The Observed Witness Efficacy Scale: a measure of effective testimony skills

Abstract

Despite advances in the scientific methodology of witness testimony research, no sound measure currently exists to evaluate perceptions of testimony skills. Drawing on self‐efficacy and witness preparation research, the present study describes development of the Observed Witness Efficacy Scale (OWES). Factor analyses of a mock jury sample yielded a two‐factor structure (poise and communication style) consistent with previous research on witness self‐ratings of testimony delivery skills. OWES subscales showed differential patterns of association with witness credibility, witness believability, agreement with the witness, and verdict decision. Juror gender moderated the impact of communication style, but not poise, on belief of and agreement with the witness. Results are discussed with attention to application of the OWES to witness research and preparation training.

Does Convenience Come with a Price? The Impact of Remote Testimony on Perceptions of Expert Credibility

“…Witness credibility is a measurable component of trial witnesses that includes factors such as knowledge and trustworthiness (Cramer et al, 2009). Differences in witness credibility appear to result from differences in both static (e.g., juror gender, expert attractiveness; Brodsky et al, 2009) and dynamic factors (e.g., expert eye contact, witness confidence, poise; Cramer et al, 2011;Cramer et al, 2013;Neal et al, 2012;Neal & Brodsky, 2008). Witness efficacy is a related construct that captures the witness's ability to provide objectively high-quality testimony.…”

“…The Observed Witness Efficacy Scale (OWES; Cramer et al, 2013) is an 18-item measure using a 5-point Likert-type response style ranging from "not well" to "very well." We used average scores for all analyses, with higher scale scores indicating that participants viewed the witness as more efficacious.…”

“…We used average scores for all analyses, with higher scale scores indicating that participants viewed the witness as more efficacious. Example questions include: "Remain calm under cross-examination," "Be comfortable on the witness stand," and "Provide more than 'yes/ no' answers" (full scale available in Cramer et al, 2013). Internal consistency for the OWES is adequate, with factor loadings exceeding α = .87 (Cramer et al, 2013).…”

“…Example questions include: "Remain calm under cross-examination," "Be comfortable on the witness stand," and "Provide more than 'yes/ no' answers" (full scale available in Cramer et al, 2013). Internal consistency for the OWES is adequate, with factor loadings exceeding α = .87 (Cramer et al, 2013). When evaluating the OWES for the present study, it became apparent that some items, such as those assessing posture, may not be applicable to all conditions (i.e., some questions may not be applicable for the phone or VC conditions).…”

Interpreted Police Interviews: A Review of Contemporary Research

“…Despite findings indicating that witness credibility assessments were modified by specific actions or omissions by interpreters, there is a dearth of research in more ecologically valid settings on the effects of interpreted testimony on credibility assessments, using large samples. In addition, credibility has rarely been assessed using psychometrically validated credibility scales, such as the 18-item Observed Witness Efficacy Scale (Cramer, DeCoster, Neal, & Brodsky, 2013), which includes verbal and nonverbal indicators, or the Witness Credibility Scale (Brodsky et al, 2010; Cronbach's α = .95), a semantic differential scale that consists of 20 paired adjectives rated on a 10-point Likert-type scale (e.g., 1 = illmannered to 10 = well-mannered; 1 = dishonest to 10 = honest). The resulting four factor scores (Likeability, Confidence, Trustworthiness, and Knowledgeability) have been applied to interpreters (Hale et al, 2018).…”