by Dr. Bob Uttl
Discrimination re employment practices
Alberta Human Rights Act
7(1) No employer shall (a) refuse to employ or refuse to continue to employ any person, or (b) discriminate against any person with regard to employment or any terms or condition of employment, because of the race, religious beliefs, colour, gender, …. age, ancestry..
Introduction
In its public statements, the College of Alberta Psychologists (CAP) says it “stands against racism”, adopted “framework that specifically prohibits discrimination based on race, colour and ethnicity”, invites “all regulated members to work individually and together against discrimination in all forms” (College of Alberta Psychologists Stands Again Racism and Stands for Equity, Diversity and Inclusion). Unfortunately, the College’s actions that speak louder than the College’s words, the College approves of and stands for all kinds of discrimination in employment, in particular, discrimination in employment on the basis of age, sex, race/ethnicity, and education.
How can this be? How come that the College of Alberta Psychologists approves of and promotes employment discrimination based on age, sex, race/ethnicity, and education? Three psychologists — Dr. Mary Westcott, Dr. Allan Mandel, and Dr. John Braxton Suffield/John Suffield — used age, sex, race/ethnicity, and/or education specific norms to arrive to their rather astonishing opinions that Ms. T, a Canadian woman of twice assessed average intelligence and cognitive abilities (relative to Canadians of the same age) was prevented from performing her job duties of an elementary school teacher (see Introduction: Ms. T, the School District No. 5, psychologists peddling junk science, and the vexing question of how many IQ points elementary school teachers have to have). The trio never asked the School District No. 5 Southeast Kootenay (SD5), Ms. T’s employer, for the minimum intelligence, cognitive, and other ability requirements or minimum standards that the SD5 elementary teachers have to meet (the SD5 officials have since testified under oath that they did not have any such minimum IQ and other standards). Instead, the trio opined about Ms. T’s ability to perform her teaching duties based on where Ms. T scored relative to examinees of the same age, sex, race/ethnicity, and/or education on variety of psychological including IQ tests. One inevitable consequence of using age and other demographic factors adjusted norms in fitness for duty assessments is that whether or not an examinee is declared fit or not fit for duty depends on which group the examinee belongs to and how well that group scores on given psychological test. Thus, as an illustration, a 65 years old examinee who solved 13 visual puzzles may be declared fit for duty because their score was above the mean of their age group whereas a 20 year old examinee who also solved 13 visual puzzles may be declared not fit for duty because their score was below the mean of their age group. Simply put, the use of age and other demographically adjusted norms in fitness for duty assessments inevitably results in employment discrimination. Ms. T filed a number of complaints against the three psychologists, including that the three psychologists misused irrelevant age, sex, race, and/or education norms to opine about her fitness for duty. Astonishingly, the College of Alberta Psychologists including Dr. Troy Janzen, Deputy Registrar and Complaints Director; Dr. Bob Acton, Falcongate, the CAP’s Investigator; and the Complaints Review Committee (CRC) including Dr. Lorraine Breault and Dr. Ali Al-Asadi dismissed Ms. T’s complaints, and in doing so, they endorsed use of examinees’ age, sex, skin color, and other factors in fitness for duty assessments, and therefore, employment discrimination.
The College of Alberta Psychologists’ approval of the use of age, sex, race/ethnicity, etc. based norms in fitness for duty assessments is a spectacular example of systemic discrimination in employment advanced by the regulatory body that Alberta Government established to protect the public from incompetent practice of psychology. The fact that no one from the College of Alberta Psychologists was “triggered” by Dr. Mary Westcott, Dr. Allan Mandel and Dr. John Braxton Suffield’s use of the age, sex, race/ethnicity and education adjusted norms in fitness for duty assessments is astonishing given that (a) the practice of using age, sex, race/ethnicity, etc. in hiring and firing is illegal in Canada and the United Stated (i.e., if the SD5 teachers must have some minimal general mental abilities, the minimum ability standards must be the same for all teachers regardless of age, sex, race/ethnicity, etc.), and (b) a recent widely publicized settlement between the NFL and NFL players to end race-based adjustments in dementia neuropsychological/cognitive testing (Hobson, W., August 2, 2021, How “race-norming” was built into the NFL concussion settlement, Washington Post; AP, Judge approves fix to stemp race bias in NFL concussion deal, nfl.com). It should be clear to any registered psychologist but especially to the College of Alberta Psychologists’ officials such as Dr. Troy Janzen, Deputy Registrar and Complaints Director, and the College of Alberta Psychologists’ Council members that using different absolute ability standards/different minimum neuropsychological/cognitive test scores for examinees of different ages, sexes, races, etc. is a textbook example of discrimination, and that the use of age, sex, race/ethinicity, and/or education based norms such as Revised Comprehensive Norms for an Expanded Halstead-Reitan Battery (PAR Inc.) and Advanced Clinical Solution for WAIS-IV and WMS-IV (Pearson Clinical) inevitably results in employment discrimination in fitness for duty assessments.
Why is the College of Alberta Psychologists approving of, and thus, promoting rather than stamping out discrimination in fitness for duty assessments based on age, sex, race/ethnicity and education discrimination? There appears to be three possibilities: (a) they are flaming ageist, sexists, racists, etc., (b) they are incompetent and unable to recognize their own incompetence (see Dunning-Kruger effect), or (c) they are corrupt, that is, instead of protecting the public (their legislated duty), they are protecting their own members: Dr. Mary Westcott, Dr. Allan Mandel, and Dr. John Braxton Suffield/John Suffield.
Group Differences In Performance On Psychological Tests
Psychologists have known for decades that, on average, different groups of people score differently on various psychological tests, and that the group differences can be large, for example, exceeding one standard deviation (SD) (equivalent to 15 IQ points on a standard IQ scale with the mean of 100 and SD of 15). The group differences most often discussed in psychology and neuropsychology textbooks include age, sex, race/ethnicity, and education differences. First, on average, there are large age differences in performance on a variety of intelligence and other ability tests across adulthood. Specifically, older people are slower than younger people, and older people score lower on a variety of intelligence tests, such as processing speed, working memory, and reasoning tests (fluid intelligence tests). In contrast, on average, older people perform somewhat higher on various other tests of intelligence such as tests that measure their accumulated knowledge and experience (crystalized intelligence tests). Second, on average, women vs. men score differently on a variety of intelligence and cognitive ability tests, although sex differences tend to be much smaller than age differences. Third, people with more vs. less education score differently on a variety of intelligence and cognitive ability tests. Fourth, people of different races and ethnicities also score differently on a wide variety of intelligence and cognitive ability tests.
Many but not all psychological tests are normed on representative samples of populations stratified by age, sex, race/ethnicity, and education, but test manuals tend to provide norms stratified by age only (age norms) (e.g., test manuals for Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-IV or WAIS-IV, Wechsler Memory Scale-IV or WMS-IV). Psychologists are taught how to test examinees, how to score tests, and how to determine where an examinee’s score falls relative to the scores of a normative sample. For widely used tests such as WAIS-IV and WMS-IV, the norms are provided for specific age groups, and thus, psychologists usually compare the examinee’s scores to the norms for people of the same age. Using norms to determine the examinee’s position relative to others is known as norm-referenced testing.
Relative Position of An Examinee to Others Is Irrelevant in Fitness for Duty Assessments (FFDs)
However, when psychologists are asked to perform fitness for duty (FDD) assessments, that is, to determine whether an examinee has the minimum required abilities or characteristics to be able to perform their job, the psychologists must first know what those minimum required abilities or characteristics are, assess the examinee for those abilities and characteristics, and then compare the examinee’s scores to the minimum required scores or criteria or standards of performance. This is known as criterion-referenced testing.
A driver knowledge test is a prototypical example of criterion-reference testing. For example, Alberta Driver’s Knowledge Test is 30 multiple-choice tests administered to people who want to get a driver’s license in Alberta. To pass the test, an examinee has to obtain at least 25 out of 30 questions correct. Alberta Government does not seem to publish overall passing rates nor passing rates by demographic factors such as age and sex of drivers. However, according to a study of 2,394 Alberta’s licensed drivers, the average or mean performance was 22 questions correct, and “Male drivers scored higher than females and younger people did better than older drivers” (CBC News, 2010, Alberta drivers lack basic skills: survey).
The figure below shows the simulated distribution of the number of correct answers for all examinees (M = 22, SD = 3) (dotted bell-shaped curve). The red bell-shaped curve shows simulated performance of older drivers (M = 20, SD = 3), whereas the solid black red-shaped curve shows the simulated performance of younger drivers (M = 23, SD = 3) (CBC article does not mention how large the difference between younger and older drivers was). The blue vertical line shows the minimum passing score of 25 out of 30. In this criterion-reference testing, it does not matter where an examinee places within the distribution of scores for all drivers or the distribution of scores within their age group. The only thing that matters is whether the examinee answered 25 or more questions correctly. The Government of Alberta does not have different standards, different passing criteria, for younger drivers vs. older drivers, male vs. female drivers, White vs. Asians vs. Black vs. Hispanic vs. … drivers, etc..
The figure above has three additional scales printed below the Number Correct Answers scale: All Ages SS, Younger Driver SS, and Older Driver SS where SS stands for Standardized Score. In this instance, the Standardized Scores are like IQ scores, that is, standardized with M = 100 and SD 15. Standardized scores tell us where each examinee scored relative to some distribution of scores, for example, relative to all examinees, or relative to only own group of examinees. For example, a raw score of 20 is equal to the mean score of older drivers, but full 3 raw scores or 15 SS scores below the mean of younger drivers. But, as detailed above, where the examinee’s score is relative to other examinees does not matter in criterion-referenced testing, the only thing that matters is if the examinee passed the criterion or not.
Thus, in fitness for duty assessments, it is irrelevant where the examinee places among a group of other employees as long as the examinee meets or exceeds the minimum ability requirements of the job. Notably, all other employees are typically presumed to meet the minimum required scores or criteria or standards of performance, and thus, the employee’s relative position — whether the employee scores at 5th percentile (i.e., higher than the bottom lowest scoring employees), 10th percentile, 50th percentile, 90th or even 99th percentile — among these fit for duty employees is not and cannot be a relevant consideration in the FFDs.
However, as noted above, Dr. Mary Westcott, Dr. Allan Mandel (Dr. Westcott’s supervisor and employer), Dr. John Braxton Suffield/John Suffield did not ask the School District No. 5 Southeast Kootenay for the minimum ability required standards for Ms. T’s job (they did not even ask for Ms. T’s job description). Moreover, the long list of the School District No. 5 Southeast Kootenay administrators including Ms. Cynthia Stuart, Mr. Brent Reimer, Mr. Glenn Dobie, as well as the chairman of the School District No. 5 Board Mr. Frank Lento have since testified under oath that they never established any minimum required intelligence, cognitive ability, or even personality scores standards for their teachers.
The three psychologists — Dr. Mary Westcott, supervised and advised by Dr. Allan Mandel, and Dr. John Braxton Suffield — simply made up their own standards for Ms. T’s job. Oddly enough, they all decided to use norms-referenced testing and to opine that Ms. T’s average intelligence and other cognitive abilities were below the minimum required intelligence and other cognitive abilities scores to perform her teaching duties. Dr. John Braxton Suffield/John Suffield even opined that Ms. T’s average intelligence and cognitive abilities were “cognitive deficits” that “prevented” Ms. T from performing her teaching duties.
Dr. Mary Westcott’s Age Based Discrimination Methodology
Dr. Mary Westcott used age norms, for example, WAIS-IV CDN (Wechsler, 2008) IQ age norms, and compared Ms. T’s IQ to the IQs of the same-aged people in the normative samples. In doing so, Dr. Mary Westcott was using different minimum intelligence and other ability standards for Ms. T than for examinees of other ages. In other words, Dr. Mary Westcott’s methodology directly discriminates against younger examinees because younger examinees must demonstrate much higher intelligence and much higher abilities than older examinees to place in the same relative position to other examinees of the same age. If examinees’ performance had anything to do at all with their ability to perform their teaching duties, for example, not losing kids on field trips, Dr. Mary Westcott’s view is that younger teachers must not lose kids on field trips whereas older teachers can do so on regular basis because Dr. Westcott requires far lower minimum (absolute) ability standards for older than for younger teachers due to her use of age norms.
Figure below shows the performance on WAIS-IV (2008) reasoning and speed tests for younger (20-24 years old) vs. older (65-69 years old) adults in the US normative sample. Relative to younger adults, older adults score, on average, about 15 IQ points lower, that is, their raw scores on reasoning and speed tests are substantially lower than those of young adults. A psychologist who uses age norms and, for example, the 16th percentile as a minimum requirement for being fit to return to one’s job, will, by definition, use higher absolute ability standards for younger vs. older teachers, and thus, openly discriminate against younger teachers on the basis of the age. However, it makes no sense for employers to have different ability standards for younger vs. older teachers, for example, allowing younger teachers to lose only 1 child on field trips per year but allowing older teachers to lose 10 children on field trips per year. Of course, it is also illegal in Canada.
The flip side of these age differences is that if the minimum required ability to perform elementary teacher duties was the 16th percentile (IQ = 85) in the distribution of younger teachers, 50% of older but only 16% of younger teachers would be unfit to perform their elementary teaching duties and would have to be fired.
As another example, the Table below shows average (normative) performance on Visual Puzzles subtest of WAIS-IV (Wechsler, 2008). Younger adults solve on average 17-18 puzzles whereas older adults solve on average only 11-12 puzzles. However, by definition, within each age group, the subtest Scale Scores (standardized with the mean of 10 and standard deviation of 3) corresponding to these vastly different raw scores, and thus, vastly different abilities, are the same. Again, psychologist using age norms will, by definition, pass as fit for duty older adults with much lower abilities than younger adults.
| 20-24 Years Old | 65-69 Years Old | |
| Number of puzzles solved | 17-18 | 11-12 |
| Scales Score in the distribution of 20-24 year old | 10 (0 SD) | 6 (-1.33 SD) |
| Scales Score in the distribution of 65-69 year old | 14-15 (+1.33 SD) | 10 (0 SD) |
Accordingly, Dr. Mary Westcott, using the norm-referenced testing and setting the minimum required score to, for example, 16th percentile within the examinee’s age norms, engages in age discrimination against younger adults by demanding that they solve many more puzzles than older adults in order for Dr. Mary Westcott to declare them fit for duty.
Dr. Mary Westcott does not seem to understand this concept, and, as a result, her opinions are based on examinees’ (irrelevant) age rather than on any bona fide minimum occupational requirements for specific jobs. It is unclear, however, whether Dr. Westcott engages in age discrimination because (a) she intends to discriminate against examinees because of their age or (b) she is merely incompetent, does what she was trained to do by her boss Dr. Allan Mandel, and does not comprehend the consequences of her actions in specific contexts.
Dr. Braxton Suffield’s (Advanced) Age, Sex, Race/Ethnicity, and Education Based Discrimination Methodology
Dr. John Braxton Suffield/John Suffield noted Dr. Mary Westcott compared Ms. T “to others her age” but criticized her approach for failing to account for Ms. T’s sex, education, and race:
Dr. Westcott compared Ms. T to others her age (page 10), but does not appear to have taken her education and other demographic factors [sex, race/ethnicity] into consideration.
Dr. John Braxton Suffield’s December 30, 2011 Report
Dr. Suffield’s reliance on Canadian age and education norms for a different test
Dr. John Braxton Suffield/John Suffield then proceeded to (a) compare Ms. T’s WAIS-IV CDN (2008) IQ scores to WAIS-III CDN (1997) norms for Canadians with 16 years of education published in Longman et al. (2007). In comparison to Dr. Westcott’s simple age discrimination, Dr. Suffield used more advanced age and education discrimination.
Moreover, because WAIS-IV CDN age and education norms were not available, Dr. John Braxton Suffield/John Suffield used age and education norms for an entirely different version of the WAIS, WAIS-III (Wechsler, 1997). Dr. John Braxton Suffield/John Suffield either did not understand or decided not to disclose that WAIS-IV CDN and WAIS-III CDN IQ scores are not equivalent, that WAIS-IV is a harder test than WAIS-III, and that an examinee’s WAIS-IV IQ compared to WAIS-III norms will make the examinee artificially look less intelligent. To speculate about Ms. T’s performance on WAIS-III, the test Ms. T was not given, Dr. Suffield would have to at least adjust Ms. T’s WAIS-IV CDN IQ scores to make them approximately comparable to WAIS-III scores. Dr. Suffield did not do so, either because he was incompetent or because his goal was to make Ms. T appear less intelligent and having “impairments”.
In addition, Dr. Suffield also changed descriptive labels, again, making Ms. T artificially look less intelligent by simply replacing “Low Average” with “Mild impairment” as a descriptor for the same exact performance. Again, Dr. Suffield did not mention in his report that he switched the descriptors and no one except an expert would notice this labeling switch.
Dr. Suffield’s reliance on US (non-Canadian) age, sex, race/ethnicity, and education adjusted norms
Next, Dr. John Braxton Suffield/John Suffield proceeded to compare Ms. T to US women of the same age, same race, and same education using US norms and Advanced Clinical Solutions (ACS) for WAIS-IV US (Wechsler, 2008). Thus, in comparison to age and education discrimination, Dr. Suffield added two more discrimination factors: sex and race/ethnicity.
Because WAIS-IV CDN age, education, sex, and race/ethnicity norms were not available, Dr. John Braxton Suffield/John Suffield used WAIS-IV US ACS norms, that is the norms, for a different, non-Canadian population. Holdnack, Drozdick, Weiss, and Iverson (2013) (available on amazon.ca and elsewhere) published race/ethnicity norms for WAIS-IV US in Table 4.8 (p. 190). WAIS-IV US (2008) average FSIQ by race/ethnicity listed in Holdnack et al. is: White: 103.4, African-American: 87.7, Hispanic 91.1, and Asian: 106.1.
Figure below shows this WAIS-IV US performance by race/ethnicity graphically. The dashed black line shows the IQ distribution of the US normative sample as a whole, that is, of all people included in the normative sample (M = 100, SD =15). The solid lines show the IQ distribution of the four race/ethnicity groups relative to the WAIS-IV US IQ norms for the entire normative sample, that is, all people. As noted above, African American’s mean IQ is 87.7, Hispanic’s mean IQ is 91.1, White’s IQ is 103.4 and Asian’s IQ is 106.1, that is, the groups differ substantially in terms of their IQ or general mental ability. Within race/ethnicity group IQ scales are printed below the IQ scale for the entire normative sample, or all people.
Similar to age norms, a psychologist who uses race/ethnicity norms to determine an examinee’s fitness to return to work, and, for example, the 16th percentile (IQ = 85) within the examinee’s own race/ethinicity group norms as a minimum requirement for being fit to return to one’s job, will, by definition, use different minimum absolute ability requirements for examinees of different races/ethnicities. As shown in the figure, Dr. John Braxton Suffield’s methodology requires much higher absolute ability level from Asian examinees, a less absolute ability from White examinees, still less absolute ability from Hispanic examinees and the least absolute ability from African American examinees. In turn, if WAIS-IV IQ has anything to do with not losing children on field trips (Dr. Suffield presented no scientific evidence that it does), Asian teachers can lose say one child per year on field trips, White teachers can lose 3, Hispanics can lose 11, and African American teachers can lose 13 (assuming, speculatively, two kids lost per 3 IQ points per year).
Using age, sex, race/ethnicity, and education adjusted norms with various percentile cut-offs for what Dr. Suffield then labeled as “mild impairment”, Dr. John Braxton Suffield engaged in age, sex, race/ethinicity, and education discrimination by requiring much higher levels of absolute level of ability from younger, White, women, with 17 years of education than from, for example, older, Black, women, with 16 years of education. If Ms. T was an Asian woman, Dr. Suffield would require her to have a still higher level of abilities to pass his norm-referenced age, sex, race/ethnicity and education based cut-offs.
Dr. John Braxton Suffield/John Suffield‘s use of his advanced discrimination methodology is astonishing.
First, Dr. John Braxton Suffield/John Suffield appears to be completely oblivious to the ridiculous — and, as many may say, ageist, sexist, racist, etc. — consequences of his reliance on norm-referenced testing and on the US Advanced Clinical Solutions for WAIS-IV and WMS-IV age, sex, race/ethnicity and education adjusted norms. To the extent to which intelligence and other cognitive abilities are required for the performance of elementary teacher job duties, the same minimum absolute ability requirements must apply to all such teachers regardless of their age, sex, race/ethnicity, and education. Indeed, both Ms. Cynthia Stuart, the SD5 Director of Human Resources from 2008 to December 2011, and Mr. Brent Reimer, the SD5 Director of Human Resources from August 2011 to present, testified, under oath, that the SD5 holds all teachers to the same standard of performance and does not have and cannot have different minimum standards of performance for teachers of different ages, sexes, races/ethnicities, and education (unless there is, for example, a bona fide requirement, for example, Master’s degree for some teaching positions).
Second, Dr. John Braxton Suffield/John Suffield appears not to have read the ACS for WAIS-IV and WMS-IV Manual and not to have paid any attention to an unambiguous warning/disclaimer printed on the ACS computerized reports:
Demographic corrections based on age, education, sex, and four categories of race/ethnicity (White, African American, Hispanic, Asian. Demographically Adjusted Norms have been validated on native English speakers, receiving most or all of their education in The United States of America. Demographic adjustments may not accurately represent performance of individuals for whom English is a second language or were educated outside of The United States of America.
Demographically Adjusted Score Computerized Report, ACS for WAIS-IV and WMS-IV (Wechsler, 2009)
In other words, the ACS Demographically Adjusted Norms have not been validated on Canadians, who have not “received most or all of their education in The United States of America.” As the ACS Demographically Adjusted Norms say, given that Ms. T was educated “outside of The United States of America”, “Demographic adjustment may not accurately represent her performance. Simply put: the ACS demographically adjusted norms were never validated on Canadians, and thus, there is no scientific evidence that they are valid when used with Canadians. Accordingly, it is a grave error and a signal of astonishing incompetence for a psychologist to pretend that the ACS demographically adjusted norms are valid for Canadians and that it is reasonable to use them in high-stakes assessments.
Dr. John Braxton Suffield/John Suffield did not even mention these warning/disclaimers that the ACS Demographically Adjusted Norms were not validated on Canadians in his reports. This is despite the fact that the Standards of Practice impose duty on him to clearly state the limitations of his methods.
In fact, the ACS demographic adjustments are most certainly wrong when used with Canadians. Longman et al. (2007) demonstrated that the association of education with WAIS-III IQ scores was very different in Canadian vs. US samples in 1997, a decade prior to WAIS-IV publication. Whereas in the US normative sample, the education explained 26% of variability in WAIS-III FSIQ scores, in the Canadian normative sample, the education explained only 6.3% of variability in WAIS-III FSIQ scores.
One consequence of using the US ACS for demographic adjustments with Canadians is that Canadians with higher levels of education are artificially made to appear less intelligent. Again, this is precisely what the SD5 wanted Dr. Suffield to show. Did Dr. Suffield lack the necessary competence or mental cognitive ability to read and comprehend the ACS warning or did he use the US ACS norms intentionally to make Ms. T artificially appear less intelligent? Neither explanation is favorable to Dr. Suffield.
Third, John Braxton Suffield/John Suffield did not mention in his reports that the US ACS for WAIS-IV and WMS-IV offered alternative descriptive labels than the standard labels used in the WAIS-IV, WMS-IV, and even in the ACS WAIS-IV manuals. Dr. Suffield did not mention that he adopted these alternative labels and switched the descriptive labels not only within his report across different tests but also within the same tables of his report describing Ms. T’s WAIS-IV CDN scores only (e.g., Table 2 of Dr. Suffield’s December 30, 2011 Report) with no warning and no disclosure of what he did. Ms. T’s demographically (US norms) adjusted IQ scores still fell in the average and low average ranges using the WAIS-IV standard labels. However, for reasons only Dr. John Braxton Suffield/John Suffield knows but the reasons readers can imagine, Dr. Suffield decided to adopt different descriptive labels and relabeled the same scores as indicating “Mild Impairment” rather than being “Low Average.” Undoubtedly, simply switching to different, more impairment-signalling descriptive labels is the “easy peasy lemon squeezy” way to fabricate examinees with “Mild Impairments”.
Age and Demographically Adjusted Norms Automatically Result In Employment Discrimination
Given substantial performance differences on psychological tests that are associated with age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, and other demographic factors, it should be obvious to all psychologists that age and demographically adjusted norms cannot be used in employment situations, for example, in determining fitness for duty. Using age and demographically adjusted norms to determine or adjudicate an employee’s fitness for duty automatically results in employment discrimination based on the examinee’s age, sex, race/ethnicity, and/or education, precisely because performance on these tests varies by these demographic factors.
To state the obvious: whether an examinee possesses the minimum required abilities for performing the essential functions of their job cannot possibly be decided by the examinee’s age, sex, skin color, ancestry, etc., that is, by which group the examinee belongs to. To make such decisions, an employer must first establish bona fide occupational requirements — if a job requires a specific intelligence, the employer has to establish the minimum scores on tasks measuring intelligence in raw scores and not in relative standardized scores — and then psychologist can administer intelligence tests and determine if the examinee’s performance on intelligence tasks meets or exceeds the minimum raw scores. For example, an employer would need to establish the standard in terms of the minimum number of visual puzzles solved rather than in terms of age-adjusted/normed or fully demographically adjusted standardized scores.
College of Alberta Psychologists Says It “Stands Against Racism and Discrimination”, But Supports Racism and Discrimination by Its Actions
College of Alberta Psychologists Policy on Racism and Discrimination
The College of Alberta Psychologists produced a two-page pamphlet titled “College of Alberta Psychologists Stands Against Racism …” In the pamphlet, the College gives the following “Statement”:
The College of Alberta Psychologists (CAP) has adopted both a Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice that prohibit discriminatory practices and support respect for the dignity of all communities of people. Like the Canadian Psychological Association (CPA) and the Psychologists Association of Alberta (PAA) we invite all regulated members to stand up, speak out and work collaboratively to eradicate all forms of racism and discrimination. Leading by example, the College is committed to identifying regulatory practices to ensure that they reflect equity, diversity and inclusion. It is also committed to actively encouraging all regulated members to examine their own personal and professional beliefs/actions and work toward equity and justice for all.
College of Alberta Psychologists: College of Alberta Psychologists Stands Against Racism…
In “Summation”, the College of Alberta Psychologists is equally clear that it stands against racism and discrimination in all its forms:
CAP has adopted an ethical and professional framework that highlights the importance of respecting all individuals, peoples and communities. This framework specifically prohibits discrimination based on race, colour and ethnicity. CAP encourages regulated members to reflect on their own values and beliefs, both conscious and unconscious, to ensure that the dignity of others is given the highest priority in all personal and professional activities. As such, CAP invites all regulated members to work individually and together against discrimination in all forms including that felt by Indigenous, Black and other racialized Canadians. As Martin Luther King Jr. stated, “there comes a time when silence is betrayal” (chrc-ccdp.gov.ca). This perspective was reiterated by the late John Lewis who often stated that when racial injustice rises it is incumbent upon all of us to “say something, do something.”
College of Alberta Psychologists: College of Alberta Psychologists Stands Against Racism…
College of Alberta Psychologists’ Actions Support Discrimination And Racism
In contrast to the College of Alberta Psychologists‘ policies and public statements, the College of Alberta Psychologists has approved the use of age norms and demographically adjusted norms in fitness for duty assessments, and therefore, approved of and supported discrimination in employment on the basis of age, sex, race/ethnicity, and education. Specifically, Ms. T complained to the College of Alberta Psychologists about Dr. Mary Westcott‘s conduct (4 complaints), Dr. Allan Mandel’s conduct (1 complaint), and Dr. John Braxton Suffield’s conduct (4 complaints), including their use of norm-referenced testing rather than criterion-referenced testing and forming their opinions about Ms. T’s ability to return to work based on age norms and/or age, sex, race/ethnicity and education demographically adjusted norms. Dr. Troy Janzen, the Complaints Director and Deputy Registrar, dismissed them all, concluding that Drs. Mary Westcott‘s, Allan Mandel’s, and John Braxton Suffield’s conduct including use of age norms and demographically adjusted norms in fitness for duty assessments was at least minimally competent professional conduct.
There appear to be three possible explanations for Dr. Troy Janzen’s decision:
- Dr. Troy Janzen is intentionally ageist, sexist, and racist. He insists on treating people differently based on their age, sex, race/ethnicity, etc. This explanation seems unlikely since it is 2025 and Dr. Janzen has been in his position of the Complaints Director and Deputy Registrar for quite some time.
- Dr. Troy Janzen is incompetent and unable to recognize his incompetence. Specifically, Dr. Janzen does not comprehend that psychologists’ opinion about an examinee’s fitness for duty based on the minimum standards determined by the examinee’s age, sex, race/ethnicity and other characteristics is a textbook example of age, sex, race/ethnicity etc. discrimination. Dr. Janzen is a PhD level educated psychologist and presumptively ought to be able to understand that if a psychologist uses different minimum performance standards for examinees of different ages, sexes, races/ethnicities, etc., that the psychologist discriminates against or for people based on those grounds. Accordingly, this explanation seems unlikely but it is definitely possible.
- Dr. Troy Janzen is corrupt and instead of protecting the public, Dr. Janzen decided to protect Dr. Mary Westcott, Dr. Allan Mandel, and Dr. John Braxton Suffield, his fellow registered psychologists. A question is: What is in it for Dr. Janzen? Why would a public official decide to ignore his legislated duty to protect the public in favor of protecting psychologists who base their opinions about an examinee’s fitness for duty based on the examinee’s age, sex, race/ethnicity, and other characteristics? Perhaps this last explanation — corruption — is the most likely out of the three possibilities.
Conclusions
The College of Alberta Psychologists concluded that Drs. Mary Westcott, Allan Mandel, and John Braxton Suffield’s use of age and demographically adjusted norms in the fitness for duty assessments was at least minimally competent professional conduct rather than grossly incompetent, unprofessional, and discriminatory conduct. By approving of Drs. Mary Westcott’s, Allan Mandel’s, and John Braxton Suffield/John Suffield‘s conduct, the College of Alberta Psychologists at minimum approves of age, sex, race/ethnicity and other forms of discrimination in employment. They may have a variety of policies, issued variety of statements on how they stand “against racism and discrimination in all forms” but in their actions they are approving of and promoting discrimination on bases of age, sex, race, etc. in at least employment by using ACS Demographically Adjusted Norms in fitness for duty assessments.
A question arises whether the College of Alberta Psychologists‘ officials, investigators, and the Complaints Committee Members promote age, sex, race/ethicity, etc. discrimination due to their ignorance/incompetence, that is, their failure to understand what age-normed and demographically adjusted IQ scores represent and measure, or whether they are intentionally promoting employment discrimination on basis of age, sex, race/ethnicity, and other personal characteristics among the College of Alberta Psychologists’ registrants. It seems unlikely that the College officials, investigators, and CRC members are flaming ageists, sexists, racists, etc., and it seem unlikely that they lack the minimum required cognitive capacity — GMA, g., or IQ — to realize that deciding whether or not an examinee can return to work based on age, sex, race/ethnicity is a textbook example of discrimination in employment. Thus, if they are not flaming ageist, sexists, racists, etc., and if lacking cognitive capacity is not the reason, the most likely explanation is corruption and desire to protect Dr. Mary Westcott, Dr. Allan Mandell and Dr. John Braxton Suffield/John Suffield rather than the public.
Although I am not a member of the College of Alberta Psychologists, I trust the College of Alberta Psychologists is pleased that at least someone (even if they did not) responded to their call to “stand against racism and discrimination in all forms” and called out the College’s approval and promotion of systemic discrimination and racism through use of age and demographically adjusted norms in fitness for duty assessments.