Abstract
This reply responds to W. M. Grove's (2001) critique of H. O. F. Veiel and R. F. Koopman's (2001) article on bias in widely used methods of estimating premorbid IQ. In this reply, the authors show that Grove is misrepresenting part of Veiel and Koopman's arguments, extend them to show that the proposed adjustment to regression estimates of IQ not only is unbiased but also is the maximum-likelihood estimate of the true IQ, and argue that Grove's notion of the acceptability of biased methods in judicial proceedings reflects a fundamental misapprehension of their nature and purpose.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
