DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 282 936 TM 870 392

AUTHOR Anderson, Paul S.; Alexander, DianeTITLE Multi-Digit (MDT) Testing in the Teaching of Criminal

Justice Sciences.PUB DATE Mar 86NOTE 18p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the

Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences (Orlando, FL,March 17-21, 1986).

PUB TYPE Speeches/Conference Papers (150) Tests/EvaluationInstruments (160) -- Reports - Descriptive (141)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS *Computer Assisted Testing; Computer Software;

Criminal Law; Higher Education; *Objective Tests;Recall (Psychology); *Scoring; Teacher Made Tests;Test Construction; *Test Format

IDENTIFIERS *Criminal Justice; Multi Digit Tests

ABSTRACTThe Multi-Digit (MDT) testing procedure is a

computer-scored testing innovation conceptualized in 1982. It isfully compatible with multiple choice and true/false tests wellsuited for the testing of discreet terms and concepts such as infill-in-the-blank examinations. The student reads the question andselects the appropriate response from an alphabetically organized,lengthy list on which each term is numbered. With three-digitnumbers, there can be up to 999 items on a list, far too many for anystudent to peruse in an attempt to recognize the correct answer. Thestudent is required to recall the correct answer, locate it on thealphabetical list and then place the code number on the computerreadable answer sheet. The paper explains how to use MDT in teachingand evaluating an Introduction to Criminal Justice course. A sampleMDT test and actual MDT lists for major clinical justice terms andconcepts are appended. (Author/JAZ)

***********************************************************************Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made'

from the original document.***********************************************************************

re%

CY%clCIOrIc=2

LLJ

MULTI-DIGIT GEM TESTING EN THE MACHING OFCRIMINAL JUSTICE SCIENCES

Paul S. AndersonGeography-Geology DepartraentIllinois State UniversityNormal, IL 61761

Diane AlexanderCriminal Justice Sciences Dept.Illinois State UniversityNormal, IL 61761

ABSTRACT

The Multi-Digit (MDT) testing procedure is a ne addition tocomputer scored testing and is fully compatible with multiplechoice and true/false tests. It is especially well suited forthe testing of discreet terms and concepts suCh as in fill-in-theblank examinations. The student reads the question and selectstfte appropriate response from an alphabetically organized,lengtily list on which each term is numered. With three-digitnumbers, there can be up to 999 items on a list, far too many forany student to peruse in an attempt to recognize the correctanswer. The student is required to recall the correct answer,locate it on the alphabetical list and then place the code numberon the computer readable answer sheet. Actual MDT lists formajor Criminal Justice terms and concepts are provided in thispaper which also explains how to put the MUlti-Digit testinginnovation into immediate practical use for the teaching of theIntroduction to Criminal Justice courses on any campus.

A presentation to the Annual Meeting of-the Academy of CriminalJustice Sciences, Orlando, Florida, 17-21 March 1986.

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

PS. Andersai

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

Yhis document has blen reprouuced asrreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it

0 Minor changes have been made to improvereproduction quality.

1

2

Points of view or opinions stated in this docu-ment do not necessarily represent officialOERI position or policy.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

INTRODUCTICN

Teaching a course on the Introduction to Criminal Justice ScLmc@s

requires a variety of evaluation techniques in order to assess the

students' learning in the various components of that course. The

higher order forms of learning which require synthesis and

evaluation by the students are traditional17 tested with essay

tests or single paragraph answers. Important as that element of

testing is, essays are not the best method for determining if the

students have mastered the basic factual information which is

essential for anyone to have a firm grasp on the topic of

Criminal justice Sciences. Tb determine that knowledge professors

commonly utilize multiple choice or fill-in-the-blank tests.

The multiple choice method has the obvious disadvantage of

encouraging recognition, the elimination of alternatives, and

outright guessing. It is hard to imagine that someone would not

pick out the term'from a selection of five names. Furthermore,

the onus is on the professor to devise the four wrong answers

(foils) that are supposed to have a reasonable likelihood of

being selected if the student does not recognize the correct

answer. The result is that students frequently avoid the full

learning of essential factual information in a course, whether

introductory or at an advanced level; because they are good

at recognition and the elimination of foils.

. It is much more difficult to recall from memory and write

down specific answers. Recall requires that the information be

learned better: Therefore, considering that some of that factual

informtion should become part of the basic knowledge of an

educated person, professors sometimes opt for tests where one or

2

two word answers must be written. The questions are actually

easier to write than those of a multiple choice test because no

alternative answers are required. The major difficulty with such

fill-in-the-blank style tests is that the professor must be

willing to devote significant time to their grading, especially

if mastery learning is desired. Wbat would.be useful is'a

computer scored fill-in-the-blank style test of terms and

concepts about Criminal JUstice Sciences that could be quickly

qenerated and graded, complete with statistical analyses. Then

the essential learning can be required and tested while freeing

the professor for essay scoring, student advisement, research and

other activities more productive than manual test scoring.

The Multi-Digit (MDT) testing innovation is a computer scored

approximation of a fill-in-the-blank test. It is ideally suited

for the evaluation (and stimulation) of learning of the factual

information essential to a course such as the Introduction to

Criminal Justice Sciences. Not only does it make the test

scoring faster, it also makes the formulation of the test

questions extremely easy and, according to recent research

discussed in the next section, contributes to improved student

learning during the semester and greater retention even after

the conclusion of the course. With fast computer scoring of

quickly generated tests which require student recall rather than

recognition, a professor can more easily specify the level of

competence required from the students. In that way, any stu&mt

w,ho does not meet that minimum requirement can be given

additional tests until that requirement is met. The MDT

materials included in the appendix of this paper permit such a

3

4

learning requirement to be specified by the professor in a course

on Criminal Justice Sciences.

The Multi-Digit method requires the student to select the

desired answer from very long lists of alternative responsess.

In the answer sheet format shown in the appendix, the three-digit

responses mean that up to 999 alternative answers can be on a

single list. (Two-digit and four-digit versions are being deve-

loped.) Those lists of responses need only be prepared once or

maybe revised at the beginning of each course. In the case of

Introduction to Criminal Justice Sciences, the initial long lists

that could be used by any professor are provided in the

appendices of this paper; they are sufficient for literally

thousands of questions. In other words, there is no need for the

professor to be concerned with the incorrect alternative answers

if the correct term for a given question is found on one of the

lists. There are many ways of phrasing questions which would

utilize these long lists of answers. Furthermore, the MDT

innovation will accomodate numeric answers of three digits.

BACKGROUND AND RESEARCH

The Multi-Digit long list testing method was first

conceptualized in the fall of i982 by Dr. Anderson, co-author of

this paper. It has subsequently been used for seven consecutive

semesters with over 700 students in a course on Wbrld Regional

Geography. It is currently being used in the discipline:: of home

economics, art appreciation, m:Ithematics, history, military

science, English, political science, earth science, computer

programming and chemistry. Instructors have created lists for

4

5

their sUbject matter and have used it in the classroom with

several thousand university students. In addition, the largest

single course to use the method has 1200 criminal justice

students this semester, under the coordination of Diane

Alexander, a co-author of this paper.

Because of the almost complete elimination of guessing on

the Multi-Digit method in comparison to traditional multiple choice

tests, the students' scores may be generally lower on an MDT

test. There may also be a wider spread from the very lowest

score to the highest score attained by students. Both of those

characteristics can be advantageous to the professor. The

traditionally accepted percentages of 90% and above being an A

should not be applied to the MDT testing situations unless

the professor intentionally modifies the examination material so

that there are sufficient easy questions to allow the attainment

of the specified percentages. In all cases, the individual

professor remains independent and in charge Of his or her

particular class.

One of the key questions in evaluating this new testing

technique concerns whether the students learned and retained more

than they would have if studying for a traditional multiple

choice test. Exploratory researdh conducted by Anderson, Hill,

Naim and walters (1985a) with nearly 200 students enrolled in

WOrld Geography, revealed that students who study for a fill-in-

the-blank test or a Multi-Digit long list test retain more of

their learninc at the end of the semester than do students who

studied the same material for a multiple dhoice test with five

5

6

alternative answers. These results are exacqy as hypothesized.

Furthermore, when students gain more familiarity with the MDT

method, their results are expected to become even more similar to

the greater learning and retention of the fill-in-the-blank method.

MET Test Construction

Lists of terms preferably for the entire course should be

constructed prior to the first test using the MDT format. The

lists (see appendix) can be divided into different subject areas

such as terms and concepts, names, amendMents, places, court

cases, professional:organizations and agencies. The subject

areas with fed terms should be grouped together to increase the

requirement of recall and reduce recognition. All of these lists

could be combined into one. Sample lists for textbooks by Cole

and Inciardi are attached to this paper.

Terms for the lists may be Pooled from numerous sources,

including glossaries and indexes. Terms from personal notes

should also be included to cover specific lecture material. As a

final resource, student study guides and instructor's manuals

usually list key terms and concepts.

Test questions using responses on the MDT list need to be

constructed with some caution. Questions should not have

multiple possible answerS on the list. An example, if the terms

law enforcement and police are both on the list, there could be

two correct answers for hastily prepared questions. The

development of questions also involves a consciousness of the

time required to answer the test because of the extra sheet of

paper plus more marks to fill in. Students generally take

6

7

slightly longer to answer this style of questions. However, fewer

questions are needed because of the increased academic rigor of

recall. A short demonstration test early in the semester will

provide the students with an in-depth understanding of the MDT

answer format rnethc7 lleviate "test anxiety" and mental

blocks caused by the ;:wness of the testing procedure.

The pre-test also is an indicator to the students of the

increased amount of studying time required to prepare for this

test procedure.

Test Results

Computer programs for the grading of MDT tests provide sub-

total scores for groups of questions and for each style of scores

to be prepared on both the tests using MDT lists and any other

format questions (ie: essay, MDT long list, multiple.choice and

true/false). This allows for the student to compare results and

also detect weaknesses in study habits. .Further computer

generated results also indicate to the student their actual word

answers as well as the correct 'answers because each term is in

the computer under its code number. This feature helps the

students clarify any misconceptions of the definitions or usage

of description terms or concepts. Further explanations of the

MDT method are in the book The MDT Educational Innovation

(Anderson, 1936).

Conclusions

The use of MDT in Criminal Justice Sciences can be rewarding

to tha instructor as well as the student. In introductory

courses, such as the one at ISU, this testing format reduces

7

8

cheating, facilitates question generation (although the lists can

stay the same) so that tests can easily be changed from term to

term, and provides an outlet for in-depth testing to instructors

in both large lecture halls and small classrooms. Approximatley

1500 Introduction to Criminal Justice Sciences Courses students

nave taken the test and admitted it is harder but it encourages

better study skills and negates "all-nighters" performed the day

before the test. There has been a substantial increase in the

number of students taking advantage of seminars, small groups and

test review since the change to this form of testing.

At Illinois State University, the students and faculty have

found positive results from this testing, not only in the area of

criminal Justice but also in other disciplines. Upper

level courses as well as introductory courses are able to provide

the student with the educational benefits of a fill-in-the-blank

test without the time of manual grading.

****************************************

NOTE: The Multi-Digit Technologies 0090 Corporation offers

start-up assistance to any instructor wanting to use the MDT

innovations. For further information, telephone 309-452-7072 or

write to P.O. Box 14, Normal, Illinois 61761. MDT and Multi-

Digit are trademarks of the MDT Corporation.

Demonstration M.D.T. Test[Use Cole List]

Terms & Concepts

1. Defendants who are awaiting trial/sentencing or serving a period ofimprisonment not to exceed one year are housed in (203)

2. The individuals in Normal who have the power to arrest, ride around incars with lights and sirens and wear a badge.and gun are referred to asthe Normal (256) Department.

3. Hinckley was relieved of his criminal responsibility for attempting toassassinate Ronald Reagan because of his accepted plea of (197) .

4. There are two categories of crimes, misdemeanor and (175) .

5. The T.V. show, "The People's Court" involves informal processing of casesdecided by a retired (204) .

6. Miami (320) is a top-rated T.V. program which involves a realistic(ha! ha!) portrayal of detective work.

Names

7. The individual who researched the effectiveness of treatment programsand rehabilitation efforts and concluded with "nothing works" is

(566) .

Amendments/Court Cases/Organizations/Places

8. This court has eight males and one female on it (782) .

9. The state which borders Illinois and is where the baseball team 'TheSt. Louis Cardinals" is from is (755) .

10. The freedom of religion, freedom of speedh and the right to assemble arerights given to us in the Constitution under the (704) amendment.

1 0

0®00000®00000®000®

000 000000 000000000

COLE: Sample Questions

1. The'large amount of plea bargaining which makes our court system similar tothat of a revolving door, and the impersonality existing in some part ofthe criminal justice system has led to our system of justice being referredto as one of (108) justice.

2. The chief law enforcement officers of a-county are termed (298) .

3. The formalized definitions of offenses which specify all theircharacteristics is referred to (308) law.

4. Mare the primary individual who believed that physical attributes and heredity were 3for causing criminal behavior (561) .

5. With few exceptions, police officers need a search warrant to search yourhouse because of the rights granted by the (706) amendment.

INCIARDI: Sample Questions

1. Liability imposed on an employer for certain illegal acts of his employeesconmitted during their employment is named (228) .

2. The administrative record of an arrest is the (21) stage of thecriminal justice process.

3. (34) involves legal action of one individual against anotherindividual and is structured to regulate the rights between individuals ororganizations.

4. The federal agency created to lead the "war on crime" and was a provisionof the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act is (139)

5. In the court case (329) , the United States Supreme Court reverseda lower court decision on the grounds that offenses such as "being addictedto the use of narcotic9" were unconstitutional and that imprisonment forsuch an offense was cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the EighthAmendment.

11

1,11. '..

LI ji) 0

(ifiti'Jut)000U00

°P(11

' iyuU

ti I

1.

I $ á 0.1.

u u,

y I) 0LID

p u u

put.'yuu

IL . I

°lir. I i

A

i:'').i..3.1.',.:.

Fulul

Poopuui000900uuuPuuyuu

1 rri Lria. 1 a ti:rII I .

puutitittOLIti,

9 0UuuOuu

oipli u

-I

I.

1

,

(coLE) MDT LISTS for CRIMINAL JUSTICE

TERMS & CONCEPTSA 101102

Actual enforcementAttu. COU4

177178

Female crininalsfield interrosmtita

253254

PenologyPecemptory challenge

103 Adjudication 179 Filtering process 255 Plea bargaining104 Appeals Full enforcement 256 Police105 Apprehension process 181 fundamental fairness 257 Police brutality106 Arraignment 182 Furloughs 258 Police interrogation107 Arrest G 103 Central deterrence 259 Police organisation108 Aciesbly -line justice 184 Good time 260 Police women109 Ataigned counsel 185 Grand jury 261 Political crimes110 Auburn system 186 Grass eaters 262 Preliminary hearing

E3 111112113

BallBill of RightsBiopsychological

explanations

187188189190

BamicideBisbee ActIncapscitationIncarceration

263264265266

Preplea conferencePresentence investigationPretrial detentionPretrial motions

114115116117

Black judgesBlue-Coat crimeBondemanBureaucracy

191192193194

Indeterminate sentencesIndex crimesIndictmentInformation

267268269270

Pretrial processesPreventive detentionPreventive patrolPrisoners' rights

V! 118 Capital punishment 195 Initial appearance 271 Proactive119 Cass law 196 Inmate code 272 Probation120 Challenge for cause 197 Insanity 273 Procedural criminal law121 Child savers 198 Intake 274 Procedural due process122 Classification 199 Internal affairs unit 275 Prosecuting attorney123 Clearance rate 200 Interrogation 276 Prostitution124 Code of secrecy 201 Investigation 277 Public defender125 Collective bargaining 202 Irresistible Inplase Test 278 Punishment126127

Common lawCommunity corrections

203Ii 204JailsJudge

0 279280

Rand Institute StudyReactive

128 Concensus nodal 205 Judicial selection 281 Recidivism129 Conceptual framework 206 Jurisdiction 282 Rehabilitation130 Concurrence 207 Jury 283 Reintegration model131 Conflict model 208 Jury selection 284 Release on recognizance132 Constitutional 209 Jury trial (ROR)

protections 210 Juvenile corrections 285 Resource allocation133 Copping out 211 Juvenile court 286 Resource dependence134 Correctioaa 212 Juvenile crime 287 Restitution135 County 213 Juvenile justice Retribution136137

CourtCourtroom workgroup

114t 214 Eansas City Response TimeAnalysis Study

.288289290

RevocationRight to counsel

138 Oaurts of general 215 Labeling theory s; 291 Searches and seizuresjurisdiction . L 216 Law 6nforcement Education 292 Selective enforcement

139 Crime Program (LREP) 293 Sentence Disparity140 Crime control model 217 Law enforcement 294 Sentencing council141 Crime rate 218 Legal guilt 295 Sentencing guidelines142 Criminal justice system 219 Legal sufficiency 296 Sentencing institute143 Criminal responsibility 220 Legalistic style 297 Sentencing eerier144 Criminal sanction 221 Legislative process 298 Sheriffs145 Criminogenic 222 Local 299 Sociological explanations146 Critical criminology 223 Low visibility 300 Specific deterrence147 Cruel and unusual 1111224 M,Naghten Rule 301 Stare declaim

punishment "'225 Male in se 302 State corrections148 Custodial model 226 Nal& prohibits 303 Status offense

ri 149 Deadly force 227 Mandatory.sentences 304 Statutes"I 150 Death penaltv 228 Meat eaters 305 Structural theery

151 Defense attorney 229 Mena reek 306 Subculture152 Deinstitutionalization 230 Minority police officers 307 Substantial Capacity Test153 Delineuent 231 Misdemeanor 308 Substantive criminal law154 Detention 232 Missouri Merit 309 System efficiency115156

Determinate sentencesDeterrence., 233

Selection PlanMurder

1r 310' 311

Tesm policingultal enforcement

157 Differentiol *associationtheory

N.234 Necessarily includedoffenseZ

312313

Traffic .

Trial158 Discovery 235 Neglected child 314 Trial proceedings159 Discretion 236 Polls prosequi 319; Trial sufficiency160 Diversion 237 Nolo contendere II 3%.6 U.S. Constitution161 Double jeopardy 238 Nonpartisan election 317 Caters Crime Repute162 Dual court ristem 239 Omnibus Crime Control and 318 Unressonable searches163 Due process Safe Streets Act and seizures164 Durham Rule 240 Order maintenance 319 Opperworld crime

g: 165"' 166

Eighth AmendmentEnglish police tradition

241242

Organized crimeOvercriminalisation

Ili 320- 321

ViceVictimisation surveys

167 Exchange relationships 243 PINS/CINS/JINS 322 Victimiess168169

Exchange systembeclusicaery rule

244245

Patens patsiesParole

323 Victimology.324 .1/legible crime

c: 170 Factual guilt 246 Parole officer 325 Voir direu 171172

FederalFederal courts

247248

Partisan electionPatrol

ta/326327

Watchman styleWhite-collar crime

173 Federal prison eystes 249 patrol function 328 Women prisoners174 Federalism 250 Penal code 329 Wosen's prisons175 Felony 251 Penitentiary 330 Work and educational176 Female corrections 252 Pennsylvania system release

Copyright el 1985 Paul S. Anderson. Permission is granted to copy for non-commercial educational purposes.

1 4

NAMESA"'502

503504

112 505506507508509510511512513514515516517518

C 519520521522523524525

D 526527528529

E 519531F 532

533534535

Adler-Mueller, FredaAlex, NichaasAshburn, Franklin G.Augustus, JohnBailey, P. LeeBaldwin, JamesBaldwin, LolaBeaumont, Gustave AugusteBecker, HarardBentham, JeremyBlack, Donald J.Black, Hugo R.Brody, MalcolmBrennan,Crockwry, lobular'Buckley, James M.Bugliosi, VincentBurger, WarrenCarter, JimmyChambliss, WilliamClark, RamseyClear, ToddCressay, DonaldCrockett, George W.Crofton, Sir WalterDarrow, Clarence SewardDavis, Benjamin M.Dowel,, Thomas E.Durkneim, EmileErikson, LaiPerri, EnricoFielding. Jobn and HenryFogelson, RobertFord, Gerald B.Frankel, Marvin r.

536537538539

C; 540541542543588

Ff 545586547

1 588549552551

552k 553554

1. 555556557558559560561

nil562"563564565566567568169

"" 570

Frankfurter, FelixFreud, SigmundFried, Joseph P.Fyfe, JmassGarofalo, Rattail.Gault, GeraldGideon, Clarence EarlCoffman, 'IrvingGadiarb. RonaldHa/1, JeromeHolmes, Oliver WendellHoover, J. EdgarIanni, Francis A. J.James, HowardJohnson, Frank M., Jr.Johnson, Lyndon B.Kaufman. Irving A.Kennedy, John F.Kennedy, RobertWave, WayneLemert, EdwinLevin, Martin A.Levine, Robert A. -

Lindaey, Ben B.Lippman, DavidLombroso, CesareMaconochie, AlexanderManson, CharlesHarahan, TburgoodMartin, Susan'Martimion, RobertMcNamara, Joohn H.mortis. NorvalNidethoffer, ArthurNixon, Richard M.

ri 5710.572

574575576577

F1 578579580581512563588585586587588589590591592593

T 5"595596

V "7598599

MI600601602603608605606

ow:ad, Lee HarveyPacker, Herbert L.Payne, DonaldPeel, Sir RobertPhillips, StevenPound, RoscoeCuinney, RichardReagan, RonaldReins, Albert J., Jr.Rubin, JesseRubin, TedRubinstein, JonathanBush, BenjaminSandburg, CarlSarbin, Theodore R.Schlesinger StevenSeidman, Robert B.SerplcoSimon, RitaSkolnick. JeromeSmith, William FrenchStoddard, Ellwyn R.Sutherland, Edwin H.Taft, William HowardTaylor, Alice PoltTocgueville, Alexis deVanderbilt, ArthurVollmer, AugustVon Hirsch, AndrewWainwright, LoudonWallach, Irring A.Warren, EarlWhite, Byron R.Wilson, James Q.Wilson, Orland WinfieldWright, J. Skelly

AMENDMENTS/COURTCASES/

ORGANIZATIONS/PLACES

ik701 APS= 731702 Amendment, Eighth 732

703 Amendment, Fifth c; 733

704 Amendment, First 738

705 Amendaenl, Fourteenth 735706 Amendment, Fourth 736

707 Amendment, Sixth I 737

Fraternal Order of PoliceFurman v. GeorgiaGagnon v. ScarpelliGideon v. WainwrightGreat BritianGregg v. GeorgiaIn re Gault

708 American Bar Association 738 In re Winship709 American Judicature Society 119 Interest group710 American Prison

Association740 International Asyndeton

of Chiefs of Police711 Appellate courts 741 International Brotherhood712 Argerainger v. Hamlin of Police Officers713 Attica Correctional

Facility742 International. Conference

of Police Associations714 Attorney General's Task 783 International Union of

.Force on Violent Crime Police Associations__ 715 Auburn .1 748 Johnson v. Avery11j 716 Bell v. Wolfish 745 Joliet

C 212718Carroll v. U.S.Chisel v. California

1(746"747

Kansas CityKent V. U.S.

719 Civilian review board 788 Knapp comaission720721

CommunityCooper v. Pate

L 74 LOJ EnforcementAssistance Adain.

722 Courts of first instance 11/1750 Kapp V. Ohio723 Courta of general 751 McKeiver V. Pennsylvania

jurisdiction 752 Mena v.Rhay728 Criminal bar 753 Minority police officers

LJ 725 Durham v. United States 758 Miranda V. Arizonap 726 Elmira 755 Missouri'' 727 Elmira Reformatory _756 Morrissey V. Brewer

728 England n1757 Nat'l Advisory Comm. on729 Escobedo v. Illinois Cris. Just. Standards

1: 730 Federal Bureau ofInvestigations

758 Nat'l Advisory commissionon Civil Disorders

759 Nat'l Come. on Causesprevention of Violence

760 Nat'l Council on Crimeand Delinquency

761 National Census of Jails762 National Crime Surveys763 National Prison

Association764 New Mexico State Prigion

F1765 PROMIS766 Pennsylvania767 Police Foundation768 Police unions769 Powell V. Alabaas770 President's Commission

on Law Enforcement771 Procunier v. Martinez772 Puritan Massachusetts

/1773 Rainfall West778 Sanotbello V. New York775 State courts

1r776 Terry v. OhioU.S. Rureau of PrinionsU.S. &WW1 of Prisons

779 U.S. Bureau of the Comma780 U.S. Court of Appeals781 U.S. District Courts782 U.S. Supreme Court783 U.S. v. Robinson784 United States

IA/785 Wickersham Commission786 Wincanton, U.S.A.787 Wolff v. McDonnell788 Women police officers

tj777778

'

(11CIARDI) MDT.LISTS for CRIMINAL JUSTICE

TERMS & CONCEPTS

A i*2Actual enforc eeeeeeeeee rens

3 Adjudicetion4 Admini ire law5 Ad y system6 Allocution7 Appeal8 Appellate jurisdiction9 Arkansas prison scandal

10 Arraignment111213 A It eed b14 A lay Lisa Justine15 A AAAAA 67666U16 66[662616 1 rule17 Boil18 Bill of rights19 Iluecost crime20 leadsmen21 Booking22 low23 aaaaa Lag end suturing24 lrutality25 I 726 lurger27 lurglary.28 Capital punishment29 Carroll doctrine30 f:sse law31 challenge for cause32 Child33 Civil death34 Civil law35 Civilian review boards36 Classical seb of trim.37 Classification38 Clearance rate39 Cosa. based corr.40 C law41 Conjugal visitation42 Conspiracy43 C bles44 Constitutional law45 C pt power46 Co a labor47 C lied substances aet48 Copping out49 Corporal pusisiment50 Coss aaaaa trove51 C f last rrrrr t52 C

53 Crime54 Crime clock55 Cnin. rrrrr ol model56 Crime index57 Criee -ate58 Crimes known to police59 Criminal law60 Critical criminology61 Cynicism62 Deadly force63 Death penalty64 Defuses aaaaaaa y65 Defiei66 Deisstitutionalisation67 Deliberation68 Detective work69 Determinate s aaaaaaa70 0

71 Deviamee72 Di ion73 Disorderly conduct74 Diversion75 Double jespardy76 Drug revolution77 Dual viten78 Dual p a nodal79 Durban role80 English polies tradition81 aaaaa meet82 Svidence-inehief83 I:change relatiomships84 I:change systole85 Exclusionary rule86 Excusable houicide87 Federal prison system88 Federalise89 Felony90 Felony urder doctrine91 Female corrections92 Field i gations93 Filtering process94 French aaaaa ction (the)95 Fresh pursuit

96 Full enforcement97 FurloughG 98 General d99 Good time

100 Grand jury101 Crass e aaaaa102 Gun aaaaaa 1103 Rebeas corpus104 Rsbitual offender lows105 Roads off doctrine106 flusters aaaaa rule107 gomicide108 Ruber'eat

I 109 In forma psuperis110 Inespasitatios111 /me ion112 Isdetermi113 Ude: grimes114 /ndi115 Indigene,' aaaa s116 Initial app a117 Inmate code118 Inquiry cysts.119 ./squisitorial. syetem120 Inside cells121 Istermi122 1 policing123124 I igative p125 Invited aaaaa rule126 Irrisistible impmlse test127 Jail128 Judges and justices129 Judicial circuits130 Jurisdiction131 Jury nullification132 Jury selection133 Jury trial134 Justice of the peace135 Justifiable komiaide136 Juvinile137 Juvinile justice138 IC resionnae tine study139 LIAC140 Labalisg tkeery141 Larceny142 Legal guilt142 Legal sufficiency144 Legalistic style145 Limited juriedictios146 Lock step147 Lew visibility148 Lower

PA 149 lellaughtes rule150 Male in se151 lels prokibita152 Malice af153 laudatory release154155 Msuelaughter156 Mark spites157 Maximus expiration dste158 Maximum aaaaa ity159 Meet e aaaaa160 Medium security161 Mess res162 Minimum ity163 lisority police officers164 lied165 lisprisom of felony166 Mi i plan167 Mistrial168169 a 1 pledge170 N 1 law171 N included off172 Neglected child173 Night watch174 I.175 1.11. presequi176 Nolo dere177 No aaaaa igen election178 Nulling grime's 'lime poena0 179 OCCSSA180 0 aaaaa rty crime181 Open institutions182 Order naintensace183 Organised crime184 Original jurisdiction185 Ovareriminaliatiom186 PIN800IlleJI11187 patriae188 Parole189 Parole preditti'ai190 Fart I offesswo191 Part II offeeras

J

192193194195196197198199200201202203204205206207

. 208209210211212213214215216217218219220221222223224225226227228229230231232233234233236237238239240241242243244245246247248249250

T2"252253254255256237258259260

1)261

262263264if205

266267268269270271272273274275276277278279

Partisan electionPatrolPeacekeepingPenal codePennsylvania systemPlain error rultPlain view doctrinePlea negotiationPolice b aaa a cracyPolice corruptionPolice presencePolice professionalismPolice rolePolice subecltureFelice violencePolitical Irina,aaaaa comitatusPremeditation

igatiom11160t

ptiPretrial d ion

ive d ionPrisonPrison c aaaaa ityPrisonisationProbableProbationProfessional.tbeft

aaaaa ctive sweep doctrinePublic order crimeRepoReceptionReformatoryRelease on reeognanceRespoodeat superiorRestitutionRetributies

iomRobberyRule of fourSalient factor aaaaaSmith end seisureSelf-r aa d trineS ep ystsuSee iomSheriffS hock probationS ilent systemSpeedy trialSpeedy trial act

y lawS tatutory aaaaa acingStocks and pilloryStop and friskS ub ire due pramsa ySu aaaaa ed sentenceTexas rangersTheftThief takersTicket of leaveTotal institutt.osaaaaa ctionsl immunityTrial by ordealTrial cTrial de novoTrue billU.S. magiUniform crime reportsSee isminity7.4 of forceValidity and reliabilityVenireVictimisatiom surveyVigilante juaticeViol 1 crimeVoir direlatest aaaaaa jeilWar en crimeWar on heroin

WatergateWhite collar crimeWorking P lityWrit of certiorariWrit of mandamus

Copyright91988 Paul &Andaman, Permission le wanted to copy for non-commercial edducationsi purposes.

4

AMENDMENTS, COURT CASES, ORGANIZATIONS & PLACES

A280

El

C2"

E3"

281282283284285286287288289290291292293294

1962N72,S

301

Am. civil liberties unionAmendment, eighthAmendment, fifthAmendment, firstAmendment. f eeeeee nthAmeadmeat, fourthtmentmeot, sixthArgersingor v. ValaisAttisa

. Baltimorelentos v. Mary/sodSetts v. SeedyReady v. U.S.

Williamslush v. SellChisel V. CaliforeiaCoker v. GeorgiaCoolidge v. Vew SampshireDel P

. U.S.!Nacos V. LoviaionaSocobedo v. Illinois

F:

G11

111/

K313

In316

IVI318

30230330430530630734830931031/312

314315

317

319320321322323

Estelle v. GambleIF ttttt s V. CaliforniaFurman v. GeorgiaGaggiOn V. ScarpelliGideon v.WainwrightGregg v. GeorgiaSolt v. SarverSurtado v. CaliforoiaJockeys v. BishopJabal's). v. AveryJohnoon v. ZerbotCif CommitteeSieger v. North Carol/AlaSwipe comaiseiomLasbert v. CaliforniaSapp v. OhioMarbury v. MadisonjMcGoetha v. CaliforniaMeacham v. FanoNeaps w. ahoyStroud& v. &risottoMoroe V. Pape

324325326327328329330331332333334333336337338339340341342343344

Morrissey V.Polk') v. ConnecticutPresidents commissionProcunier V. matting:Rhodes v. ChapusnRobieson V. CaliforniaSothis v. CaliforniaReis v. Smell.Stack V. DoyleTerry v. OhioU.S. f appealsU.S. district courtsU.S. supreme tttttU.S. v. Cellists&U.S. v. WadeWeeks v. gaited Statest UnitedWickersham cosmissionWilliams v. Kew YorkVithersp000 V. IlliaoieWolff v. McDonnoll

NAMES

A 343344El 347

348349350251

C3"353354353356337358359360361

Augustus, Jobslailey. F. Lee

is. CSeeker. lonev4Seethes. JoremyIrockw4U. Zebulonlarger, VS/MUCarter, Jisay

7. DosaldCrofroe. Sir Vatter

Clareace SewardDorkheis, SmileSrikson, LaiPerri, Serinofogyism', Robert'Frankel, MarvinProud, Signiand

362a 363364363366367

336869

370371372

L.373374373

Iv 37637737'

Pyle, JamesGarofalo, RaffaeleGoole, GeraldGideon. Cl aaaaaa EarlSall, JeromeHolmes, Oliver Wendell

J. RigorJobs..., Lyndon B.Zoanedy, Jobe Y.Keauedy, jacibert

Levis.. iobsni A.Loubroso. C

hie. AlexaodorCharles

Marshall, JobeMarshall. Thorgood

379380

0 "1382

338384

383

R386387388389390391392393394395

Martinson, RobertVivo., Richard M.Oswald, Lae SarveyPayne, DonaldPee/, Sir RobertPinkortom, AlleoPound, Raaaaa n, RonaldRush, BeoJominBan aaaaa CoriSarbin, TheodoreSerpicoarankSkolmick. J aSutherlood, &twin S.Waiowright, CondosWilson, Jame& Q.Vila... Orland Viefield

17

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, Paul S. (1984a) "An Introduction to the Multi-Digit Test,"Discussion Papers in Geography, NO. 2: "Objective Testing in Georgraphy,"Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia, pp. IV-1 to IV-18, 1984. (Thispaper was originally presented at the West Lakes Regional Conference of theAssociation of American Geographers, Iowa City, Iowa, October 1983.)

(1984b) "Applications of the Multi-Digit Test MO Procedure forTeaching the Geography of Latin America." CLAG Communication, NewsletterNo. 50, December 1984, pp. 2-3. (Originally presented at the Conference ofLatin Americanist Geographers (CLAG), Ottawa, Canada, September 1984.)

Anderson, Paul S., Miriam H. Hill, Shamim Naim and William D. Walters,Jr. (1985a) "Comparison of Cbgnitive Retention from Three Testing Methods:Fill-in-the-Blank, Multiple Choice and the Multi-Digit Test (MDT)"Illinois School Research and Development, Journal of the IllinoisAssociation for Supervision and CUrriculum Developaent. Normal, Illinois,VOl. 21, NO. 1, Winter 1985, pp. 28-37. (This paper was previouslypresented at the international conference of the National Council forGeographic Education, TOronto, Canada, October 17-20, 1984.)

Anderson, Paul S. and Eileen Kanzler (1985b) "Laboratory Schools as aUnique Setting for Research: The Experimentation with the MUlti-Digit Test(MDT) at Illinois State University High School." A paper presented at theconference of the National Association of Laboratory Schools, in Denver,Colorado, on February 26-28, 1985.

Anderson, Paul S. and Eileen Kanzler (1985c) "Comparison of CognitiveAchievement in Objective Testing: Multi-Digit and Multiple Choice Tests."A paper presented to the conference of the American Educational ResearchAssociation (AERA), in Chicago, Illinois, on April 4, 1985.

Anderson, Paul S. (1985d) "Innovations in Educational Testing withOptical Mark Readers: Multi-Digit Large-List Tests, Subjective QuestionScores and Instant Scoring in the Classroom," (Abstract only), a discussionsession at the World Conference on Computers in Education, Norfolk,Virginia, July 19, 1985.

(1985e) "Applications of the Multi-Digit (MDT) Test in ScienceClasses." A paper presented to the conference of the Illinois ScienceTeachers Association (ISTA), in Normal, Illinois, on October 4, 1985.

Anderson, Paul S. (1986) The MDT Educational Testing Innovation.MDT Corporation, Normal, Illinois (in press).

Cole, George The American System of Justice, Brooks/Cole PublishingMonterey, California, 1983.

Inciardi, James Criminal Justice, Academic Press, Inc.1:r.mdo, Florida, 1984.

14

1. 8