Forensic assessments must always consider whether examinees are putting forth genuine effort or seeking to feign legally relevant incapacities. Miranda abilities are no exception when a putatively invalid Miranda waiver might result in the full suppression of an outright confession. Using a within-subjects simulation design, jail detainees were administered a representative Miranda warning and two Standardized Assessment of Miranda Abilities (SAMA) measures: Miranda Vocabulary Scale and Miranda Quiz. As expected, detainees have no difficulty in feigning severe deficits in their recall of the Miranda warning and portraying markedly impaired abilities on both SAMA measures. However, using floor-effect detection strategies, several feigning indicators proved effective at identifying likely feigned Miranda abilities. As an ancillary issue, the Inventory of Legal Knowledge was found to be very effective using both the traditional and revised scoring.
AcklinM. W. (2012). The forensic clinician’s toolbox I: A review of competency to stand trial (CST) instruments. Journal of Personality Assessment, 94, 220-222. doi:10.1080/00223891.2011.627970
2.
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.
3.
FrederickR. I. (2003). The Validity Indicator Profile manual (2nd ed.). Minneapolis, MN: Pearson.
4.
FrumkinI. B.SellbomM. (2013). Miranda rights comprehension instruments: A critical review. Assessment, 20, 545-554. doi:10.1177/1073191113481054
5.
GoldsteinA. M.GoldsteinN. E. S. (2010). Evaluating capacity to waive Miranda rights. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
6.
GoldsteinN. E.ZelleH.GrissoT. (2014). Miranda Rights Comprehension Instruments (MRCI): Manual for juvenile and adult evaluations. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press.
7.
GottfriedE.CarbonellJ. (2014). The role of intelligence on performance on the Inventory of Legal Knowledge (ILK). Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 25, 380-396. doi:10.1080/14789949.2014.920900
8.
GreenP. (2005). Word Memory Test for Windows: User’s manual and program (Rev. ed.). Edmonton, Alberta, Canada: Green’s Publishing.
9.
GreenP.AllenL. M.AstnerK. (1996). The Word Memory Test: A manual for the oral and computerized forms. Durham, NC: CogniSyst.
10.
GudjonssonG. H.SigurdssonJ. F. (1994). How frequently do false confessions occur? An empirical study among prison inmates. Psychology, Crime & Law, 1, 21-26. doi:10.1080/10683169408411933
11.
GuentherC. C.OttoR. K. (2010). Identifying persons feigning limitations in their competence to proceed in the legal process. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 28, 603-613. doi:10.1002/bsl.956
12.
KassinS. M. (2012). Why confessions trump innocence. American Psychologist, 67, 431-445. doi:10.1037/a0028212
13.
KassinS. M.DrizinS. A.GrissoT.GudjonssonG. H.LeoR. A.RedlichA. D. (2010). Police-induced confessions: Risk factors and recommendations. Law and Human Behavior, 34, 3-38. doi:10.1007/s10979-009-9188-6
14.
KassinS. M.NeumannK. (1997). On the power of confession evidence: An experimental test of the fundamental difference hypothesis. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 469-484. doi:10.1023/A:1024871622490
15.
MalloyL. C.ShulmanE. P.CauffmanE. (2014). Interrogations, confessions, and guilty pleas among serious adolescent offenders. Law and Human Behavior, 38, 181-193. doi:10.1037/lhb0000065
16.
NortonK. A.RybaN. L. (2010). An investigation of the ECST-R as a measure of competence and feigning. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 10, 91-106. doi:10.1080/15228930903446625
17.
OttoR. K.MusickJ. E.SherrodC. B. (2010). ILK: Inventory of Legal Knowledge professional manual. Lutz, FL: Professional Assessment Resources.
18.
OttoR. K.MusickJ. E.SherrodC. (2011). Convergent validity of a screening measure designed to identify defendants feigning knowledge deficits related to competence to stand trial. Assessment, 18, 60-62. doi:10.1177/1073191110377162
19.
RogersR. (2008a). A little knowledge is a dangerous thing . . . Emerging Miranda research and professional roles for psychologists. American Psychologist, 63, 776-787. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.63.8.776
20.
RogersR. (Ed.). (2008b). Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
21.
RogersR. (2011). Getting it wrong about Miranda rights: False beliefs, impaired reasoning, and professional neglect. American Psychologist, 66, 728-736. doi:10.1037/a0024988
22.
RogersRDroginE. Y. (2014). Mirandized statements: Successfully navigating the legal and psychological issues. Chicago, IL: American Bar Association.
23.
RogersR.HazelwoodL. L.HarrisonK. S.SewellK. W.ShumanD. W. (2008). The language of Miranda in American jurisdictions: A replication and further analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 124-136.
24.
RogersR.RobinsonE. V.GillardN. D. (2014). The SIMS screen for feigned mental disorders: The development of detection-based scales. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 32, 455-466. doi:10.1002/bsl.2131
25.
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
26.
RogersR.SewellK. W.DroginE. Y.FiducciaC. E. (2012). Standardized Assessment of Miranda Abilities (SAMA) professional manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
27.
RogersR.SewellK. W.GillardN. D. (2010). Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms, 2nd edition (SIRS-2), Professional manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
28.
RogersR.TillbrookC. E.SewellK. W. (2004). Evaluation of Competency to Stand Trial–Revised (ECST-R) and professional manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
