|
iDEA: Drexel E-repository and Archives >
Drexel Theses and Dissertations >
Drexel Theses and Dissertations >
Factor structure of the miranda rights comprehension instruments—II
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
http://hdl.handle.net/1860/2927
|
| Title: | Factor structure of the miranda rights comprehension instruments—II |
| Authors: | Zelle, Heather |
| Keywords: | Clinical psychology
Human rights -- United States
Civil rights -- United States |
| Issue Date: | 10-Dec-2008 |
| Abstract: | A waiver of Miranda rights is valid only if a suspect provides it knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. The Instruments for Assessing Understanding and Appreciation of Rights were created with the goal of assessing individuals‘ basic understanding of the Miranda rights (i.e., the knowing prong) and their appreciation of waiving those rights (i.e., the intelligent prong). The revised instruments, the Miranda Rights Comprehension Instruments-II, maintain that goal. It has been hypothesized that the component instruments load on two factors that comprise the knowing and intelligent requirements. The two-factor structure has been partially supported by product-moment correlations; however, a direct statistical analysis of the hypothetical structure has not been completed. The current study examined the factor structure of the MRCI-II. It was hypothesized that a two-factor model would provide the best fit, with the CMR-II, CMR-R-II and CMV-II loading on a factor constituting the understanding requirement and the FRI loading on a separate factor constituting the appreciation requirement. Data were collected from 183 adolescent boys and girls in pre- and post-adjudication facilities in Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. The MRCI-II, verbal sections of the WIAT and WASI, and Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale -2 were administered to participants. Exploratory factor analysis revealed a two-factor model with the CMR-II and CMR-R-II loading on Factor 1, the FRI loading on Factor 2, and the CMV-II loading on Factors 1 and 2. Confirmatory factor analyses indicated the two-factor model provided a good fit to the data, as did a one-factor model, whereas a three-factor model provided a poor fit. |
| URI: | http://hdl.handle.net/1860/2927 |
| Appears in Collections: | Drexel Theses and Dissertations
|
Items in iDEA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
|
www.drexel.edu
