By Dr. Bob Uttl<\/p>\n\n\n\n
An<\/strong> <\/strong>Open<\/strong> <\/strong>Lette<\/strong>r To<\/strong>:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Provincial and State Psychology Regulatory Bodies cc:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Provincial and State Trial Lawyer Associations May 21, 2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n RE: Widespread Use of Outdated and Obsolete Psychological Test Norms by Clinical and Forensic Psychologists<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n I am writing to raise a critical professional and ethical concern regarding the continued, widespread use of outdated and obsolete psychological assessment norms. Specifically, the profession continues to rely on original norms for the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI; Morey, 1991, 1997) that were established in the United States in 1990\u2014some 35 years ago. Despite this passage of time, the PAI remains heavily utilized by regulated members in both low-stakes and high-stakes assessments, including pre-employment screening, fitness-for-duty evaluations, and child custody\/parenting-time litigation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We have recently reviewed extant evidence demonstrating that the PAI 1990 US adult and college student norms are outdated, obsolete, and psychometricaly invalid. Furthermore, we reported on a new study of over 200 university students demonstrating that these norms are fundamentally invalid for use with Canadian college students: Uttl, Sikma, & Tat (2025), <\/strong>Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI): obsolete norms identify psychopathology in nearly everyone<\/strong><\/em> (PeerJ, doi:10.7717\/peerj.20340).<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n As the title succinctly states, these obsolete US 1990 norms artificially identify psychopathology in nearly everyone. If an individual is assessed today using the original manual norms, it is nearly statistically certain that the PAI will misidentify one or more psychopathologies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Crucially, the PAI has never been properly normed or validated for Canadian populations. The blanket application of US norms to Canadian examinees over the last 35 years lacks empirical justification and is not science-based (see Uttl, Sikma, & Tat, 2025). Independent evidence demonstrates that demographic, cultural, socioeconomic, and psychological baseline characteristics have shifted significantly over the past three and a half decades. Reliance on these stagnant norms ensures that healthy examinees are mislabeled as abnormal when compared to their actual contemporary peers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Clinical psychologists depend on standardized instruments to inform high-stakes life decisions, including psychiatric diagnosis, treatment planning, risk assessment, and legal determinations. When the normative data underlying such tools is no longer valid for the population being assessed, the results are not merely imprecise\u2014they cease to be evidence-based. Opinions derived from these obsolete norms, or from foreign populations without validation, amount to an unscientific practice that undermines the integrity of the profession.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is difficult to reconcile the ongoing use of these obsolete instruments with established standards of professional ethics and competence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I respectfully urge psychological regulatory and licensing bodies to take the following immediate actions:<\/p>\n\n\n\n The issue of utilizing foreign, decades-old norms is not isolated to the PAI. For instance, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-3 (MMPI-3) has never been normed in Canada, and its data pre-dates the massive societal shifts of the COVID-19 pandemic (Uttl, Sikma, & Tat, 2025). Furthermore, Monette et al. (2023) reported a disturbing trend: 80% of Canadian neuropsychologists rely on normative data from another country when scoring neuropsychological tests.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n This systemic tolerance for obsolete data is further evidenced by recent regulatory decisions. For example, complaints regarding the use of 80-year-old norms for the General Classification Test (US Adjutant General, 1941), Wonderlic (1992) scores translated to 65-year-old WAIS (1995) IQ scores, and 70-year-old USES GATB (1970) norms to evaluate a modern teacher assessed with the WAIS-IV CDN (Wechsler, 2008) were dismissed by regulatory oversight as meeting “minimally competent” standards (see https:\/\/sd5bc.info<\/a> for details; see also Uttl, Sikma, & Tat, 2025; Uttl, Violo, & Gibson, 2024). This low threshold for psychometric validity threatens public trust in the entire discipline.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Psychological assessment must be an evolving, data-driven science. Continued reliance on unvalidated foreign or historical norms undermines public trust, compromises client care, and compromises the scientific integrity of psychology as a whole.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We request that you forward this open letter to all of your regulated members so they are fully apprised of the psychometric risks associated with the PAI and similar outdated instruments. Practitioners who fail to verify whether their test norms are valid for the contemporary population they serve abandon evidence-based practice and bring the profession into disrepute.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Respectfully,<\/p>\n\n\n\n Prof. Dr. Bob Uttl<\/p>\n\n\n\n Email: uttlbob@gmail.com<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n References:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Monette et al. (2023). The profession of neuropsychologist in Canada: Findings of a national survey. Clin. Neuropsychol., 37(1): 1-33. doi: 10.1080\/13854046.2021.2002934. https:\/\/pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/34791971\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Uttl, B. (2023). Using outdated, obsolete, and irrelevant test data to make disparaging statements about a client\u2019s IQ, intelligence, and cognitive abilities: Minimally competent practice, unprofessional conduct, and\/or malpractice? https:\/\/sd5bc.info\/index.php\/2023\/08\/17\/pronouncing-opinions-about-clients-based-on-obsolete-data-sets-minimally-competent-practice-unprofessional-conduct-and-or-malpractice\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Uttl, B., Sikma, K., & Tat, M. (2025). Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI): obsolete norms identify psychopathology in nearly everyone. PeerJ 13:e20340 http:\/\/doi.org\/10.7717\/peerj.20340<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Uttl, B., Sikma, K. & Tat, M. (2025). General Aptitude Test Battery (GATB): Use of Obsolete Tests, Data, and Beliefs Causes Harm. Psychol. Inj. and Law<\/em>18, 199\u2013214. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s12207-025-09535-w<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Uttl, B., Violo, V., & Gibson, L. (2024). Meta-analysis: on average, undergraduate students\u2019 intelligence is merely average. ScienceOpen Research. <\/em>2024. DOI: 10.14293\/S2199-1006.1.SOR.2024.0002.v1 https:\/\/www.scienceopen.com\/hosted-document?doi=10.14293\/S2199-1006.1.SOR.2024.0002.v1<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" By Dr. Bob Uttl An Open Letter To: Provincial and State Psychology Regulatory BodiesCanadian Psychological AssociationAmerican Psychological AssociationAustralian Psychological SocietyProvincial, State, and National Psychology AssociationsPsychologists cc: Provincial and State Trial Lawyer AssociationsMedia & News Organizations May 21, 2026 RE: Widespread Use of Outdated and Obsolete Psychological Test Norms by Clinical and Forensic Psychologists I am …<\/p>\n
Canadian Psychological Association
American Psychological Association
Australian Psychological Society
Provincial, State, and National Psychology Associations
Psychologists<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Media & News Organizations<\/p>\n\n\n\nThe Implications are Profound:<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
Recommended Regulatory Actions:<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
A Systemic Issue<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n