The Miranda Rights Comprehension Instruments (MRCI) constitute a revision of Grisso’s Instruments for Assessing Understanding and Appreciation of Miranda Rights (IAUAMR) original series of tests. We believe that the MRCI represents an improvement in many respects, including (but not limited to) a thorough discussion of admissibility issues in the test manual, simplification of language, the addition of a fifth warning, and updated normative data. We also review some potential challenges associated with the revised MRCI tests. These concerns include inconsistent and confusing terminology in the test manual, potentially nonrepresentative normative data, problematic reliability estimates, issues with scoring criteria for the CMR-II, item and test content representativeness for specific tests, and recommendations on how test effort and malingering should be assessed via the CMR-R-II. We conclude with a series of recommendations for forensic use of the MRCI.
ArcherR. P.Buffington-VollumJ. K.StredneyR. V.HandelR. W. (2006). A survey of psychological test use patterns among forensic psychologists. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87, 84-94.
2.
BrodskyS. L.BennettA. D. (2005). Psychological assessment of confessions and suggestibility in mentally retarded suspects. Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 33, 359-366.
3.
CloudM.ShepherdG.BarkoffA.ShurJ. (2002). Words without meaning: The constitution, confessions, and mentally retarded suspects. University of Chicago Law Review, 69, 495-624.
4.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
5.
DeClueG. (2005a). Psychological consultation in cases involving interrogation and confessions. Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 33, 313-358.
6.
DeClueG. (2005b). Interrogations and disputed confessions: A manual for forensic psychological practice. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press.
7.
FleschR. (1994). The art of readable writing (Reissue ed.) New York, NY: Macmillan General Reference.
8.
FrederickR. I.SpeedF. (2007). On the interpretation of below-chance responding in forced-choice tests. Assessment, 14, 3-11.
9.
FrumkinI. B. (2008). Psychological evaluation in Miranda waiver and confession cases. In DennyR. L.SullivanJ. P. (Eds.), Criminal neuropsychology in the criminal forensic setting (pp. 135-175). New York, NY: Guilford.
10.
FrumkinI. B. (2010). Evaluations of competency to waive Miranda rights and coerced or false confessions: Common pitfalls in expert testimony. In LassiterG. D.MeissnerC. A. (Eds.), Police interrogations and false confessions: current research, practice, and policy recommendations (pp. 191-209). Washington, DC: American Psychological Associations.
11.
FrumkinI. B.LallyS. J.SextonJ. E. (2012). The Grisso tests for assessing understanding and appreciation of Miranda warnings with a forensic sample. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 30, 673-692.
12.
Frye, v. United States, 54 App. D.C. 47 (1923).
13.
GoldsteinA. M.GoldsteinN. E. (2010). Evaluating capacity to waive Miranda rights. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
14.
GoldsteinN. E.RomaineC. L.ZelleH.KalbeitzerR.MesiarikC.WolbranskyM. (2011). Psychometric properties of the Miranda Rights Comprehension Instruments with a juvenile justice sample. Assessment, 18, 428-441.
15.
GoldsteinA. M.ZelleH.GrissoT. (2012). Miranda Rights comprehension instruments: MRCI. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press.
16.
GrissoT. (1981). Juveniles’ waiver of rights: Legal and psychological competence. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
17.
GrissoT. (1998). Instruments for assessing understanding and appreciation of Miranda rights. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press.
18.
GrissoT. (2003). Evaluating competencies: Forensic assessments and instruments (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Kluwer.
19.
GrissoT.SteinbergL.WoolardJ.CauffmanE.ScottE.GrahamS.SchwartzR. (2003). Juveniles’ competence to stand trial: A comparison of adolescents’ and adults’ capacities as trial defendants. Law and Human Behavior, 27, 333-363.
20.
HaynesS. N.RichardD. S.KubanyE. S. (1995). Content validity in psychological assessment: A functional approach to concepts and methods. Psychological Assessment, 7, 238-247.
21.
In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967).
22.
KatsiyannisA.ArchwametyT. (1997). Factors related to recidivism among delinquent youths in a state correctional facility. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 6, 43-55.
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 and Practice, 34, 491-498. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.3.5.491
25.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
26.
Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412 (1986).
27.
OberlanderL. B.GoldsteinN. E. (2001). A review and update on the practice of evaluating Miranda comprehension. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 19, 453-471.
28.
OberlanderL. B.GoldsteinN. E.GoldsteinA. M. (2003). Competence to confess. In GoldsteinA. M. (Ed.), Handbook of psychology: Vol. 11. Forensic psychology (pp. 335-357). New York, NY: Wiley.
29.
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.
30.
RogersR.HazelwoodL. L.SewellK. W.ShumanD. W.BlackwoodH. L. (2008). The comprehensibility and content of juvenile Miranda warnings. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 14, 63-87.
31.
RogersR.JordanM.HarrisonK. (2004). A critical review of published competency-to-confess measures. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 707-718.
32.
RogersR.ShumanD. (2005). Fundamentals of forensic practice: Mental health and criminal law. New York, NY: Springer.
33.
RybaN. L.BrodskyS. L.ShlosbergA. (2007). Evaluation of capacity to waive Miranda rights. A survey of practitioners’ use of the Grisso instruments. Assessment, 14, 150-155.
