Measuring the Perceived (In)accessibility of Courts and Lawyers

IF 1.3 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Catrina Denvir, Nigel J. Balmer, Pascoe Pleasence, Tenielle Hagland
{"title":"Measuring the Perceived (In)accessibility of Courts and Lawyers","authors":"Catrina Denvir,&nbsp;Nigel J. Balmer,&nbsp;Pascoe Pleasence,&nbsp;Tenielle Hagland","doi":"10.1111/jels.12417","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Although the majority of those who face a civil justice problem will not attend court or seek advice from a lawyer, access to courts and legal services is critical to ensuring equal access to justice. This significance is captured in UN Sustainable Development Goal 16.3 and in efforts to measure progress against this goal by reference to the rate at which those with a dispute access formal or informal dispute resolution mechanisms. While the public's attitudes toward courts and lawyers have been implicated as determinants of use, there are no robust standardized scales to measure these attitudes. This study uses modern psychometric methods to develop two scales to measure the Perceived Inaccessibility of Courts (PIC) and of Lawyers (PIL). Drawing on relevant theoretical frameworks, we administered an item pool of 40 attitude questions to a sample of 1846 adults across Australia. Principal component analysis was used to identify attitude domains, followed by Rasch analysis to construct scales with acceptable psychometric properties, and generalized linear modeling to relate scales to experience and explore construct validity. Our substantive findings document the role of first- and second-hand experience of courts and lawyers on attitudes and show the importance of positive experiences and accounts of courts and lawyers in enhancing perceptions of accessibility.</p>","PeriodicalId":47187,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","volume":"22 3","pages":"298-317"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jels.12417","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Empirical Legal Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jels.12417","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Although the majority of those who face a civil justice problem will not attend court or seek advice from a lawyer, access to courts and legal services is critical to ensuring equal access to justice. This significance is captured in UN Sustainable Development Goal 16.3 and in efforts to measure progress against this goal by reference to the rate at which those with a dispute access formal or informal dispute resolution mechanisms. While the public's attitudes toward courts and lawyers have been implicated as determinants of use, there are no robust standardized scales to measure these attitudes. This study uses modern psychometric methods to develop two scales to measure the Perceived Inaccessibility of Courts (PIC) and of Lawyers (PIL). Drawing on relevant theoretical frameworks, we administered an item pool of 40 attitude questions to a sample of 1846 adults across Australia. Principal component analysis was used to identify attitude domains, followed by Rasch analysis to construct scales with acceptable psychometric properties, and generalized linear modeling to relate scales to experience and explore construct validity. Our substantive findings document the role of first- and second-hand experience of courts and lawyers on attitudes and show the importance of positive experiences and accounts of courts and lawyers in enhancing perceptions of accessibility.

Abstract Image

衡量法院和律师的可及性
虽然面临民事司法问题的大多数人不会出庭或寻求律师的意见,但获得法庭和法律服务对于确保平等诉诸司法至关重要。这一重要性体现在联合国可持续发展目标16.3中,也体现在通过参考争端当事方获得正式或非正式争端解决机制的比率来衡量这一目标进展的努力中。虽然公众对法院和律师的态度被认为是使用的决定因素,但没有强有力的标准化尺度来衡量这些态度。本研究运用现代心理测量学的方法,开发了两个量表来测量法院(PIC)和律师(PIL)的感知不可接近性。根据相关的理论框架,我们对澳大利亚1846名成年人进行了40个态度问题的调查。采用主成分分析确定态度域,然后采用Rasch分析构建具有可接受心理测量属性的量表,并采用广义线性模型将量表与经验联系起来,探索结构效度。我们的实质性调查结果记录了法院和律师的第一手和二手经验对态度的作用,并显示了法院和律师的积极经验和叙述在增强可及性观念方面的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
11.80%
发文量
34
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信