Judicial Performance Evaluations as Biased and Invalid Measures: Why the ABA Guidelines are Not Good Enough

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca Gill
Keyword(s):  
Performance Evaluations ◽  
Judicial Performance

Managing the Selection Debate

2019 ◽  
pp. 125-158
Author(s):  
Charles Gardner Geyh
Keyword(s):  
General Public ◽  
Campaign Finance ◽  
Judicial Independence ◽  
Performance Evaluations ◽  
Electoral Accountability ◽  
Judicial Selection ◽  
Judicial Performance

Chapter 6 argues that we can come closer to consensus in the judicial selection debate by confronting and overcoming the errors and exaggerations that chapter 5 isolates. That said, complete consensus is likely to remain elusive because ultimately, judicial independence from electoral accountability is both in tension with and essential to democracy. As the chapter discusses, appointive systems are a preferable default, but there are circumstances in which electoral accountability can be essential to the judiciary’s perceived legitimacy with the general public. The chapter also suggests ways in which elected judiciaries can be made more impartial and independent, including reforming campaign finance, amending disqualification rules, and lengthening judicial terms, as well as greater accountability, as well as the ways that appointed judiciaries can be made more accountable via publicizing existing accountability-promoting mechanisms, reinvigorating disqualification procedure, and instituting rigorous judicial performance evaluations.

Relationships Between Subjective Ratings and Objective Measures of Performance in Speechreading Sentences

1997 ◽  
Vol 40 (4) ◽  
pp. 900-911 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marilyn E. Demorest ◽  
Lynne E. Bernstein
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Impairment ◽  
Performance Evaluations ◽  
Objective Measures ◽  
Large Individual ◽  
Subjective Ratings ◽  
Objective Performance ◽  
Phonetic Distance ◽  
Stimulus Length ◽  
Measures Of Performance ◽  
Confidence Scale

Ninety-six participants with normal hearing and 63 with severe-to-profound hearing impairment viewed 100 CID Sentences (Davis & Silverman, 1970) and 100 B-E Sentences (Bernstein & Eberhardt, 1986b). Objective measures included words correct, phonemes correct, and visual-phonetic distance between the stimulus and response. Subjective ratings were made on a 7-point confidence scale. Magnitude of validity coefficients ranged from .34 to .76 across materials, measures, and groups. Participants with hearing impairment had higher levels of objective performance, higher subjective ratings, and higher validity coefficients, although there were large individual differences. Regression analyses revealed that subjective ratings are predictable from stimulus length, response length, and objective performance. The ability of speechreaders to make valid performance evaluations was interpreted in terms of contemporary word recognition models.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document