Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Development and Initial Validation of the Miranda Vocabulary Scale

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Law and Human Behavior

Abstract

Miranda vocabulary forms the essential foundation for Miranda comprehension and subsequent decisions to exercise or waive Miranda rights. The purpose of the current study is the development of the Miranda Vocabulary Scale (MVS), designed to evaluate key vocabulary words found in Miranda warnings and waivers across American jurisdictions. A preliminary list of MVS words was refined by expert ratings and by each word’s discriminability between failed and good Miranda comprehension. Miranda and other measures were collected at multiple sites on 376 pretrial defendants. With further refinements, the MVS is composed of 36 words with excellent scale homogeneity and interrater reliability (r = .99). It also demonstrated good convergent and discriminant validity for cognitive abilities and psychological impairment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Other measures included: the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale (Gudjonsson, 1997), the Gudjonsson Confession Questionnaire-Revised (Gudjonsson & Sigurdsson, 1999), the Atypical Presentation Scale of the ECST-R (Rogers, Tillbrook, & Sewell, 2004), the Interrogation Acquiescence Scale (Harrison & Rogers, 2005), the Miranda Rights Scale (Rogers, 2005a), and the Slosson Oral Reading Test-Revision 3 (SORT-R3; Slosson & Nicholson, 2002).

  2. In surveying undergraduates, more than half confused the term “indigent” with “indicted” with reference to criminal suspects (Rogers, Shuman, & Drogin, 2008).

  3. A full description of the ordering of measures for each site is available upon request.

  4. As a preliminary analysis, we correlated hours after arrest with MVS scores for inmates at Grayson County Jail, which revealed no relationship (r = .02; p = .78).

  5. United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has granted an en banc rehearing of this decision.

References

  • American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education [AERA, APA, NCME]. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington: American Educational Research Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7, 309–319. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colwell, L. H., Cruise, K. R., Guy, L. S., McCoy, W. K., Fernandez, K., & Ross, H. H. (2005). The influence of psychosocial maturity on male juvenile offenders’ comprehension and understanding of the Miranda warning. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 33(4), 444–454.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, V. G., & Zapf, P. A. (2008). Psychiatric patients’ comprehension of Miranda rights. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 390–405.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dale, E., & O’Rourke, J. (1981). The living vocabulary: A national vocabulary inventory. Chicago: World Book—Childcraft International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fulero, S. M., & Everington, C. (1995). Assessing competency to waive Miranda rights in defendants with mental retardation. Law and Human Behavior, 19(5), 533–543. doi:10.1007/BF01499342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garner v. Mitchell. (2007). 502 F.3d 394 (6th Cir. Ohio).

  • Goldstein, N. E. S., Condie, L. O., Kalbeitzer, R., Osman, D., & Geier, J. L. (2003). Juvenile offenders’ Miranda rights comprehension and self-reported likelihood of offering false confessions. Assessment, 10(4), 359–369. doi:10.1177/1073191103259535.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Grisso, T. (1981). Juveniles’ waiver of rights: Legal and psychological competence. New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grisso, T. (1998). Instruments for assessing understanding and appreciation of Miranda rights. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grisso, T. (2003). Waiver of rights to silence and legal counsel. In T. Grisso (Ed.), Evaluating competencies: Forensic assessments and instruments (2nd ed., pp. 149–192). New York: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gudjonsson, G. H. (1997). Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scales manual. London: Hove.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gudjonsson, G. H., & Sigurdsson, J. F. (1999). Gudjonsson Confession Questionnaire-Revised (GCQ-R): Factor structure and its relationship to personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 953–968. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00278-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, K. S., & Rogers, R. (2005). The Interrogation Acquiescence Scale. Unpublished measure, University of North Texas.

  • Heilbrun, K., Rogers, R., & Otto, R. K. (2002). Forensic assessment: Current status and future directions. In J. R. P. Ogloff (Ed.), Taking psychology and law into the twenty-first century (pp. 120–146). New York: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helms, J. L. (2003). Analysis of Miranda reading levels across jurisdictions: Implications for evaluating waiver competency. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 3, 25–37. doi:10.1300/J158v03n01_03.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalbeitzer, R., Goldstein, N. E., Romaine, C. R., Mesiarik, C., & Zelle, H. (2008, March). Reliability and validity of the Miranda Rights Comprehension Instruments-II. Paper presentation at American Psychology-Law Society, Jacksonville, FL.

  • Kiernan, R. J., Mueller, J., & Langston, J. W. (2002). Cognistat: The Neurobehavioral Cognitive Status Examination and professional manual. Tampa: PAR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miranda v. Arizona. (1966). 384 U.S. 436.

  • Psychological Corporation. (2002). Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (2nd ed.). San Antonio: Author.

  • Rogers, R. (in press). A little knowledge is a dangerous thing… Emerging Miranda research and professional roles for psychologists. The American Psychologist.

  • Rogers, R. (2005a). Miranda Rights Scale (MRS). Unpublished Measure, University of North Texas.

  • Rogers, R. (2005b). Miranda Statements Scale (MSS). Unpublished Measure, University of North Texas.

  • Rogers, R., Harrison, K. S., Hazelwood, L. L., & Sewell, K. W. (2007). Knowing and intelligent: A study of Miranda warnings in mentally disordered defendants. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 401–418. doi:10.1007/s10979-006-9070-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, R., Harrison, K. S., Shuman, D. W., Sewell, K. W., & Hazelwood, L. L. (2007). An analysis of Miranda warnings and waivers: Comprehension and coverage. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 177–192. doi:10.1007/s10979-006-9054-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, R., Hazelwood, L. L., Harrison, K. S., Sewell, K. W., & Shuman, D. W. (2008). The language of Miranda in American jurisdictions: A replication and further analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 124–136. doi:10.1007/s10979-007-9091-y.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, R., Jackson, R. L., Salekin, K. L., & Neumann, C. S. (2003). Assessing Axis I symptomatology on the SADS-C in two correctional samples: The validation of subscales and a screen for malingered presentations. Journal of Personality Assessment, 81, 281–290. doi:10.1207/S15327752JPA8103_11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, R., & Shuman, D. W. (2005). Miranda and beyond: Competencies related to police investigations. In R. Rogers & D. W. Shuman (Eds.), Fundamentals of forensic practice: Mental health and criminal law (pp. 113–149). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, R., Shuman, D. W., & Drogin, E. Y. (2008). Miranda rights… and wrongs: Myths, methods, and model solutions. Criminal Justice, 23(2), 4–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, R., Tillbrook, C. E., & Sewell, K. W. (2004). Evaluation of Competency to Stand Trial-Revised (ECST-R) and professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salmon, D. P. (2000). Neuropsychiatric measures for cognitive measures. In A. J. Rush, H. A. Pincus, M. B. First, D. Blacker, J. Endicott, S. J. Keith, et al. (Eds.), Handbook of psychiatric measures (pp. 417–456). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slosson, R. L., & Nicholson, C. L. (2002). Slosson Oral Reading Test (3rd ed.). Wilmington, DE: Wide Range, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spitzer, R. L., & Endicott, J. (1978). Schedule of Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia—Change Version. New York: Biometrics Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Viljoen, J. L., Zapf, P. A., & Roesch, R. (2007). Adjudicative competence and comprehension of Miranda rights in adolescent defendants: A comparison of legal standards. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 25(1), 1–19. doi:10.1002/bsl.714.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wall, S. M., & Furlong, M. (1985). Comprehension of Miranda rights by urban adolescents with law-related education. Psychological Reports, 56, 359–372.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wechsler, D. (1997). Weschler Adult Intelligence Scale-Third Edition (WAIS-III). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wechsler, D. (1999). Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by two grants (#0418057 and #0615934) from Law and Social Sciences Program, National Science Foundation, to Richard Rogers as the principal investigator. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. The authors would like to express their gratitude to the administrators of the different facilities included in this investigation. We especially appreciate the unwavering support of Sheriff J. Keith Gary and Captain Kelli Stephens at Grayson County Jail for the last four years.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of North Texas, P.O. Box 311280, Denton, TX, 76203-1280, USA

    Richard Rogers, Lisa L. Hazelwood, Kenneth W. Sewell, Hayley L. Blackwood, Jill E. Rogstad & Kimberly S. Harrison

Authors
  1. Richard Rogers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lisa L. Hazelwood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kenneth W. Sewell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hayley L. Blackwood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jill E. Rogstad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Kimberly S. Harrison
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard Rogers.

About this article

Cite this article

Rogers, R., Hazelwood, L.L., Sewell, K.W. et al. Development and Initial Validation of the Miranda Vocabulary Scale. Law Hum Behav 33, 381–392 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-008-9159-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-008-9159-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation