Article

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.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Stefano Ferracuti, Feb 18, 2014
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The ability to detect deception, in everyday social interactions and psychological evaluations, can literally mean the difference between life and death. Beyond physiological and nonverbal techniques for detecting deception, research has focused on criteria designed to evaluate the content of verbal statements to distinguish between true or actually experienced events versus internally manufactured or fabricated events. Criteria from two techniques that have received empirical support, criteria-based content analysis and reality monitoring, were used to create an 11-item Deception Detection Checklist (DDCL). In this study, 130 college undergraduates used the DDCL to rate the exculpatory statements of two accused child molesters: one truthful, the other untruthful. The 11 items composing the DDCL, as well as a measure of perceived truthfulness, were all scored on 7-point Likert-type scales. Nine of the 11 items on the DDCL significantly differentiated between the true and untrue statements in the predicted direction. Overall scores on the DDCL indicated that the false statement was rated as significantly more deceptive than the true statement. The DDCL possessed good reliability, and a series of factor analyses provided strong support for the construct validity of the measure. The 7 psychometrically strongest items from the DDCL included variables assessing the extent to which statements included clarity of detail, spatial details, temporal details, and contextual details, as well as the relevance, reconstructability, and realism of the statement. These results indicate that subjects were able to use this measure to reliably differentiate between true and false statements made by accused child molesters.
    Preview · Article · Jul 2014 · SAGE Open
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This chapter discusses three verbal veracity assessment tools: Statement Validity Assessment (SVA), Reality Monitoring (RM) and Scientific Content Analysis (SCAN). SVA is the most frequently researched verbal veracity tool to date and also frequently used in daily life as SVA assessments are used as evidence in criminal courts in several European countries. RM is, to our knowledge, never used in real life but it is popular amongst scholars, perhaps because it has a solid theoretical background. Conversely, SCAN is very popular in the field but has hardly been researched. This chapter provides outlines of the three tools including their theoretical rationales and their ability to discriminate between truth tellers and liars. The final section of this chapter compares the three tools by using the set of guidelines provided by the United States Supreme Court for admitting expert scientific evidence in (American) federal courts. These guidelines give a good opportunity to summarize the key aspects of the tools, the extent to which they have been examined and the empirical and academic support each. Both the empirical and academic support appears to be stronger for SVA and RM than for SCAN.
    No preview · Article · Jan 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The credibility of a testimony is a crucial component of judicial decision-making. Checklists of testimony credibility criteria are extensively used by forensic psychologists to assess the credibility of a testimony, and in many countries they are admitted as valid scientific evidence in a court of law. These checklists are based on the Undeutsch hypothesis asserting that statements derived from the memory of real-life experiences differ significantly in content and quality from fabricated or fictitious accounts. Notwithstanding, there is considerable controversy regarding the degree to which these checklists comply with the legal standards for scientific evidence to be admitted in a court of law (e.g., Daubert standards). In several countries, these checklists are not admitted as valid evidence in court, particularly in view of the inconsistent results reported in the scientific literature. Bearing in mind these issues, a meta-analysis was designed to test the Undeutsch hypothesis using the CBCA Checklist of criteria to discern between memories of self-experienced real-life events and fabricated or fictitious accounts. As the original hypothesis was formulated for populations of children, only quantitative studies with samples of children were considered for this study. In line with the Undeutsch hypothesis, the results showed a significant positive effect size that is generalizable to the total CBCA score, δ = 0.79. Moreover, a significant positive effect size was observed in each and all of the credibility criteria. In conclusion, the results corroborated the validity of the Undeutsch hypothesis and the CBCA criteria for discriminating between the memory of real self-experienced events and false or invented accounts. The results are discussed in terms of the implications for forensic practice.
    Full-text · Article · Jan 2015 · The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context
Show more