Recognized for nearly four decades, most juvenile suspects waive their Miranda rights and almost immediately provide self-incriminating evidence. Miranda-specific measures were eventually developed to understand their capacities and limitations. With extensive revisions, the Miranda Rights Comprehension Instruments (MRCI) were normed and validated. Beyond reliability, the current study addresses the convergent and discriminant validity of the MRCI. In response to Frumkin and Sellbom’s criticism of the MRCI’s norms, the current research provides representative data on 245 legally involved juveniles with percentiles to facilitate the interpretation of MRCI data. The current investigation is also the first MRCI study to link directly Miranda comprehension (i.e., the knowing prong) to Miranda reasoning (i.e., the intelligent prong) of waiver decisions.
BlackwoodH. L.RogersR.SteadhamJ. A.FiducciaC. E. (2015). Investigating Miranda waiver decisions: An examination of the rational consequences. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry. Advance online publication. doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2015.08.002
2.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
3.
Colorado v. Spring, 479 U.S. 564 (1987).
4.
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 the Law, 33, 444-454.
5.
FrumkinI. B.SellbomM. (2013). Miranda Rights Comprehension Instruments: A critical review. Assessment, 20, 545-554. doi:10.1177/1073191113481054
6.
GoldsteinN. E.ZelleH.GrissoT. (2012). Miranda Rights Comprehension Instruments (MRCI). Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press.
7.
GoldsteinN. E.ZelleH.GrissoT. (2014). Miranda Rights Comprehension Instruments (MRCI): Manual for juvenile and adult evaluations. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press.
8.
GreenbergerE.JosselsonR.KnerrC.KnerrB. (1975). The measurement and structure of psychosocial maturity. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 4, 127-143.
9.
GreenbergerE.SorensonA. B. (1974). Toward a concept of psychosocial maturity. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 3, 329-358.
10.
GrissoT. (1981). Juveniles’ waiver of rights: Legal and psychological competence. New York, NY: Plenum.
11.
GrissoT. (1998). Instruments for assessing understanding and appreciation of Miranda Rights. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press.
12.
GrissoT. (2004). Reply to “A critical review of published competency-to-confess measures.”Law and Human Behavior, 28, 719-724. doi:10.1007/s10979-004-0795-y
13.
GrissoT.BarnumR. (2006). Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument-Version 2: User’s manual and technical report (Rev. ed.). Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press.
14.
GrissoT.PomicterC. (1977). Interrogation of juveniles: An empirical study of procedures, safeguards, and rights waiver. Law and Human Behavior, 1, 321-342. doi:10.1007/BF01048593
15.
Iowa v. Tovar, 541 U.S. 77 (2004).
16.
MantzicopoulosP. Y.Oh-HwangY. (1998). The relationship of psychosocial maturity to parenting quality and intellectual ability for American and Korean adolescents. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 195-206. doi:10.1006/ceps.1997.0964
17.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
18.
RogersR. (2010). The Juvenile Miranda Quiz. Unpublished manuscript, University of North Texas, Denton, TX.
19.
RogersR.BlackwoodH. L.FiducciaC. E.SteadhamJ. A.DroginE. Y.RogstadJ. E. (2012). Juvenile Miranda warnings: Perfunctory rituals or procedural safeguards?Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39, 229-249. doi:10.1177/0093854811431934
20.
RogersR.DroginE. Y. (2014). Mirandized statements: Successfully navigating the legal and psychological issues. Chicago, IL: American Bar Association.
21.
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. doi:10.1007/s10979-008-9159-3
22.
RogersR.JordanM. J.HarrisonK. S. (2004). A critical review of published competency-to-confess measures. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 707-718. doi:10.1007/s10979-004-0794-z
23.
RogersR.RobinsonE. V.HenryS. A. (2015). Feigned adjudicative incompetence: Testing effectiveness of the ILK and SAMA with jail detainees. Assessment. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1073191115605613
24.
RogersR.SewellK. W.DroginE. Y.FiducciaC. E. (2012). Standardized Assessment of Miranda Abilities (SAMA) professional manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
25.
RogersR.SteadhamJ. A.CarterR. M.HenryS. A.DroginE. Y. (2015). An examination of juveniles’ Miranda comprehension and reasoning: Do the modality and complexity of warnings make a difference? Manuscript submitted for publication.
26.
RogersR.SteadhamJ. A.FiducciaC. E.DroginE. Y.RobinsonE. V. (2014). Mired in Miranda misconceptions: A study of legally involved juveniles at different levels of psychosocial maturity. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 32, 104-120. doi:10.1002/bsl.2099
27.
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. doi:10.1177/1073191110730284
28.
SharfA. J.RogersR.HenryS. L. (2015, March). Age and maturity differences in juvenile Miranda knowledge and capabilities. Poster presented at the annual conference of the American Psychology-Law Society, San Diego, CA.
29.
StrathmanA.GleicherF.BoningerD. S.EdwardsC. S. (1994). Consideration of Future Consequences Scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 742-752.
