NCJ Number
92100
Journal
Judicature Volume: 67 Issue: 5 Dated: (November 1983) Pages: 224-233
Date Published
1983
Length
10 pages
Annotation
Although critics of judicial evaluation surveys express concern about the potential for bias, a statistical analysis of potential self-selection problems and test results of nonsampling bias related to the placement of judges within an evaluation questionnaire indicate the problem is not serious.
Abstract
Typically evaluations of judges involve self-administered, mailed questionnaires to a large group of lawyers, such as the membership of a particular bar association or all lawyers practicing in a given area. The controversy surrounding such evaluations focuses on the potential for bias in self-selection of respondents, although other issues related to nonsampling bias are at least as pertinent. These problems were examined in a particular judicial evaluation survey sponsored by the Louisville Bar Association in conjunction with several civic cosponsors. The evaluation questionnaire measured multiple attributes of judicial performance for all current judges in the Jefferson County circuit and district courts. Differences in evaluations between groups of lawyers were tested based on certain items: length of practice, size of practice, whether the lawyer was with a government agency, whether the lawyer's litigation practice was primarily in Kentucky district or circuit court, whether the practice involved civil or criminal cases, and whether it was on the side of prosecution or defense. Overall, the judicial evaluations by lawyers with different characteristics were similar. Based on the survey, it appears that one need be concerned about self-selection bias only if response rates are unrepresentative by length and size of practice; but even in these instances, evaluation differences would be minor. The study also briefly examines potential distortions in responses due to the internal construction of the questionnaire, and suggestions are offered for the construction of the questionnaire. Thirteen footnotes are provided.