Criteria-Based Content Analysis Scores Research Articles

준거기반내용분석(CBCA)의 변별력

Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA) is part of Statement Validity Analysis (SVA), a process that checks for the presence of 19 criteria that are known to be frequently found in the statements of truth-tellers. This study examined how well CBCA scores predict trial outcomes (guilty or not guilty) and which conventions are associated with higher conviction rates in order to validate the analysis of adult sexual assault victim statements. The results showed that the CBCA total score was not a reliable predictor of guilt or innocence. Next, we examined the truth discriminatory power of CBCA subcategories: logical structure and superfluous details were significantly higher in the guilty group and self-deprecation was significantly higher in the innocent group. The logical structure of the statement was found to be of significant value in assessing credibility, while the other cues were found to be of varying value depending on the characteristics and psychological state of the individual interviewee and the nature of the case, and thus need to be judged in a case-specific manner. These findings suggest that CBCA is a useful tool for analyzing adult sexual assault victim statements, but it is only valuable when used as part of an SVA and cannot be used as a stand-alone authenticity tool.

Verbal Baselining: Within-Subject Consistency of CBCA Scores across Different Truthful and Fabricated Accounts

Statement Validity Assessment (SVA) proposes that baseline statements on different events can serve as a within-subject measure of a witness’ individual verbal capabilities when evaluating scores from Criteria-based Content Analysis (CBCA). This assumes that CBCA scores will generally be consistent across two accounts by the same witness. We present a first pilot study on this assumption. In two sessions, we asked 29 participants to produce one experience-based and one fabricated baseline account as well as one experience-based and one fabricated target account (each on different events), resulting in a total of 116 accounts. We hypothesized at least moderate correlations between target and baseline indicating a consistency across both experience-based and fabricated CBCA scores, and that fabricated CBCA scores would be more consistent because truth-telling has to consider random event characteristics, whereas lies must be constructed completely by the individual witness. Results showed that differences in correlations between experience-based CBCA scores and between fabricated CBCA scores took the predicted direction (cexperience-based = .44 versus cfabricated =.61) but this difference was not statistically significant. As predicted, a subgroup of event-related CBCA criteria were significantly less consistent than CBCA total scores, but only in experience-based accounts. The discussion considers methodological issues regarding the usage of total CBCA scores and whether to measure consistency with correlation coefficients. It is concluded that more studies are needed with larger samples.

Inter-rater Reliability of Criteria-Based Content Analysis of Children's Statements of Abuse.

The evaluation of children's statements of sexual abuse cases in forensic cases is critically important and must and reliable. Criteria-based content analysis (CBCA) is the main component of the statement validity assessment (SVA), which is the most frequently used approach in this setting. This study investigated the inter-rater reliability (IRR) of CBCA in a forensic context. Three independent raters evaluated the transcripts of 95 statements of sexual abuse. IRR was calculated for each criterion, total score, and overall evaluation. The IRR was variable for the criteria, with several being unsatisfactory. But high IRR was found for the total CBCA scores (Kendall's W=0.84) and for overall evaluation (Kendall's W=0.65). Despite some shortcomings, SVA remains a robust method to be used in the comprehensive evaluation of children's statements of sexual abuse in the forensic setting. However, the low IRR of some CBCA criteria could justify some technical improvements.

Using an Example Statement Increases Information but Does Not Increase Accuracy of CBCA, RM, and SCAN

AbstractVerbal credibility assessment methods are frequently used in the criminal justice system to investigate the truthfulness of statements. Three of these methods are Criteria Based Content Analysis (CBCA), Reality Monitoring (RM), and Scientific Content Analysis (SCAN). The aim of this study is twofold. First, we investigated the diagnostic accuracy of CBCA, RM, and especially SCAN. Second, we tested whether giving the interviewee an example of a detailed statement can enhance the diagnostic accuracy of these verbal credibility methods. To test the latter, two groups of participants were requested to write down one true and one fabricated statement about a negative event. Prior to this request, one group received a detailed example statement, whereas the other group received no additional information. Results showed that CBCA and RM scores differed between true and fabricated statements, whereas SCAN scores did not. Giving a detailed example statement did not lead to better discrimination between truth tellers and liars for any of the methods but did lead to the participants producing significantly longer statements. The implications of these findings are discussed. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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

Objective 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. Methods 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. Results 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. Conclusion 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. Practice implication 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).

Offenders’ uncoerced false confessions: A new application of statement analysis?

Purpose. Deception detection research has mainly studied denials and distortions given by students. This study examined true and false confessions as told by offenders. It was hypothesized that the statement analytic techniques Criteria‐Based Content Analysis (CBCA) and Reality Monitoring (RM) would discriminate truths and lies.Methods. Truthful and deceptive confessions to crime were given by 30 offenders (both women and men) in a within‐subject design. The participants were in prison at the time of data collection, and told the truth about a crime they had committed and been sentenced for. In addition, they made up a lie about a different crime after a few minutes of preparation. The transcribed statements were scored for CBCA and RM criteria.Results. Results showed that neither total CBCA nor total RM scores differentiated between lies and truths. Some individual CBCA criteria, however, showed differences: more self‐deprecations and doubts about own testimony in the told lies, and more unexpected complications in the truths.Conclusions. The results are discussed in relation to statement analysis of offenders’ accounts, individual CBCA criteria, as well as the development of criminal experience and familiarity with the event and setting. Implications for triers of fact and suggestions for future research are considered.

Careful calculation or a leap of faith? A field study of the translation of CBCA ratings to final credibility judgements

This field experiment investigated the influence of Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA) ratings on ultimate decision accuracy regarding the credibility of children's statements of sexual abuse. Following a selection procedure, based on case facts independent of statement quality, 21 truthful accounts and 10 fabricated accounts of 6- to 17-year olds were analysed. Two experts rated the presence of the CBCA criteria and made overall credibility judgements for each statement. Rater one achieved an overall hit rate of 84% (95% for truthful statements and 60% for fabricated statements) and rater two a hit rate of 81% (81% for both truthful and fabricated statements) but the raters did not always agree. The CBCA criteria appeared more often in the truthful statements compared to the fabricated statements. Additional factors that influenced raters' credibility judgements, besides CBCA scores, are discussed.

Criteria‐based content analysis of true and suggested accounts of events

AbstractWorldwide, the criteria‐based content analysis (CBCA) is probably the most widely used veracity assessment technique for discriminating between accounts of true and fabricated events. In this study, two experiments examined the effectiveness of the CBCA for discriminating between accounts of true events and suggested events believed to be true. In Experiment 1, CBCA‐trained judges evaluated participants' accounts of true and suggestively planted childhood events. In Experiment 2, judges analysed accounts of recent events that were experimentally manipulated to be a (a) true experience, (b) false experience believed to be true and (c) deliberately fabricated experience. In both experiments CBCA scores were significantly higher for accounts of true events than suggested events. However, this difference was not significant for participants classified as experiencing ‘full’ memories for the suggested event. Self‐report memory measures supported the findings of the CBCA analyses. Taken together these results suggest that the CBCA discriminative power is greatly constrained. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

T06-P-06 Quality of the interview and the reliability of accounts of presumably sexually-abused minors

Objects The present study aims at verifying the quality of interviews carried out by different professional figures on closed hearings of presumably abused minors. Moreover, we tried to find a relationship between the quality of the interview and the efficacy of Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA) for the assessment of reliability. Materials and method 19 interviews of closed hearings of supposed sexually-abused minors have been analysed. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed in full. Transcripts were then analysed to verify how they satisfied the requirements for the Cognitive Interview and the Step-Wise Interview. A technique for content analysis applied to testimony and hearing of under-age victims (CBCA) was then performed on the transcripts. All evaluations were carried out by three independent judges specifically trained in using this instrument. Interviewers were classified on the basis of their professions and, therefore, on the basis of their official studying and professional profile. Results Results showed a low compliance with international protocols of interviews. When interviews were carried out in conformity to protocols suggested in the specialised literature, results showed a greater inter-rater's agreement in CBCA scores. Discussion In this study, the interviewers’professional qualifications do not seem to guarantee the necessary quality of interview according to the criteria for CI and Step Wise Interview.

Criteria-Based Content Analysis: An empirical test of its underlying processes

Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA) is a tool to assess the veracity of written statements, and is used as evidence in criminal courts in several countries in the world. CBCA scores are expected to be higher for truth tellers than for liars. The underlying assumption of CBCA is that (i) lying is cognitively more difficult than truth telling, and (ii) that liars are more concerned with the impression they make on others than truth tellers. However, these assumptions have not been tested to date. In the present experiment 80 participants (undergraduate students) lied or told the truth about an event. Afterwards, they completed a questionnaire measuring “cognitive load” and “tendency to control speech”. The interviews were transcribed and coded by trained CBCA raters. In agreement with CBCA assumptions, (i) truth tellers obtained higher scores than liars, (ii) liars experienced more cognitive load than truth tellers, and (iii) liars tried harder to control their speech. However, cognitive load and speech control were not correlated with CBCA scores in the predicted way.

Age differences in Criteria-Based Content Analysis scores in typical child sexual abuse interviews

Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA) by Steller and Koehnken [ Psychological methods in criminal investigation and evidence (1989) 217. New York: Springer.] is used to help determine the veracity of allegations of child sexual abuse by reference to criteria theorized to be present more often in true statements. Studies generally show that older children meet more criteria, indicating potential problems in applying CBCA equally well across the age range. The present study examined 104 actual child sexual abuse interviews with children age 2–14 years ( M=6.5). Two trained raters, blind to the children's ages, evaluated each interview for the original 19 CBCA criteria. Data were coded using various methods, some of which gave children credit for reporting criteria spontaneously or when prompted by the interviewer. For all coding methods, age was significantly correlated with 12 or more criteria, and with total CBCA scores. The youngest children never reported seven criteria, even when interviewer prompting was taken into account. Therefore, many of the criteria may not be useful in typical interviews with children across a wide age range, because they either are rarely present or they are highly correlated with age.

Stereotypical Verbal and Nonverbal Responses While Deceiving Others

This experiment examined the impact of public self-consciousness and acting ability on processes and stereotypical responses during deception. Seventy-three nursing students were videotaped while (a) telling the truth and (b) lying about a theft they had observed. A variety of cues were coded, including criteria-based content analysis (CBCA) and reality monitoring (RM), in which high scores indicated honest responding. Compared with truth tellers, liars waited longer before giving an answer, spoke faster, made more speech hesitations, showed fewer illustrators, and showed lower CBCA and RM scores. Public self-consciousness was positively correlated with trying to control behavior but negatively correlated with RM scores. Ability to act was negatively correlated with RM scores, with showing stereotypical deceptive facial behavior (gaze aversion and smiling), with having to think hard while lying, and with being nervous while lying.