Validity of Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA) at trial in free-narrative interviews

NESMOS, Department of Neuroscience, Mental Health and Sensory Organs, Sant'Andrea Hospital, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Italy.
Child abuse & neglect (Impact Factor: 2.34). 08/2011; 35(8):613-20. DOI: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2011.04.004
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The reliability of child witness testimony in sexual abuse cases is often controversial, and few tools are available. Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA) is a widely used instrument for evaluating psychological credibility in cases of suspected child sexual abuse. Only few studies have evaluated CBCA scores in children suspected of being sexually abused. We designed this study to investigate the reliability of CBCA in discriminating allegations of child sexual abuse during court hearings, by comparing CBCA results with the court's final, unappealable sentence. We then investigated whether CBCA scores correlated with age, and whether some criteria were better than others in distinguishing cases of confirmed and unconfirmed abuse.
From a pool of 487 child sexual abuse cases, confirmed and unconfirmed cases were selected using various criteria including child IQ≥70, agreement between the final trial outcome and the opinion of 3 experts, presence of at least 1 independent validating informative component in cases of confirmed abuse, and absence of suggestive questions during the child's testimonies. This screening yielded a study sample of 60 confirmed and 49 unconfirmed cases. The 14 item version of CBCA was applied to child witness testimony by 2 expert raters.
Of the 14 criteria tested, 12 achieved satisfactory inter-rater agreement (Maxwell's Random Error). Analyses of covariance, with case group (confirmed vs. unconfirmed) and gender as independent variables and age as a covariate, showed no main effect of gender. Analyses of the interaction showed that the simple effects of abuse were significant in both sex. Nine CBCA criteria were satisfied more often among confirmed than unconfirmed cases; seven criteria increased with age.
CBCA scores distinguish between confirmed and unconfirmed cases. The criteria that distinguish best between the 2 groups are Quantity of Details, Interactions, and Subjective Experience. CBCA scores correlate positively with age, and independently from abuse; all the criteria test except 2 (Unusual Details and Misunderstood Details) increase with age. The agreement rate could be increased by merging criteria Unusual and Superfluous details that achieve a low inter-rater agreement when investigated separately.
Given its ability to distinguish between confirmed and unconfirmed cases of suspected child abuse, the CBCA could be a useful tool for expert opinion. Because our strict selection criteria make it difficult to generalize our results, further studies should investigate whether the CBCA is equally useful in the cases we excluded from our study (for example mental retardation).

Download full-text


Available from: Stefano Ferracuti, Feb 18, 2014
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We examine eight unwarranted assumptions made by expert witnesses, forensic interviewers, and legal scholars about the reliability of children's eyewitness reports. The first four assumptions modify some central beliefs about the nature of suggestive interviews, age-related differences in resistance to suggestion, and thresholds necessary to produce tainted reports. The fifth unwarranted assumption involves the influence of both individual and interviewer factors in determining children's suggestibility. The sixth unwarranted assumption concerns the claim that suggested reports are detectable. The seventh unwarranted assumption concerns new findings about how children deny, disclose, and/or recant their abuse. Finally, we examine unwarranted statements about the value of science to the forensic arena. It is important not only for researchers but also expert witnesses and court-appointed psychologists to be aware of these unwarranted assumptions.
    Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 02/2007; 3:311-28. DOI:10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091354 · 12.92 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose. The present experiment examined the success rate of well-trained raters in judging the truthfulness of witness statements. Statements from children aged 7-8 years, children aged 10-11 years and adults were rated for the presence of 15 of the 19 original Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA) criteria (Steller & Köhnken, 1989).Method. This experiment comprised a 3 (age of participant) × 3 (nature of account) design. One-third of the participants took part in a photography session, one-third watched a video recording of a peer taking part in a photography session, and one-third were party to a verbal description regarding the photography session but neither participated in it themselves nor saw a video recording. The first two groups then gave truthful accounts of their experiences in a subsequent interview. However, the third group was asked, by the experimenter, to lie during the interview and to try to convince the interviewers that they also had taken part in a photography session.Results. The CBCA criteria discriminated between truthful accounts based on actual involvement and fabricated accounts. However, the criteria did not significantly discriminate between those truthful accounts based on watching a video recording and fabricated accounts. Interestingly, there was a significant difference between the truthful accounts based on participation and the truthful accounts based on observation. Further, CBCA was equally effective in discriminating between participative truthful accounts and fabricated accounts for all three age groups.Conclusions. CBCA was found to be a very useful tool in discriminating between truthful accounts based on direct experience of an event and fabricated accounts (overall hit rate, 70%). Also, CBCA was found to discriminate between truthful acounts based on actual experience and truthful accounts based on watching a video. This latter finding has implications for the real world when children and adults use information from television programmes and videos on which to base false allegations. Finally, CBCA was found to be equally effective for use with accounts from adults as well as children.
    12/2010; 6(1):65 - 83. DOI:10.1348/135532501168208
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives. The goal of the study was to determine whether the criterion-based content analysis (CBCA) indicators of credibility were more likely to be elicited by open-ended interview prompts than by more directive prompts.Methods. Coders independently applied a revised CBCA coding scheme while others rated interviewer utterance types and the length and richness of children's responses in transcripts of 20 forensic interviews of alleged victims of child sexual abuse.Results. There were high correlations between the number of CBCA criteria identified and both the length and richness of the children's utterances. Open-ended invitations were especially useful in eliciting responses that contained CBCA criteria, as expected.Conclusions. Open-ended invitations thus appear to elicit both more numerous details and details that are believed to suggest credibility. Implications for the application of CBCA codes to credibility assessment are discussed.
    06/2011; 2(2):169 - 176. DOI:10.1111/j.2044-8333.1997.tb00341.x