Assessment of juveniles testimonies’ validity

The article presents a review of the English language publications concerning the history and the current state of differential psychological assessment of validity of testimonies produced by child and adolescent victims of crimes. The topicality of the problem in Russia is high due to the tendency of Russian specialists to use methodical means and instruments developed abroad in this sphere for forensic assessments of witness testimony veracity. A system of Statement Validity Analysis (SVA) by means of Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA) and Validity Checklist is described. The results of laboratory and field studies of validity of CBCA criteria on the basis of child and adult witnesses are discussed. The data display a good differentiating capacity of the method, however, a high level of error probability. The researchers recommend implementation of SVA in the criminal investigation process, but not in the forensic assessment. New perspective developments in the field of methods for differentiation of witness statements based on the real experience and fictional are noted. The conclusion is drawn that empirical studies and a special work for adaptation and development of new approaches should precede their implementation into Russian criminal investigation and forensic assessment practice

1. Morozova M.V. Kompleksnaia sudebnaia psikhologo-psikhiatricheskaia ekspertiza sposobnosti davat' pokazaniia [A comprehensive forensic psychological and psychiatric examination of the ability to testify]. Meditsinskaya i sudebnaya psikhologiya [Medical and forensic psychology]: Kurs lektsii: Uchebnoe posobie T.B. Dmitrieva, F.S. Safuanov, eds. Moscow: Genezis, 2009, pp. 506 – 527. (In Russ.).
2. Sitkovskaia O.D., Konysheva L.P. Psikhologicheskaia ekspertiza nesovershennoletnikh v ugolovnom protsesse [Psychological evaluation of minors in criminal proceedings]: Nauchno-metodicheskoe posobie. Moscow: Yuniti-Dana, 2001. 72 p. (In Russ.).
3. Sitkovskaia O.D. Psikhologiia svidetel'skikh pokazanii. Nauchno-metodicheskoe posobie [Elektronnyi resurs] [Psychology of testimony]. Moscow: Izd-vo NII problem ukrepleniya zakonnosti i pravoporyadka pri General'noi prokurature RF, 2007. 80 p. (In Russ.).
4. Frai O. Detektsiia lzhi i obmana [Lie detection]. Saint-Petersburg: PRAIM-Evroznak, 2005. 320 p.
5. Frai O. Lozh'. Tri sposoba vyiavleniia lzhi [The lie. Three ways of detecting lies]. Saint-Petersburg.: PRAIM-Evroznak, 2006, 286 p.
6. Amado B.G., Arce R., Farina F. Undeutsch hypothesis and Criteria Based Content Analysis: A meta-analytic review. The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 2015, vol. 7, no 1, pp. 3–12. doi:10.1016/j.ejpal.2014.11.002.
7. Anson D.A., Golding S.L., Gully K.J. Child sexual abuse allegations: Reliability of criteria-based content analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 1993, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 331 – 341. doi:10.1007/BF01044512.
8. Arntzen F. Psychologie der Zeugenaussage. System der Glaubwürdigkeitsmerkmale. München: Beck, 1983, 171 p.
9. Assessment of child witness statements using criteria-based content analysis (CBCA): The effects of age, verbal ability, and interviewer's emotional style. Santtila P., [et al.]. Psychology, Crime and Law, 2000, vol. 6, no 3, pp. 159-179. doi:10.1080/10683160008409802.
10. Bauer P.J., Wewerka S.S. Saying is revealing: Verbal expression of event memory in the transition from infancy to early childhood. Developmental spans in event comprehension and representation: Bridging fictional and actual events. P. van den Broek, P.J. Bauer, T. Bourg, eds. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1997, pp. 139–168.
11. Boychuk T. Criteria-Based Content Analysis of children’s statements about sexual abuse [Electronic resource]: A field-based validation study. Arizona State University. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. Ann Arbor, 1991. 120 p. Available at: http://search.proquest.com/docview/303943600?accountid=35419 (Accessed: 25.05.2015).
12. Bruner J., Haste H. Making sense: The child construction of reality. New York: Methuen, 1987. 204 p.
13. Brown J.M. Statement Validity Analysis. J.M. Brown, E.A. Campbell. The Cambridge Handbook of Forensic Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010, pp. 319–326.
14. Colewell K., Hiscock C.K., Memnon A. Interviewing techniques and the assessment of statement credibility. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2002, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 287-300. doi: 10.1002/acp.788.
15. Content cues to veracity: A meta-analysis of the validity of Criteria-Based Content Analysis. Sporer S., Blandon-Gitlin I., Masip J., Hauch V. EAPL + World Conference 2015 (Nuremberg, Germany, 4 – 7 August 2015). Abstracts, 2015, pp. 238.
16. Contextual Bias in Verbal Credibility Assessment: Criteria-Based Content Analysis, Rality Monitoring and Scientific Content Analysis. Bogaard G., [et al.]. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2014, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 79–90. doi: 10.1002/acp.2959.
17. Criteria-based Content Analysis of True and Suggested Accounts of Events. Blandon-Gitlin I., [et al.]. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2009, vol. 23, no. 7, pp. 901–917. doi: 10.1002/acp.1504.
18. Criterion-Based Content Analysis: A field validation study. Lamb M.E., [et al.]. Child Abuse and Neglect, 1997, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 255–264. doi: 10.1016/S0145-2134(96)00170-6.
19. Detecting Deception in Children: Event Familiarity Affects Criterion-Based Content Analysis Rating. Pezdek K., [et al.]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2004, vol. 89, no. 1, pp. 119–126. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.119.
20. Dettenborn H., Fröhlich H.-H., Szewczyk H. Forensische Psychologie. Berlin: VEB Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften, 1984. 394 p.
21. Fivush R. Haden C.A. Narrating and representing experience: Preschoolers’ developing autobiographical recounts. In P. van den Broek, P.J. Bauer, T. Bourg, Eds. Developmental spans in event comprehension and representation: Bridging fictional and actual events. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1997, pp. 169–198.
22. Goodman G.S. Commentary: On stress and accuracy in research on children’s testimony. J. Doris, Ed. The suggestibility of children’s recollections. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 1991, pp. 77 – 82.
23. Halfmann E., Sporer S.L. Belief in Context: Effects of suspect preparation time on belief about Scientific Content Analysis. EAPL + World Conference 2015 (Nuremberg, Germany, 4 – 7 August 2015). Abstracts, 2015, pp. 92-93.
24. Honts C. R. Assessing children’s credibility: Scientific and legal issues in 1994. North Dakota Law Review, 1994, vol. 70, рр. 879–903.
25. Interviewer questions and content analysis of children’s statements of sexual abuse. Craig R.A., [et al.]. Applied Developmental Science, 1999, vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 77–85. doi:10.1207/s1532480xads0302_2.
26. Köhnken G. Statement Validity Analysis and the detection of the truth / In P.A. Granhag, L.A. Stromwall, Eds. The detection of deception in forensic context. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004, pp. 41–63.
27. Lamers-Winkelman F., Buffing F. Children’s testimony in the Netherlands: A study of statement validity Analysis. International perspectives on child abuse and children testimoniy: Psychological Research and law. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 1996, pp. 45–62.
28. Moston S. How children interpret and respond to questions: situation sources of suggestibility in eyewitness interviews. Social Behavior, 1990, Vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 155–167.
29. Nelson K. Event knowledge and cognitive development. K. Nelson, Ed. Event knowledge: Structure and functions in development. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1986, pp. 1–19.
30. Nelson K. Remembering and telling: A Developmental story. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 1991, vol. 1, no. 2–3, pp. 109–127. doi: 10.1075/jnlh.1.1.05chi.
31. Parker A.D., Brown J. Detection of deception: Statement Validity Analysis as a means of determining truthfulness or falsity of rape allegations. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 2000, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 237–259. doi: 10.1348/135532500168119.
32. Raskin D.C., Esplin P.W. Assessment of children’s statements of sexual abuse. The suggestibility of children’s recollections. J. Doris, ed. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 1991, pp. 153–165.
33. Raskin D.C., Esplin P.W. Statement Validity Assessment: Interview procedures and content analysis of children’s statements of sexual abuse. Behavioral Assessment, 1991, vol. 13, no. 3, рр. 265–291.
34. Reliability of criteria-based content analysis of child witness statements. Horowitz S.W., [et al]. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 1997, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 11–21. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8333.1997.tb00329.x.
35. Ruby C.L., Brigham J.C. The usefulness of the Criteria-Based Content Analysis technique in distinguishing between truthful and fabricated allegations. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 1997, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 705–737. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.3.4.705.
36. Steller M., Köhnken G. Criteria-Based Content Analysis. Psychological methods in criminal investigation and evidence. D.C. Raskin, ed. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1989, pp. 217 – 245.
37. Trankell A. Der Realitätsgehalt von Zeugenaussagen. Metodik der Aussagenpsychologie. Göttingen: Vandenhoek und Ruprecht, 1971. 174 p.
38. The relationships among interviewer utterance type, CBCA scores and the richness of children’s responses. Herschkowitz I., [et al.]. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 1997, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 169–176. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8333.1997.tb00341.x.
39. Undeutsch U.  Statement reality analysis. In A. Trankell Ed. Reconstructing the past: The role of psychologists in criminal trials. Deventer, the Netherlands: Kluwer, 1982. pp. 27–56.
40. Volbert R., Hoff K., Lehmann R. Criteria-Based Content Analysis: Empirical analysis of diagnostic value and latent structures. EAPL+World Conference 2015 (Nuremberg, Germany, 4–7 August 2015). Abstracts, 2015, pp. 268.
41. Volbert R., Steller M. Glaubhaftigkeit. T. Bliesener, F. Lösel, G. Köhnken (Hrsg.) Lehrbuch der Rechtpsychologie. Bern: Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, 2014, pp. 391 – 407.
42. Vrij A. Criteria-based content analysis a qualitative review of the first 37 Studies. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2005, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 3–41. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.11.1.3.
43. Wells G.L., Loftus E.F. Commentary: Is this child fabricating? Reactions to a new assessment technique. In J. Doris, Ed. The suggestibility of children’s recollections. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 1991, pp. 168–171.
44. Wojciechowski B. Classification tree: A step forward to standardized and accurate content analysis. «EAPL + World Conference 2015» (Nuremberg, Germany, 4–7 August 2015). Abstracts, 2015, pp. 292–293.