Statement Validity Assessment Research Articles

О ПОДХОДАХ К ОЦЕНКЕ ДОСТОВЕРНОСТИ ПОКАЗАНИЙ В СЛЕДСТВЕННОЙ И СУДЕБНОЙ ПРАКТИКЕ СОВРЕМЕННОЙ ГЕРМАНИИ

The article discusses various approaches to assessing the reliability of testimony and their place in investigative and judicial proceedings in Germany, where forensic psychological examination of the reliability of testimony has been one of the recognized types of examination since 1954. A brief description of the methodological principles of Statement Validity Assessment as a methodology, which is now the basis of forensic psychological examination of the reliability of testimony in Germany, is given.

Dark personality traits and deception, and the short dark tetrad (SD4) as integrity screening instrument

Dark personality traits (Machiavellianism, Narcissism, Psychopathy, and Sadism) have been associated with aversive, unethical, and criminal conduct. Concise measurement tools such as the Short Dark Tetrad (SD4) are popular, because they lend themselves as screening instruments. As such, the scores on these scales are used in various decision-making contexts, and they can have considerable effects on the lives of people who display an unfortunate scoring pattern. The present study explored to what extent high SD4 scores are actually predictive of deceptive behaviour in a matrix puzzle task, in a general community sample (N = 751). Results indicated that 9.9% of participants lied, that is, exaggerated their performance on the matrix task, hoping to increase their likelihood of financial reward. These cheating participants scored higher on all four dark traits. Nonetheless, the overlap between SD4 distributions made it impossible to determine cut-off scores in an attempt to consider scores as actual predictors of deception proneness. When framed in likelihoods, some scores can be diagnostic of deception proneness. Particularly in the context of statement validity assessment, characterized by tools with modest to poor accuracy, SD4 scores may add to diagnostic accuracy.

Criteria‐Based Content Analysis in Child Sexual Abuse Cases: A Cross‐Cultural Perspective

Statement validity assessment (SVA) was created to evaluate children's accounts in alleged sexual abuse cases and it is the most popular instrument currently used to assess the veracity of their verbal declarations. The core of this method lies in the application of criteria‐based content analysis (CBCA) to the content of the provided account in an attempt to determine its veracity. Despite the popularity and importance of this instrument in legal settings in a variety of countries, there is little evidence that the cultural and ethnic background of the alleged child victims is taken into account. The current paper proposes a theoretical overview of the culturally sensitive aspects of cognition, memory, motivation and self‐identity as reflected in each of the two general categories of the CBCA criteria (i.e. cognitive and motivational). Our investigation revealed that several criteria are likely to be sensitive to cultural differences, therefore further direct empirical proof is needed to improve validation of SVA use in culturally diverse child sexual abuse cases. In the interim, we would encourage the use of culturally sensitive practices and policies among practitioners using CBCA.‘There is little evidence that the cultural and ethnic background of the alleged child victims is taken into account’Key Practitioner Messages The cultural or ethnic background of children influences their accounts; thus, it should be expected that certain CBCA criteria can be affected by these factors. Professionals using this method are recommended to take a more ‘culturally sensitive’ approach, which involves learning more about cultural differences and monitoring their own expectations and biases. More empirical research is needed in order to validate which CBCA criteria are suitable for use in a variety of cultures and cross culturally.

Predicting disclosure latency in substantiated cases of child sexual abuse

ObjectiveChildren who experience sexual abuse (CSA) often delay disclosure, thus impeding early interventions. This study explores predictors of disclosure latency in a sample of forensically substantiated cases. MethodsCourt files were analyzed for a total of 124 cases of CSA. The ground truth of the alleged victims' statements had been substantiated by at least one inclusion criterion—an evaluation of the alleged victims' statement as credible by psychological experts applying Statement Validity Assessment (SVA), or the conviction of the suspected offender by the court. Six possible predictors of disclosure latency were tested individually and in a joint negative binomial regression model. ResultsYounger age of the child at abuse onset and intrafamilial (vs. extrafamilial) child–perpetrator relationships (including stepparents) were associated with prolonged disclosure latency. No predictive evidence was found for the child's gender, severity of abuse, or offender's usage of violent or nonphysical strategies to prevent disclosure. ConclusionThis study contributes to understanding the processes of disclosure by reassessing formerly identified predictors of disclosure latency in a sample of forensically substantiated cases. Results are in line with suggestions to further develop effective prevention programs for younger children (e.g., for elementary school) and to explicitly discuss the issue of intrafamilial abuse.

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.

Can credibility criteria be assessed reliably? A meta-analysis of criteria-based content analysis.

This meta-analysis synthesizes research on interrater reliability of Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA). CBCA is an important component of Statement Validity Assessment (SVA), a forensic procedure used in many countries to evaluate whether statements (e.g., of sexual abuse) are based on experienced or fabricated events. CBCA contains 19 verbal content criteria, which are frequently adapted for research on detecting deception. A total of k = 82 hypothesis tests revealed acceptable interrater reliabilities for most CBCA criteria, as measured with various indices (except Cohen's kappa). However, results were largely heterogeneous, necessitating moderator analyses. Blocking analyses and meta-regression analyses on Pearson's r resulted in significant moderators for research paradigm, intensity of rater training, type of rating scale used, and the frequency of occurrence (base rates) for some CBCA criteria. The use of CBCA summary scores is discouraged. Implications for research vs. field settings, for future research and for forensic practice in the United States and Europe are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record

Evaluación de la credibilidad de la prueba testifical en víctimas con discapacidad intelectual

One of the main obstacles in the way of access to justice for the victims with intellectual disability comes from the stereotypes referred to their ability to produce a statement at police legal procedures, with the consequence that some consider their statements less reliable than the rest of the victims, and others considerate their statements more reliable given their inability to create complex lies. This article reviews three of the most recent studies done by the UCM group of Psychology of Testimony, with the objective of analyzing the role of experience and intuition in the evaluation of credibility in people with intellectual disability (ID), and also it aims to prove whether the credibility analysis procedures such as Reality Monitoring (RM) and Statement Validity Assessment (SVA) would be valid procedures to discriminate between real and false statements within these collectives. From the results of these studies, it can be deducted that experience may not seem to be enough in order to discriminate between real and simulated victims, but analyzing the characteristics of the statements as the only indicator doesn’t seem to be enough either. As an alternative, the general procedure HELPT is proposed for the evaluation of credibility of people with ID.

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.

Análisis de la validez de las declaraciones: mitos y limitaciones

This paper examines the applicability and limitations of one of the procedures most commonly used to analyze the credibility of a testimony, the Statement Validity Assessment (SVA). The starting point for a successful implementation is a thorough consideration of the possible sources that could lead to a statement, following the method of falsifiability of hypotheses. Major errors of use are described and the methods for different scenarios to be analyzed are clarified, considering both the relevance of each procedure and its limitations. In conclusion, the dangers of an incorrect or incomplete implementation of SVA, regardless of the hypotheses and the recommended valuation technique, are pointed out, as long as the risk of overgeneralizing the use of content analysis (CBCA).

Is This Testimony Truthful, Fabricated, or Based on False Memory?

In 1989, Steller and Köhnken presented a systematic compilation of content characteristics for distinguishing between truthful and fabricated testimonies (criteria-based content analysis – CBCA) designed to be applied within a more comprehensive overall diagnostic procedure known as statement validity assessment (SVA; Steller, 1989 ). The subsequent 25 years have seen a marked increase in knowledge about the distinction between experience-based and non-experience-based statements. This supports the SVA approach and permits a better explanation of the underlying processes. The rationale of CBCA is that a true statement differs in content quality from a fabricated account because (a) a truth teller can draw on an episodic autobiographical representation containing a multitude of details, whereas a liar has to relate to scripts containing only general details of an event; and (b) a liar is busier with strategic self-presentation than a truth teller. The present article proposes a modified model of content characteristics that pays greater attention than before to these underlying processes. SVA takes into account that content quality is influenced not only by the veracity of a statement but also by other (personal and contextual) variables that need to be considered in the individual credibility assessment. Theoretical analyses and empirical research do not indicate comparable qualitative differences between true statements and those based on false memories. Witnesses giving testimony based on false memories do not fabricate false statements actively, and they make no effort to conceal a deception; they are not deceiving but mistaken. In these cases, a noncritical application of content criteria can lead to false results. To examine the hypothesis that a statement is based on a false memory, it is necessary to focus on the way in which the statement has emerged and evolved.

Der Konflikt der Aussagepsychologie mit dem Stand der Wissenschaft

On July 30th, 1999, the Federal Court of Justice of Germany ruled that expert testimony in child sexual abuse investigations must be based upon the current state of scientific knowledge. At the time the Federal Court classified Statement Validity Assessment as being in accordance with the state of the science, but current studies show Statement Validity Assessment to be inconsistent with the state of the science. Furthermore the use of Statement Validity Assessment in court may lead to false conclusions and forestall proceedings that are in accordance with the state of the science.

2345 – Comparative study of methods for credibility analysis of verbal statements in forensic settings

Introduction Analysis of credibility verbal statements represents an important part of forensic psychological evaluations. Currently there are several main methods for evaluating the content of verbal statement to estimate credibility of the statement. Objectives The objective of the present study was to compare the main methods for credibility analysis of verbal statements in the Czech language. This is the first study in this area in the Czech republic. Methods We examined a group of non-psychiatric adult population with at least average intelligence and no cognitive impairments (n = 150) within classical credibility analysis setting - a part of the group (n = 75) exposed to a scene, the second part of the group (n = 75) was not exposed, but they were just told what happened. Further they were interviewed by independent psychologists. The methods of Statement validity assessment (SVA), Reality monitoring (RM) and Scientific content analysis (SCA) were used to detect those who experienced the situation and those who did not. The analysis of the statements was done in a double blind setting. Results SCA and RM methods proved 85% (p Results and conclusion This pilot study supports validity of use of RM and SCA methods for analysis of credibility of verbal statements in adult non-psych iatrical persons in the Czech language, while in agreement with previous findings the method of SVA seems not to be suitable for adult persons.

Psychopathy and verbal indicators of deception in offenders

Although psychopathic offenders frequently lie and manipulate others, it is unclear what strategies they use and whether there are differences between psychopathic and non-psychopathic offenders. The present study examined the association between psychopathy and verbal indicators of deception in a sample of 45 adult male offenders. Verbal indicators of deception were assessed using Statement Validity Assessment (SVA). Psychopathic offenders provided more appropriate detail and spontaneous corrections when lying. In addition, interpersonal symptoms of psychopathy were associated with the perceived credibility of lies. Although offering limited support for SVA in a forensic context, the findings suggest that it may be necessary to attend to unique indicators of deception in psychopathic offenders.

Statement validity assessment: Inter‐rater reliability of criteria‐based content analysis in the mock‐crime paradigm

Purpose. The inter‐rater reliability of criteria‐based content analysis (CBCA) – the main component of statement validity assessment (SVA) – was investigated in a mock‐crime study. The study also addressed the issue of the adequacy of diverse statistical indices of reliability. Furthermore, CBCA's effectiveness in distinguishing between true and false statements was analysed.Methods. Three raters were trained in CBCA. Subsequently, they analysed transcripts of 102 statements referring to a simulated theft of money. Some of the statements were based on experience and some were confabulated. The raters used 4‐point scales, respectively, to judge the degree to which 18 of the 19 CBCA criteria were fulfilled in each statement.Results. The analysis of rater judgment distributions revealed that, with judgments of individual raters varying only slightly across transcripts, the weighted kappa coefficient, the product‐moment correlation, and the intra‐class correlation were inadequate indices of reliability. The Finn‐coefficient and percentage agreement, which were calculated as indices independent of rater judgment distributions, were sufficiently high with respect to 17 of the 18 assessed criteria. CBCA differentiated significantly between truthful and fabricated accounts.Conclusions. The inter‐rater reliability of CBCA achieved in the present study was satisfactory both, if considered absolutely, and as compared with other empirical findings. This suggests that CBCA can be utilized in the mock‐crime paradigm with a sufficient degree of reliability.

Criteria-Based Content Analysis: A Qualitative Review of the First 37 Studies.

Statement Validity Assessment (SVA) is used to assess the veracity of child witnesses’ testimony in trials for sexual offences. The author reviewed the available SVA research. Issues addressed include the accuracy of Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA; part of SVA), interrater agreement between CBCA coders, frequency of occurrence of CBCA criteria in statements, the correlations between CBCA scores and (i) interviewer’s style and (ii) interviewee’s age and social and verbal skills, and issues regarding the Validity Checklist (another part of SVA). Implications for the use of SVA assessments in criminal courts are discussed. It is argued that SVA evaluations are not accurate enough to be admitted as expert scientific evidence in criminal courts but might be useful in police investigations.

Improving police decision making: general principles and practical applications of receiver operating characteristic analysis

Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis is a widely used and accepted method for improving decision making performance across a range of diagnostic settings. The goal of this paper is to demonstrate how ROC analysis can be used to improve the quality of decisions made routinely in a policing context. To begin, I discuss the general principles underlying the ROC approach and demonstrate how one can conduct the analysis. Several practical applications of ROC analysis are then presented by drawing on a number of policing tasks where the procedure has been used already (bite mark identification and linking serial crimes) or where it could be used in the future (statement validity assessment and determining the veracity of suicide notes). I conclude by considering briefly some of the potential difficulties that may be encountered when using ROC analysis in the policing context and offer some possible solutions to these problems. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Children report suggested events even when interviewed in a non‐suggestive manner: what are its implications for credibility assessment?

AbstractAn important question in the legal context is how suggested statements about fictitious events develop over a course of various interviews. Sixty‐seven first‐graders were interviewed four times about one real and one fictitious event, applying various suggestive techniques. A fifth, non‐suggestive, interview was conducted by blind experts. Over the course of the interviews there was a considerable increase in assents to the fictitious events. Moreover, few significant differences in criteria‐based content analysis‐criteria were revealed between true and fictitious statements in the fifth interview. Accordingly, experts had difficulties in discriminating between true and suggested accounts. Furthermore, several children were convinced of the truth of their reports, even after having been partially debriefed in a sixth interview. Implications for statement validity assessment are discussed. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Detecting deception in children: event familiarity affects criterion-based content analysis ratings.

Statement Validity Assessment (SVA) is a comprehensive credibility assessment system, with the Criterion-Based Content Analysis (CBCA) as a core component. Worldwide, the CBCA is reported to be the most widely used veracity assessment instrument. We tested and confirmed the hypothesis that CBCA scores are affected by event familiarity; descriptions of familiar events are more likely to be judged true than are descriptions of unfamiliar events. CBCA scores were applied to transcripts of 114 children who recalled a routine medical procedure (control) or a traumatic medical procedure that they had experienced one time (relatively unfamiliar) or multiple times (relatively familiar). CBCA scores were higher for children in the relatively familiar than the relatively unfamiliar condition, and CBCA scores were significantly correlated with age. Results raise serious questions regarding the forensic suitability of the CBCA for assessing the veracity of children's accounts.

The Willingness of Children to Lie and the Assessment of Credibility in an Ecologically Relevant Laboratory Setting

A series of 4 experiments were conducted to (a) determine the willingness of children to lie in a realistic setting, (b) compare judgments of credibility from both lay evaluations and Criterion-Based Content Analysis (CBCA), and (c) examine the effects of expert testimony regarding Statement Validity Assessment on mock jurors who were asked to make evaluations of the children's statements. In Experiment 1, 81% of children who witnessed a research assistant steal a textbook made accusations against the thief (truthful), 69% of children who did not witness the theft accused the research assistant of the theft following prompting by significant others, and 56% of the children who witnessed a significant other steal the textbook incorrectly accused the research assistant following a request from their significant other. Using the statements obtained from the children in Experiment 1, Experiments 2 and 3 found that classification accuracy of lay evaluators was significantly poorer than expert application of CBCA, which resulted in 89% classification accuracy. Finally, brief exposure to CBCA expert testimony appeared to have no benefits on mock jurors' assessments of credibility of the children's statements in Experiment 4. Implications for North American legal systems are discussed.

The Detection of Dissimulation: Lies, Damned Lies and SVA

The identification of lying in both witnesses and suspects in interview has been a perennial problem for investigators of crime. Historically, the process has been either a matter of judgment exercised by investigators (and prosecutors) or the application of techniques (such as the polygraph) with dubious scientific validity. This paper examines the search for truth and the assessment of veracity in investigation and outlines a developing, science-based technique, Statement Validity Assessment (SVA) which offers hope for an objective analysis of evidence in written form. The processes and practices of SVA are outlined and critiqued.