Examining the Construct Validity of the Original and Revised JBS: A Cross-Validation of Sample and Method

Factor analysis is a statistical technique that can provide an understanding of construct validity. Previous research examining the factor structure of the Juror Bias Scale (JBS) has uncovered problems in the scale's assessment of the constructs of probability of commission (PC) and reasonable doubt (RD). We here reevaluate the scale's constructs to better our understanding of the pretrial biases involved in the juror decision-making process. Importantly, previous findings have been limited to college student samples and trial material that has involved rape evidence. This study examines the construct validity of the JBS in a sample of 617 jury-eligible adults drawn from the community, and the predictive validity of the JBS is examined across 3 distinct trial scenarios. The results parallel earlier findings, indicating that although RD is a tenable and useful construct affecting juror decision-making, PC may be a less relevant pretrial bias. We therefore suggest that future research emphasize alternative constructs, such as confidence and cynicism in the criminal justice system.     

Pretrial Publicity and Civil Cases: A Two-Way Street?

Published pretrial publicity (PTP) research has been conducted almost exclusively with criminal cases and has focused on PTP that is detrimental to the defense. The current research examined the effects of PTP in a civil case to determine if PTP can have a biasing effect against either the defendant or the plaintiff in civil litigation. In Experiment 1, participants exposed to PTP biased against the defendant were more likely to reach a liable verdict than participants who read a control article or PTP biased against the plaintiff. Experiment 2 demonstrated that a judicial admonition did not reduce the biasing effect of PTP about a civil defendant. However, participants given the admonition both before and after the trial evidence viewed the defendant as less culpable than participants given the admonition after the trial only or not at all. The implications for the legal system are discussed.     

Cross-Validation of Supplemental Test of Memory Malingering Scores as Performance Validity Measures

Assessment of the validity of neuropsychological test data has become an ensconced aspect of the assessment process. Among the more popular free-standing performance validity measures (PVMs) is the Test of Memory Malingering (Tombaugh 1996). Given the popularity of this measure, a number of researchers (i.e., Trial 1 (Denning, 2012); TOMMe10 (Denning, 2012); Albany Consistency Index (Gunner, Miele, Lynch, & McCaffrey, 2012)) have sought to expand its utility by increasing the number of scoring approaches associated with its administration. This paper aimed to cross-validate prior work by examining the performance of these measures in a mixed clinical sample of veterans referred for neuropsychological evaluation. All five examined measures provided good to excellent discrimination of patients determined to be putting forth poor effort based on failure of two or three alternate measures of performance validity. Traditional scoring approaches revealed high rates of specificity, with lower rates of sensitivity. The newer measures performed well for both sensitivity and specificity at higher base rates. However, predicted performance in low base rate populations (i.e., 0.10) using the newly derived scoring failed to reach predetermined cutoffs for specificity (0.90). Further examination of the cumulative performance of the scoring approaches indicated that administration of only two initial scoring indices was necessary to obtain a high rate of classification.     

Technology Transfer via the Internet: A Way to Link Public Science and Enterprises?

The Internet is receiving increasing attention as a medium for technology transfer between public research and the business sector. Technology policy hopes that Internet presentations of research activities at public institutions will facilitate the exploitation of research results, particularly from those institutions not engaged in technology transfer so far. Based on a survey of public research units in natural sciences and engineering in Germany, we analyze the determinants of firm contacts established via the Internet. Special attention is paid to the effect of experiences in firm interaction in the past. Estimation results suggest that Internet contact to firms is more likely to be established by public research units that are already well situated in the transfer market. Research units that orient their homepage design towards the business sector are more likely to build Internet-based contact with firms. However, there is no evidence that public research units that have not been engaged with firms so far, use the Internet more intensively to get into the transfer business. Our results show that the Internet has a certain potential for advancing technology transfer at public research, although this potential is not fully utilized yet, at least in the case of Germany.     

Validity in judgments of high‐ and low‐accurate witnesses of own and other ethnic groups

Purpose. Research has shown that people often have difficulties estimating eyewitness accuracy correctly. In most previous studies examining validity in credibility judgments, participants have assessed the accuracy of witnesses who have been homogeneous in their memory performance. This study investigated validity in judgments of witnesses who varied widely in memory. A further purpose was to examine whether judgmental validity was moderated by the witnesses' ethnic in‐group/out‐group status. Methods. Participants (N = 120) rated the reliability of videotaped testimonies of high‐ and low‐accurate in‐group (Swedish, N = 4) and out‐group (immigrants, N = 4) witnesses who were genuinely trying to recall a criminal event. Results. Participants assigned more reliability to high‐ than to low‐accurate in‐group witnesses, while out‐group witnesses received low reliability ratings regardless of their actual memory performance. Path analyses demonstrated that the subjective confidence of in‐group, but not of out‐group, witnesses predicted participants' accuracy judgments. Conclusions. The results indicate that the validity in judgments of in‐group witnesses can be better than has previously been implied. Investigators may have difficulty distinguishing high‐ and low‐accurate witnesses from other ethnic groups, and they may also systematically underestimate the reliability of ethnic out‐group witnesses. Implications for legal practices are discussed.     

Elaborating on the Construct Validity of the Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale in Incarcerated and Non-Incarcerated Samples

The Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (LSRP) is a promising, efficient measure of the psychopathic personality. Previous examinations of its latent structure have yielded inconsistent results; therefore, the goal of the current study was to evaluate previously reported two- and three-factor models in three separate groups of male correctional inmates (n = 573), male college students (n = 202), and female college students (n = 200). Confirmatory factor analyses revealed that the best-fitting model across all the three groups was the three-factor model proposed by Brinkley et al. (Assessment 15:464–482, 2008). The convergent and discriminant validity of this three-factor structure as well as a revised 19-item total score were elaborated on in terms of predicting scores on conceptually relevant external criteria. The LSRP total and factor scales evidenced good convergent and discriminant validity with a few notable exceptions. Implications for theory and future research are discussed.     

The Discriminant Validity of Perceptual Incivility Measures

Researchers have been unable to determine whether individuals’ estimates of incivilities can be separated from constructs such as crime and victimization. Accordingly, survey respondents’ perceptions of incivilities were compared first to their perceptions of neighborhood crime and then to their personal victimization experiences. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses revealed that perceptions of incivilities (of the physical variety) loaded on factors separate from personal victimization. It was not clear, however, whether perceptions of incivilities were independent from perceived crime. Even so, the findings provide some evidence that estimates of incivilities represent a construct separate from estimates of crime, thereby increasing the likelihood that certain perceptual incivility measures enjoy discriminant validity.     

The influence of pretrial exposure to community outrage and victim hardship on guilt judgments

Although the courts have explicitly expressed concerns about the effects of public sentiment on juries in highly publicized cases, no research has isolated the degree to which jurors’ exposure to community outrage and/or prospective social interactions in the community independently influence judgments of guilt. In the current research, jury eligible undergraduates were randomly assigned to conditions in a 2 (negative defendant facts pretrial publicity (PTP): present vs. absent)?×?2 (community outrage PTP: present vs. absent)?×?2 (anticipated social interaction: present vs. absent) between subjects factorial design. In an online session, participants read articles containing PTP (or not), and two days later they arrived at the lab to serve as mock jurors in a murder case – before the trial they were instructed (or not) that they would interact with people from the community in which the case was taking place. Neither PTP containing extra-evidentiary facts about the defendant nor prospective interaction with the community had main or interactive effects on guilt measures; however, mock jurors rated the defendant as more likely to be guilty when they read information about community outrage and hardships on victims. These findings suggest future avenues of PTP research focusing on community outrage and victim impacts.     

Diagnostic testing of genetic disorders: limiting the scope of patent claims through disclosure requirements

The breadth of claims in patents relating to genetic inventions has been controversial for some time. Possible adverse effects of broad claims include inhibiting research and higher costs, restricting patient access to genetic testing. The Australian Law Reform Commission's Report on Genes and Ingenuity--Gene Patenting and Human Health examined this issue, and concluded that the existing disclosure requirements contained in s 40 of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) provide adequate mechanisms to control the breadth of claims. However, application of these requirements may be problematical in practice due to lack of relevant case law to provide guidance to patent examiners. It has been suggested that this deficit in direct judicial guidance can be obviated by developing appropriate analogies with other chemical systems in decided cases. This article focuses on gene-based diagnostic patents for human diseases, such as those held by Myriad Genetics for testing predisposition towards breast and ovarian cancer using the gene BRCA1. By examining the application of disclosure requirement by courts in genetic and non-genetic chemical inventions, it is possible to provide insight into how this might be applied by courts considering the validity of patent claims for diagnostic testing methods based on mutations in a gene such as BRCA1.     

Educational Implications of University–Industry Technology Transfer

A considerable amount has been written concerning the effect technology transfer has on openness in science, as well as whether technology transfer encourages a shift from basic to applied research. By contrast, little has been written concerning the impact technology transfer has on education. This essay addresses this gap by examining the potential that technology transfer has for affecting the curriculum as well as for impacting students directly. The essay concludes with two policy recommendations that have the potential for enhancing educational outcomes and a recommendation for a specific issue for further research. First, universities should consider investing some of the revenues from technology transfer in enhanced and expanded undergraduate education in science and engineering. Second, universities should collect data on job placements in industry. The research issue that is ripe for consideration is the role that peer effects play in graduate education and whether technology transfer alters these effects.     

仲裁协议效力扩张若干问题研究

近年来,仲裁在民商事争端解决中的地位得以不断提升,可仲裁事项、仲裁主体范围等仍在不断扩大。一个突出表现为仲裁协议的效力在特定情况下,可以向非书面签约第三人延伸。这是一个在仲裁制度发展中重要而复杂的新课题,需要从理论上进行探讨和阐释。本文对仲裁协议效力扩张的情形进行归纳和总结,着重介绍仲裁协议效力扩张的法理基础和政策考虑,对仲裁协议效力扩张所面临的法律障碍进行了分析。     

禁止重复起诉规则之重构:以合同效力的职权审查为背景

我国对合同效力采依职权审查模式,据此作出的生效判决在主文外对合同效力的认定能产生禁止重复起诉的效果。由于不必全面审理潜在争点,大陆法系传统理论认为判决理由原则上不发生既判力。当任一方当事人明确请求确认先决关系效力时,上述两种思路均认可合同效力认定的既判力。我国应将合同效力作为审理焦点,并实现对依职权审查规则的实质化改造,要求法官作出包含既判力范围释明的明确标识。在判断依职权审查规则的既判力效果时,应进一步解释禁止重复起诉规则的要件。这种既判力理解不同于争点效理论并能提供更清晰的识别方案。     

Validity Beliefs and Ideology Can Influence Legal Case Judgments Differently

Jurors sometimes enter a case both with prior beliefs about its likely validity and with more general ideologies that are relevant to the case. Although prior validity beliefs may serve as heuristics, directly biasing decisions when cognitive capacity is low, we hypothesized that ideology may bias systematic thought even when cognitive capacity is high. This experiment studied simulated individual juror decisions in a sex-discrimination case, measuring validity beliefs about such cases as well as feminist ideology, and exposing participants to 1 of 3 case versions under time pressure or no time pressure. Validity beliefs had a direct, heuristic impact on judgment only under time pressure. However, feminist ideology had a mediated influence on judgment via valenced thoughts about the evidence, even under no time pressure. Also, people with initially proplaintiff beliefs judged a woman's sex-discrimination suit more negatively than did prodefendants if the evidence was weak. The results suggest that when jurors can fully process information, validity expectancies might backfire if not supported by case evidence, but ideology can have a more pervasive influence on the decision-making process.     

The political economy of regional integration in East Asia

A widely held consensus view claims that East Asia has been shifting recently from a market-led to an institution-based form of regional economic integration, primarily as a result of the 1997–1998 financial crisis. Next to post-crisis financial cooperation schemes under the ASEAN+3, the surge of Regional Trade Agreements (RTAs) involving East Asian countries is thought by some to further substantiate this claim. The objective of the paper is to question the validity of this claim. By examining the current state of play of economic cooperation, in the financial and monetary areas as well as in the trade sphere, the paper highlights the limitations of the formal regional integration movement in East Asia to date, as well as the vastly different dynamics underlying the financial and trade developments. It also explores the changing nature of intra-regional trade and investment linkages and concludes that this new form of interdependence may be instrumental in changing the trade-offs of formal regional economic schemes.     

DSM-5 Neurocognitive Disorders: Validity, Reliability, Fairness, and Utility in Forensic Applications

A previously published paper (Schultz Psychological Injury and Law 3: 271–288, 2010) on forensic considerations regarding neurocognitive disorders within the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5 (DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013) reviewed evidence for internal and external validity, as well as the fairness and utility of the proposed classification. Given recent publication of the DSM-5, in May 2013, the current paper provides an update on this review. It focuses on changes in the final version of the neurocognitive disorders section of the DSM-5 as compared with the earlier proposal in 2010 and raises a range of new conceptual, methodological, and clinical practice issues related to this classification. An examination of forensic neuropsychologists’ diagnostic choices and their associated pitfalls follows. Discussion extends to the unresolved issue of disorder threshold, associated risks of overdiagnosis of mild neurocognitive disorder and underdiagnosis of major neurocognitive disorder, and the absence of a moderately severe disorder classification. Methodological concerns in diagnostic determinations, especially with DSM-5 Criteria A and B, issues associated with subtypes and specifiers, as well as functional assessments of activities of daily living, now embedded in the diagnosis, follow. Subtype omissions and methodological inconsistencies are highlighted.The vulnerability of neuropsychologists and psychiatrists during courtroom testimony on neurocognitive disorders-particularly with conceptual, methodological, and practical issues-will be addressed through clinical and forensic practice recommendations.     

Bite Mark Analysis in Foodstuffs and Inanimate Objects and the Underlying Proofs for Validity and Judicial Acceptance

Even though one of the first bite mark cases was Doyle v. State in 1954 (a bitten cheese case), the research has focused on bite marks inflicted in human skin. As published Papers, Case Reports, or Technical Notes can constitute precedents which are relied upon in making the legal arguments and a considerable amount of case law exists in this area, we present a systematic review on bite mark analysis in foodstuffs and inanimate objects and their underlying proofs for validity and judicial acceptance according to Daubert rulings. Results showed that there is vulnerability in these procedures, and it is essential to demand for focus scrutiny on the known error rates when such evidence is presented in trials. These kinds of bite marks are well documented; however, there has been little research in this field knowing that the protocols of analysis and comparison are the responsibility of the forensic odontologists.     

Validity

Validity is the qualifying label of the norms in law and the acts executedin the name of the law, according to and by the force of which the norms andacts in question are recognized as the norms and the acts, respectively, ofthe existing legal system. This concept of validity, defining membership withinthe system,1 is simultaneously completed by a concept of validity that selectsand identifies the system itself. Accordingly, validity is also the qualifyinglabel of the system itself, according to and by the force of which the systemin question is recognized by the law and order of the international communityas one of the national legal systems.