Abstract
Tully (1998) suggests that the quality of statements from child witnesses is likely to affect the reliability of criteria‐based content analysis (CBCA) ratings. Recent studies suggest that this may be true. He also suggests that giving raters more latitude in their ratings, rather than less, might improve both reliability and validity. This is an interesting idea that is worth testing. Finally, Tully argues that CBCA and statement validity assessment (SVA), of which it is a part, are protocols rather than psychometric instruments. Therefore, CBCA should not be subject to the rigours of testing for reliability and validity. With this I must disagree.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
