Judicial performance evaluations by state governments: Informing the public while avoiding the pitfalls

Justice System Journal

Volumn 21, Issue 3, 2000, Pages 345-347

  Brody, David C ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 24944520576     PISSN: 0098261X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. BABBIE, E. R. (1995). The Practice of Social Research, 7th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
2. BROWN, M. J. (1998). Letter to Robert Donfeld, July 13, 1998, on file with author.
3. DILLMAN, D. A. (1978). Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. New York : Wiley.
4. DONALD, M. N. (1960). "Implications of Nonresponse for the Interpretation of Mail Questionnaire Data," 24 Public Opinion Quarterly 99.
5. ESTERLING, K. E. (1999). "Judicial Accountability the Right Way," 82 Judicature 206.
6. ESTERLING, K. E.. and K. M. SAMPSON (1998). Judicial Retention Evaluation Programs in Four States: A Report with Recommendations. Chicago: American Judicature Society.
7. FARTHING-CAPOWICH, D. (1985). "Designing Programs to Evaluate Judicial Performance: Participation Is Key to Success," 9:3 State Court Journal 22.
8. FARTHING-CAPOWICH, D., and J. WHITE-MCBRIDE (1987). "Obtaining Reliable Information: A Guide to Questionnaire Development for Judicial Performance Evaluation Programs," 11:1 State Court Journal 5.
9. FOWLER, F. J. (1984). Survey Research Methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
10. KEARNEY, R. C. (1999). "Judicial Performance Evaluation in the States," 22 Public Administration Quarterly 468.
11. KEILITZ, S., and J. W. MCBRIDE (1992). "Judicial Performance Evaluation Comes of Age," 16:1 State Court Journal 4.
12. LOVRICH, N. P., J. C. PIERCE, and C. S. SHELDON (1989). "Citizen Knowledge and Voting in Judicial Elections," 73 Judicature 28.
13. LOZIER, J. E. (1996). "The Missouri Plan a/k/a Merit Selection Is the Best Solution for Selecting Michigan's Judges?" 75 Michigan Bar Journal 918.
14. PELANDER, A. J. (1998). "Judicial Performance Review in Arizona: Goals, Practical Effects and Concerns," 30 Arizona State Law Journal 643.
15. SPECIAL COMMISSION ON EVALUATION OF JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE (1985). American Bar Association Guidelines for the Evaluation of Judicial Performance. Chicago: American Bar Association.
16. SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL EVALUATIONS (2000). "Report of Special Committee on Judicial Evaluations," February Hawaii Bar Journal 6.
17. TROUT, P. A. (1997). "What the Numbers Mean," 29:5 Change 24.
18. WANG, X., and G. A. GIANAKIS (1999). "Public Officials' Attitudes Toward Subjective Performance Measures," 22 Public Productivity and Management Review 537.
19. WHITEHEAD, J. C. (1991). "Environmental Interest Group Behavior and Self-selection Bias in Contingent Valuation Mail Surveys," 22 Growth and Change 10.