Feigned Miranda Impairment by Legally Involved Juveniles: The Vulnerability of Forensic Measures and the Development of Effective Screens

Abstract

Forensic studies have almost entirely neglected research on adolescent offenders and their abilities to engage in malingering and other forms of deception. The present research represents the first empirical investigation into feigned Miranda-specific impairment by legally involved juveniles. Feigners (n = 62) were compared with archival data (n = 245) under genuine conditions. With virtually no preparation, juveniles effectively feigned major impairment on the Miranda Rights Comprehension Instruments (MRCI) and most aggregate scores of the Juvenile Miranda Quiz (JMQ). Based on established detection strategies, feigning scales were examined for both the MRCI and JMQ. Consistent with adult detainee research, the JMQ floor effect (JMQ FE) yielded good sensitivities and very high specificities. Low scale scores on the MRCI Comprehension of Miranda Rights–Recognition-II (CMR-R-II) evidenced strong promise at identifying potential feigners for more extensive evaluations. As discussed, forensic evaluators cannot afford to ignore feigned legal incapacities when examining pre-adjudicated adolescents.

Keywords

Miranda Rights Comprehension Instruments MRCI Juvenile Miranda Quiz JMQ feigning

Despite an encouraging downward trend, still more than 650,000 adolescents—ages 13 to 17—were arrested during 2015, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (2016). For adolescent arrestees who are Mirandized and interrogated, the overwhelming majority forgo their Constitutional safeguards. A. M. Goldstein and Goldstein (2010) documented how juveniles very frequently waive their Miranda rights without the benefit of legal counsel, thus leading to partial admissions or full confessions. More recently, Feld (2013) reviewed 307 recorded cases of older adolescents (16-17 years), who waived or invoked their Miranda rights. For youth with cooperative attitudes, self-incrimination was virtually assured (71.4% confessions plus 25.1% admissions). As noted by Oberlander, Goldstein, and Goldstein (2003), a confession is considered to be “the single most influential factor” (p. 335) in an individual’s conviction and subsequent sentencing. As addressed in this study, one potential way for arrestees to remedy a confession might be feigned Miranda impairment. A suppressed confession would nullify the past self-incrimination.

Miranda and Juvenile Arrestees

The groundbreaking decision of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) resoundingly confirmed the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The majority opinion held that custodial suspects must be apprised of their rights via warnings or “other fully effective means” (Miranda v. Arizona, 1966, p. 444). These advisements, later known as “Miranda warnings” should contain five components: right to silence, risks of talking, right to an attorney, free legal services for indigent suspects, and continuing rights. The Supreme Court of the United States affirmed (in re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 [1967]) that juvenile custodial suspects must also be afforded Miranda rights. To be valid, Miranda waivers must be effectuated voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently (Miranda v. Arizona, 1966). Empirically, the “knowing” and “intelligent” prongs have been researched as Miranda comprehension and reasoning, respectively (Rogers, 2008b; Rogers & Drogin, 2014).

One line of research on Miranda comprehension has utilized the Miranda Rights Comprehension Instruments (MRCI; N. E. S. Goldstein, Zelle, & Grisso, 2012, 2014) The MRCI assesses Miranda comprehension through four different subtests. The first two subtests focus on an arrestee’s understanding of the five Miranda components. The Comprehension of Miranda Rights–II (CMR-II) tests an arrestee’s ability to paraphrase each Miranda component, whereas the Comprehension of Miranda Rights–Recognition-II (CMR-R-II) assesses the ability to recognize whether sentences are the same or different about each Miranda component. Legally involved juveniles perform much better than free recall (N. E. S. Goldstein et al., 2014; Rogers, Sharf, et al., 2017) when provided with only a single component and queried. The Comprehension of Miranda Vocabulary–II (CMV-II) assesses an arrestee’s knowledge and understanding of Miranda-relevant words. Finally, the Functions of Rights in Interrogation (FRI) measures the appreciation of the significance of their rights related to the interrogation (FRI-NI), right to counsel (FRI-RC), and right to silence (FRI-RS). Research (e.g., N. E. S. Goldstein, Condie, Kalbeitzer, Osman, & Geier, 2003) has demonstrated that better Miranda comprehension militated against false confessions. Most recently, Sharf, Rogers, Williams, and Drogin (2017) found FRI scores to be the most predictive of problematic outcomes and confessions, as compared with its other MRCI counterparts.

For Miranda reasoning, juvenile suspects often suffer from faulty assumptions that may compromise the “intelligent” prong of the waiver decisions. Grisso (1981) documented serious decrements in reasoning; for instance, about one fourth (24.0%) wrongly concluded that invoking rights would lead to a worse outcome—even when faced with a violent felony charge. Potentially devastating Miranda misassumptions involve the roles of police officers and defense counsel. Juveniles with impaired Miranda reasoning are more likely than others to view law enforcement as advocates, while conversely questioning the allegiance of defense attorneys (Rogers et al., 2016). Such profound errors can lead to fundamentally flawed reasoning that contributes to invalid Miranda waivers.

Sharf and her colleagues examined impaired Miranda reasoning from two different perspectives with largely overlapping samples. First, Sharf, Rogers, and Williams (2017) utilized Grisso’s (1981) Waiver Expectancy Interview scoring system to categorize juveniles’ reasons for waiving and exercising their rights. More than half (56.0%) of legally involved juveniles disclosed favorable reasons to waive their rights and talk with law enforcement, such as appearing innocent (10.2%) or promoting officers’ leniency (19.1%). In the second investigation, Sharf, Rogers, Williams, and Drogin (2017) utilized the Miranda Reasoning Measure (MRM) of the Standardized Assessment of Miranda Abilities (SAMA; Rogers, Sewell, Drogin, & Fiduccia, 2012) to categorize juvenile detainees as “impaired” or “likely intact” Miranda-reasoning groups. The impaired group was operationalized as a “damaging factual error (e.g., no access to counsel without monetary funds) or compromised reasoning (e.g., self-defeating or delusional beliefs)” (Sharf, Rogers, Williams, & Drogin, 2017, p. 561). Juveniles with impaired reasoning very frequently waived their rights and confessed within several minutes. This impaired Miranda-reasoning group also demonstrated marked deficits on MRCI subtests as well as several JMQ items.

Assessment of Feigned Miranda Impairment

Criminal forensic evaluations should systematically evaluate the possibility of malingering in light of such high-stakes contexts. In this respect, research on feigned Miranda impairment has lagged seriously behind other criminal forensic issues, with a recent search yielding merely eight peer-reviewed articles. In stark contrast, a similar search involving malingering and competency-to-stand trial yielded 70 peer-reviewed articles.¹

For the MRCI, N. E. S. Goldstein et al. (2014) proposed three methods for “ruling out feigned deficits in Miranda comprehension” (p. 63). This careful choice of language reflects a greater confidence in genuine responding when consistent results are found for the MRCI. Two approaches were nonempirical in looking for inconsistencies on the MRCI and with other measures. The third approach examined poor performance on the CMR-R-II (i.e., <7 of 15 on this two-choice measure), which was considered to “suggest the possibility” (p. 64, emphasis in original) of intentionally poor effort.

For the SAMA, Rogers, Sewell, et al. (2012) utilized the detection strategy known as the “performance curve.” Genuine examinees evidence more deficits with increased item difficulty, but some feigners prove less discriminating with comparable scores across easy and difficult items (Rogers, 2008a; Rogers & Bender, 2013). Rogers, Sewell, et al. (2012) used the SAMA Miranda Vocabulary Scale (MVS) performance curve (“MVS-PC”) to identify potential feigners.

Rogers and his colleagues (Rogers, Henry, Sharf, Robinson, & Williams, 2017; Rogers, Robinson, & Henry, 2017) conducted two feigning investigations on two SAMA measures using adult detainees. In Rogers, Robinson, and Henry (2017), detainees simulated adjudicative incompetence on two SAMA measures: the MVS and the Miranda Quiz (MQ; Rogers, Sewell, et al., 2012). Predictably, detainees had no difficulty in feigning severe impairment on the MVS and MQ. The MVS-PC effectively ruled-out genuine responders (i.e., negative predictive powers [NPP] > .95), but functioned poorly with feigners (i.e., positive predictive powers [PPP] < .40).

As a result, Rogers, Robinson, and Henry (2017) utilized the “floor effect” (FE) detection strategy, which utilizes items that are “too easy to miss” (Rogers & Gillard, 2011, p. 177). On the MVS–Easy (MVS-E) subscale, 99% of the normative sample scored at 13 or above (Rogers, Sewell, et al., 2012). Therefore, Rogers, Robinson, and Henry (2017) used MVS-E-99 < 13 as the cut score. As expected, it had exceptional specificity (.99), while identifying half (sensitivity = .51) of feigners. The FE strategy was also utilized with the MQ, but its limited number of very easy items necessitated a less stringent standard for specificity (i.e., ≥.85) in the SAMA representative database (Rogers, Sewell, et al., 2012); overall, the seven MQ-FE items averaged a .92 for specificity. A cut score of MQ-FE-85 < 6 produced excellent sensitivity (.97) as well as specificity (.90).

Rogers, Henry, et al. (2017) conducted the only empirical investigation of feigned Miranda impairment. Adults in the feigning condition tried to convince the evaluating psychologist of their failures to understand their Miranda rights. These feigners (d = 1.56) did not lower their MVS-E scores nearly as much as previous feigners of adjudicative incompetence (d = 2.18). As a result, sensitivity of MVS-E-99 < 13 dropped (.25), while specificity (.99) remained outstanding. In contrast, the MQ-FE-85 < 6, continued to yield excellent sensitivity (.89) and specificity (.91).

The SAMA’s take-home messages for feigning are twofold for adult defendants. First, any scores on the MVS-E-99 < 13 represent a strong indicator of feigning on Miranda measures (Rogers, Henry, et al., 2017) among defendants in general (i.e., specificity of .993 for 887 detainees) and even hospitalized defendants (.98 for 107 incompetent inpatients). Second, the MQ-FE-85 < 6 is an effective and easily implemented screen for feigned Miranda impairment.

Current Study

Forensic research has rarely investigated feigning related to legal capacities among adolescent offenders. Of the 70 peer-reviewed studies of malingered/feigned incompetency to stand trial, none included a juvenile sample. The two primary research questions address whether (a) juvenile offenders may fake impaired Miranda abilities, and (b) the effectiveness of Miranda feigning scales to identify likely feigners. For the MRCI, the researchers developed initial, strategy-based feigning scales. For the SAMA, several established strategies were tested. Because the MQ and Juvenile Miranda Quiz (JMQ; Sharf, Rogers, Williams, & Drogin, 2017) have 25 parallel items in the same order, MQ-based strategies could be tested on the JMQ.

Method

Using a between-subjects design, the current investigation combines archival data with a new simulation sample collected specifically for this study. For the genuine condition (i.e., standard instructions), archival data were previously collected as part of programmatic Miranda research supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) Law and Social Sciences Program. As summarized in the Introduction, the programmatic results have been previously reported (Rogers et al., 2016; Rogers, Robinson, & Henry, 2017; Sharf, Rogers, & Williams, 2017; Sharf, Rogers, Williams, & Drogin, 2017). For the feigning condition (i.e., simulation of impaired Miranda abilities), new data were collected from one of the previously used research sites. Except for demographic data, all the current analyses are original and unpublished.

Samples

The genuine sample of 245 juveniles was collected at two juvenile detention sites in the Dallas–Ft. Worth area (i.e., Collin and Denton counties). It consisted of either detainees or those mandated to a juvenile justice alternative education program (i.e., boot-camp style education because of serious misconduct). The feigning sample (n = 62) was recruited from the detention center in Collin County. As expected, the samples evidenced similar proportions based on gender and ethnicity (see Table 1). Moreover, they evidenced minimal differences in terms of age, education, and number of arrests. Although a nonsignificant trend emerged for the Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI), the mean difference between the two samples is not clinically relevant, being less than three points.

Table 1:

Differences in Demographic Variables Between Genuine and Feigning Samples

	Total sample		Samples				χ²	p	r	95% CI
	Total sample		Genuine		Feigning
Background	n	%	n	%	n	%
Sex							0.92	.73	0.06	[–0.06, 0.17]
Male	242	78.8	194	79.2	48	77.4
Female	65	21.1	51	20.8	14	22.6
Ethnicity							4.34	.74	0.12	[0.01, 0.23]
European American	128	41.7	105	42.9	23	37.1
African American	62	20.2	48	19.6	14	22.6
Hispanic American	73	23.8	60	24.5	13	21.0
Multiracial	36	11.7	25	10.2	11	17.7
	Total sample		Genuine		Feigning		F	p	d	95% CI
Background	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	F	p	d	95% CI
Age	15.41	1.34	15.40	1.34	15.45	1.31	0.06	.80	−0.04	[–0.19, 0.11]
Education	8.76	1.44	8.70	1.43	9.00	1.45	2.13	.15	−0.21	[–0.37, 0.05]
Arrests	4.17	5.30	4.03	5.32	4.73	5.21	0.85	.36	−0.13	[–0.73, 0.47]
VCI	90.31	12.54	89.66	12.70	92.89	11.65	3.31	.07	−0.26	[–1.67, 1.15]
Reading level	6.63	3.61	6.16	3.64	8.50	2.85	21.96	<.001	−0.67	[–1.07, 0.28]

Note. Reading levels were estimated on different measures: WIAT-III for genuine and WRAT-4 for feigning. CI = confidence interval; VCI = Verbal Comprehension Index; WIAT-III = Wechsler Individual Achievement Test–Third Edition; WRAT-4 = Wide Range Achievement Test–Fourth Edition.

Measures

For succinctness, this section summarizes psychological measures relevant to the current study. Given that the genuine sample was collected as part of programmatic Miranda research, additional measures were also administered that varied across investigations.

MRCI

The MRCI (N. E. S. Goldstein et al., 2012, 2014) are a collection of four forensic assessment instruments (FAIs) that were previously described in the introduction. With the exception of CMR-R-II (“0” for incorrect and “1” for correct), MRCI scales are scored “0” for incorrect, “1” for partially correct, and “2” for correct. According to N. E. S. Goldstein and colleagues (2012), alphas for MRCI scales range from .54 to .75 in their juvenile justice sample. In the current study, the genuine sample evidenced a wider range of alphas (i.e., MRCI CMR-II = .62; CMR-R-II = .29; FRI = .31; CMV-II = .78).

JMQ

The JMQ (Rogers, 2010), true–false questionnaire, is a simplified version of the 25-item adult MQ (Rogers, Sewell, et al., 2012) plus 15 additional juvenile-focused items. It is easily comprehended requiring only a Grade 5.5 reading level. Influenced by Grisso’s (1981) seminal work, three additional JMQ components address juvenile Miranda misconceptions about (a) the permanence of safeguards, (b) the adversarial relationships with police, and (c) the allegiance of one’s attorney. According to Sharf, Rogers, Williams, and Drogin (2017), the JMQ has excellent reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = .98) and content validity (ICC = .95).

Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence–Second Edition (WASI-II)

The WASI-II (Wechsler, 2011) is a well-validated brief measure of intellectual functioning composed of a VCI and a Perceptual Reasoning Index (PRI). Because verbal abilities are linked to Miranda performance (see Colwell et al., 2005), the two VCI subtests (i.e., vocabulary and similarities) were administered. The VCI scales have demonstrated high internal reliability (rs of .91 and .89, respectively) and interrater reliabilities (rs of .95 and .94, respectively). Moreover, the WASI-II VCI’s concurrent validity is excellent (r = .88) when compared with that of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Fourth Edition VCI scale (WAIS-IV; Wechsler, 2008).

Wechsler Individual Achievement Test–Third Edition (WIAT-III; Reading Comprehension [RC] Subtest)

The RC subtest of the WIAT-III (Wechsler, 2009) assesses an individual’s ability to understand written language. The RC subtest has high internal consistency (r = .86) and good convergent validity with other reading comprehension measures (Wechsler, 2009).

Wide Range Achievement Test–Fourth Edition (WRAT-4; Word Reading Subtest)

The WRAT-4 (Wilkinson & Robertson, 2006) is a widely used screening measure of achievement. The Word Reading subtest was administered; it has demonstrated very good reliability (r = .86) and good convergent validity with the WIAT-II (r = .82; Wilkinson & Robertson, 2006) and WIAT-III (r = .75; Wechsler, 2009).

Representative Juvenile Warnings

Rogers and colleagues examined data from two national surveys (see Rogers, Blackwood, et al., 2012; Rogers, Hazelwood, Sewell, Shuman, & Blackwood, 2008) and developed representative juvenile Miranda warnings. Subsequently, Rogers, Sewell, et al. (2012) constructed three representative Miranda warnings via prototypical analysis based upon Flesch–Kincaid reading grade estimates: 4.1 for easy, 7.6 for the moderate, and 10.5 for difficult warnings. The current study utilizes the easy and moderate juvenile warnings.

Crime Scenario

The same crime scenario was used for both genuine and feigning samples. To help participants to identify with the scenario, they were given a version corresponding to their gender. The version for females is reproduced here:

AJ is about your age and in the same grade. One day AJ broke into Mr. Jones’ house, down the street from her home around 4 P.M. She broke out a window with a small rock. She took about $50 in cash and a fancy watch that she put on her wrist. Somehow, the police figured out that it might have been AJ who broke into the house. So a day later the police got AJ at school and took her to the police station to ask her some questions about whether she did the crime.

Genuine Instructions

The instructions in the genuine condition were presented verbally, with the participant following along via written instructions, on an individual basis. Participants were informed they would be answering questions related to Miranda rights, and completing additional tasks that ranged in difficulty from easy to challenging. All participants were instructed to try their best and to respond honestly on all measures.

Feigning Instructions

Via the feigning instructions, the juvenile’s goal was to convince the evaluating psychologist that the Miranda waiver was invalid so his or her confession might be ruled inadmissible. The version for males is reproduced here.

Outcome

AJ gave up his rights and confessed. His lawyer tells AJ that he is in big trouble if the judge ever hears his confession. As AJ sees it, he has to make the judge believe he did not understand the Miranda warning that was read to him. AJ wants the judge to believe he was clueless when he gave up his rights.

Your Goal

Pretend you are AJ, and the judge sends you to see a psychologist. The psychologist will give you some tests. Your only hope to avoid serving time is to get your confession thrown out. You need to fool the psychologist and her tests. Convince her you did not understand the Miranda warning. Make it look on the tests that you could not think straight about these Miranda rights.

The Challenge

Are you smart enough to fool the psychologist? Can you “beat” the tests and get your confession thrown out?

The Warning

These tests have trick questions to catch fakers. Watch out for them. If the psychologist catches you faking, you will get a very bad report. If this happens, you could serve even more time.

These instructions contain two components aimed at improving feigners’ involvement in the simulation condition (Rogers, 2008c). Although external incentives (e.g., cash) were not permitted, these instructions include a challenge (e.g., “smart enough”) as an internal motivation. To ensure that feigners took into account the credibility of their simulation, a warning was provided about the severe negative consequences of being identified as faking.

Procedure

Informed Consent and Juvenile Assent

The consent/assent process with juveniles varied by the different sites. At Denton County, parents provided informed consent directly. Due to the lack of parental access, a passive consent process was implemented at Collin County with University of North Texas (UNT) institutional review board (IRB) approval. Used effectively in past Miranda research (Cauffman & Steinberg, 2000), parents or guardians were mailed a description of the study and an informed consent form. The packet also provided contact information for the principal investigator to address any questions about the study. Parents or guardians could decline either by email, or by postal mail utilizing an included self-addressed and stamped envelope.

Following parental consent, each juvenile participant involved in the current study provided his or her own written informed assent. Juveniles met individually with a researcher in a private room. They were provided a copy of the assent form, which a researcher also explained to them verbally. Each participant had the opportunity to ask questions or raise any concerns.

Recruitment and Confidential Data Collection

A list of potential participants was generated for each facility, based on the active or passive consent of their parents. Each potential participant was explained the nature of the study in a private visitation room. With informed assent, data collection was completed in the same room. The participants’ confidentiality was ensured by using private rooms and anonymous research protocols without any personal identifiers.

Scenario and Miranda Warning

All participants were provided with the same crime scenario. After reading it to themselves, they heard the scenario read aloud by a researcher. Next, they received an orally administered representative Miranda warning. It was either the easy or moderate version, which was determined in a quasi-random method (i.e., research packets alternating between them). They were immediately tested on their Miranda recall, with instructions to put forth their best effort.

Participants in the feigning condition were then given the additional simulation instructions. They were allowed to keep the copy of the scenario and the feigning instructions for reference. These documents were collected from participants prior to the manipulation check.

Order of Test Administration

For Phase 1, participants in the feigning condition were administered the two Miranda measures in a counterbalanced order. So as not to exclude any participants, the JMQ was read aloud to participants who evidenced any observable difficulties, such as lacking reading fluency or appearing to have any difficulties with reading words. In such cases, the researcher read the JMQ items out loud at a relaxed pace, while the participant circled either “T” or “F” on their copy. All other measures were administered orally.

For Phase 2, all participants were instructed to provide their best effort. They completed two cognitive measures in a counterbalanced order. All were administered the WASI-II, but different measures of achievement: WIAT-III in the genuine condition and the briefer WRAT-4 in the feigned condition because of time constraints. At the end of Phase 2, participants were given an opportunity to ask questions and then thanked for their participation.

Manipulation Check

In the feigning condition, the manipulation check was administered after participants completed the JMQ and MRCI. First, they were asked to recall the feigning instructions and state whether they had followed them. Second, they were asked the purpose of feigning Miranda impairment as provided in feigning instructions. Third, participants then rated their level of “feigning effort” on a scale from 1 (did not try at all) to 10 (tried your hardest).

Training of Researchers

Doctoral students on the Miranda research team received extensive training on the administration of specialized Miranda measures. Training involved didactic material and practice administrations. Accuracy of scoring involved two phases: (a) serving as an independent rater and (b) administering and scoring the Miranda measures while a more experienced researcher provided independent ratings. Using this training model, interrater reliability was previously established (Rogers, Henry, et al., 2017) on 45 juveniles using MRCI scales; ICCs ranging from .83 for the FRI to .95 for the CMV-II (M ICC = .89).

Results

Sample Refinement and Description

As a result of the manipulation check, seven participants in the feigning sample were removed from subsequent analyses because they could not recall the feigning instructions or reported less than a moderate effort (i.e., <5). With those removed, the final feigning sample consisted of 62 juvenile detainees. Their average effort scores were 7.65 (SD = 1.40), which denotes a moderately high effort.

The investigation consisted of 307 legally involved youth: 245 juveniles in the genuine sample and 62 in the feigning sample. As expected, the two samples evidenced similar proportions based on gender and ethnicity (see Table 1). Moreover, they evidenced minimal differences in terms of age, education, and number of arrests. Although a nonsignificant trend emerged for the VCI, the mean difference between the two samples is not clinically relevant, being less than three points. However, the samples differed in reading levels by more than two grades resulting in a low moderate effect size (d = −0.67); this issue is subsequently addressed in two supplemental tables using restricted-reading groups (Grades 5.0 to 9.0).

Feigning Miranda Impairments

The first major objective was to investigate the ability of legally involved juveniles to feign severely compromised Miranda abilities. As summarized in Table 2, juveniles found the forced-choice format of the CMR-R-II the easiest to feign, with a very large effect size of 2.32. In terms of percentiles (see Rogers, Henry, et al., 2017), these juveniles dropped CMR-R-II scores from the average percentile range to approximately the first percentile, a clear indication of presumably extreme impairment. The other three MRCI measures produced moderate effect sizes, ranging from 0.91 to 1.15.²

Table 2:

Differences for Juvenile Detainees Between Genuine and Feigning Samples on JMQ and MRCI

Measures (no. of items)	Genuine		Simulation		F	p	d	95% CI
Measures (no. of items)	M	SD	M	SD	F	p	d	95% CI
MRCI (66)
CMR-II (5)	8.59	1.97	6.02	3.03	63.80	<.001	1.15	[0.90, 1.41]
CMR-R-II (15)	12.35	1.59	7.60	3.27	258.77	<.001	2.32	[2.09, 2.55]
FRI (15)	25.13	3.31	21.12	5.16	53.53	<.001	1.07	[0.64, 1.49]
NI (5)	9.22	1.16	9.07	1.60	0.47	.49	0.12	[–0.03, 0.26]
RC (5)	8.92	1.36	7.58	2.69	26.47	<.001	0.78	[0.59, 0.98]
RS (5)	6.99	2.36	4.68	2.78	44.44	<.001	0.94	[0.66, 1.22]
CMV-II (16)	22.77	4.88	17.97	6.54	38.16	<.001	0.91	[0.31, 1.51]
JMQ (40)
Primary total (15)	10.54	1.95	6.15	3.05	190.61	<.001	1.98	[1.73, 2.24]
Juvenile total (7)	4.97	1.54	3.13	1.56	67.43	<.001	1.19	[1.01, 1.37]
Right to silence (6)	4.20	1.13	2.63	1.41	82.60	<.001	1.31	[1.18, 1.45]
Risks of talking (4)	2.80	0.95	1.93	1.10	36.99	<.001	0.88	[0.77, 1.00]
Right to an attorney (6)	4.26	1.12	2.52	1.64	93.80	<.001	1.40	[1.26, 1.54]
Free legal services (3)	1.93	0.75	1.14	0.86	50.33	<.001	1.02	[0.93, 1.11]
Continuing rights (3)	2.17	0.70	1.63	0.84	26.53	<.001	0.74	[0.65, 0.82]
Police deception (3)	1.42	0.93	1.56	0.88	1.12	.29	−0.15	[–0.26, 0.05]
Misconceptions (4)	2.36	0.79	1.93	0.80	13.93	<.001	0.54	[0.45, 0.63]
Permanence of rights (2)	1.81	0.43	0.69	0.81	211.24	<.001	2.11	[2.05, 2.17]
Adversarial–Police (5)	3.39	1.38	2.95	1.40	4.83	.03	0.32	[0.16, 0.48]
Allegiance–Attorney (4)	2.92	0.98	1.40	1.20	104.98	<.001	1.48	[1.36, 1.59]

Note. For measures, JMQ = Juvenile Miranda Quiz; MRCI = Miranda Rights Comprehension Index; CI = confidence interval; CMR-II = Comprehension of Miranda Rights–II; CMR-R-II = Comprehension of Miranda Rights–Recognition-II; FRI =Function of Rights in Interrogation; NI = nature of interrogation; RC = right to counsel; RS = right to silence; CMV-II = Comprehension of Miranda Vocabulary–II.

Legally involved juveniles received nearly perfect scores on the FRI Nature of Interrogation (FRI-NI) subscale under both conditions (i.e., 9.22 and 9.07 out of a possible 10 points). Given their ability to simulate on all other MRCI scales and subscales (see Table 2), it may be reasonable to assume that juveniles did not see these very general questions about police questioning as a relevant factor in demonstrating their putatively impaired Miranda abilities.

JMQ Primary Total, an overall indicator of impaired Miranda misconceptions, can easily be feigned with a very large effect size (1.98). In contrast, the Juvenile Total proved comparatively less discriminating (1.19). Aggregate scores for the five Miranda components ranged in effect sizes from moderate (0.74 for continuing rights) to very large (2.11 for permanence of rights). Simulators cannot feign what they do not know. This finding appeared to be true of Police Deception with no observed difference between conditions (see Table 2).

Development of Miranda Feigning Scales

Rogers (2008a) summarized six well-validated detection strategies for the assessment of feigned cognitive impairment, such as faked Miranda abilities. Of these, the previously described FE strategy was applied to the CMV-II. Seven items (i.e., 2, 3, 6, 9, 12, 14, and 15) were identified that were failed (i.e., score of “0”) by less than 10% of the legally involved juveniles under standard (genuine) instructions. The average failure rate was merely 6.7%. In contrast, the majority of genuine juveniles obtained partially correct or correct scores on these vocabulary words. It is described as the CMV-II-FE scale. Aligned with FE strategy, especially poor performance on the CMR-R-II was also examined.

Three JMQ indicators utilized distinct detection strategies. Based on FE, the JMQ FE-85 is composed of 11 items (i.e., 4, 11, 12, 13, 19, 21, 26, 29, 37, 38, and 39), on which genuine juveniles are highly successful, averaging 90.3% correct. The JMQ FE-85 includes six of seven MQ-FE-85 items plus five juvenile-specific items. As a sophisticated detection strategy, the PC was used with two levels under the genuine condition: easy items (i.e., >70% correct) and difficult items (i.e., <50% correct). More specifically, the 22 easy items (i.e., 3, 4, 5, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 37, 38, and 39) averaged 83.1% correct. The nine difficult items (i.e., 2, 7, 8, 10, 15, 22, 24, 31, and 34) averaged only 39.5% correct. To calculate PC, the percentages correct of difficult items were subtracted from the percentages correct of easy items. Thus, negative scores indicated better performance on difficult items than easy items.

The third detection strategy, obvious versus subtle, has previously been applied only to feigned mental disorders (Rogers, 2008a). As shown in Table 2, two MQ aggregate scores had large (1.48 for Allegiance–Attorney) or very large (2.11 for permanence of rights) effect sizes. Because their content is transparent and easy to fake, they are characterized as obvious. In contrast, two other aggregate scores evidenced only very small changes in either the predicted (0.32 for Adversarial–Police) or opposite (–0.15 for Police Deception) directions. These nontransparent scores are characterized as subtle. An obvious-subtle (O-S) ratio was calculated: The average percentage for subtle scales was divided by average percentage for obvious scales.

Effectiveness of Miranda Feigning Scales

The Miranda feigning scales varied dramatically in their effectiveness at discriminating between genuine and feigning conditions (see Table 3). For the MRCI, the CMR-R-II yielded a very large effect size (d = 2.30) that eclipsed the CMV-II-FE. For the JMQ, the JMQ FE-85 (d = 2.78) and JMQ PC (d = 2.24) produced very large effect sizes, whereas the JMQ O-S yielded a large effect size (d = 1.42).

Table 3:

Differences for Genuine and Feigning Samples of Juvenile Detainees on JMQ and MRCI Feigning Scales

Scales	Genuine		Feigning		F	p	d	95% CI
Scales	M	SD	M	SD	F	p	d	95% CI
CMR-R-II	12.35	1.59	7.66	3.24	258.77	<.001	2.30	[2.07, 2.53]
CMV-II-FE	11.66	2.17	9.76	3.40	28.97	<.001	0.77	[0.49, 1.05]
JMQ FE-85	9.93	1.26	4.55	3.50	366.70	<.001	2.78	[2.56, 3.00]
MQ FE-85	6.05	0.94	3.20	2.23	229.61	<.001	2.20	[2.05, 2.34]
JMQ O-S	1.07	0.47	2.17	1.45	87.71	<.001	1.42	[1.33, 1.51]
JMQ PC	0.44	0.20	−0.08	0.33	219.36	<.001	2.24	[2.21, 2.26]

Note. See text for a description of the feigning indicators. For measures, JMQ = Juvenile Miranda Quiz; MRCI = Miranda Rights Comprehension Index; for scales—CMR-R-II = Comprehension of Miranda Rights–Recognition-II; CMV-II = Comprehension of Miranda Vocabulary–II; FE = floor effect; MQ = Miranda Quiz; O-S = obvious-subtle; PC = performance curve; CI = confidence interval.

The evaluation of response styles on Miranda scales should utilize cut scores for both feigning and genuine responding. The current study used base rates of 15% and 25%, consistent with past SAMA feigning studies (Rogers, Henry, et al., 2017; Rogers, Robinson, & Henry, 2017).³ As summarized in Table 4, MRCI scales consistently achieved high specificities (.93 to 1.00) with much more variable sensitivities (.26 to .86). As noted previously, the CMR-R-II is the easiest to feign thus producing improbably poor performances. The N. E. S. Goldstein et al. (2014) suggested cut score (i.e., CMR-R < 7) misses the majority of Miranda feigners, whereas a moderately higher cut score (i.e., CMR-R < 10) continues to have a very high specificity (.96), but with a much better sensitivity (.61). When using a well-defined cut score, as opposed to a single point cut score, the sensitivity increases further to a strong .86.

Table 4:

Effectiveness of MRCI and SAMA Cut Scores for Suspected Feigning

Cut scores	Group	%	Sens.	Spec.	OCC	PPP and NPP at different base rates
						BR = 15%		BR = 25%
						PPP	NPP	PPP	NPP
Feigning screens
CMR-R-II < 7	1 pt.	—	.42	1.00	.88	.95	.91	.97	.84
CMR-R-II < 7	WD	93.6	.43	1.00	.91	1.00	.91	1.00	.84
CMR-R-II < 10	1 pt.	—	.61	.96	.89	.72	.93	.83	.88
CMR-R-II < 10	WD	73.8	.86	.98	.96	.90	.97	.94	.95
CMV-II-FE < 9	1 pt.	—	.24	.93	.79	.38	.87	.54	.79
CMV-II-FE < 9	WD	80.7	.26	.95	.83	.49	.88	.65	.79
JMQ FE-85 < 7	1 pt.	—	.71	.98	.93	.85	.95	.92	.91
JMQ FE-85 < 7	WD	87.8	.75	.99	.94	.93	.96	.96	.92
MQ FE-85 < 6	1 pt.	—	.80	.75	.76	.36	.95	.52	.92
JMQ O-S > 1.60	1 pt.	—	.53	.90	.84	.47	.92	.63	.85
JMQ O-S > 1.60	WD	86.2	.54	.94	.87	.59	.92	.73	.86
JMQ PC < 0.00	1 pt.	—	.60	.98	.90	.83	.93	.90	.88
JMQ PC < 0.00	WD	92.4	.65	1.00	.93	.96	.94	.98	.90
JMQ PC < 0.10	1 pt.	—	.71	.94	.90	.68	.95	.80	.91
JMQ PC < 0.10	WD	84.2	.70	.97	.92	.82	.95	.90	.91
						BR = 85%		BR = 75%
Genuine responding
JMQ PC > 0.40	1 pt.	—	.62	.95	.68	.98	.30	.97	.45
JMQ PC > 0.40	WD	69.8	.63	.98	.71	.99	.32	.99	.47

Note. See text for a description of the feigning indicators. For measures, MRCI = Miranda Rights Comprehension Index; JMQ = Juvenile Miranda Quiz; SAMA = Standardized Assessment of Miranda Abilities. For scales, CMR-R-II = Comprehension of Miranda Rights–Recognition-II; CMV-II = Comprehension of Miranda Vocabulary–II; FE = floor effect; MQ = Miranda Quiz; O-S = obvious-subtle; PC = performance curve. Groups were established by either 1 pt. = single point discrimination or WD = well-defined cut scores; % = the percentage remaining for the WD cut score. WD cut scores removed a narrow indeterminate category of ±1 pt. for scales with points (i.e., CMR-R-II, CMV-II-FE, and JMQ FE-85). For more complex scoring, ±0.5 SD was removed: .237 for JMQ O-S, and .10 for JMQ PC. MQ FE-85 was too limited in its range of scores (i.e., 0-7) to establish a WD cut score. For utility estimates, BR = base rate; sens. = sensitivity; spec. = specificity; OCC = overall correct classification for the study; PPP = positive predictive power; NPP = negative predictive power.

Two SAMA feigning scales representing different detection strategies performed well as feigning screens. Consistent with past MQ research, the JMQ FE-85 < 7 produced outstanding specificity (.98) with a moderately effective sensitivity (.71), demonstrating the usefulness of the FE strategy.⁴ Utilizing a well-defined cut score modestly improves utility estimates (sensitivity = .75; specificity = .99) with most persons still being classified (87.8% retained). For the PC, nearly comparable (JMQ PC < .10) or worse performance (JMQ PC < 0.0) on easy items—when observed—appeared indicative of poor effort, but some feigners did not perform so poorly (sensitivities of .71 and .60, respectively). Finally, JMQ O-S > 1.60 proved less effective than other SAMA screens, but as later discussed, has a potential role for juveniles coached to feign Miranda impairment.

Forensic psychologists may have more confidence in their results when juvenile examinees show much stronger performances of JMQ easy than difficult items. With a JMQ PC difference > .40, a very high specificity (.95) is achieved with moderate sensitivity (.62). Because utility estimates rely on the prevalence of genuine responding, the base rates must be adjusted accordingly (see Table 4). With a base rate of 85%, the JMQ PC curve produces an outstanding PPP of 98%.

One potential limitation of the current study involved the higher reading level observed in the feigning sample. To address this concern, we restricted the reading levels to Grades 5.0 through 9.0, which retains 40.3% (n = 25) of the feigning sample and 25.0% (n = 59) of the genuine sample. This resulted in roughly comparable reading levels between the genuine (M = 6.70, SD = 0.94) and feigning (M = 7.18, SD = 1.28; F = 3.77, p = .06, d = 0.46) groups. As ancillary analyses (see supplemental material), Tables 2 and 3 were recomputed with the restricted-reading groups (see Tables S1 and S2). Overall, the restricted-reading groups produced slightly larger effect sizes for both the MRCI (M ds of 1.17 vs. 1.04) and JMQ (1.36 vs. 1.07) than the total samples. In looking at feigning indicators (Table S2), the MRCI appeared to be possibly affected by the restricted-reading groups (0.75 vs. 1.11), whereas the JMQ continued to produce very large effect sizes (2.04 vs. 2.16). Clearly, more research is needed on how reading and listening abilities may affect research on adolescent feigning, especially with legally involved juveniles.

Discussion

A Major Blind Spot in Adolescent Forensic Assessments

A classic study by Faust, Hart, Guilmette, and Arkes (1988) found that experienced neuropsychologists evidenced no accuracy (0.0% correct) in the detection of adolescent feigning, while ironically expressing considerable confidence in the accuracy of their conclusions. In the ensuing three decades, research on adolescent feigning has continued to languish, especially in the criminal forensic area. To date, we have found only three malingering/feigning empirical studies using juvenile or adolescent offenders (i.e., Gast & Hart, 2010; Rogers, Hinds, & Sewell, 1996; Rogers et al., 2002). Both simulation studies (Rogers et al., 1996; Rogers, Vitacco, et al., 2002) provided convincing evidence regarding juvenile offenders’ ability to feign both psychopathology and psychopathy.

A respected colleague recently questioned the need for research specifically on adolescent feigning, when the more expedient path would be to simply extrapolate from the vast adult literature. Conceptually, this approach overlooks how developmental processes can influence genuine responses, ability to deceive, and potential motivations for feigning (Salekin et al., in press). Empirically, feigning scales may not function similarly in adolescent samples. For instance, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–2 (MMPI-2) F scale yields low levels of endorsement among adult genuine responders, but adolescent inpatients have much higher endorsement levels averaging 34.0% endorsement for the top nine F items (see McGrath et al., 2000, Table 1, p. 287).

The current study represents the first known investigation to evaluate directly the capacity of juvenile offenders to feign a legally relevant incapacity, despite scores of such studies with their adult counterparts. Forensic psychologists should be concerned that juvenile offenders may easily compromise their forensic findings simply by feigning. With virtually no preparation (<1 min), these juvenile detainees easily feigned very severe Miranda impairment. Using MRCI normative data (Rogers, Sharf, et al., 2017), Miranda adolescent feigners reduced their average scores below the 20th percentile. MRCI data (see Table 2) are presented in bullet points rounded to the nearest whole percentile for the 15 to 16 age range:

CMR-II from 44th percentile (8.59) to the 11th percentile (6.02).

CMR-R-II from 57th percentile (12.35) to 2nd percentile (7.60).

FRI from 49th percentile (25.13) to 8th percentile (21.12).

CMV-II from 42nd percentile (22.77) to the 17th percentile (17.97).

According to Ryba, Brodsky, and Shlosberg (2007), the CMR and FRI were given the greatest weight by forensic practitioners conducting Miranda assessments. Assuming this holds true for the revised MRCI, adolescent feigners can produce average scores on these key scales close to the lowest decile, which if true, would seriously question the validity of their Miranda waivers.

The JMQ Primary Total and Juvenile Total scores can easily be suppressed by juvenile Miranda feigners. In looking at the five Miranda components, an interesting pattern emerges.

It is much easier to feign those components that are well known, such as the right to silence (d = 1.31) and right to counsel (d = 1.40) than the other three components (ds from 0.74 to 1.02). This pattern is further accentuated with Police Deception and Adversarial–Police resulting in minimal effect sizes (–0.15 and 0.32, respectively).

Effectiveness of Detection Strategies for Juvenile Miranda Feigning

Four separate detection strategies were investigated in the current study. It must first be acknowledged that these embedded scales were developed after the measures were created, thereby limiting the available items. Thus, this comparative analysis applies only to the MRCI and JMQ and cannot be generalized more broadly to the effectiveness of detection strategies with other measures or different psycholegal constructs.

Two scales utilized the FE, a detection strategy that has proven effective with embedded indicators (Rogers, 2008a). Their remarkably dissimilar results reflect the relative availability of items “too easy to miss” (Rogers & Gillard, 2011, p. 177). For the JMQ, its JMQ FE-85 achieves approximately 90% accuracy among juvenile detainees. This detection strategy was previously cross validated with two independent samples of adult detainees (i.e., MQ-FE-85). Thus, the current finding with an exceptionally large effect size (d = 2.78) provided strong evidence of its validity and effectiveness with juvenile detainees.

For the MRCI, the search for very easy items was only partially effective. The CMV-II-FE used seven items with partial or full success, which is substantially different from typical FE strategy (i.e., being completely successful). The inclusion of one point (partially correct) responses limits the clear demarcation between correct and incorrect responses, which is reflected in its moderate effect size (d = 0.77). However, the CMR-R-II might be characterized as a FE strategy, given its ceiling effect (see Rogers et al., 2017b). This idea is strongly supported by the high average performance of juvenile detainees (12.35 of 15 or 82.3%) and its very large effect size (d = 2.30).

The performance-curve detection strategy comparing JMQ results based on item difficulty proved the most versatile of the detection strategies. Performing more poorly on easier items (JMQ PC < 0.00) appears to be compelling evidence of feigning—on both conceptual and empirical grounds. In contrast, substantially better performance (JMQ PC > .40) on easier items was strongly consistent with genuine responders. The JMQ PC yielded a very large effect size (d = 2.24) as well as effective cut scores for both Miranda feigning and genuine responding.

Finally, an O-S detection strategy utilizes the transparency of aggregate scores. Obvious aggregate scores can easily be feigned, whereas subtle ones are much more challenging. On this point, Frederick (2003) cogently observed that knowledge of the correct items was a necessary prerequisite to feigning on forced-choice measures; otherwise, only chance performance can be realized. Although producing a very large effect size (d = 1.42), it did not perform as well as either JMQ FE-85 or the JMQ PC < 0.10 as feigning screens.

Limitations and Future Directions

Forensic evaluators should take in consideration the low MRCI alphas reported for juvenile justice samples for both CMR-II and FRI in both the validation samples (.54 and .54; N. E. S. Goldstein et al., 2014) and the current study (.29 and .31, respectively). Conclusions might be best limited to how item-level deficits affect a particular juvenile’s Miranda understanding and reasoning.

As a well-known limitation, simulation research cannot possibly approximate the real-world consequences (see Rogers, 2008c) for feigning (detected and undetected) in actual forensic evaluations. Because of institutional restrictions, feigners in the current investigation were provided with internal motivation but not external incentives. However, simulators with higher stakes may be detected more frequently than their lower stakes counterparts (see, for example, Caso, Gnisci, Vrij, & Mann, 2005). Thus, even stronger results may have been found with the addition of real-world external incentives.

The current research investigated differences on feigning scales between genuine and feigning groups for both the entire sample and a restricted reading range (i.e., Grades 5.0 to 9.0). However, psychologists are cautioned against using these scales in youth with low reading levels (i.e., <5.0), because their validity remains untested. Clearly, future research should examine their effectiveness in this population.

Methodologically, future studies could consider two unexamined research areas. We have informally observed that some juvenile offenders appear less invested when asked to complete school-like measures (e.g., CMV-II). This observation could be examined via a manipulation check or as a separate response style (e.g., rushing through the answers). Similar to Frederick’s (2003) inconsistent response style, the goal would be to ensure that little effort (trying but not very hard) is not mistaken for Miranda feigning. When the MRCI and JMQ are used solely as screens—their intended purpose—the risk of far-reaching misclassifications is minimized.

As a second area, the effects of preparation or coaching should also be empirically investigated. For example, FE items—especially when presented in stand-alone measures—are especially vulnerable to simple coaching (e.g., “perform well”). In contrast, scales with more complex strategies (PC and O-S) should be less susceptible to preparation. Theoretically, the JMQ O-S difference would be particularly difficult to foil because simulators lack insight into what they do not know. As noted by Frederick, faking items in a two-choice format requires knowledge of the correct answer.

Professional Applications

According to the Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology (American Psychological Association, 2013), forensic practitioners are expected to “seek information that will differentially test plausible rival hypotheses” (Guideline 9.01, p. 15). When markedly impaired performance is observed on Miranda measures, the obvious rival hypothesis involves response styles. Do severe impaired scores reflect genuine effort or deliberate feigning? With the current findings, psychologists have clear evidence on how easily Miranda impairment can be faked by juvenile detainees. This finding is not surprising. Whenever transparent questions are asked, the feigning of legal incapacities is easily demonstrated. Only with nontransparent items can feigning be partially stymied. On this point, Norton and Ryba (2010) found the nontransparent questions on the Evaluation of Competency to Stand Trial–Revised (ECST-R; Rogers, Tillbrook, & Sewell, 2004) were difficult to feign; 80% or more of simulators could not produce likely “incompetent” ECST-R profiles. In sharp contrast, Miranda measures have proven highly susceptible to feigning, which must be addressed systematically by forensic evaluators.

For Miranda assessments of adolescent offenders, easily implemented forensic screens are now available. Importantly, the specificities of these feigning screens have been evaluated on a large database involving 236 legally involved youth. For the MRCI, the CMR-R-II clearly stands out as the most effective screen. Using a well-defined cut score for CMR-R-II < 10 yields excellent utility estimates with PPPs and NPPs exceeding .90. As an obvious limitation, 26.2% remain unclassified, falling in the indeterminate category.

The JMQ provides two robust strategies that can easily be applied to juvenile data. The JMQ PC < 0.0 represents a conceptually strong strategy for identifying likely feigners. Intentionally poor effort appears to be the only rational explanation for scoring worse on easy items (M = 83.1% correct) than difficult items (M = 39.5% correct). The risk of the PC strategy is that feigners may not feel compelled to perform so poorly, thereby substantially reducing sensitivity (see Rogers, Robinson, & Henry, 2017). In contrast to the JMQ PC, the JMQ FE-85 builds on past MQ research, which has repeatedly demonstrated the effectiveness of an embedded FE strategy. With high utility estimates for both, forensic psychologists may choose to examine both for NPPs, but rely more heavily on the JMQ FE-85 for PPPs. Important to note, the findings of the current study serve as a promising avenue for the detection of feigning. However, these cut scores for possible feigning should raise a red flag and prompt further examination.

Concluding Thoughts

Feigning research on adolescent offenders has been minimal, averaging about one study per decade. One lesson from the current investigation is that extrapolating from adult to juvenile forensic populations carries substantial risks (see the utility estimates of the MQ-FE-85 vs. JMQ FE-85). For both forensic practice and research alike, the message is compellingly simple: psychologists must examine carefully the feigning by adolescent offenders in general as well as the specific feigning of legal incapacities, such as severe impairments of Miranda-relevant abilities.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note:

This study was supported by Grant No. 1219430 from Law and Social Sciences Program, National Science Foundation to Richard Rogers as the principal investigator. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. Richard Rogers receives royalties on the Miranda Quiz (MQ) from Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.

Notes

Richard Rogers, PhD, ABPP, is a Regents professor at the University of North Texas. In 2011, he became only the third psychologist in American Psychological Association (APA) history to receive distinguished professional contributions in both applied research and public policy for his scholarship in forensic psychology. As embodied in this article, malingering and Miranda abilities bring together his two areas of programmatic research.

Allyson J. Sharf, MS, is an advanced doctoral student in clinical psychology at the University of North Texas. Under the mentorship of Dr. Rogers, she has been a highly productive scholar with two first-authored and eight coauthored articles. Her next academic goals include an internship at the University of North Carolina and defending her dissertation.

Sarah A. Henry, MA, is also an advanced doctoral student in clinical psychology at the University of North Texas. She has been very active in forensic research as part of the Rogers team. She successfully defended her dissertation and is completing her internship at Center for Forensic Services, Western State Hospital.

Eric Y. Drogin, JD, PhD, ABPP is an attorney and forensic psychologist serving on the faculties of the Harvard Medical School, the Harvard Longwood Psychiatry Residency Training Program, and the Harvard Law School Trial Advocacy Workshops. He is a prolific scholar on a broad range of clinical forensic issues. He recently collaborated with Dr. Rogers on Mirandized Statements: Successfully Navigating the Legal and Psychological Issues published by the American Bar Association.

References

American Psychological Association. (2013). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychology. American Psychologist, 68, 7-19. doi:10.1037/a0029889

Caso

Gnisci

Vrij

Mann

(2005). Processes underlying deception: An empirical analysis of truth and lies when manipulating the stakes. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 2, 195-202. doi:10.1002/jip.32

Cauffman

Steinberg

(2000). (Im)maturity of judgment in adolescence: Why adolescents may be less culpable than adults. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 18, 741-760. doi:10.1002/bsl.416

Colwell

L. H.

Cruise

K. R.

Guy

L. S.

McCoy

W. K.

Fernandez

Ross

H. H.

(2005). The influence of psychosocial maturity on male juvenile offenders’ comprehension and understanding of the Miranda warning. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 33, 444-454.

Faust

Hart

K. J.

Guilmette

T. J.

Arkes

H. R.

(1988). Neuropsychologists’ capacity to detect adolescent malingerers. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 19, 508-515. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.19.5.508

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2016). Crime in the United States 2015, Table 38. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/table-38

Feld

B. C.

(2013). Real interrogation: What actually happens when cops question kids? Law & Society Review, 47, 1-36. doi:10.1111/lasr.12000

Frederick

R. I.

(2003). The validity indicator profile (2nd ed.). Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems.

Gast

Hart

K. J.

(2010). The performance of juvenile offenders on the test of memory malingering. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 10, 53-68. doi:10.1080/15228930903173062

10.

Goldstein

A. M.

Goldstein

N. E. S.

(2010). Evaluating capacity to waive Miranda rights. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

11.

Goldstein

N. E. S.

Condie

L. O.

Kalbeitzer

Osman

Geier

J. L.

(2003). Juvenile offenders’ Miranda rights comprehension and self-reported likelihood of offering false confessions. Assessment, 10, 359-369. doi:10.1177/1073191103259535

12.

Goldstein

N. E. S.

Zelle

Grisso

(2012). Miranda Rights Comprehension Instruments (MRCI). Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press.

13.

Goldstein

N. E. S.

Zelle

Grisso

(2014). Miranda Rights Comprehension Instruments (MRCI): Manual for juvenile and adult evaluations. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press.

14.

Grisso

(1981). Juveniles’ waiver of rights: Legal and psychological competence. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

15.

McGrath

R. E.

Pogge

D. L.

Stein

L. R.

Graham

J. R.

Zaccario

Piacentini

(2000). Development of an Infrequency-Psychopathology Scale for the MMPI-A: The Fp-A Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 74, 282-295. doi:10.1207/S15327752JPA7402_8

16.

Merten

Rogers

(2017). An international perspective on feigned mental disabilities: Conceptual issues and continuing controversies. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 35, 97-112. doi:10.1002/bsl.2274

17.

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

18.

Norton

K. A.

Ryba

N. L.

(2010). An investigation of the ECST-R as a measure of competence and feigning. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 10, 91-106. doi:10.1080/15228930903446625

19.

Oberlander

L. B.

Goldstein

N. E. S.

Goldstein

A. M.

(2003). Competence to confess. In Goldstein

A. M.

(Ed.), Handbook of psychology, Vol. 11: Forensic psychology (pp. 335-357). New York, NY: John Wiley.

20.

Rogers

(2008a). Detection strategies for malingering and defensiveness. In Rogers

(Ed.), Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (3rd ed., pp. 14-35). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

21.

Rogers

(2008b). A little knowledge is a dangerous thing . . .:Emerging Miranda research and professional roles for psychologists. American Psychologist, 63, 776-787. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.63.8.776

22.

Rogers

(2008c). Researching response styles. In Rogers

(Ed.), Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (3rd ed., pp. 411-434). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

23.

Rogers

(2010). The Juvenile Miranda Quiz. Unpublished measure, University of North Texas.

24.

Rogers

Bender

S. D.

(2013). Evaluation of malingering and related response styles. In Otto

R. K.

Weiner

I. B.

(Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Forensic psychology (pp. 517-540). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

25.

Rogers

Blackwood

H. L.

Fiduccia

C. E.

Steadham

J. A.

Drogin

E. Y.

Rogstad

J. E.

(2012). Juvenile Miranda warnings: Perfunctory rituals or procedural safeguards? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39(3), 229-249. doi:10.1177/0093854811431934

26.

Rogers

Drogin

E. Y.

(2014). Mirandized statements: Successfully navigating the legal and psychological issues. Chicago, IL: American Bar Association.

27.

Rogers

Gillard

N. D.

(2011). Research methods for the assessment of malingering. In Rosenfeld

Penrod

S. D.

(Eds.), Research methods in forensic psychology (pp. 174-188). New York, NY: John Wiley.

28.

Rogers

Hazelwood

L. L.

Sewell

K. W.

Shuman

D. W.

Blackwood

H. L.

(2008). The comprehensibility and content of juvenile Miranda warnings. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 14(1), 63-87. doi:10.1037/a0013102

29.

Rogers

Henry

S. A.

Sharf

A. J.

Robinson

E. V.

Williams

M. M.

(2017). Dodging self-incriminations: An examination of feigned Miranda abilities on the SAMA. Assessment, 24, 975-986. doi:10.1177/1073191116634206

30.

Rogers

Hinds

J. D.

Sewell

K. W.

(1996). Feigning psychopathology among adolescent offenders: Validation of the SIRS, MMPI-A, and SIMS. Journal of Personality Assessment, 67, 244-257. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa6702_2

31.

Rogers

Robinson

E. V.

Henry

S. A.

(2017). Feigned adjudicative incompetence: Testing effectiveness of the ILK and SAMA with jail detainees. Assessment, 24, 173-182. doi:10.1177/1073191115605613

32.

Rogers

Sewell

K. W.

Drogin

E. Y.

Fiduccia

C. E.

(2012). Standardized Assessment of Miranda Abilities (SAMA) professional manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

33.

Rogers

Sharf

A. J.

Carter

R. M.

Henry

S. L.

Williams

M. M.

Robinson

E. V.

(2017). Validity and representative data of the MRCI with legally involved juveniles. Assessment, 24, 591-602. doi:10.1177/1073191115621792

34.

Rogers

Steadham

J. A.

Carter

R. M.

Henry

S. A.

Drogin

E. Y.

Robinson

E. V.

(2016). An examination of juveniles’ Miranda abilities: Investigating differences in Miranda recall and reasoning. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 34(4), 515-538. doi:10.1002/bsl.2243

35.

Rogers

Tillbrook

C. E.

Sewell

K. W.

(2004). Evaluation of Competency to Stand Trial-Revised (ECST-R) and professional manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.

36.

Rogers

Vitacco

M. J.

Jackson

R. L.

Martin

Collins

Sewell

K. W.

(2002). Faking psychopathy? An examination of response styles with antisocial youth. Journal of Personality Assessment, 78, 31-46. doi:10.1207/S15327752JPA7801_03

37.

Ryba

N. L.

Brodsky

S. L.

Shlosberg

(2007). Evaluations of capacity to waive Miranda rights: A survey of practitioners’ use of the Grisso instruments. Assessment, 14, 300-309. doi:10.1177/1073191110730284

38.

Salekin

R. T.

Kubak

F. A.

Lee

Harrison

Clark

A. P.

(in press). Deception in children and adolescents. In Rogers

Bender

S. D.

(Eds.), Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (4th ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

39.

Sharf

A. J.

Rogers

Williams

M. M.

(2017). Reasoning your way out of Miranda rights: How juvenile detainees relinquish their fifth amendment protections. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 3, 121-130. doi:10.1037/tps0000118

40.

Sharf

A. J.

Rogers

Williams

M. M.

Drogin

E. Y.

(2017). Evaluating juvenile detainees’ Miranda misconceptions: The discriminant validity of the Juvenile Miranda Quiz. Psychological Assessment, 29, 556-567. doi:10.1037/pas0000373

41.

Wechsler

(2008). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (4th ed.). San Antonio, TX: Pearson Assessment.

42.

Wechsler

(2009). Wechsler Individual Achievement Test–Third Edition (WIAT-III). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.

43.

Wechsler

(2011). Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence–Second Edition (WASI-II). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.

44.

Wilkinson

G. S.

Robertson

G. J.

(2006). Wide Range Achievement Test–Fourth Edition (WRAT-4) professional manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.