bar graph, each bar’s height represents a single value. To state the obvious, a single value cannot represent a range from one value to another. Bar graphs do not and cannot represent ranges of values.
What did Dr. Suffield actually plot in his figure on page 9 of his report?
The table below shows the NOC Career Handbook Aptitude Levels and associates Low and High Range Limits for “Elementary School Teachers” as well as the values graphed by Dr. Suffield. Dr. Suffield’s grey bars do not and cannot represent ranges, and they do not correspond to the Low Range Limits nor to the High Range Limits. Dr. Suffield’s grey bars’ values are either fabricated or taken from elsewhere.
| Aptitude | Aptitude Level (NOC) | Low Range Limit | High Range Limit | Suffield’s Figure | Suffield’s Error (from Low Range Limit) | Suffield’s Error (from High Range Limit) |
| G | 2 | 109 | 125 | 122 | +13 | -3 |
| V | 2 | 109 | 125 | 122 | +13 | -3 |
| N | 3 | 92 | 108 | 107 | +15 | -1 |
| S | 4 | 75 | 91 | 110 | +35 | +19 |
| P | 4 | 75 | 91 | 93 | +18 | 2 |
| Q | 3 | 92 | 108 | 110 | +18 | 2 |
| K | 4 | 75 | 91 | 90 | +15 | -1 |
| F | 4 | 75 | 91 | 96 | +21 | 5 |
| M | 4 | 75 | 91 | 95 | +20 | 4 |
The figure below shows Dr. Suffield’s figure with marked-up Aptitude Level ranges showing both the Low Range Limits and High Range Limits as well as Ms. T’s scores (+1 SEM).
The marked-up figure highlights that Dr. Suffield’s statements have no basis in reality and are patently false:
- Level 2, High Average, includes Standard Scores ranging from 109 to 125. Dr. Suffield’s original figure plainly shows no ranges. Dr. Suffield’s grey bars each indicate one specific Standard Score.
- The Aptitude Levels do NOT say where in the range the mean Standard Scores of workers in particular occupations lie and cannot be reduced to single scores.
- The grey bars do not correspond to the Low nor High Range Limits of the Aptitude Levels (shown in RED).
- The grey bars are closest to the High Range Scores although, for example, Dr. Suffield’s Aptitude S grey bar is 19 (!!) points higher than the High Range Score.
- Even Dr. Suffield’s black bars do not accurately describe Ms. T’s Standard Scores including +1 SEM. For Aptitude N, Dr. Suffield plotted Ms. T’s Standard Score as 78 when in fact it was 81.
Dr. Suffield’s bar graph figure on page 9 is nothing short of fiction.
The NOC Career Handbook Aptitude Levels represent where the centers of the aptitude distributions are believed to be and not the minimum requirements
Dr. Suffield omitted to mention that the NOC Career Handbook plainly states that the Aptitude Levels represent where “the most frequently occurring levels of aptitudes” lie, that is, the centers of the distribution of Aptitude scores, and do not represent any minimum requirements for performing any particular occupations or jobs.
As explained in elementary statistics and psychometrics textbooks, the most frequent score is known as a “mode” and, in a symmetrical distribution, the mode is equal to the mean and the median. Moreover, fifty percent of scores fall below the mean and fifty percent of scores fall above the mean, and approximately 95% of all scores in the symmetrical distribution fall between -2 SD to + 2 SD band around the mean/mode/median. Given that according to the NOC Career Handbook, the most frequent levels of aptitude G and V lie somewhere between 109 and 125, if the most frequent aptitude level was 109, at the Low Range Limit, the 95% of all teachers would score between +/- 2 SD band, or between 69 and 149 (given GATB CDN SD of 20).
It is obvious that Ms. T’s Standard Scores all fall at or above the – 1 SD band from the center of the aptitude distributions as defined by the Low Range Limits in the NOC Careeer Handbook.
The NOC Career Handbook data are guesses/speculations and cannot be used to determine if someone meets the minimum ability requirements of any particular job
As detailed above, Dr. Suffield’s statements that the grey bars in his figure represent the NOC Career Handbook “Elementary Tearcher” data are patently false.
Nevertheless, can the NOC Career Handbook data be used to determine if someone meets the minimum ability requirements of any particular job? The answer is: No. The NOC Career Handbook itself explains that the Career Handbook data are “not based on experimental data collected from representative samples of the employed labour force for the occupations of the NOC.” The Career Handbook data are not any kind of norms for Elementary Teachers but merely guesses/speculations that some unknown people made more than 1/2 century ago. For example, the NOC Career Handbook data for Elementary School Teachers were already published in Conger (1973) and are not only speculations but ancient and outdated speculations.
The NOC Career Handbook explains clearly that “The profiles presented here are not appropriate for other uses such as screening applicants for particular positions or determining insurance benefits. The data do not replace the use of criterion-referenced testing to establish performance requirements for work as it occurs in the labour market.” (see Errors, falsehoods, and plagiarism in scoring and interpreting psychological tests: Minimally competent conduct? for details).
There it is, clearly stated. Anyone who can read and comprehend plain English text ought to understand that (a) the Career Handbook data are not norms, and (b) Career Handbook data cannot be used for criterion-referenced testing such as “screening applicants for particular positions” or determining whether someone meets the minimum ability requirements of any particular job.
Dr. Suffield’s unwarranted claim that Ms. T’s GATB CDN scores “stand in contrast to her previous completion of a bachelor’s degree”
Dr. Suffield wrote: “I agree with Dr. Westcott, that her [Ms. T’s] low average to average scores in these domains also stand in contrast to her previous completion of a bachelor’s degree at the University of Victoria.”
As usual, Dr. Suffield gave no basis and identified no sources for his astonishing claim denigrating Ms. T’s GATB CDN scores. In particular, Dr. Suffield provided no norms and no data showing how University of Victoria students and graduates scored on the GATB CDN at relevant times. Dr. Suffield provided no norms and no data for any university students or graduates in Canada tested with the GATB CDN at relevant times.
However, if Dr. Suffield at least “googled it”, he would find a study by Yeasting (1996). If Dr. Suffield read the study, Dr. Suffield would learn that Yeasting (1996) administered GATB CDN to undergraduate students enrolled in introductory psychology courses at Lakehead University, and that the mean G, V, and N aptitudes of these normal Canadian undergraduate students tested in 1995 were 90.94, 90.34, and 87.22 (see Yeasting, 1996, p. 27, Group 2), about 1/2 standard deviation below the GATB CDN General Working Population norms and no different from Ms T’s scores.
The empirical data, the actual performance of Canadian university students at about the same time Ms. T was pursuing her undergraduate degree, demonstrate that Dr. Suffield’s statements about Ms. T’s GATB CDN scores were baseless fiction and patently inconsistent with reality. The reality is that Ms. T’s GATB CDN scores were comparable to the mean GATB CDN scores of the Lakehead University students tested by Yeasting (1996).
Plotting relevant, accurate, transparent, and unbiased test profiles
Dr. Suffield’s bar graph figure is an excellent example of an irrelevant, inaccurate, non-transparent, and biased test profile.
To determine whether someone meets or does not meet the minimum ability requirements of any particular job, one must first establish those minimum ability requirements. Dr. Suffield already admitted that School District No. 5 provided him with no minimum ability requirements for Ms. T’s job. Ergo, Dr. Suffield was required to refuse the assignment as he had no way to determine whether or not Ms. T met the minimum requirements of Ms. T’s job because he did not have those minimum requirements. By way of example, one cannot determine if a certain score on a driving qualification test is a pass or a fail unless one knows what that passing score on a specific test is.
Not having minimum required abilities criteria/standards for Ms. T’s job, Dr. Suffield (just like Dr. Westcott) decided to compare Ms. T to the “Elementary Teachers.” There are two problems with Dr. Suffield’s approach. First, where Ms. T’s abilities are relative to some distribution of some teachers is completely irrelevant to the question of whether Ms. T’s cognitive abilities and IQ prevent her from performing her teaching duties. Again, Dr. Suffield would need to know those minimum required abilities. Second, Dr. Suffield would need to know how Ms. T’s peers, doing the same job for School District No. 5, scored on various ability tests, including the GATB CDN. However, Dr. Suffield did not have any such data, any such norms, and could not and did not compare Ms. T’s performance to any kind of actual elementary school teachers. Again, Dr. Suffield was required to refuse the assignment or, state clearly that (a) he did not have any minimum requirements for Ms. T’s job, (b) he did not have any norms or any data on how other elementary teachers in Ms. T’s job performed on any of the tests administered to Ms. T, including the GATB CDN, (c) he was merely widely speculating based on decades obsolete opinions of some people somewhere rather than based on any actual experimental data describing how teachers performed on the GATB CDN (and other tests), and (d) he had no idea how undergraduate students or university graduates scored on the GATB CDN because he did not even “google it”.
Just for a demonstration, let’s examine how Ms. T’s accurately plotted GATB CDN Standard Scores compare to (a) 1/2 century obsolete opinions summarized in the NOC Career Handbook, and (b) Yeasting (1996) GATB CDN performance of Canadian undergraduate students at Lakehead University.
The figure below shows (a) Ms. T’s GATB CDN Standard Scores (with +1 SEM) (black thick line), (b) the mean GATB CDN Standard Scores of Lakehead University students reported by Yeasting (1996) (red dashed thick line), (c) the range band where the most frequent levels of aptitude (MFLA) lie according to 1/2 century old opinions/speculations of unknown people reported in the NOC Career Handbook (grey area), (d) Dr. Suffield’s false data (i.e., not corresponding to anything in the NOC Career Handbook), (e) MFLA Lower Bound minus 1 SD (depicting the lower limit for the middle 68 percent of the distribution) (blue dashed line), and (f) MFLA Lower Bound minus 2 SD (depicting the lower limit for the middle 95 percent of the distribution) (blue dotted line).
Figure highlights the following:
- Ms. T’s GATB CDN scores fall within +/- 1 SD of the GATB CDN General Working Population (GWP) norms (Nelson, 1986), that is, within 80 to 120 Standard Scores on all but two Aptitudes: on Aptitude K, Ms. T scored exceptionally high whereas on Aptitude F she scored within the middle 95% of the GWP.
- Ms. T’s GATB CDN Aptitudes G, V, and N scores are comparable to the mean of the Canadian University students reported by Yeasting (1996). Note that a decade after the GATB CDN was normed, Canadian University students scored approximately 1/2 SD below the GWP norms.
- For G, V, and N Aptitudes, Ms. T’s scores are within 1 SD limit from the NOC CH MFLA Lower Bound. Thus, Ms. T’s scores are no different from what some people 1/2 a century ago speculated were elementary teachers’ abilities.
Dr. Suffield’s disparaging statements about Ms. T’s GATB CDN Aptitudes were unwarranted and baseless.
Dr. Suffield’s bar graph figure: A work product of a competent psychologist, an incompetent psychologist, or of a hired gun?
Was Dr. Suffield’s bar graph figure on page 9 of his report a work of a competent psychologist, an incompetent psychologist, or of a hired gun (a hired gun = “an expert hired to do a specific and often ethically dubious job“)? The table below reviews some of Dr. Suffield’s actions, omissions, and decisions; their consequences; and their impact on Ms. T.
| Dr. Suffield’s action/omission/decision | Consequences of Dr. Suffield’s action/omission/decision | Impact on Ms. T |
| Omitted to mention the source of his “Elementary Teachers” data | Prevented others from reviewing and criticizing Dr. Suffield’s accuracy and methods | Prevented criticism of Dr. Suffield’s work/raised Ms. T’s costs |
| Refused to disclose the source of his “Elementary Teachers” data while knowing that his methods were being questioned | Prevented others from reviewing and criticizing Dr. Suffield’s accuracy and methods | Prevented criticism of Dr. Suffield’s work/Raised Ms. T’s costs |
| Omitted to mention that the NOC CH data were not based on any experimental data but mere speculations | Gave a false impression that he was comparing Ms. T’s scores to scores of actual elementary school teachers tested with the GATB CDN | Falsely painted Ms. T as impaired |
| Misrepresented the NOC Career Handbook data as “important for success” rather than the most frequent aptitude levels | Gave a false impression that the NOC CH data were minimum required scores for successfully performing elementary teacher duties | Falsely painted Ms. T as impaired |
| Plotted the standard score ranges for the most frequent levels of aptitude as single values | Gave a false impression that the NOC provided Aptitude Standard Scores norms when the NOC merely provided wide ranges delineating where the most frequent levels of aptitude lie as per some people’s speculations | Falsely painted Ms. T as impaired |
| Plotted Ms. T’s Aptitude N score as lower than it was | Gave a false impression that Ms. T’s Aptitude N score was lower than it was and that it was below the middle 68% of the GWP norms | Falsely painted Ms. T as impaired |
| Plotted “Elementary Teacher” Aptitude values approximately 15 to 35 points higher than the NOC CH Low Range Limits for Aptitudes’ most frequent levels | Gave a false impression that Ms. T’s Aptitude scores were far lower than those of elementary school teachers | Falsely painted Ms. T as impaired |
| Falsely stated that adding +1 SEM to Ms. T’s scores raised only two (rather than four) of her aptitudes to the next higher level | Gave a false impression that Dr. Westcott’s failure to add 1 SEM had only a minor impact on the interpretation of Ms. T’s scores | Falsely painted Ms. T as impaired |
| Failed to “google it”/failed to mention publicly available Yeasting (1996) experimental data on the GATB CDN scores of Canadian university students | Relied on the NOC Career Handbook non-experimental data/speculations of some people somewhere | Falsely painted Ms. T as impaired |
Dr. Suffield’s actions/omissions/decisions are difficult to explain by mere incompetence or even by astonishing incompetence. Random incompetence, ordinary or astonishing, would result in a series of choices where each choice is equally likely to make Ms. T look far more or far less capable than she was. In contrast, all of Dr. Suffield’s choices detailed above made Ms. T look far less capable than she was and/or prevented others from reviewing and criticizing Dr. Suffield’s work. Dr. Suffield’s actions/omissions/decisions detailed above are more likely to be a work product of a hired gun than due to mere incompetence or carelessness.
Let’s also examine deviations of Dr. Suffield’s “Elementary Teachers” bars from Low Range Limits of Aptitude Levels given in the NOC Career Handbook. As shown above, all nine “Elementary Teachers” bars in Dr. Sufifeld’s figure are much higher than Low Range Limits of Aptitude Levels given in the NOC Career Handbook. If Dr. Suffield was plotting the Low Range Limits and if he was merely incompetent, the difference between the Aptitude Level Range Lower Bound and Dr. Suffield’s plotted values would be sometimes positive and sometimes negative. Instead, Dr. Suffield’s errors from Aptitude Level Range Lower Bound are all (a) positive (falsely painting Ms. T as impaired) and (b) large (approximately 1 SD or 20 GATB CDN points) (falsely painting Ms. T as impaired). Under a mere incompetence hypothesis, this outcome — making 9 positive errors in plotting 9 values — is extremely unlikely, p < .002. While anything may be possible, including that pigs might fly one day, it is also extremely unlikely that Dr. Suffield, PhD level registered clinical psychologist with the College of Alberta Psychologists, with decades of experience, did not understand the difference between a range of scores where “the most frequent levels of aptitude lie”, a single score specifying the most frequent level of aptitude (a mode), and the minimum required score “important for success”.
On September 26, 2022, Dr. Troy Janzen, the Deputy Registrar and the Complaints Director, the College of Alberta Psychologists, dismissed all of Ms. T’s complaints against Dr. Suffield. One may infer that, in Dr. Janzen and the College of Alberta Psychologists‘ view, Dr. Suffield’s conduct, including Dr. Suffield’s false and misleading bar graph figure and falsehoods provided to the College of Alberta Psychologists, is at least minimally competent conduct.
Ms. T appealed Dr. Janzen’s dismissal and the Complaints Review Committee (CRC) has been working, presumably, on Ms. T’s appeals for almost half a year now. Will the CRC also conclude that Dr. Suffield’s conduct detailed above is at least “minimally competent” conduct, nothing the public needs to be protected from?