Examining the construct validity of the original and revised JBS: A cross-validation of sample and method

Law and Human Behavior

Volumn 26, Issue 4, 2002, Pages 455-463

  Lecci, Len ^a   Myers, Bryan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA WILMINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

Construct validity; Cross validation; Juror decision making

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; COLLEGE STUDENT; CRIMINAL JUSTICE; CULTURAL FACTOR; DECISION MAKING; FACTORIAL ANALYSIS; FEMALE; GUILT; HOMICIDE; HUMAN; JUROR BIAS SCALE; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; PERSONALITY; RAPE; RELIABILITY; ADOLESCENT; JURISPRUDENCE; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; SOCIAL JUSTICE; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY; UNITED STATES; VALIDATION STUDY;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; FEMALE; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; JURISPRUDENCE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; PREJUDICE; SOCIAL JUSTICE; SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES;

EID: 0036672987     PISSN: 01477307     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1016335422706     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246.
2. Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606.
3. Boehm, V. R. (1968). Mr. prejudice, miss sympathy, and the authoritarian personality: An application of psychological measuring techniques to the problem of jury bias. Wisconsin Law Review, 3, 734-750.
4. Bollen, K. A., & Long, J. S. (Eds.). (1993). Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
5. Bornstein, B. H. (1999). The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out? Law and Human Behavior, 23, 75-91.
6. Bray, R. M., & Kerr, N. L. (1979). The use of the simulation method in the study of jury behavior: Some methodological considerations. Law and Human Behavior, 3, 107-119.
7. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
8. Burt, M. R. (1980). Cultural myths and support for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 217-230.
9. Comrey, A. L. (1988). Factor-analytic methods of scale development in personality and clinical psychology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 754-761.
10. Dexter, H. R., Cutler, B. L., & Moran, G. (1992). A test of voir dire as a remedy for the prejudicial effects of pretrial publicity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 819-832.
11. Diamond, S. S. (1997). Illuminations and shadows from jury simulations. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 561-571.
12. Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1993). Monte Carlo evaluations of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 40-65). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
13. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 76-99). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
14. Kassin, S. L., & Garfield, D. A. (1991). Blood and guts: General and trial-specific effects of videotaped crime scenes on mock jurors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 1459-1472.
15. Kassin, S. L., & Wrightsman, L. (1983). The construction and validation of a juror bias scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 17, 423-442.
16. Konecni, V. J., & Ebbesen, E. B. (1979). External validity of research in legal psychology. Law and Human Behavior, 3, 39-70.
17. Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & McDonald, R. P. (1988). Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 391-410.
18. Moran, G., Cutler, B. L., & DeLisa, A. (1994). Attitudes toward tort reform, scientific jury selection, and juror bias: Verdict inclination in criminal and civil trials. Law and Psychology Review, 18, 309-328.
19. Myers, B., & Lecci, L. (1998). Revising the factor structure of the Juror Bias Scale: A method for the empirical validation of theoretical constructs. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 239-256.
20. Narby, D. J., Cutler, B. L., & Moran, G. (1993). A meta-analysis of the association between authoritarianism and jurors' perceptions of defendant culpability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 34-42.
21. Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1981). Juror decision-making models: The generalization gap. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 246-287.
22. Pollard, P. (1992). Judgments about victims and attackers in depicted rapes: A review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 307-326.
23. Sears, D. O. (1986). College sophomores in the laboratory: Influences of a narrow data base on social psychology's view of human nature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 515-530.
24. Spanos, N. P., Dubreuil, S. C., & Gwynn, M. I. (1991). The effects of expert testimony concerning rape on the verdicts and beliefs of mock jurors. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 11, 37-52.
25. Weir, J. A., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1990). The determinants of mock jurors' verdicts in a rape case. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 901-919.
26. Weiten, W., & Diamond, S. S. (1979). A critical review of the jury simulation paradigm: The case of defendant characteristics. Law and Human Behavior, 3, 71-91.