提出正确的问题：审视问题链作为提高外行对法律概念的理解和应用的一种方法的有效性。
Asking the Right Questions: Examining the Efficacy of Question Trails as a Method of Improving Lay Comprehension and Application of Legal Concepts.
作者信息
Spivak Benjamin, Ogloff James R P, Clough Jonathan
机构信息
Centre for Forensic Behavioural Science, Swinburne University of Technology and Forensicare, Melbourne, Australia.
Faculty of Law, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
出版信息
Psychiatr Psychol Law. 2018 Nov 8;26(3):441-456. doi: 10.1080/13218719.2018.1506720. eCollection 2019.
The present study examines the 'fact based' approach to jury instructions, which embeds legal concepts in a series of logically ordered written factual questions that the jury must answer to reach a verdict. The study utilised a sample of 1007 adults called for jury service in Victoria, Australia. Four instructional types (standard, plain language, checklist, fact based) were compared on paraphrase and application measures across three time points. Results indicated that paraphrase performance was significantly lower for standard instructions compared to all other instructional types at the pre-deliberation stage. Findings around application of law were mixed. At the pre-deliberation stage, participants receiving fact based instructions had significantly higher scores on true/false application questions compared with participants in other conditions, whereas there were no significant differences between conditions for multiple-choice application. However, testing following deliberation revealed that participants in the fact-based condition had significantly higher scores on multiple-choice application items.
本研究考察了陪审团指示的“基于事实”方法，该方法将法律概念嵌入一系列逻辑有序的书面事实问题中，陪审团必须回答这些问题才能做出裁决。该研究采用了1007名被征召到澳大利亚维多利亚州担任陪审员的成年人作为样本。在三个时间点，对四种指示类型（标准型、通俗易懂型、清单型、基于事实型）进行了释义和应用测量方面的比较。结果表明，在审议前阶段，标准指示的释义表现显著低于所有其他指示类型。关于法律应用的研究结果不一。在审议前阶段，接受基于事实指示的参与者在是非应用问题上的得分显著高于其他条件下的参与者，而在多项选择应用方面，各条件之间没有显著差异。然而，审议后的测试显示，基于事实条件下的参与者在多项选择应用项目上的得分显著更高。
Zotero 插件