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

Verbal Lie Detection: Its Past, Present and Future

This article provides an overview of verbal lie detection research. This type of research began in the 1970s with examining the relationship between deception and specific words. We briefly review this initial research. In the late 1980s, Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA) emerged, a veracity assessment tool containing a list of verbal criteria. This was followed by Reality Monitoring (RM) and Scientific Content Analysis (SCAN), two other veracity assessment tools that contain lists of verbal criteria. We discuss their contents, theoretical rationales, and ability to identify truths and lies. We also discuss similarities and differences between CBCA, RM, and SCAN. In the mid 2000s, 'Interviewing to deception' emerged, with the goal of developing specific interview protocols aimed at enhancing or eliciting verbal veracity cues. We outline the four most widely researched interview protocols to date: the Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE), Verifiability Approach (VA), Cognitive Credibility Assessment (CCA), and Reality Interviewing (RI). We briefly discuss the working of these protocols, their theoretical rationales and empirical support, as well as the similarities and differences between them. We conclude this article with elaborating on how neuroscientists can inform and improve verbal lie detection.

Children who are coached to lie: does linguistic analysis help in understanding why these children are so believable?

In this study, the usefulness of linguistic analysis in determining the veracity of children's accounts is examined. The Linguistic Inquiry Word Count 2007 program was used to analyze 95 stories told by 5- to 14-year-olds who were telling the truth or a lie about the stressful experience of breaking a bone or requiring sutures for serious lacerations. Half of the children were coached by parents in preparing their story over the four days prior to giving their account. Differences emerged in the linguistic style used as a function of age, presence of coaching and event veracity. Very few linguistic categories emerged as significant predictors of event veracity, and the variables that did emerge were different depending upon the presence of coaching. Since in real-life situations one seldom knows a child's coaching history, these findings suggest that it is inappropriate to use linguistic analysis to assess the veracity of children's accounts.

Adults' Detection of Deception in Children: Effect of Coaching and Age for Children's True and Fabricated Reports of Injuries

A total of 1,074 undergraduates judged the truthfulness of children's interviews (from verbatim transcripts) about experiencing injuries serious enough to require hospital emergency room treatment. Ninety-six children (three age groups: 5-7, 8-10, and 11-14 years, 50% girls) were interviewed. At each age, 16 children told truthful accounts of actual injury experiences and 16 fabricated their reports, with half of each group coached by parents for the previous 4 days. Lies by 5- to 7-year-olds, whether coached or not, were detected at above-chance levels. In contrast, 8- to 10-year-olds' accounts that were coached, whether true or not, were more likely to be believed. For 11- to 14-year-olds, adults were less likely to accurately judge lies if they were coached. The believability of children aged 8 or above who were coached to lie is particularly disturbing in light of the finding that participants were more confident in the accuracy of their veracity decisions when judging coached reports.

Detecting children's lies: comparing true accounts about highly stressful injuries with unprepared, prepared, and coached lies

In this investigation, 514 university students judged whether children were telling the truth about highly emotional events. Eight children (half female, half 8-9 and the remainder 12-14 years old) had been injured seriously enough to require emergency room treatment and were interviewed a few days later. Each was yoked to three other children matched in age and gender who fabricated accounts under one of three conditions: lies that were unprepared, prepared (24 hours to prepare), and coached by parents. Participants were at chance when judging true accounts as well as unprepared and prepared lies. However, 74% of the coached lies were judged as true. Participants' confidence in their judgments, age, experience with children, and relevant coursework/training did not improve judgments.

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).

Detecting deception in children: an experimental study of the effect of event familiarity on CBCA ratings

The CBCA is the most commonly used deception detection. technique worldwide. Pezdek et al. (2004) used a quasi-experimental design to assess children's accounts of a traumatic medical procedure; CBCA ratings were higher for descriptions of familiar than unfamiliar events. This study tested this effect using an experimental design and assessed the joint effect of familiarity and veracity on CBCA ratings. Children described a true or a fabricated event. Half described a familiar event; half described an unfamiliar event. Two CBCA-trained judges rated transcripts of the descriptions. CBCA scores were more strongly influenced by the familiarity than the actual veracity of the event, and CBCA scores were significantly correlated with age. CBCA results were compared with results from other measures. Together with the results of K. Pezdek et al. (2004) these findings suggest that in its current form, CBCA is of limited utility as a credibility assessment tool.