Psychometric Properties of theMiranda Rights Comprehension InstrumentsWith a Juvenile Justice Sample

Abstract

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.

Obstacles to Research in Residential Juvenile Justice Facilities: Recommendations for Researchers

“…The participant advocate should not be connected to the research team, but should be someone who can act in the best interest of the youths. A waiver of parental permission with accompanying inclusion of a participant advocate is an enrollment approach that has been employed successfully in multiple studies (e.g., Cauffman et al, 2007;Goldstein et al, 2011;Teplin et al, 2002;Woolard, Harvell, & Graham, 2008). Referencing the prior approval and successful use of this approach may enhance IRB review of these procedures and facilitate the approval process.…”

Adolescents’ Legal Socialization

“… 1. Substantial revisions have been conducted on Comprehension of Miranda Rights instruments since it has been used in the current study. For a review of this literature, see Goldstein et al (2011). …”

Miranda Rights Comprehension Instruments

“…The most clinically significant change is the wording for the third Miranda warning from “You are entitled to consult with an attorney before interrogation and to have an attorney present at the time of the interrogation” to “You have the right to talk to a lawyer before we ask you any questions and to have him or her with you during questioning.” This change is particularly welcome in that the word interrogation appears in few Miranda rights warnings (Rogers et al, 2008). Furthermore, Goldstein et al (2011) analyzed the readability of the CMR-II using the Flesch–Kincaid method (Flesch, 1994). The estimated grade level for the CMR-II was 7.2, which is lower than the CMR readability at 7.9.…”

“…In addition, Rogers, Jordan, and Harrison (2004) had criticized the IAUAMR in part because of the lack of published indices of long-term stability of scores, problematic interrater reliability of those without specific training on the scoring of the instruments, and the lack of standard error of measurement statistics and validity data. Goldstein et al (2011) and the MRCI test manual (Goldstein et al, 2012) describe a plethora of statistical data seemingly meeting many of the critiques raised and adds greatly to the usefulness of the test.…”

“…Finally, the addition of the fifth Miranda warning, changes in content and readability levels of the warnings, and the addition of slight changes in scoring criteria from the IAUAMR do not allow a meaningful comparison between the MRCI and the IAUAMR normative data even though Goldstein et al (2011) do provide data comparing the internal consistency, item–item correlations, interrater reliability, and test–retest reliability of both groups of tests. This makes it difficult to assess the cause of differences in scores between the two versions of the tests and to determine whether such a difference is due to changes in the population’s relative understanding and appreciation of the Miranda warnings or something intrinsic to the tests themselves.…”