A systematic review of the validity of Criteria-based Content Analysis in child sexual abuse cases and other field studies

Figures & data

Table 1. List of CBCA criteria (adapted from Steller & Köhnken, 1989).

General characteristics

1. Logical structure

2. Unstructured production

3. Quantity of details

Specific contents

4. Contextual embedding

5. Descriptions of interactions

6. Reproduction of conversation

7. Unexpected complications during the incident

8. Unusual details

9. Superfluous details

10. Accurately reported details misunderstood

11. Related external associations

12. Accounts of subjective mental state

13. Attribution of perpetrator's/interaction partner's mental state*

Motivation-related contents

14. Spontaneous corrections

15. Admitting lack of memory

16. Raising doubts about one's own testimony

17. Self-deprecation

18. Pardoning the perpetrator/interaction partner

Offense-Specific Elements

19. Details characteristic of the offense/event*

Note: *Some criteria were slightly modified to be applied in non-abuse settings.

Table 2. Main criteria used to determine ground truth of the allegations in field studies of child sexual abuse.

Criteria to classify cases as likely (probably truthful allegations)	Criteria to classify cases as not likely (doubtful or deceptive allegations)
Medical, physical, or scientific evidence (ideally DNA evidence) Confession by the accused person One or several (serial) victim statements Corroborating statements made by other witnesses Guilty verdict by a criminal court of law	Recantations Victim’s admission of having been coached Evidence of psychopathy or diagnoses of psychological disorders Not guilty verdict by a criminal court of law

Table 3. Overview of studies included in this systematic review.

Classification	Authors	Year	N accounts	Base rate	Age	Percent females	Event	Participant role	Location	Publication status
Criminal trial or sexual abuse studies
Acceptable	Bender	1987	95	.56	Adults	NA	Perjury	Witness and perpetrator	Germany	Monograph
Sound	Boychuk	1991	75	.67	4–16	80	CSA	Victim	USA	Unpublished doctoral dissertation
Sound	Lamb et al.	1997	89	.85	4–13	71^a	CSA	Victim	Israel	PR journal article
Sound	Craig et al.	1999	48	.73	3–16	77	CSA	Victim	USA	PR journal article
Sound	Akehurst et al.	2011	31	.68	6–17	84	CSA	Victim	UK	PR journal article
Sound	Roma et al.	2011	109	.55	4–14	79	CSA	Victim	Italy	PR journal article
Sound	Welle et al.	2016	60	.67	4–18	77	CSA	Victim	Switzerland	PR journal article
Quasi experiments in the field
Acceptable	Rüth-Bemelmanns	1984	50	.50	13–16	44	Owning a cat	Cat owner	Germany	Diploma thesis
Sound	Scheinberger/Wolf & Steller^b	1993/1997	30	.50	Adults	100	Child-birth experience	Mother	Germany	Diploma thesis/Book chapter
Sound	Greuel et al.	1999	40	.50	Adults	100	Child-birth experience	Mother	Germany	Conference presentation
Sound	Sporer	1998b	72	.50	Adults	50	Overnight military exercise	Trainee	Scotland	Unpublished data and conference presentation
Sound	Schubert	1999	50^c	.50	Young adults	44	Driving exam	Driving examinee	Germany	Diploma thesis
Sound	Niehaus	2001	80	.50	4–12	51	Child accident	Victim	Germany	Monograph
Sound	Kirchler-Bölderl et al.	2013	39	.26	3–7	NA	Child accident	Victim	Austria	Conference presentation

Notes: Base rate = independently confirmed cases/(confirmed + unconfirmed cases); CSA: Child sexual abuse; PR: Peer-reviewed; NA: not available.

^a Percentage across all plausibility categories together (N = 98). Lamb et al. (1997) did not report gender for the separate categories.

^b The reports by Scheinberger (1993) and Wolf and Steller (1997) are based on the same data sets.

^c Repeated measures design (i.e. 2 * 25 participants = 50 accounts).

Table 4. Means, SDs, intercorrelations of CBCA criteria, mean rs and corrected item-total correlations (CITCs) in the field quasi-experiment by Sporer (1998a).

Measures	M	SD	CBCA criteria																	Mean r	CITC
			01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	19
CBCA Criteria
02	.89	.40	−.24																	.12	.29
03	1.74	.44	.19	.23																.23	.59
04	.93	.61	.09	.03	.40															.14	.35
05	1.14	.61	.16	.36	.55	.40														.25	.64
06	.18	.45	.08	.19	.24	.15	.42													.14	.36
07	.38	.54	.02	.07	.30	.12	.43	.24												.16	.42
08	.24	.49	.10	.06	.29	.20	.36	.38	.46											.14	.40
09	.28	.48	.12	.16	.28	.31	.35	.03	.35	.26										.18	.45
11	.08	.28	.06	.09	.18	.20	.10	−.01	.07	−.15	.35									.10	.20
12	.32	.50	.13	.25	.26	−.06	.22	.18	.23	.09	.09	.11								.14	.30
13	.01	.12	.02	.03	−.20	.01	−.03	−.05	−.08	−.06	−.07	−.04	−.08							−.02	−.06
14	.08	.28	−.19	.09	−.05	−.05	−.15	−.12	−.12	−.04	.04	.09	.21	−.04						−.01	−.02
15	.33	.50	.00	.05	.08	.17	.03	.04	.05	.19	.25	.00	.02	.16	.10					.13	.24
16	.03	.17	.04	.05	−.09	.02	−.04	.12	.04	−.08	.08	.25	.06	−.02	−.05	.39				.07	.14
17	.08	.33	.05	−.04	.15	.10	.15	.18	.22	−.04	.21	.23	.18	−.03	−.08	.26	.22			.12	.28
19	1.82	.39	.08	.42	.62	.18	.46	.19	.06	.15	.05	.01	.30	.06	.14	.24	.08	.12		.21	.48
Mean r	.55	.40	.05	.12	.23	.14	.25	.14	.16	.14	.18	.10	.14	−.02	−.01	.13	.07	.12	.21	.13	.13

Note: Correlations with |r| > .232 were significant at p < .05. Mean rs were calculated using Fisher's Zr transformations and then back-transformed.

Figure 1. Mean unbiased effect sizes g for quasi-experiments (light bars) and archival analyses of court cases (dark bars).

Note: Error bars are 95% confidence limits for the respective criteria. When they include zero, the effect size was not statistically significant (two-sided testing).

Steller, M., & Köhnken, G. (1989). Criteria-based Statement Analysis. In D. C. Raskin (Ed.), Psychological methods in criminal investigation and evidence (pp. 217–245). Springer.

 Google Scholar

*Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., Esplin, P. W., Hershkowitz, I., Orbach, Y., & Hovav, M. (1997). Criterion-based content analysis: A field validation study. Child Abuse & Neglect, 21(3), 255–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0145-2134(96)00170-6

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Scheinberger, R. (1993). Inhaltliche Realkennzeichen in Aussagen von Erwachsenen [Content credibility criteria in testimonies of adults]. [Unpublished diploma thesis]. Freie Universität Berlin.

 Google Scholar

*Wolf, P., & Steller, M. (1997). Realkennzeichen in Aussagen von Frauen. Zur Validierung der Kriterienorientierten Aussageanalyse für Zeugenaussagen von Vergewaltigungsopfern [Reality criteria in statements of women. Validating Criteria-based Content Analysis for statements of rape victims]. In L. Greuel, T. Fabian, & M. Stadler (Eds.), Psychologie der Zeugenaussage (pp. 122–130). Psychologie Verlags Union.

 Google Scholar

*Sporer, S. L. (1998a, March). CBCA criteria ratings of a quasi-experiment on an overnight military exercise in the Scottish Highlands [Unpublished raw data]. University of Aberdeen, Scotland/University of Giessen, Germany.

 Google Scholar