Feigned Adjudicative Incompetence.

Psychological assessments are highly dependent on the forthrightness and sincere efforts of examinees. In particular, evaluations in forensic settings must consider whether feigning or other response styles are utilized to intentionally distort the clinical presentation. The current study examines the effectiveness of the Inventory of Legal Knowledge (ILK) at detecting feigned incompetency within a sample of jail detainees. As an ancillary goal, several scales of the Standardized Assessment of Miranda Abilities were included in the same within-subjects simulation design. Results of the total ILK score raised concerns regarding the mischaracterization of genuine offenders as "suggestive of feigning." Pending cross-validation, however, a Revised ILK proved highly effective, using a floor effect detection strategy. Although intended for Miranda-specific abilities, several detection strategies on the Standardized Assessment of Miranda Abilities appeared to be very promising within a broadened context of feigned incompetency.

Dodging Self-Incriminations: An Examination of Feigned Miranda Abilities on the SAMA.

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.

Validity and Representative Data of the MRCI With Legally Involved Juveniles.

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.

An Examination of Juveniles' Miranda Abilities: Investigating Differences in Miranda Recall and Reasoning.

Juvenile suspects are routinely expected to possess an accurate recall of written or oral Miranda warnings. This study addresses the Miranda-related comprehension recall and reasoning of legally involved juveniles. It is the first juvenile research to compare systematically two levels of complexity for Miranda warnings with the three modalities (oral, written, or combined) of administration. Unexpectedly, easily read written warnings marginally outperformed the combined modality. In order to examine Miranda reasoning, three juvenile groups were operationalized: impaired, questionable, and likely adequate. Predictably, the impaired and questionable groups possessed significantly lower verbal abilities than the likely-adequate reasoning group. In addition, the likely-adequate group exhibited the strongest appreciation of the adversarial context in which Miranda waiver decisions are rendered. The discussion addresses the marked disparities in Miranda recall from a total recall versus component-by-component understanding of Miranda rights. It also considers more generally how crucially important Miranda misconceptions might be remedied. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The SIMS Screen for feigned mental disorders: the development of detection-based scales.

Time-efficient screens for feigned mental disorders (FMDs) constitute important tools in forensic assessments. The Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS) is a 75-item true-false questionnaire that has been extensively studied as an FMD screen. However, the SIMS scales are not based on established detection strategies, and only its total score is utilized as a feigning screen. This investigation develops two new feigning scales based on well-established detection-strategies: rare symptoms (RS) and symptom combinations (SC). They are studied in a between-subjects simulation design using inpatients with partial-malingering (i.e., patients with genuine disorders asked to feign greater disabilities) conditions. Subject to future cross-validation, the SC scale evidenced the highest effect size (d=2.01) and appeared the most effective at ruling out examinees, who have a high likelihood of genuine responding.

An investigation of implied Miranda waivers and Powell wording in a mock-crime study.

To guard against coerced self-incrimination, the Supreme Court of the United States outlined in Miranda v. Arizona (1966) what arresting officers must convey to custodial suspects for resulting statements to be admissible into evidence. During the ensuing decades, the Court has continued to grapple with the requisite wording and practical enforcement of these Constitutional rights. In Florida v. Powell (2010), the Court upheld the conviction of a defendant whose Miranda warning affirmed that before questioning he had the right to an attorney, but failed to specify that during questioning he had this right as well. In Berghuis v. Thompkins (2010), the Court ruled that the right to silence must be invoked explicitly, while valid Miranda waivers could be "implied" by a suspect's actions as well as words. The current study employed a mock crime design to assess the practical effects of these 2 rulings on waiver decisions. The wording change enabled by Powell had little effect on Miranda knowledge and reasoning. With regard to Thompkins, the type of waiver profoundly affected subsequent decisions: 13.7% exercised their rights following implied waivers versus 81.1% with explicit waivers. Importantly, the implied waiver condition produced much higher percentages of confessions (17.6% vs. 3.8%) and of admissions about incriminating information (29.4% vs. 9.4%).

Mired in Miranda misconceptions: a study of legally involved juveniles at different levels of psychosocial maturity.

The Supreme Court of the United States has long recognized that the vulnerabilities of juvenile offenders merit special protections due to deficits in experience and maturity. Appellate courts assume that Miranda warnings will inform juvenile suspects of their Miranda rights, and allow them to render knowing and intelligent waivers. This study examines Miranda misconceptions of legally involved juveniles (i.e., juvenile detainees and youth mandated to juvenile justice alternative education) at different levels of psychosocial maturity. These juveniles manifested an unexpectedly large frequency of erroneous Miranda beliefs; each group (low, middle, and high maturity) averaged a dozen or more misconceptions, thus overshadowing substantive differences between maturity groups. However, maturity played an important role in the immediate recall of a Miranda advisement. Alarmingly, both low- and middle-maturity groups displayed less than one-third immediate recall. The high-maturity group performed better, but still failed to recall almost half of the Miranda concepts. The overall findings are discussed with respect to juvenile Miranda comprehension and reasoning.

Investigating the effects of repeated Miranda warnings: do they perform a curative function on common Miranda misconceptions?

In Miranda v. Arizona (1966), the Supreme Court of the United States required that custodial suspects be apprised of their Constitutional rights against self-incrimination. The Court could not have anticipated the rampant popularization of Miranda warnings in subsequent movies and television dramas. Influenced by public media, many arrestees assume that they already "know" their rights, with no awareness of their misconceptions. The current investigation examines whether repeated exposures to Miranda warnings performs any "curative" function (i.e., dispelling common Miranda misconceptions held by pretrial defendants). The accumulative effects of five different Miranda warnings were tested over a several-hour period on 260 detainees. For the nearly half (113 or 43.5%) with three or more misconceptions, improvement (i.e., ≥2 fewer misconceptions) occurred for only 35 defendants. Predictably, this improved group also tended to display a better understanding of Miranda-relevant vocabulary words and a better recall of the administered Miranda warnings than their unimproved counterparts. On average, the improved group also performed better on general measures of intelligence, and listening and reading comprehension, while still evidencing substantial cognitive deficits. The curative function of Miranda advisements is considered in light of these findings.