The Grisso Tests for Assessing Understanding and Appreciation of Miranda Warnings with a Forensic Sample

Abstract

The Instruments for Assessing Understanding and Appreciation of Miranda Rights, hereafter referred to as the Grisso tests, are widely used and recommended psychological tests designed to help assess ability to understand and appreciate Miranda warnings. This article describes the results of these tests administered to 439 individuals who participated in an evaluation to assess knowing and intelligent waiver of Miranda warnings during police questioning. This study is the first of its kind using a large sample of defendants who were referred for an assessment of capacity to waive Miranda rights. This forensic sample includes both juveniles (176) and adults (263), and the results are quite similar to the original Grisso norms. There are strong correlations between performance on these tests and IQ as well as between performance and age. This sample provides a broader foundation for users of the Grisso tests and answers some of the initial criticism of the instruments.

Miranda Rights Comprehension Instruments

“…In previous reviews of the original IAUAMR, Frumkin (2008, 2010) described in detail how the test should have no difficulty meeting Frye v. United States (1923) and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993) for admissibility in court. Frumkin et al (2012) further supports the IAUAMR’s use with a forensic population undergoing a confession-related evaluation and likely enhances the admissibility of the MRCI for that purpose as well.…”

“…It does not effectively differentiate a defendant's relative ability to appreciate the adversarial nature of the legal process, because most individuals do exceptionally well on that subtest. Frumkin et al (2012) replicated this finding for a forensic sample undergoing confession-related evaluations. For the MRCI version of the FRI, the NI subtest was retained, despite the limitations just described.…”

“…Mental health testimony has been used by the courts to assist in a determination of a defendant’s ability to have made a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of Miranda rights at the time of the police interrogation. There is a body of literature that discusses methodology to be used in evaluating a defendant’s capacity to waive Miranda rights (Brodsky & Bennett, 2005; DeClue 2005a, 2005b; Frumkin, 2000, 2008, 2010; Frumkin, Lally, & Sexton, 2012; Goldstein & Goldstein, 2010; Grisso, 2003; Oberlander, Goldstein, & Goldstein, 2003; Rogers & Shuman, 2005). With the exception of Rogers and Shuman (2005), the aforementioned authors have recommended the use of the Grisso (1981, 1998) Instruments for Assessing Understanding and Appreciation of Miranda Rights (IAUAMR) as one component to a comprehensive psychological evaluation that includes a clinical interview, cognitive and personality testing, assessment for effort or malingering, record review, interviewing collateral sources as necessary, and reviewing recordings and/or transcripts of the interrogation.…”

“…We do not believe, however, that the lack of forensic norms with the MRCI or the IAUAMR is as problematic as Rogers et al (2004) suggest. Frumkin et al (2012) compared Grisso’s (1981) data with a large forensic population specifically undergoing an evaluation for confession-related issues. They found the same associations in the forensic sample as those found with Grisso’s (1981) offender and nonoffender groups, in that age and intelligence were predictors of understanding and appreciating the Miranda warnings.…”

“…As expected, interrater reliability was substantially lower when using the untrained rater. Although it would have been better for Goldstein et al (2012) to directly address Rogers et al’s (2004) criticism so that the tests can better generalize to examiners using the test in forensic practice, Frumkin et al (2012) did provided intraclass correlations and Kappa scores for the IAUAMR’s CMR and FRI subtests by comparing scoring among eight experienced forensic psychologists, none of whom went through a formal training process in scoring the instruments. Intraclass correlations ranged from 0.92 to 0.99 and Kappas ranged from 0.54 to 0.76, depending on the comparison.…”