Using item response theory modelling to understand criminal justice professionals’ perceptions of cross-examination in child sexual abuse trials

References

• Aidridge, J., & Cameron, S. (1999). Interviewing child witnesses: Questioning techniques and the role of training. Applied Developmental Science, 3(2), 136–147. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532480xads0302_7
   Google Scholar
• Andrews, S. J., & Lamb, M. E. (2014). The effects of age and delay on responses to repeated questions in forensic interviews with children alleging sexual abuse. Law and Human Behavior, 38(2), 171–180. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000064
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andrews, S. J., Lamb, M. E., & Lyon, T. D. (2015). Question types, responsiveness and self-contradictions when prosecutors and defense attorneys question alleged victims of child sexual abuse. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 29(2), 253–261. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3103
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration Committee. (2020). Bench book for children giving evidence in Australian courts (2nd ed.). Author.
   Google Scholar
• Bottoms, B. L., & Goodman, G. S. (1994). Perceptions of children’s credibility in sexual assault cases. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24(8), 702–732. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1994.tb00608.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caruso, D., & Cross, T. (2012). The case in Australia for further reform to the cross-examination and court management of child witnesses. The International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 16(4), 364–397. https://doi.org/10.1350/ijep.2012.16.4.412
   Google Scholar
• Ceci, S. J., & Bruck, M. (1993). Suggestibility of the child witness: A historical review and synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 113(3), 403–439. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.113.3.403
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christensen, L., Sharman, S., & Powell, M. (2015). Professionals’ views on child sexual abuse attrition rates. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 22(4), 542–558. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2014.960036
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Commons, M. L. (2015). Order of hierarchical complexity (“stage”) of items used to measure forensic experts’ perceptions of expert bias predicts the amount of bias. Behavioral Development Bulletin, 20(1), 106–113. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0101035
   Google Scholar
• Cornwell, E. Y. (2014). The trials of indigent defense: Type of counsel and case outcomes in felony jury trials. Albany Law Review, 78(3), 1239–1259.
   Google Scholar
• Cossins, A. (2009). Cross-examination in child sexual assault trials: Evidentiary safeguard or an opportunity to confuse. Melbourne University Law Review, 33(1), 68–104.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Criminal Procedure Further Amendment (Evidence) Act (2005).
   Google Scholar
• Dattilio, F. M., Commons, M. L., Adams, K. M., Gutheil, T. G., & Sadoff, R. L. (2006). A pilot rasch scaling of lawyers’ perceptions of expert bias. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 34(4), 482–491.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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 & Law, 6(2), 81–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160008410834
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Earhart, B., Brubacher, S. P., Powell, M. B., Westera, N., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2017). Judges’ delivery of ground rules to child witnesses in Australian courts. Child Abuse & Neglect, 74, 62–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.08.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2013). Item response theory for psychologists. Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Faller, K. C. (2000). Questioning children who may have been sexually abused. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 2(2), 37–58. https://doi.org/10.1300/J146v02n02_03
   Google Scholar
• Judicial Commission of New South Wales. (2016). Equality before the law bench book. Judicial Commission of New South Wales.
   Google Scholar
• Judicial Commission of New South Wales, issuing body. (2022). Criminal trial courts bench book. Retrieved September 13, 2022, from http://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-467012383
   Google Scholar
• Klemfuss, J. Z., Quas, J. A., & Lyon, T. D. (2014). Attorneys’ questions and children’s productivity in child sexual abuse criminal trials. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(5), 780–788. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3048
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lauer, P. A., Christopher, D. E., Firpo-Triplett, R., & Buchting, F. (2014). The impact of short-term professional development on participant outcomes: A review of the literature. Professional Development in Education, 40(2), 207–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2013.776619
   Google Scholar
• MacCoun, R. J., & Kerr, N. L. (1988). Asymmetric influence in mock jury deliberation: Jurors’ bias for leniency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(1), 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.1.21
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martschuk, N., Powell, M. B., Blewer, R., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2022). Legal decision making about (child) sexual assault complaints: The importance of information-gathering process. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 34(1), 58–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2021.1978213
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martschuk, N., Powell, M. B., Goodman-Delahunty, J., Thackray, S., & Westera, N. (2021). Judicial and lawyer interventions in trials of child sexual assault. Journal of Judicial Administration, 31(3), 3–16.
   Google Scholar
• McElvaney, R. (2015). Disclosure of child sexual abuse: Delays, non-disclosure and partial disclosure. What the research tells us and implications for practice. Child Abuse Review, 24(3), 159–169. https://doi.org/10.1002/car.2280
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2017). Mplus: Statistical analysis with latent variables: User’s Guide (Version 8).
   Google Scholar
• Murrie, D. C., & Boccaccini, M. T. (2015). Adversarial allegiance among expert witnesses. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 11(1), 37–55. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-120814-121714
   Google Scholar
• Murrie, D. C., Boccaccini, M. T., Turner, D. B., Meeks, M., Woods, C., & Tussey, C. (2009). Rater (dis)agreement on risk assessment measures in sexually violent predator proceedings: Evidence of adversarial allegiance in forensic evaluation? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 15(1), 19–53. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014897
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nolan, M., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2015). Legal psychology in Australia. Lawbook, Thomson Reuters.
   Google Scholar
• Pleasence, P., & Balmer, N. J. (2019). Development of a general legal confidence scale: A first implementation of the rasch measurement model in empirical legal studies. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 16(1), 143–174. https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12212
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Powell, M. B. (2005). Improving the reliability of child witness testimony in court: The importance of focusing on questioning techniques. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 17(1), 137–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2005.12036342
   Google Scholar
• Powell, M. B., Wright, R., & Hughes-Scholes, C. H. (2011). Contrasting the perceptions of child testimony experts, prosecutors and police officers regarding individual child abuse interviews. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 18(1), 33–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218710903566995
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Powell, M., Westera, N., Goodman-Delahunty, J., & Pichler, A. S. (2016). An evaluation of how evidence is elicited from complainants of child sexual abuse. Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.
   Google Scholar
• Simon, D., Minwoo, A., Stenstrom, D. M., & Read, S. J. (2020). The adversarial mindset. Psychology, Public Policy & Law, 26(3), 353–377. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000226
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sopher, M. F. (1994). The best of all possible worlds: Balancing victim’s and defendant’s rights in the child sexual abuse case. Fordham Law Review, 63, 633–664.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stolzenberg, S. N., & Lyon, T. D. (2014). How attorneys question children about the dynamics of sexual abuse and disclosure in criminal trials. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20(1), 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035000
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Voogt, A., Klettke, B., & Crossman, A. (2019). Measurement of victim credibility in child sexual assault cases: A systematic review. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 20(1), 51–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838016683460
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wessel, E. M., Eilertsen, D., Langnes, E., Melinder, A., & Magnussen, S. (2016). Disclosure of child sexual abuse: Expressed emotions and credibility judgments of a child mock victim. Psychology, Crime & Law, 22(4), 331–343. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2015.1109087
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zajac, R., Westera, N., & Kaladelfos, A. (2017). A historical comparison of Australian lawyers’ strategies for cross-examining child sexual abuse complainants. Child Abuse & Neglect, 72, 236–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.07.010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar