This article describes the psychometric properties of the Miranda Rights Comprehension Instruments, the revised version of Grisso’s Miranda instruments. The original instruments demonstrated good reliability and validity in a normative sample. The revised instruments updated the content of the original instruments and were administered to a sample of 183 youth in pre- and postadjudication facilities. Analyses were conducted to establish the psychometric properties of the revised instruments and included similar analyses to those conducted by Grisso, as well as additional calculations (e.g., standard errors of measurement, intraclass correlation coefficients, Kappa coefficients). Results revealed sound psychometric properties, similar to those observed for the original instruments.
AbramovitchR.Peterson-BadaliM.RohanM. (1995). Young people’s understanding and assertion of their rights to silence and legal counsel. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 37, 1-18.
2.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
3.
ArcherR. P.Buffington-VollumJ. K.StrednyR.V.HandelR. W. (2006). A survey of psychological test use patterns among forensic psychologists. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87, 84-94.
4.
CassellP. G.HaymanS. B. (1996). Police interrogation in the 1990s: An empirical study of the effects of Miranda. UCLA Law Review, 43, 840-931.
5.
ColwellL. H.CruiseK. R.GuyL. S.McCoyW. K.FernandezK.RossH. H. (2005). The influence of psychosocial maturity on male juvenile offenders’ comprehension and understanding of the Miranda warning. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 33, 444-454.
6.
CooperV. G.ZapfP. A. (2008). Psychiatric patients’ comprehension of Miranda rights. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 390-405.
7.
FergusonA. B.DouglasA. C. (1970). A study of juvenile waiver. San Diego Law Review, 7, 39-54.
8.
Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (App. D.C., 1923).
9.
GoldsteinA. M.GoldsteinN. E. S. (2010). Evaluating capacity to waive Miranda rights (Volume in Best Practices in Forensic Mental Health Assessment). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
10.
GoldsteinN. E. S.CondieL. O.KalbeitzerR.OsmanD.GreierJ. L. (2003). Juvenile offenders’ Miranda rights comprehension and self-reported likelihood of offering false confessions. Assessment, 10, 359-369.
11.
GoldsteinN. E. S.Riggs RomaineC. L.ZelleH. (2011-a). Juveniles’ Miranda comprehension: Understanding, appreciation, and totality of circumstances factors. Manuscript in preparation.
12.
GoldsteinN. E. S.ZelleH.GrissoT. (2011-b). The Miranda Rights Comprehension Instruments–II. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press. Manuscript in preparation.
13.
GrissoT. (1981). Juveniles’ waiver of rights: Legal and psychological competence. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
14.
GrissoT. (1986). Evaluating competencies: Forensic assessments and instruments. New York, NY: Plenum.
15.
GrissoT. (1998). Instruments for assessing understanding and appreciation of Miranda Rights. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resources Press.
16.
GrissoT. (2003). Evaluating competencies: Forensic assessments and instruments (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Kluwer.
17.
GrissoT. (2004). Reply to “A critical review of competency-to-confess measures.”Law and Human Behavior, 28, 719-724.
18.
GrissoT.BarnumR. (2000). The Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument–Second Version. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press.
19.
GrissoT.PomicterC. (1977). Interrogation of juveniles: An empirical study of procedures, safeguards, and rights waiver. Law and Human Behavior, 1, 321-342.
20.
GudjonssonG. H. (1997). The Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale manual. Hove, England: Psychology Press.
21.
In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967).
22.
KaufmanA. S.LichtenbergerE. O. (2002). Assessing adolescent and adult intelligence (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
23.
Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (1966).
24.
LallyS. J. (2003). What tests are acceptable for use in forensic evaluations? A survey of experts. Professional Psychology: Research & Practice, 34, 491-498.
25.
LeoR. A. (1996). Inside the interrogation room. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 86, 266-276.
26.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
27.
OberlanderL. B. (1998). Miranda comprehension and confessional competence. Expert Opinion, 2, 11-12.
28.
OberlanderL. B.GoldsteinN. E. (2001). A review and update on the practice of evaluating Miranda comprehension. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 19, 453-471.
29.
The Psychological Corporation. (1992). Wechsler Individual Achievement Test. San Antonio, TX: Author.
30.
The Psychological Corporation. (1999). Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence. San Antonio, TX: Author.
31.
RogersR. (2008). A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Emerging Miranda research and professional roles for psychologists. American Psychologist, 63, 776-787.
32.
RogersR.HarrisonK. S.ShumanD. W.SewellK. W.HazelwoodL. L. (2007). An analysis of Miranda warnings and waivers: Comprehension and coverage. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 177-192.
33.
RogersR.HazelwoodL. L.SewellK. W.BlackwoodH. L.RogstadJ. E.HarrisonK. S. (2009). Development and initial validation of the Miranda Vocabulary Scale. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 381-392.
34.
RogersR.HazelwoodL. L.SewellK. W.HarrisonK. S.ShumanD. W. (2008). The language of Miranda warnings in American jurisdictions: A replication and vocabulary analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 124 -136.
35.
RogersR.JordanM. J.HarrisonK. S. (2004). A critical review of published competency-to-confess measures. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 707-718.
36.
RogersR.RogstadJ. E.GillardN. D.DroginE. Y.BlackwoodH. L.ShumanD. W. (2010). “Everyone knows their Miranda rights”: Implicit assumptions and countervailing evidence. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16, 300-318.
37.
RogersR.TillbrookC.SewellK. (2004). Evaluation of Competency to Stand Trial–Revised (ECST-R): Professional manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
38.
RybaN. L.BrodskyS. L.ShlosbergA. (2007). Evaluations of capacity to waive Miranda rights: A survey of practitioners’ use of the Grisso instruments. Assessment, 14, 300-309.
39.
ViljoenJ. L.KlaverJ.RoeschR. (2005). Legal decisions of preadolescent and adolescent defendants: Predictors of confessions, pleas, communication with attorneys, and appeals. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 253-277.
40.
ViljoenJ. L.RoeschR. (2005). Competence to waive interrogation rights and adjudicative competence in adolescent defendants: Cognitive development, attorney contact, and psychological symptoms. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 481-506.
41.
ViljoenJ. L.ZapfP. A.RoeschR. (2007). Adjudicative competence and comprehension of Miranda rights in adolescent defendants: A comparison of legal standards. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 25, 1-19.
42.
ZelleH.GoldsteinN. E. S.Riggs RomaineC. L.SericoJ. M.KempK.TaorminaS. (2008, March). Factor structure of the Miranda Rights Comprehension Instruments–II. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Psychology—Law Society, Jacksonville, FL.
