Thorough scan

  1. In the quality of the procedure the users of justice are asked to evaluate the level of interpersonal justice as experienced in the interaction with different participants in the dispute resolution process – own and other party’s lawyer/s, neutral decision makers and experts. The rationale of the change is to make the tool more comprehensive and versatile in dispute resolution processes in which there are more actors involve or in which there is no neutral decision maker present. For instance, in a negotiation the parties deal with each other without the intermediation of a neutral person. In such paths to justice the users expect to be treated respectfully and politely by the other party in the negotiation process.
  2. In the quality of the outcome several items measuring distributive justice are dropped out. Namely, these are the questions which ask the respondent to estimate how fair in terms of distribution the outcome is for the other party. In the course of the pilot studies undertook within the project we estimated that it is difficult for the respondents to evaluate the outcome from the position of the other party. Moreover, the validity of the items might be undermined by an inevitable bias.
  3. The four dimensions of the quality of the  outcome are better separated and more visible. Distributive justice, restorative justice, functionality and transparency are now better grouped together.
  4. In the functionality dimension of the  quality of the outcome, the enforceability question proved to be problematic to many respondents. In order to improve the validity and reliability of the measurement tool, the assessment of the enforceability is replaced with assessment of the extent to which the other parties complies to the result of the dispute resolution process.
  5. In the transparency dimension of the quality of the outcome version 2.0 of the measurement instrument asks the respondent about the extent of comprehension of the outcome explanation. Instead, in 2.2 the item has been rephrased to ask about the satisfaction with the information about the outcome.

 

Short Scan

  1. In the quality of the procedure the Voice question (Were you able to express your views and feelings  during the process?) is rephrased to ask solely about the opportunities to express views in the process. It was decided that asking two questions in one item (1. were you able to express your views and 2. were you able to express your feelings) might reduce the validity of the received response.
  2. A new outcome control item is added to the quality of the procedure.
  3. Couple of the quality of the procedure items were rephrased in such a way as to allow application of the methodology to dispute resolution processes in which there is no neutral person between the parties (i.e. negotiation).
  4. The quality of the outcome items have been redesigned to match closer the four dimension structure of the quality of the outcome.