Miranda warnings enshrine the constitutional rights of custodial suspects against self-incrimination. However, the wording and sentence complexity of Miranda warnings and waivers vary dramatically from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. This study is the first extensive investigation of Miranda warning variations examining 560 Miranda warnings from across the United States. With Flesch-Kincaid reading comprehension as a useful metric, Miranda warnings varied from very simple comprehension (i.e., grade 2.8) to requiring postgraduate education. Miranda warnings are composed of five components (e.g., silence and evidence against you); marked variations were also observed in the comprehensibility of individual components. On average, the Miranda warning component on "continuing rights" requires a reading comprehension level six grades higher than the comparatively simple expression of the right to silence. Similar analyses were conducted on Miranda waivers. The content of these warnings differed on such issues as communicating (a) when access to an attorney would be granted (e.g., 45.9% specified only "during questioning") and (b) explicitly that indigent legal services were free (e.g., 31.8% directly informed suspects). Finally, the study identified representative Miranda components at different levels of reading comprehension as a template for further research.

Miranda warnings are remarkably heterogeneous in their language, length, and content. Past research has focused mostly on individual Miranda warnings. Lacking in generalizability, these studies have limited applicability to both public policy and professional practice. A large-scale survey by R. Rogers et al. [2007b, Law and Human Behavior, 31, 177-192] examined Miranda warnings from across the United States and documented striking differences in the length, content, and reading comprehension. In moving from single jurisdiction studies to nationally representative research, the replication of the Rogers et al. survey is essential. With an additional 385 general Miranda warnings, most of the original findings were confirmed; this replication allows Miranda researchers to use findings based upon nationally-representative warnings for their subsequent research. Beyond reading comprehension, the study makes an original contribution to the understanding of Miranda vocabulary that is often infused with abstruse words and legalistic terms. It provides the first analysis of sentence complexity, which affects both Miranda comprehension and retention. As a result of these analyses, preliminary guidelines are provided for increasing the comprehension and understanding of Miranda warnings.

For more than a decade, researchers and practitioners have generally accepted a two-factor model for the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) composed of core personality features and an antisocial lifestyle. Very recently, Cooke and Michie (2001) proposed a three-factor solution that divided the core personality features into two dimensions while eliminating antisocial behavior. This study of male, mentally disordered offenders ( N = 96) directly compared factor models via confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). When using testlets to combine theoretically similar items into single ratings, the nested three-factor model was an excellent fit. Of importance, the development of a four-factor model with the inclusion of antisocial items also produced an excellent fit. Combined with recent research, these findings have important ramifications for the construct validity of the PCL-R.

Psychological assessments of competency-to-stand-trial (CST) referrals must consider whether the defendants' impairment is genuine or feigned. This study addressed feigning on the Evaluation of Competency to Stand Trial--Revised (ECST-R), a standardized interview designed for assessing dimensions of CST and screening for feigned CST. In particular, this study examined the effectiveness of the ECST-R's Atypical Presentation (ATP) scales as screens for feigned incompetency. It examined ATP scales for (a) jail detainees (n=96) in simulation and control conditions and (b) inpatient competency cases (n=56) in clinical comparison and probable malingering groups. Comparisons of ATP scales yielded very large effect sizes for feigners when compared with jail controls (mean d=2.50) and genuine inpatient competency cases (mean d=1.83). Several cut scores were established with very few false negatives and robust sensitivity estimates. In summary, the ECST-R ATP scales appear to be homogenous scales with established clinical use as feigning screens in CST evaluations.

A conservative estimate is that 695,000 mentally disordered offenders are arrested and Mirandized annually in the United States. Past research has focused almost exclusively on cognitive factors affecting the comprehension of Miranda rights. The current study broadens the scope by including diagnostic variables and by extending the investigation to basic elements of Miranda reasoning. A sample of 107 mentally disordered defendants was administered two research measures, the Miranda Statements Scale (MSS) and Miranda Rights Scale (MRS), in addition to standardized tests. Most defendants lacked good comprehension of all but the simplest (Flesch-Kincaid<6th grade) Miranda warnings. Defendants with the poorest understanding (i.e., comprehending about 25% of the warnings) had marked deficits in multiple domains including cognitive abilities (intelligence and comprehension) and general adjustment. Different background and clinical variables predicted defendants' abilities to generate reasons either to exercise or waive their Miranda rights.