{"id":831,"date":"2026-07-16T06:39:02","date_gmt":"2026-07-16T06:39:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sd5bc.info\/?p=831"},"modified":"2026-07-16T06:39:03","modified_gmt":"2026-07-16T06:39:03","slug":"can-clinical-psychologists-count-to-two","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sd5bc.info\/index.php\/2026\/07\/16\/can-clinical-psychologists-count-to-two\/","title":{"rendered":"Can Clinical Psychologists Count to Two?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

By Dr. Bob Uttl<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sunlight is the best disinfectant.<\/p>U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis in his 1913 essay, What Publicity Can Do<\/em>.<\/cite><\/blockquote><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Inside the College of Alberta Psychologists\u2019 Public Protection Breakdown<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

When we trust a clinical registered psychologist with a PhD to conduct a formal diagnostic assessment, we assume they possess a deep understanding of the essentials of psychometric evaluation. More fundamentally, however, we assume they possess the baseline numeracy and administrative honesty of at least a first-grader.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We assume they know how to identify a circled number on a page, determine whether the circled number is \u201c3\u201d, count the total number of those circled \u201c3\u201d numbers, and circle that exact count on a summary sheet. And above all, we assume that when they take the witness stand and present themselves as experts, they do not invent data out of thin air.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As demonstrated by a formal fitness-for-duty assessment conducted by Dr. John Braxton Suffield<\/a>\u2014reviewed by Dr. Troy Janze<\/a>n, Deputy Registrar and Complaints Director<\/a>, and by the Complaints Review Committee, Chaired by Dr. Lorraine Breault\u2014every single one of these basic assumptions turned out to be wrong. The facts of this case reveal a failure so absolute that it strips away the shield of “clinical judgment” and leaves the regulator\u2014the College of Alberta Psychologists<\/a> (CAP)\u2014exposed in a blatant defense of the indefensible, for example, that 0 features is really 1 feature and other mathematical nonsense.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dr. Suffield\u2019s December 30, 2011 Report and Under-Oath Testimony<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

In his December 30, 2011 assessment report, Dr. John Braxton Suffield<\/a> commented extensively on Ms. T’s personality (RBE\/65, Section 5.7). He noted that he had administered \u201cparts of a semi-structured clinical interview the SCID-II [Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II Personality Disorders]\u201d\u2014but omitted specifying which<\/em> parts of the test he actually administered. Dr. Suffield concluded:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Overall, while Ms. T acknowledged some histrionic and narcissistic personality traits, there was no indication of a personality disorder in this structured interview.<\/em><\/p>\nDr. John Braxton Suffield, Dec 30, 2011 Report<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Over a decade later, Dr. John Braxton Suffield<\/a> took the witness stand and testified under oath about this exact administration of the SCID-II. This time, he added a much darker clinical anchor:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

She endorsed a couple of elements of narcissistic personality disorder, but really just at a superficial trait level. And similarly, some elements of antisocial personality disorder<\/strong>, but not sufficient to meet diagnostic criteria for antisocial personality disorder…<\/p>\nDr. John Braxton Suffield, Direct Examination by SD5 Counsel<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

In response to the Tribunal\u2019s successive Orders to Disclose, the truth finally slipped out. On April 1, 2025, Dr. Suffield produced a heavily redacted record of the interview labeled \u201cSuffield\u2019s Ms.T SCID-II (responses only).pdf\u201d<\/em> (CB121). On October 28, 2025, under another Order to Disclose, Dr. Suffield finally produced the unredacted, complete record: \u201cSuffield\u2019s Ms.T SCID-II (complete).pdf\u201d<\/em> (CB121d2U).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These raw records revealed the terrifying reality of what Dr. Suffield had actually done.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Seven-for-Seven Simple Math Failure<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The mechanics of the SCID-II are rigid, structured, and explicitly standardized. For each personality disorder evaluated, the clinician walks through a series of specific questions\/criteria, circling a ?<\/strong>, 1<\/strong>, 2<\/strong>, or 3<\/strong> based on the examinee\u2019s answers (this part is subject to clinical judgment).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Once the interview for each specific personality disorder is complete, the scoring protocol requires two purely mechanical, non-interpretative, simple actions:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. Count<\/strong> the number of times a “3” was circled on each specific disorder pages.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. Find<\/strong> that exact number on the SCID-II Summary Scoresheet and circle it.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    You are counting physical circles around 3s on specific pages, and then circling that exact final count on another. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    In this case, Dr. John Braxton Suffield<\/a> administered questions covering seven distinct personality disorders: Avoidant, Dependent, Obsessive-Compulsive, Passive-Aggressive, Paranoid, Histrionic, and Narcissistic. He skipped, did not ask questions about, did not assess, and did not circle any numbers for Depressive, Schizotypal, Schizoid, Borderline, Antisocial, and Not Otherwise Specified Personality Disorders. When it came to counting and transferring the tally of those critical “3s” to the summary scoresheet, Dr. Suffield got the count wrong seven out of seven times.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Every single time. A perfect 0% accuracy rate on basic, primary-school arithmetic.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Below is the SCID-II Summary Scoresheet with circles made by Dr. John Braxton Suffield<\/a> himself. As one can plainly see from the Summary Scoresheet itself, the circles are to indicate ‘Number of Items Coded “3”‘<\/strong>, and for each disorder, “Boxed numbers indicate threshold required for a diagnosis.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    Ready to try to count to two yourself? This file<\/a> is the SCID-II scoring by Dr. Suffield — Dr. Suffield circled ?, 1, 2, or 3s based on his “clinical judgment”. The actual items were redacted by Dr. Suffield whereas Dr. Suffield\u2019s written notes about Ms. T were redacted by myself in black ink for privacy. In any case, Dr. Suffield circling of ?, 1, 2, or 3 numbers is clearly visible, unredacted, for each question\/item\/criteria. If you can count to 2, you should arrive to the counts listed in “Reality\/Objective Truth” column:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    SCID-II Personality Disorder Assessment<\/strong><\/td>Reality\/Objective Truth<\/strong><\/td>Dr. Suffield’s SCID-II Summary Scoresheet<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
    01 Avoidant <\/strong>(pp. 3-4)<\/td>0<\/td>1<\/td><\/tr>
    02 Dependent<\/strong> (pp. 5-7)<\/td>0<\/td>1<\/td><\/tr>
    03 Obsessive-Compulsive <\/strong>(pp. 8-10)<\/td>0<\/td>1<\/td><\/tr>
    04 Passive-Aggressive<\/strong> (pp. 11-12)<\/td>0<\/td>1<\/td><\/tr>
    05 Depressive (pp. 13-14)<\/td>No notes\/No circles<\/td>Nothing circled<\/td><\/tr>
    06 Paranoid<\/strong> (pp. 15-16)<\/td>0<\/td>1<\/td><\/tr>
    07 Schizotypal (pp. 17-20)<\/td>No notes\/No circles<\/td>Nothing circled<\/td><\/tr>
    08 Schizoid (pp. 21-22)<\/td>No notes\/No circles<\/td>Nothing circled<\/td><\/tr>
    09 Histrionic <\/strong>(pp. 23-24)<\/td>0<\/td>1<\/td><\/tr>
    10 Narcissistic<\/strong> (pp. 25-28)<\/td>2<\/td>1<\/td><\/tr>
    11 Borderline (pp. 29-32)<\/td>No notes\/No circles<\/td>Nothing circled<\/td><\/tr>
    12 Antisocial (pp.33-40)<\/td>No notes\/No circles<\/td>Nothing circled<\/td><\/tr>
    13 Not Otherwise Specified (NOS) (p. 41)<\/td>No notes\/No circles<\/td>Nothing circled<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table>
    SCID-II Dr. Suffield’s Assessment: Reality\/Objective Truth vs. Dr. Suffield’s Miscounts of 3s.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n