A systematic review of the validity of Criteria-based Content Analysis in child sexual abuse cases and other field studies
Criteria-based Content Analysis (CBCA) has been primarily employed to assess the credibility of child sexual abuse (CSA) allegations. However, several studies on the validity of CBCA have focused on autobiographical events other than CSA. Because of the differences between real cases and the laborat...
| Autores: | , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2024 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Universidad de Salamanca (USAL) |
| Repositorio: | GREDOS. Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad de Salamanca |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:gredos.usal.es:10366/157562 |
| Acceso en línea: | http://hdl.handle.net/10366/157562 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Child sexual abuse Credibility assessment Deception Field studies Ground truth Child Psychology Criminal Psychology Forensic Psychiatry Psychology, Applied 6105 Evaluación y Diagnostico en Psicología 6102 Psicología del Niño y del Adolescente 6114.09 Psicología Forense 56 Ciencias Jurídicas y Derecho 6302.01 Recogida de Datos de Campo psicología criminalista psicología aplicada psicología infantil psiquiatría forense |
| Sumario: | Criteria-based Content Analysis (CBCA) has been primarily employed to assess the credibility of child sexual abuse (CSA) allegations. However, several studies on the validity of CBCA have focused on autobiographical events other than CSA. Because of the differences between real cases and the laboratory, we focused specifically on CBCA field studies on both CSA and other areas of application. We formally assessed several ground-truth criteria (and other methodological aspects) in a pool of 36 field studies. Seven archival studies (six of which were on CSA) and seven quasi-experiments (none of which was on CSA) were found to be either methodologically sound (12 studies) or acceptable with reservations (two studies), and were therefore included. We describe the paradigm and methods used in each study. Across studies, most CBCA criteria significantly differed between truthful and deceptive accounts, with similar medium to large effect sizes for the methodologically sound quasi-experiments and archival CSA studies. Our review shows that CBCA criteria may discriminate in domains other than CSA. The implications for the real-world usage of CBCA are discussed. |
|---|