23 min 1 sec https://youtu.be/nmO2yi59qOU?t=1381 Weaver points out that Fabian's own tests showed suspect was testing normal and did not have ADHD according to the test results. 23 min 12 sec https://youtu.be/nmO2yi59qOU?t=1392 Fabian acknowledges these are the results, Weaver then reiterates, Normal means someone without ADHD for that particular test. 23 min 19 sec https://youtu.be/nmO2yi59qOU?t=1399 then tries to sidestep the question again and starts over talking Weaver when asks repeatedly, is that a yes or no and only stops when the judge states that Fabian answers the question. Fabian has the look of a dog after getting disciplined for destroying furniture. Then Fabians asked for the question before snapping to the answer that Grate did test in the normal range. Weaver asked, and normal for that test means the person does not have ADHD? Fabian paused then answered, Shawn did not endorse significant symptoms of ADHD
23 min 45 sec https://youtu.be/nmO2yi59qOU?t=1420 Weaver points on Fabian's own report on another of the tests that stated Grate missed the threshold of clinical diagnosis base on the authors instruction yet Fabian diagnosed him anyway and Fabian responded no tests are required to diagnose for ADHD. Weaver then asked, What does missing the threshold mean other than he doesn't have it? Fabian responded, That is one test of attention, the DSM-5 doesn't require any tests to assess for ADHD
So Fabian essentially said it doesn't matter what the test results state I'm still tagging you with ADHD because the DSM lets me based on opinion only
So someone can claim someone has ADHD, the DSM-5 has no testing requirement to tag someone with ADHD but good luck trying to get rid of that tag even though the threshold to be tagged with ADHD is so low by the FAA, it's non-existent. Guilty until proven innocent, try to prove you don't have it. Once again not all pilots have to go through this hell which is a clear violation of The 14 Amendment equal protection clause. This is also just one example that the field of psychology is an incubator of malpractice.
24 min 25 sec https://youtu.be/nmO2yi59qOU?t=1465 Weaver says Grate scores on the Connors test were average because Fabian listed the scores as average four different times and Weaver then followed up with the question, Doesn't average mean no ADHD? which Fabian responds "there's symptoms and inconstant response times" Then claimed there was, potentially processing speed issues. This is exactly what Fabian claimed to me over the phone, inconsistent conflicting results but I'll tag you as "cognitively slow" Inconsistent is anything but definitive but apparently not in John Matthew Fabian's dictionary.
This was not the only case where Fabian was called out for scoring and interpreting the tests wrong. In USA V ANTUN LEWIS https://www.ohnd.uscourts.gov/sites/ohnd/files/LewisOrder.pdf
USA V Antun Lewis
Clinton Appointed Judge Solomon Oliver presiding. regarding the use of the death penalty. Ultimately Lewis was sentenced to 35 years due to Soloman siding with defense that Lewis was retarded.
However many interesting points were laid out in the case law. and yes this fits Fabians MO, person he's writing a report on is broken brained. Disagrees with the government assessment, says that the person he examines only has skills of a 12 year old (his MO) then claims that the person is so broken brained an ADHD diagnosis isn't enough page 28. https://www.ohnd.uscourts.gov/sites/ohnd/files/LewisOrder.pdf
Dr. Fabian stated that a school’s severe handicap placement looks at the student’s behavior and not necessarily the underlying causes of the behavior. Id. Further, Dr. Fabian disagreed with Dr. Askenazi’s diagnosis of ADHD because ADHD could not account solely for Defendant’s global cognitive and adaptive impairments. (Id. at 936.) Dr. Fabian determined that Defendant’s deficits in numerous academic areas coupled with Defendant’s low IQ showed that Defendant possessed low functioning intelligence, not just a learning disability.
Page 34
The Government questions the validity of Dr. Fabian’s SIB-R test results and argues that Dr. Fabian did not properly consider or record the time frame by which the third-party respondents were to consider Defendant’s adaptive skills
Consistent with the Governments view of Fabian's shoddy work in US V Hernandez along with the cases out of Ohio, State V Grate, State V Hale, Drummond V Houk
It gets better further down page 34
Further, the Government contends that Dr. Fabian did not determine whether the respondents were guessing on the questions, whether the questions reflected situations Defendant was likely to encounter (i.e., whether a question regarding sewing capabilities is relevant to the assessment if Defendant never had to sew), and whether Dr. Fabian considered potential bias from respondents.
then
On cross-examination, the Government noted the potential inconsistency between the AAIDD and the SIB-R Manual. (Tr., p. 1045.) Dr. Fabian admitted that he did not ask the respondents whether they guessed or not on a particular question but stated that a retrospective assessment of intellectual disability requires a clinician to analyze all the available data, including adaptive behavior instruments. (Id. at 1045-46.) He further admitted that for several questions that reflected situations that Defendant was unlikely to encounter, he did not ask the -35- respondents whether they had an opportunity to observe Defendant in this encounter. (Id. at 1050- 51.)
page 35
Finally, the Government asserts that Dr. Fabian’s test results were not properly scored because Dr. Fabian used the wrong SIB-R norms when calculating Defendant’s scores. (Tr., pp. 1064-65.) The SIB-R, as with other standardized instruments, have set norms that correspond with a particular age group. As Dr. Greenspan testified, these different norms correspond with age because “there are certain things you would expect a 25-year-old to be able to do that you would not necessarily expect of a 16-year-old.” (Id. at 1252.) Dr. Fabian testified that he assessed the SIB-R scores with norms of a 26-year-old. (Id. at 176.) Dr. Fabian admitted that he should have assessed Defendant’s scores with the norms of a 21-year-old, the age at which the respondents assessed Defendant’s adaptive skills. (Id.) Dr. Fabian testified that he did not know how the norms would have differed between the age groups of 21 and 26, but that it was possible that Defendant’s actual broad independent score is higher. (Id. at 178.)
further down 35.
While the court will not consider Defendant’s scores of 59 definitive evidence of Defendant’s significant limitations in adaptive behavior, the score does illustrate that Defendant possesses deficits in his adaptive skills. Notably, both Defendant’s SIB-R scores from different respondents are consistent and both scores are approximately 11 points lower than the score needed to show significant adaptive limitations. Because the AAIDD advises clinicians to use adaptive behavioral instruments to measure adaptive skills, and no other expert, other than Dr. Fabian, followed this practice, the court will take into account Defendant’s SIB-R scores.
Yet the Judge sided with Fabian's arguments. That should be something to be pointed out, many judges side with Fabian but of all the cases I was able to dig up, no jury sided with him.
Comments on an article by John M. Fabian (see record 2012-02498-006). John M. Fabian, reviewed scholarly, clinical, and legal questions concerning hebephilia, with particular reference to sexually violent predator civil commitment proceedings. Fabian accidentally reversed the conclusion made through a study done and confirmed in the Kurt Freund Laboratory, which states that normal men called as teleiophiles respond with some degree of penile tumescence, at least in the laboratory, to depictions of nude pubescent and even prepubescent children of their preferred sex. There is a difference, however, between the finding that teleiophiles respond at some detectable level to depictions of pubescents and the finding that other hebephiles men respond more strongly to depictions of pubescents than to those of pre-pubescents or adults. The former observation does not make the latter normal. It certainly does not make the latter finding adaptive. That was the whole point of the study that was published on this topic a few years ago. This commentary aims to point out in closing that this factual error does not affect the rest of Fabian’s interesting article, which addresses various aspects of hebephilia, the law, and psychiatry.
How could something of reversing the conclusion of a study not invalidate the whole article? How can anyone trust Fabian's publications if at best what he puts out is sloppy such as scoring the results wrong such as USA V Antun Lewis but more likely disregards the results with relation to diagnostic guidelines as we saw in State of Ohio V Grate. That's at least three major instances where Fabian either miss-scored the tests and/or disregarded the results also on top of everything else how could anyone say this type of child abuse is normal?