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

References

• References preceded by one asterisk are included in the systematic review.
   Google Scholar
• *Akehurst, L., Manton, S., & Quandte, S. (2011). Careful calculation or a leap of faith? A field study of the translation of CBCA ratings to final credibility judgements. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(2), 236–243. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1669
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amado, B. G., Arce, R., & Fariña, F. (2015). Undeutsch hypothesis and Criteria-based Content Analysis: A meta-analytic review. The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 7(1), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpal.2014.11.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amado, B. G., Arce, R., Farina, F., & Vilarino, M. (2016). Criteria-based Content Analysis (CBCA) reality criteria in adults: A meta-analytic review. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 16(2), 201–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijchp.2016.01.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anastasi, A. (1990). Psychological testing. Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Anson, D. A., Golding, S. L., & Gully, K. J. (1993). Child sexual abuse allegations: Reliability of Criteria-based Content Analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 17(3), 331–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01044512
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arntzen, F. (1970). Psychologie der Zeugenaussage. Einführung in die forensische Aussagepsychologie [Psychology of eyewitness testimony: Introduction to the forensic psychology of eyewitness testimony]. Hogrefe.
   Google Scholar
• Arntzen, F. (1983/1993). Psychologie der Zeugenaussage: Systematik der Glaubwürdigkeitsmerkmale [Psychology of eyewitness testimony: A system of credibility criteria] (2nd/3rd ed.). C. H. Beck.
   Google Scholar
• *Bender, H.-U. (1987). Merkmalskombinationen in Aussagen. Theorie und Empirie zum Beweiswert beim Zusammentreffen von Glaubwürdigkeitskriterien [Criteria combinations in statements. Theory and empirical data on the probative value of covariations of credibility criteria]. J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck).
   Google Scholar
• Bender, R., & Nack, A. (1981). Tatsachenfestellung vor Gericht. Band 1: Glaubwürdigkeits- und Beweislehre [Establishing facts in courts of law: Vol. 1: Doctrine of credibility and proof] (1st ed.). C. H. Beck.
   Google Scholar
• Bender, R., & Nack, A. (1995). Tatsachenfestellung vor Gericht. Band 1: Glaubwürdigkeits- und Beweislehre [Establishing facts in courts of law: Vol. 1: Doctrine of credibility and proof] (2nd ed.). C. H. Beck.
   Google Scholar
• Böhm, C., & Lau, S. (2007). Borderline-Persönlichkeitsstörung und Aussagetüchtigkeit [Borderline personality disorder and the assessment of witness competence]. Forensische Psychiatrie und Psychologische Kriminologie, 1(1), 50–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11757-006-0007-3
   Google Scholar
• Borenstein, M. (2009). Effect sizes for continuous data. In H. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed, pp. 221–235). Russell Sage Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• *Boychuk, T. D. (1991). Criteria-based Content Analysis of children's statements about sexual abuse: A field-based validation study [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Arizona State University.
   Google Scholar
• Bundesgerichtshof in Strafsachen [BGHSt]. (1954). 7, 82, Urteil vom 3. 12. 1954.
   Google Scholar
• Bushman, B. J. (1994). Vote-counting procedures in meta-analysis. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 193–213). Russell Sage Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Bushman, B. J., & Wang, M. C. (2009). Vote-counting procedures in meta-analysis. In H. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed., pp. 207–220). Russell Sage Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Cacuci, S.-A., Bull, R., Huang, C.-Y., & Visu-Petra, L. (2021). Criteria-based Content Analysis in child sexual abuse cases: A cross-cultural perspective. Child Abuse Review, 30(6), 520–535. https://doi.org/10.1002/car.2733
   Google Scholar
• Connolly, D. A., & Lavoie, J. A. (2015). Discriminating veracity between children's reports of single, repeated, and fabricated events: A critical analysis of Criteria-based Content Analysis. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 33, 25–48.
   Google Scholar
• *Craig, R. A., Scheibe, R., Raskin, D. C., Kircher, J. C., & Dodd, D. H. (1999). Interviewer questions and content analysis of children's statements of sexual abuse. Applied Developmental Science, 3(2), 77–85. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532480xads0302_2
   Google Scholar
• Davies, G. M., Westcott, H. L., & Horan, N. (2000). The impact of questioning style on the content of investigative interviews with suspected child sexual abuse victims. Psychology, Crime and Law, 6(2), 81–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160008410834
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129(1), 74–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.74
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dettenborn, H., Fröhlich, H. H., & Szewczyk, H. (1984). Forensische Psychologie: Lehrbuch der gerichtlichen Psychologie für Juristen, Kriminalisten, Psychologen, Pädagogen und Mediziner [Forensic psychology: Textbook of psychology and law for legal professionals, criminologists, psychologists, educators, and physicians]. VEB Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften.
   Google Scholar
• Dukala, K., Sporer, S. L., & Polczyk, R. (2019). Detecting deception: Does the cognitive interview impair discrimination with CBCA criteria in elderly witnesses? Psychology, Crime & Law, 25(2), 195–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2018.1511789
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fegert, J. M., Gerke, J., & Rassenhofer, M. (2018). Enormes professionelles Unverständnis gegenüber Traumatisierten. Ist die Glaubhaftigkeitsbegutachtung und ihre undifferenzierte Anwendung in unterschiedlichen Rechtsbereichen eine Zumutung für von sexueller Gewalt Betroffene? [Enormous professional misunderstanding regarding traumatized persons. Is credibility assessment and its undifferentiated application in differentiated areas of law unreasonable for persons affected by sexual violence?]. Nervenheilkunde, 36, 525–534.
   Google Scholar
• Fiedler, K., & Schmid, J. (1999). Gutachten über die Methodik für Psychologische Glaubwürdigkeitsgutachten [Expert evaluation of the methodology of psychological credibility assessment by forensic experts]. Praxis der Rechtspsychologie, 9(2), 5–45.
   Google Scholar
• Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd. ed.). Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Finkelhor, D., Cross, T. P., & Cantor, E. N. (2005). The justice system for juvenile victims. A comprehensive model of case flow. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 6(2), 83–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838005275090
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Geiger, S. (2005). Aussagepsychologische Untersuchung von Änderungen im Berichtsstil bei falschen Zeugenaussagen [An examination of changes in reporting style in false eyewitness statements] [Unpublished Diploma thesis]. University of Konstanz.
   Google Scholar
• Granhag, P. A., & Hartwig, M. (2008). A new theoretical perspective on deception detection: On the psychology of instrumental mind-reading. Psychology, Crime & Law, 14(3), 189–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160701645181
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Granhag, P.-A., Hartwig, M., Mac Giolla, E., & Clemens, F. (2015). Suspects’ verbal counter-interrogation strategies: Towards an integrative model. In P.-A. Granhag, A. Vrij, & B. Verschuere (Eds.), Detecting deception. Current challenges and cognitive approaches (pp. 293–313). Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Greuel, L. (2001). Wirklichkeit–Erinnerung–Aussage [Reality–recollection–testimony]. Psychologie Verlags Union.
   Google Scholar
• *Greuel, L., Brietzke, S., & Stadler, M. A. (1999, July 6–9). Credibility assessment. New research perspectives [Paper presentation]. AP-LS/EAPL Psychology and Law—International Conference, Dublin, Ireland.
   Google Scholar
• Hauch, V., Sporer, S. L., Masip, J., & Blandón-Gitlin, I. (2017). Can credibility criteria be assessed reliably? A meta-analysis of Criteria-based Content Analysis. Psychological Assessment, 29(6), 819–834. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000426
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hauch, V., Sporer, S. L., Michael, S. W., & Meissner, C. A. (2016). Does training improve the detection of deception? A meta-analysis. Communication Research, 43(3), 283–343. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650214534974
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hedges, L. V. (2019). Stochastically dependent effect sizes. In H. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (3rd ed., pp. 281–297). Russell Sage Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (2000). Vote-counting methods in research synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 88(2), 359–369. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.88.2.359
   Google Scholar
• Hellwig, A. (1951). Psychologie und Vernehmungstechnik bei Tatbestandsermittlungen [Psychology and technique of interrogation in the establishment of facts in courts of law] (2nd ed.; 1st ed., 1927). Ferdinand Enke.
   Google Scholar
• Hershkowitz, I. (1999). The dynamics of interviews involving plausible and implausible allegations of child sexual abuse. Applied Developmental Science, 3(2), 86–91. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532480xads0302_3
   Google Scholar
• Hershkowitz, I., Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., & Esplin, P. W. (1997). The relationships among interviewer utterance type, CBCA scores and the richness of children's responses. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 2(2), 169–176. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8333.1997.tb00341.x
   Google Scholar
• *Hettler, S. (2005). Evaluation eines erweiterten Kanons inhaltlicher Kennzeichen wahrer und falscher Zeugenaussagen [Evaluation of an extended set of credibility criteria for true and false eyewitness statements]. [Unpublished diploma thesis]. University of Konstanz.
   Google Scholar
• Hommers, W. (1997). Die aussagepsychologische Kriteriologie unter kovarianzstatistischer und psychometrischer Perspektive [Credibility criteria from a covariance and psychometric perspective]. In L. Greuel, T. Fabian, & M. Stadler (Eds.), Psychologie der Zeugenaussage (pp. 87–100). Psychologie Verlags Union.
   Google Scholar
• Hommers, W., & Hennenlotter, A. (2006). Zur Konfiguralität von aussagepsychologischen Realitätskriterien: Eine kreuzvalidierte TYPAG-Anwendung [Configural properties of credibility criteria: A cross-validated TYPAG application]. In T. Fabian & S. Nowara (Eds.), Neue Wege und Konzepte in der Rechtspsychologie (pp. 63–88). LITVerlag.
   Google Scholar
• Honts, C. R. (1994). Assessing children’s credibility: Scientific and legal issues in 1994. North Dakota Law Review, 70, 879–903.
   Google Scholar
• Horowitz, S. W., Lamb, M. E., Esplin, P. W., Boychuk, T. D., Krispin, O., & Reiter-Lavery, L. (1997). Reliability of Criteria-based Content Analysis of child witness statements. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 2(1), 11–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8333.1997.tb00329.x
   Google Scholar
• Horowitz, S. W., Lamb, M. E., Esplin, P. W., Boychuk, T. D., Reiter-Lavery, L., & Krispin, O. (1995). Establishing ground truth in studies of child sexual abuse. Expert Evidence, 4, 42–51.
   Google Scholar
• Huff, C. R., Rattner, A., & Sagarin, E. (1996). Convicted but innocent. Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Kassin, S. M. (2012). Why confessions trump innocence. American Psychologist, 67(6), 431–445. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028212
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kassin, S. M. (2022). Duped: Why innocent people confess–and why we believe their confessions. Prometheus Books.
   Google Scholar
• Kassin, S. M., & Neumann, K. (1997). On the power of confession evidence: An experimental test of the fundamental difference hypothesis. Law and Human Behavior, 21(5), 469–484. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024871622490
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Kirchler-Bölderl, C., Bölderl, A., Ertl, M., & Giacomuzzi, S. (2013, September). Doppelblindstudie zum integrativen Merkmalssystem nach Niehaus, evaluiert bei Kindern im Alter von 3 bis 7 Jahren [Double-blind study on Niehaus’s integrative criteria system, applied to children aged between 3 and 7 years old] [Poster presentation]. 15th meeting of the division legal psychology of the German Psychological Association in Nuremberg, Germany.
   Google Scholar
• Kleinberg, B., Arntz, A., & Verschuere, B. (2019). Being accurate about accuracy in verbal deception detection. PLoS One, 14(8), e0220228. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0220228
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Köhnken, G. (1982). Sprechverhalten und Glaubwürdigkeit: Eine experimentelle Studie zur extralinguistischen und textstilistischen Aussageanalyse [Speech behavior and credibility: An experimental study on extra-linguistic and text-stylistic statement analysis] [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Kiel, Germany.
   Google Scholar
• Köhnken, G. (1990). Glaubwürdigkeit [Credibility]. Psychologie Verlags Union.
   Google Scholar
• Köhnken, G. (1996). Social psychology and the law. In G. R. Semin & K. Fiedler (Eds.), Applied social psychology (pp. 257–282). Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Köhnken, G. (2004). Statement Validity Analysis and the “detection of the truth”. In P.-A. Granhag & L. A. Strömwall (Eds.), The detection of deception in forensic contexts (pp. 41–63). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Köhnken, G., & Gallwitz, S. (2021). Fehlerquellen in aussagepsychologischen Gutachten [Sources of error in psychological expert evaluations of eyewitness statements]. In R. Deckers & G. Köhnken (Eds.), Die Erhebung und Bewertung von Zeugenaussagen im Strafprozess (pp. 17–58). Berliner Wissenschaftsverlag.
   Google Scholar
• Köhnken, G., Manzanero, A. L., & Scott, M. T. (2015). Análisis de la validez de las declaraciones: Mitos y limitaciones [Statement Validity Assessment: Myths and limitations]. Anuario de Psicología Jurídica, 25(1), 13–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apj.2015.01.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Köhnken, G., Schimossek, E., Aschermann, E., & Höfer, E. (1995). The Cognitive Interview and the assessment of the credibility of adults’ statements. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(6), 671–684. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.80.6.671
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lafrenz, B. (2006). Trennschärfeanalyse der so genannten Realkennzeichen der aussagepsychologischen Diagnostik [The analysis of corrected item-total correlations of so-called reality criteria in credibility assessment]. [Unpublished diploma thesis]. University of Konstanz.
   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
• Lamers-Winkelman, F. (1999). Statement Validity Analysis: Its application to a sample of Dutch children who may have been sexually abused. In K. Coulborn Faller & R. VanderLaan (Eds.), Maltreatment in early childhood. Tools for research-based intervention (pp. 59–81). Haworth Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lamers-Winkelman, F., & Buffing, F. (1996). Children’s testimony in the Netherlands: A study of Statement Validity Analysis. In B. L. Bottoms & G. S. Goodman (Eds.), International perspectives on child abuse and children’s testimony (pp. 45–61). Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Leonhardt, C. (1931). Psychologische Beweisführung [Psychological method of proof]. Archiv für Kriminologie, 89, 203–206.
   Google Scholar
• Littmann, E., & Szewczyk, H. (1983). Zu einigen Kriterien und Ergebnissen forensisch-psychologischer Glaubwürdigkeitsbegutachtung von sexuell mißbrauchten Kindern und Jugendlichen [Criteria to be examined in forensic-psychological credibility assessment in child sexual abuse cases]. Forensia, 4, 55–72.
   Google Scholar
• Mac Giolla, E., & Luke, T. J. (2021). Does the cognitive approach to lie detection improve the accuracy of human observers? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 35(2), 385–392. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3777
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Maier, B. (2006). Glaubhaftigkeitsdiagnostik von Zeugenaussagen: Eine diskriminanzanalytische Untersuchung [Credibility assessment of witness statements: A discriminant analysis]. VDM Verlag Dr. Müller.
   Google Scholar
• Manzanero, A. L., Scott, M. T., Vallet, R., Aróztegui, J., & Bull, R. (2019). Criteria-based Content Analysis in true and simulated victims with intellectual disability. Anuario de Psicología Jurídica, 29(1), 55–60. https://doi.org/10.5093/apj2019a1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Masip, J., Alonso, H., Garrido, E., & Herrero, C. (2009). Training to detect what? The biasing effects of training on veracity judgments. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23(9), 1282–1296. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1535
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Masip, J., Sporer, S. L., Garrido, E., & Herrero, C. (2005). The detection of deception with the reality monitoring approach: A review of the empirical evidence. Psychology, Crime & Law, 11(1), 99–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160410001726356
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mittermaier, C. J. A. (1834). Die Lehre vom Beweise im deutschen Strafprozesse: Nach der Fortbildung durch Gerichtsgebrauch und deutsche Gesetzbücher in Vergleichung mit den Ansichten des englischen und französischen Strafverfahrens [The doctrine of evidence in German criminal procedure: With consideration of court usage and German law codes in comparison with the views of English and French criminal procedures]. Heyer.
   Google Scholar
• Nahari, G., Ashkenazi, T., Fisher, R. P., Granhag, P.-A., Hershkowitz, I., Masip, J., Meijer, E. H., Nisin, Z., Sarid, N., Taylor, P. J., Verschuere, B., & Vrij, A. (2019). “Language of Lies”: Urgent issues and prospects in verbal lie detection research. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 24(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12148
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Niehaus, S. (2001). Zur Anwendbarkeit inhaltlicher Glaubhaftigkeitsmerkmale bei Zeugenaussagen unterschiedlichen Wahrheitsgehaltes [Applicability of content criteria to testimonies with different truth status]. Europäische Hochschulschriften.
   Google Scholar
• Niehaus, S. (2008). Merkmalsorientierte Inhaltsanalyse [Criteria-based Content Analysis]. In R. Volbert & M. Steller (Eds.), Handbuch der Rechtspsychologie (pp. 311–321). Hogrefe.
   Google Scholar
• Niehaus, S., Krause, A., & Schmidke, J. (2005). Täuschungsstrategien bei der Schilderung von Sexualstraftaten [Deception strategies in descriptions of sexual offenses]. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 36(4), 175–187. https://doi.org/10.1024/0044-3514.36.4.175
   Google Scholar
• Niveau, G. (2020). Sensory information in children’s statements of sexual abuse. Forensic Sciences Research, 6(2), 97–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/20961790.2020.1814000
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Oberlader, V. A., Naefgen, C., Koppehele-Gossel, J., Quinten, L., Banse, R., & Schmidt, A. F. (2016). Validity of content-based techniques to distinguish true and fabricated statements: A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 40(4), 440–457. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000193
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oberlader, V. A., Quinten, L., Banse, R., Volbert, R., Schmidt, A. F., & Schönbrodt, F. D. (2021). Validity of content-based techniques for credibility assessment. How telling is an extended meta-analysis taking research bias into account? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 35(2), 393–410. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3776
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orbach, Y., & Lamb, M. E. (1999). Assessing the accuracy of a child's account of sexual abuse: A case study. Child Abuse & Neglect, 23(1), 91–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0145-2134(98)00114-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orbach, Y., & Lamb, M. E. (2007). Young children’s references to temporal attributes of allegedly experienced events in the course of forensic interviews. Child Development, 78(4), 1100–1120. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01055.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peters, K. (1972/1974/1976). Fehlerquellen im Strafprozess [Miscarriages of justice in criminal procedures] (3 vols.). C. F. Müller.
   Google Scholar
• Raskin, D. C., & Esplin, P. W. (1991a). Assessment of children's statements of sexual abuse. In J. Doris (Ed.), The suggestibility of children's recollections. Implications for eyewitness testimony (pp. 153–164). American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar
• Raskin, D. C., & Esplin, P. W. (1991b). Statement Validity Assessment: Interview procedures and content analysis of children's statements of sexual abuse. Behavioral Assessment, 13, 265–291.
   Google Scholar
• Rönspies-Heitman, J. (2022). Kriterienorientierte Inhaltsanalyse von Zeugenaussagen: Eine empirische Untersuchung zur Validität ausgewählter Glaubhaftigkeitsmerkmale [Criteria-based Content Analysis of witnesses’ testimonies: An empirical investigation of the validity of selected credibility criteria]. Springer Nature.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts, K. P., & Lamb, M. E. (2010). Reality monitoring characteristics in confirmed and doubtful allegations of child sexual abuse. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24(8), 1049–1079. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1600
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Roma, P., San Martini, P., Sabatello, U., Tatarelli, R., & Ferracuti, S. (2011). Validity of Criteria-based Content Analysis (CBCA) at trial in free-narrative interviews. Child Abuse & Neglect, 35(8), 613–620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2011.04.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruby, C. L., & Brigham, J. C. (1998). Can Criteria-based Content Analysis distinguish between true and false statements of African-American speakers? Law and Human Behavior, 22(4), 369–388. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025766825429
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Rüth-Bemelmanns, E. (1984). Experimentelle Erprobung der Kriterien der Aussagenanalyse [Experimental pilot evaluation of criteria of statement analysis]. [Unpublished diploma thesis]. University of Cologne.
   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
• Schemmel, J., Maier, B. G., & Volbert, R. (2020). Verbal baselining: Within-subject consistency of CBCA scores across different truthful and fabricated accounts. European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 12(1), 35–42. https://doi.org/10.5093/ejpalc2020a4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Schubert, J. (1999). Experimentelle Untersuchung zur Validierung extralinguistischer und verbaler Glaubwürdigkeitskriterien in Berichten über erlebte und phantasierte Ereignisse [Experimental study to test the validity of extralinguistic and verbal content criteria in accounts of true and fabricated events]. [Unpublished diploma thesis]. Justus-Liebig-University Giessen.
   Google Scholar
• *Schwind, D. (2006). Testkritische Analyse der Realkennzeichen nach Steller und Köhnken anhand von Daten aus Glaubhaftigkeitsgutachten [Psychometric analysis of credibility criteria of Steller and Köhnken on the basis of data from forensic credibility assessments]. [Diploma thesis]. University of Konstanz. http://www.ub.uni-konstanz.de/kops/volltexte/2006/1997/
   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
• Sporer, S. L. (1998b, March). Detecting deception with the Aberdeen Report Judgment Scales (ARJS): Theoretical development, reliability and validity [Paper presentation]. Biennial Meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society, Redondo Beach, CA, United States.
   Google Scholar
• Sporer, S. L. (2004). Reality monitoring and the detection of deception. In P.-A. Granhag & L. A. Strömwall (Eds.), The detection of deception in forensic contexts (pp. 64–102). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511490071.004
   Google Scholar
• Sporer, S. L. (2016). Deception and cognitive load: Expanding our horizon with a working memory model. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 420. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00420
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sporer, S. L. (2021). Verfahrensfehler und Justizirrtümer: Kognitive und soziale Erklärungsansätze [Procedural errors and miscarriages of justice: Cognitive and social explanations]. In R. Deckers & G. Köhnken (Eds.), Erhebung und Bewertung von Zeugenaussagen (pp. 163–207). Berliner Wissenschaftsverlag.
   Google Scholar
• Sporer, S. L., & Antonelli, M. (2022). Psychology of eyewitness testimony in Germany in the 20th century. History of Psychology, 25(2), 143–169. https://doi.org/10.1037/hop0000199
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sporer, S. L., Manzanero, A. L., & Masip, J. (2021). Optimizing CBCA and RM research: Recommendations for analyzing and reporting data on content cues to deception. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 27(1), 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2020.1757097
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sporer, S. L., & Masip, J. (2023). Millennia of legal content criteria of lies and truths: Wisdom or common-sense folly? Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1219995. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1219995
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sporer, S. L., Masip, J., & Cramer, M. (2014). Guidance to detect deception with the Aberdeen Report Judgment Scales: Are verbal content cues useful to detect false accusations? American Journal of Psychology, 127(1), 43–61. https://doi.org/10.5406/amerjpsyc.127.1.0043
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• *Steck, P., Hermanutz, M., Lafrenz, B., Schwind, D., Hettler, S., Maier, B., & Geiger, S. (2010). Die psychometrische Qualität von Realkennzeichen [The psychometric quality of reality criteria]. https://doi.org/10.25968/opus-263
   Google Scholar
• Steller, M. (1989). Recent developments in statement analysis. In J. C. Yuille (Ed.), Credibility assessment (pp. 135–154). Kluwer.
   Google Scholar
• Steller, M., & Boychuk, T. (1992). Children as witnesses in sexual abuse cases: Investigative interview and assessment techniques. In H. Dent & R. Flin (Eds.), Children as witnesses (pp. 47–71). Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• 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
• Steller, M., & Volbert, R. (1999). Wissenschaftliches Gutachten. Forensisch-aussagepsychologische Begutachtung (Glaubwürdigkeitsbegutachtung) [Scientific expert evaluation. Forensic psychological statement evaluation (credibility assessment)]. Praxis der Rechtspsychologie, 9(2), 46–112.
   Google Scholar
• Steller, M., Wellershaus, P., & Wolf, T. (1992). Realkennzeichen in Kinderaussagen: Empirische Grundlagen der Kriterienorientierten Aussagenanalyse [Reality criteria in the statements of children: Empirical foundations of Criteria-based Content Analysis]. Zeitschrift für Experimentelle und Angewandte Psychologie, 34, 151–170.
   Google Scholar
• Stern, L. W. (1926). Jugendliche Zeugen in Sittlichkeitsprozessen [Juvenile witnesses in criminal trials of sexual abuse]. Quelle & Meyer.
   Google Scholar
• Strömwall, L. A., Bengtsson, L., Leander, L., & Granhag, P.-A. (2004). Assessing children's statements: The impact of a repeated experience on CBCA and RM ratings. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18(6), 653–668. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1021
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Szewczyk, H. (1973). Kriterien der Beurteilung kindlicher Zeugenaussagen [Content criteria for credibility assessment of children’s testimonies]. Probleme und Ergebnisse der Psychologie, 46, 47–66.
   Google Scholar
• Tedeschi, J. T., & Norman, N. (1985). Social power, self-presentation, and the self. In B. R. Schlenker (Ed.), The self and social life (pp. 293–322). McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Trankell, A. (1972). Reliability of evidence. Rotobeckmann.
   Google Scholar
• Undeutsch, U. (1967). Beurteilung der Glaubhaftigkeit von Zeugenaussagen [Evaluation of the credibility of eyewitness statements]. In U. Undeutsch (Ed.), Handbuch der Psycholoqie (Vol. 11, pp. 26–181). Hogrefe.
   Google Scholar
• Volbert, R. (2018). Scheinerinnerungen von Erwachsenen an traumatische Erlebnisse und deren Prüfung im Rahmen der Glaubhaftigkeitsbegutachtung: Eine rein traumatologische Perspektive ist irreführend [Pseudomemories of adults of traumatic experiences and their examination in the context of credibility assessment: A purely traumatological perspective is misleading]. Praxis der Rechtspsychologie, 28, 61–95.
   Google Scholar
• Volbert, R., & Steller, M. (2014). Is this testimony truthful, fabricated, or based on false memory? European Psychologist, 19(3), 207–220. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000200
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vrij, A. (2005). Criteria-based Content Analysis: A qualitative review of the first 37 studies. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11(1), 3–41. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.11.1.3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities. Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Vrij, A., Akehurst, L., Soukara, S., & Bull, R. (2002). Will the truth come out? The effect of deception, age, status, coaching, and social skills on CBCA scores. Law and Human Behavior, 26(3), 261–283. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015313120905
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vrij, A., Granhag, P.-A., & Porter, S. (2010). Pitfalls and opportunities in nonverbal and verbal lie detection. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 11(3), 89–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100610390861
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vrij, A., Kneller, W., & Mann, S. (2000). The effect of informing liars about Criteria-based Content Analysis on their ability to deceive CBCA-raters. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 5(1), 57–70. https://doi.org/10.1348/135532500167976
   Google Scholar
• Vrij, A., & Nahari, G. (2019). The verifiability approach. In J. J. Dickinson, N. Schreiber Combo, R. N. Carol, B. L. Schwartz, & M. R. McCauley (Eds.), Evidence-based investigative interviewing. Applying cognitive principles (pp. 116–133). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Vrij, A., Nahari, G., Isitt, R., & Leal, S. (2016). Using the verifiability lie detection approach in an insurance claim setting. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 13(3), 183–197. https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.1458
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walczyk, J. J., Harris, L. L., Duck, T. K., & Mulay, D. (2014). A social-cognitive framework for understanding serious lies: Activation-Decision-Construction-Action Theory. New Ideas in Psychology, 34, 22–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2014.03.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wegener, H. (1981). Einführung in die Forensische Psychologie [Introduction to forensic psychology]. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft Steinkopff.
   Google Scholar
• *Welle, I., Berclaz, M., Lacasa, M.-J., & Niveau, G. (2016). 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. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine, 43, 111–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jflm.2016.08.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®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
• Zuckerman, M., DePaulo, B. M., & Rosenthal, R. (1981). Verbal and nonverbal communication of deception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 1–60). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60369-X
   Google Scholar