EN | TR
E-ISSN: 2687-3532
Interrater Reliability of Criteria Based Content Analyses of Sexually Abused Children’s Statement in Turkey
PDF
Cite
Share
Request
Original Article
VOLUME: 28 ISSUE: 1
P: 52-59
March 2021

Interrater Reliability of Criteria Based Content Analyses of Sexually Abused Children’s Statement in Turkey

Turk J Child Adolesc Ment Health 2021;28(1):52-59
DOI: 10.4274/tjcamh.galenos.2020.97269
Çilem Bilginer 1
Belgin Üstün Güllü 2
Gülçin Orhan 3
Bilge Merve Kalaycı 4
Gülsen Erden 5
Nilüfer Koçtürk 6
1. Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi, Çocuk ve Ergen Ruh Sağlığı ve Hastalıkları Anabilim Dalı, Trabzon, Türkiye
2. Ankara Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi, Çocuk ve Ergen Ruh Sağlığı ve Hastalıkları Anabilim Dalı, Ankara, Türkiye
3. Jandarma ve Sahil Güvenlik Akademisi, Jandarma ve Sahil Güvenlik Fakültesi, Güvenlik Hizmetleri Anabilim Dalı, Güvenlik Bilimleri Bölümü, Çankaya, Ankara
4. Yenimahalle Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi, Ankara Çocuk İzlem Merkezi, Ankara, Türkiye
5. Ankara Üniversitesi Dil Tarih Coğrafya Fakültesi, Psikoloji Bölümü, Ankara, Türkiye
6. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi, Rehberlik ve Psikolojik Danışmanlık Bölümü, Ankara, Türkiye
No information available.
No information available
Received Date: 26.09.2020
Accepted Date: 05.12.2020
Publish Date: 26.02.2021
PDF
Cite
Share
Request

ABSTRACT

Objectives:

Criteria Based Content Analysis (CBCA) is a forensic tool that consists of 19 criteria used in distinguishing of true/false statements. In this study, it is aimed to present the first data about the interrater reliability (IRR) of CBCA of sexually abused (SA) children’s statements in Turkey.

Materials and Methods:

Four independent raters (two psychologists and two child psychiatrists) evaluated 31 statements of SA children with CBCA. Each criterion was scored as 0, absent; 1, slightly present; and 2, strongly present. The criteria coded as 1 and 2 were accepted as “present”. IRR was calculated by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Pearson correlation test for each criterion and for the total score of CBCA.

Results:

Among all raters, an average of 13 criteria, with a minimum of 8 and a maximum of 18 criteria for each interview, were marked as “present”. It was determined that the IRR was strong among all raters in terms of the total score of the CBCA, while examined according to criteria specifically, it was weak in the criteria of “admitting lack of memory, external associations and details characteristics of the offence”, and it was medium-good in the other criteria. However, when the child psychiatrists and psychologists were evaluated among themselves, the IRR was weak in most of the CBCA criteria, and only good in the criteria of “reproduction of conversation and pardoning the perpetrator” in both rater groups.

Conclusion:

In this study, the raters had a low agreement in most of the criteria of CBCA. This infers the credibility of statements can not be interpreted only with CBCA. Further research is needed to assess the content of forensic interviews of SA victims in Turkey.

References

1
TUİK 2017 güvenlik birimlerine gelen veya getirilen çocuklar. https://biruni.tuik.gov.tr/medas/?kn=98&locale=tr Erişim tarihi 10.09.2020
2
Novo M, Seijo D. Judicial judgement-making and legal criteria of testimonial credibility. European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context. 2010;2:91-115.
3
Blandon-Gitlin I, Pezdek K, Rogers M, Brodie L. Detecting deception in children: an experimental study of the effect of event familiarity on CBCA ratings. Law Hum Behav. 2005;29:187-197.
4
Oberlader VA, Naefgen C, Koppehele-Gossel J, Quinten L, Banse R, Schmidt AF. Validity of content-based techniques to distinguish true and fabricated statements: A meta-analysis. Law Hum Behav. 2016;40:440-457.
5
Eyüpoğlu A. Cinsel İstismar Mağduru Çocuk İfadelerinin Ölçüt Bazlı İçerik Analizi (CBCA). Güvenlik Bilimleri Dergisi. 2012;1:1-22.
6
Amadoa BG, Arcea R, Fariñab F. Undeutsch hypothesis and criteria based content analysis: A meta-analytic review. The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context. 2015;7:3-12.
7
Vrij A, Akehurst L, Soukara S, Bull R. Will the truth come out? the effect of deception, age, status, coaching, and social skills on CBCA scores. Law Hum Behav. 2002;26:261-283.
8
Welle I, Berclaz M, Lacasa MJ, Niveau G. 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. J Forensic Leg Med. 2016;43:111-119. 
9
Akehurst L, Bull R, Vrij A, Köhnken G. The effects of training professional groups and lay persons to use criteria-based content analysis to detect deception. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 2004;18:877-891.
10
Herman S. Improving decision making in forensic child sexual abuse evaluations. Law Hum Behav. 2005;29:87-120. 
11
Horowitz SW, Lamb ME, Esplin PW, Boychuk TD, Krispin O, Reiter- Lavery L. Reliability of criteria-based content analysis of child witness statements. Legal Criminol Psychol. 1997;2:11-21.
12
Anson DA, Golding SL, Gully KJ. Child sexual abuse allegations: reliability of criteria-based content analysis. Law Hum Behav. 1993;17:331-342.
13
Akehurst L, Manton S, Quandte S. Careful calculation or a leap of faith? A field study of the translation of CBCA ratings to final credibility judgements. Appl Cogn Psychol. 2011;25:236-243.
14
Çelik D, Çocukluk Çağı Cinsel İstismar Olgularında Mağdur İfadesinin Delil Niteliği ve İfade Geçerlilik Analizi, Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, İstanbul 2014.
15
Undeutsch U. Statement reality analysis. In: Trankell A, editor. Reconstructing the past. Deventer, The Netherlands: Kluwer, 1982; 27-56.
16
Niveau G, Lacasa MJ, Berclaz M, Germond M. Inter-rater Reliability of Criteria-Based Content Analysis of Children’s Statements of Abuse. J Forensic Sci. 2015;60:1247-1252.
17
Koo TK, Li MY. A Guideline of Selecting and Reporting Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Reliability Research. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15:155-163. 
18
Hayran M, Hayran M. Basic statistics for health research. Art Ofset Matbaacılık, Ankara, 2011.
19
Vrij A, Akehurst L, Soukara S, Bull R. Let me inform you how to tell a convincing story: CBCA and reality monitoring scores as a function of age, coaching, and deception. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science. 2004;36:113-126.
20
Lamb ME, Sternberg KJ, Esplin PW, Hershkowitz I, Orbach Y, Hovav M. Criterion-based content analysis: a field validation study. Child Abuse Negl. 1997;21:255-264.
21
Santtila P, Roppola H, Runtti M, Niemi P. Assessment of child witness statements using Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA): The effects of age, verbalability, and interviewer’s emotional style. Psychology Crime and Law. 2000;6:159-179.
22
Manzaneroa AL, Scottb MT, Valleta R, Arózteguia J, Bullc R. Criteria-based Content Analysis in True and Simulated Victims with Intellectual Disability Anuario de Psicología Jurídica 2019;29:55-60.
23
Vrij A. Criteria-Based Content Analysis: A qualitative review of the first 37 studies. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. 2005;11:3-41.
24
Maier BG, Niehaus S, Wachholz S, Volbert R. The Strategic Meaning of CBCA Criteria From the Perspective of Deceivers. Front Psychol. 2018;9:855.