Incidence and outcome of hepatic veno-occlusive disease after blood or marrow transplantation: a prospective cohort study of the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation Chronic Leukemia Working Party

Early diagnostic value of liver stiffness measurement in hepatic sinusoidal obstruction syndrome induced by hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT)-sinusoidal obstruction syndrome (SOS), also known as veno-occlusive disease, is a clinical syndrome characterized by symptoms, such as right upper quadrant pain, jaundice, fluid retention, and hepatomegaly, and is caused by pre-treatment-related hepatotoxicity during the early stages after HSCT. Clinical diagnosis of HSCT-SOS is based on the revised Seattle or Baltimore standards. The revised standard by the European Society for Bone Marrow Transplantation in 2016 has good practicability and can be used in combination with these two standards. Eight studies have shown the value of liver stiffness measurement (LSM) in the early diagnosis of HSCT-SOS. Four studies investigated LSM specificity and sensitivity for the early diagnosis of HSCT-SOS. LSM can distinguish SOS from other post-HSCT complications, enabling a clear differential diagnosis. It has been shown that median LSM of patients with SOS is significantly higher than that of patients with other treatment-related liver complications (e.g., acute cholecystitis, cholangitis, antifungal drug-related liver injury, liver graft-versus-host disease, isolated liver biochemical changes, and fulminant Epstein Barr virus related hepatitis reactivation). Therefore, the above data confirmed the utility of LSM and strongly suggested that LSM improves the positive predictive value of the SOS diagnostic clinical score after allogeneic HSCT. Early diagnosis of SOS is beneficial in preventing severe HSCT complications.

It's the deceiver, not the receiver: No individual differences when detecting deception in a foreign and a native language

Individual differences in lie detection remain poorly understood. Bond and DePaulo’s meta-analysis examined judges (receivers) who were ascertaining lies from truths and senders (deceiver) who told these lies and truths. Bond and DePaulo found that the accuracy of detecting deception depended more on the characteristics of senders rather than the judges’ ability to detect lies/truths. However, for many studies in this meta-analysis, judges could hear and understand senders. This made language comprehension a potential confound. This paper presents the results of two studies. Extending previous work, in Study 1, we removed language comprehension as a potential confound by having English-speakers (N = 126, mean age = 19.86) judge the veracity of German speakers (n = 12) in a lie detection task. The twelve lie-detection stimuli included emotional and non-emotional content, and were presented in three modalities–audio only, video only, and audio and video together. The intelligence (General, Auditory, Emotional) and personality (Dark Triads and Big 6) of participants was also assessed. In Study 2, a native German-speaking sample (N = 117, mean age = 29.10) were also tested on a similar lie detection task to provide a control condition. Despite significantly extending research design and the selection of constructs employed to capture individual differences, both studies replicated Bond and DePaulo’s findings. The results of Study1 indicated that removing language comprehension did not amplify individual differences in judge’s ability to ascertain lies from truths. Study 2 replicated these results confirming a lack of individual differences in judge’s ability to detect lies. The results of both studies suggest that Sender (deceiver) characteristics exerted a stronger influence on the outcomes of lie detection than the judge’s attributes.

Culture moderates changes in linguistic self-presentation and detail provision when deceiving others

Change in our language when deceiving is attributable to differences in the affective and cognitive experience of lying compared to truth telling, yet these experiences are also subject to substantial individual differences. On the basis of previous evidence of cultural differences in self-construal and remembering, we predicted and found evidence for cultural differences in the extent to which truths and lies contained self (versus other) references and perceptual (versus social) details. Participants (N = 320) of Black African, South Asian, White European and White British ethnicity completed a catch-the-liar task in which they provided genuine and fabricated statements about either their past experiences or an opinion and counter-opinion. Across the four groups we observed a trend for using more/fewer first-person pronouns and fewer/more third-person pronouns when lying, and a trend for including more/fewer perceptual details and fewer/more social details when lying. Contrary to predicted cultural differences in emotion expression, all participants showed more positive affect and less negative affect when lying. Our findings show that liars deceive in ways that are congruent with their cultural values and norms, and that this may result in opposing changes in behaviour.

Characteristics of True versus False Allegations of Sexual Offences

The goal of the study was to establish whether false allegations of sexual offences with an unknown perpetrator can be distinguished from accurate allegations. Case files of 27 true allegations of sexual offences with an unknown perpetrator were compared to those of 14 false allegations. The comparison was guided by a list of 43 criteria that are hypothesized to differentiate between true and false allegations of sexual assault. Analyses indicated the employed criteria differentiated true from false allegations to a certain extent. However, the discriminative strength of some criteria appeared to be stronger than that of others. Research is required to assess further the discriminative power of these criteria.

A call to improve the validity of criterion-based content analysis (CBCA): Results from a field-based study including 60 children's statements of sexual abuse

The growing awareness of sexually-abused children has led to a major shift: previously considered untrustworthy, children are now regarded as competent in providing medico-legal evidence. Professionals undertaking the challenging task of assessing the child's credibility need to rely upon approved evaluation methods. The Criteria-Based Content Analysis is a tool developed to assess the truthfulness of a child's verbal statement. This field-based study explores its validity and its limitations. Three independent experts rated the verbatim statements of 60 real-life alleged victims of sexual abuse. The CBCA scoring and final assessment of credibility were linked to the outcomes: confirmed or unconfirmed allegation of sexual abuse. Inter-rater reliability coefficient was 0.74. The average overall accuracy rate corresponding to confirmed and unconfirmed cases was 75%. Among the confirmed allegations, the accuracy rate reached 90%, whereas the probability of discriminating the true negative cases within the unconfirmed cases was lower than chance level. Of all the 19 criteria, items 6 "Reproduction of conversation" and 12 "Accounts of subjective mental state" were the strongest predictors of genuine accounts. A significant association between age and CBCA scores was noted, the effect of age on CBCA scores was strongest in the unconfirmed cases. Although some may argue that the validity of the CBCA is reasonably acceptable, results from this field study are less convincing. Increasing the diagnostic accuracy of the CBCA by adding new criteria, so as to raise the percentage of correct classifications in the confirmed accounts as well as in the unconfirmed accounts, would represent a major improvement.

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.

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).

Cues to deception and ability to detect lies as a function of police interview styles

In Experiment 1, we examined whether three interview styles used by the police, accusatory, information-gathering and behaviour analysis, reveal verbal cues to deceit, measured with the Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA) and Reality Monitoring (RM) methods. A total of 120 mock suspects told the truth or lied about a staged event and were interviewed by a police officer employing one of these three interview styles. The results showed that accusatory interviews, which typically result in suspects making short denials, contained the fewest verbal cues to deceit. Moreover, RM distinguished between truth tellers and liars better than CBCA. Finally, manual RM coding resulted in more verbal cues to deception than automatic coding of the RM criteria utilising the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) software programme. In Experiment 2, we examined the effects of the three police interview styles on the ability to detect deception. Sixty-eight police officers watched some of the videotaped interviews of Experiment 1 and made veracity and confidence judgements. Accuracy scores did not differ between the three interview styles; however, watching accusatory interviews resulted in more false accusations (accusing truth tellers of lying) than watching information-gathering interviews. Furthermore, only in accusatory interviews, judgements of mendacity were associated with higher confidence. We discuss the possible danger of conducting accusatory interviews.

What's in a Name for Memory Errors? Implications and Ethical Issues Arising From the Use of the Term "False Memory" for Errors in Memory for Details

The term "false memories" has been used to refer to suggestibility experiments in which whole events are apparently confabulated and in media accounts of contested memories of childhood abuse. Since 1992 psychologists have increasingly used the term "false memory" when discussing memory errors for details, such as specific words within lists. Use of the term to refer to errors in details is a shift in language away from other terms used historically (e.g., "memory intrusions"). We empirically examine this shift in language and discuss implications of the new use of the term "false memories." Use of the term presents serious ethical challenges to the data-interpretation process by encouraging over-generalization and misapplication of research findings on word memory to social issues.

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.

Children's memory for trauma and positive experiences

Characteristics of children's memory for a trauma and for a positive event were compared and relationships of memory characteristics to trauma symptoms examined in 30 children who experienced a traumatic event. Results revealed that memories for trauma tended to have less sensory detail and coherence, yet have more meaning and impact than did memories for positive experiences. Sexual traumas, offender relationship, and perceived life threat were associated with memory characteristics. Few relationships between memory characteristics and trauma symptoms were found. Therapist ratings of child memory characteristics were correlated with some child trauma memory characteristic reports. These results are consistent with other studies. Possible explanations include divided attention during the traumatic event and cognitive avoidance occurring after the event.

Nearly 4 years after an event: children's eyewitness memory and adults' perceptions of children's accuracy

OBJECTIVE

The current study examined children's eyewitness memory nearly 4 years after an event and the ability of adults to evaluate such memory.

METHOD

In Phase 1, 7- and 10-year olds were interviewed about a past event after a nearly 4-year delay. The interview included leading questions relevant to child abuse as well as statements designed to implicate the original confederate. In Phase 2, laypersons and professionals watched a videotaped interview (from Phase 1) that they were misled to believe was from an ongoing abuse investigation. Respondents then rated the child's accuracy and credibility, and the probability that the child had been abused.

RESULTS

In Phase 1, few significant age differences in memory accuracy were found, perhaps owing in part to small sample size. Although children made a variety of commission errors, none claimed outright to have been abused. Nevertheless, some of the children's answers (e.g., saying that their picture had been taken, or that they had been in a bathtub) might cause concern in a forensic setting. In Phase 2, professional and nonprofessional respondents were unable to reliably estimate the overall accuracy of children's statements. However, respondents were able to reasonably estimate the accuracy of children's answers to abuse questions. Respondents were also more likely to think that 7-year olds compared to 10-year olds had been abused. Professionals were significantly less likely than nonprofessionals to believe that credible evidence of abuse existed. Professionals who indicated personal experience with child abuse or a close relationship with an abuse victim were more likely to rate children as abused. A gender bias to rate boys as more accurate than girls was apparent among laypersons but not professionals.

CONCLUSIONS

Children were generally resistant to suggestions that abuse occurred during a long-ago generally forgotten event, but some potentially concerning errors were made. Both professionals and non-professionals had difficulty estimating the accuracy of children's reports, but adults were more likely to rate children as accurate if the children answered abuse-related questions correctly. Training and personal experience were associated with adults' ratings of children's reports. Implications for evaluations of child abuse reports are discussed.