How to prepare for conversations with children about suspicions of sexual abuse? Evaluation of an interactive virtual reality training for student teachers.

BACKGROUND: Training for child interviewing in case of suspected (sexual) abuse must include ongoing practice, expert feedback and performance evaluation. Computer-based interview simulations including these components have shown efficacy in promoting open-ended questioning skills. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated ViContact, a training program for childcare professionals on conversations with children in case of suspected abuse. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: 110 student teachers were divided into four groups and took part either in a two-hour virtual reality training through verbal interaction with virtual children, followed by automated, personalized feedback (VR), two days of online seminar training on conversation skills, related knowledge and action strategies (ST), a combination of both (ST + VR), or no training (control group, CG). METHODS: We conducted a pre-registered, randomized-controlled evaluation study. Pre-post changes on three behavioral outcomes in the VR conversations and two questionnaire scores (self-efficacy and - undesirable - naïve confidence in one's own judgment of an abuse suspicion) were analyzed via mixed ANOVA interaction effects. RESULTS: Combined training vs. CG led to improvements in the proportion of recommended questions (ηp2 = 0.75), supportive utterances (ηp2 = 0.36), and self-efficacy (ηp2 = 0.77; all ps < .001). Both interventions alone improved the proportion of recommended questions (VR: ηp2 = 0.67, ST: ηp2 = 0.68, ps < .001) and self-efficacy (VR: ηp2 = 0.24, ST: ηp2 = 0.65, ps < .001), but not supportive utterances (VR: ηp2 = 0.10, ST: ηp2 = 0.13, both n. s.). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of VR and ST proved most beneficial. Thus, VR exercises should not replace, but rather complement classical training approaches.

Recovered memories in psychotherapy: a survey of practicing psychotherapists in Germany.

We report on a survey of 258 psychotherapists from Germany, focusing on their experiences with memory recovery in general, suggestive therapy procedures, evaluations of recovered memories, and memory recovery in training and guidelines. Most therapists (78%) reported instances of memory recovery encompassing negative and positive childhood experiences, but usually in a minority of patients. Also, most therapists (82%) reported to have held assumptions about unremembered trauma. Patients who held these beliefs were reported by 83% of the therapists. Both therapist and patient assumptions reportedly occurred in a minority of cases. Furthermore, 35% of participants had used therapeutic techniques at least once to recover presumed trauma memories. Only 10% reported assuming trauma in most patients and recovering purported memories in a majority of the attempts. A fifth believed memory recovery was a task of psychotherapy. This belief correlated with trauma assumptions, memory recovery attempts, and recovery frequency. Psychodynamic therapists more often reported to assume trauma behind symptoms and agreed more with problematic views on trauma and memory. No differences showed regarding suggestive behaviour in therapy. Most participants expressed interest in receiving support on dealing with memory recoveries. This interest should be taken up, ideally during therapist training.

International perspective on guidelines and policies for child custody and child maltreatment risk evaluations: A preliminary comparative analysis across selected countries in Europe and North America.

Little knowledge exists on how evaluators in child custody and child maltreatment cases are informed by guidelines, the kinds of qualifications required and the types of training provided in different countries. The purpose of this paper is to provide an international preliminary comparison on how child custody and child maltreatment risk assessments are conducted in selected Western countries, and how the assessments are informed by best practice guidelines. Another aim is to increase knowledge on how the guidelines and best-practice standards could be developed further to reflect recent research findings. A total number of 18 guidelines were included in the analyses: four from Canada, five from the United States, three from the United Kingdom, three from the Netherlands, two from Finland, and one from Germany. We conducted a content analysis of the included guidelines in the database, focusing on how the guidelines address the best interest of the child criteria, guidelines for conducting the assessments, considerations for evaluative criteria, and specific guidance for conducting specific assessment procedures (e.g., interviews and observations). Findings show that the qualifications of and training provided to evaluators in child custody and child maltreatment risk evaluations are largely heterogeneous across the countries represented. Guidelines differ in whether and how they highlight the importance of evidence-based practices and scientifically validated assessment measures. Implications are drawn from the review and contextualized by international expert authors in the fields of forensic psychology, and family law. After the content analysis, discussion sessions within the expert group were held. The authors provide both commentaries and suggestions to improve the development of standard methods for conducting both child custody and child maltreatment risk evaluations and to consider a more transparent and judicious use of social science research to guide methods and the recommendations offered within these assessments.

Only true and fabricated baseline statements combined might improve lie, but not truth, detection.

OBJECTIVES: We tested the effect of true and fabricated baseline statements from the same sender on veracity judgments. HYPOTHESES: We predicted that presenting a combination of true and fabricated baseline statements would improve truth and lie detection accuracy, while presenting a true baseline would improve only truth detection, and presenting a fabricated baseline would only improve lie detection compared with presenting no baseline statement. METHOD: In a 4 × 2 within-subjects design, 142 student participants (Mage = 23.47 years; 118 female) read no baseline statement, a true baseline statement, a fabricated baseline statement, and a combination of a true and a fabricated baseline statement from 29 different senders. Participants then rated the veracity of a true or fabricated target statement from the same 29 senders. RESULTS: Logistic mixed-effects models with senders and participants as random effects showed no significant differences in overall veracity judgment accuracy between the no-baseline (51%) and either the true-baseline (44%) or the fabricated-baseline (49%) conditions. Equivalence tests failed to show the predicted equivalence of these accuracy rates. Separate analyses of truth and lie detection rates confirmed the assumed improvement of lie detection in the combination-of-true-and-fabricated-baseline condition (accuracy = 39%-61%). No other truth or lie detection rate changed significantly except that, unexpectedly, a true baseline reduced truth detection accuracy (64%-49%). CONCLUSIONS: Baseline statements largely did not affect judgment accuracy and, in the case of true baselines, even had a negative impact on truth detection. The rather small positive effect of two baseline statements on lie detection suggests an avenue for further research, especially with expert raters. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Predicting disclosure latency in substantiated cases of child sexual abuse.

OBJECTIVE: Children who experience sexual abuse (CSA) often delay disclosure, thus impeding early interventions. This study explores predictors of disclosure latency in a sample of forensically substantiated cases. METHODS: Court files were analyzed for a total of 124 cases of CSA. The ground truth of the alleged victims' statements had been substantiated by at least one inclusion criterion-an evaluation of the alleged victims' statement as credible by psychological experts applying Statement Validity Assessment (SVA), or the conviction of the suspected offender by the court. Six possible predictors of disclosure latency were tested individually and in a joint negative binomial regression model. RESULTS: Younger age of the child at abuse onset and intrafamilial (vs. extrafamilial) child-perpetrator relationships (including stepparents) were associated with prolonged disclosure latency. No predictive evidence was found for the child's gender, severity of abuse, or offender's usage of violent or nonphysical strategies to prevent disclosure. CONCLUSION: This study contributes to understanding the processes of disclosure by reassessing formerly identified predictors of disclosure latency in a sample of forensically substantiated cases. Results are in line with suggestions to further develop effective prevention programs for younger children (e.g., for elementary school) and to explicitly discuss the issue of intrafamilial abuse.

Assessing the Individual Interviewer Rapport-Building and Supportive Techniques of the R-NICHD Protocol.

The use of the rapport-building and supportive techniques formulated by the R-NICHD protocol is intended to support children and increase the quality of their statements as well as disclosures without possessing suggestive potential. While the effectiveness of the entire R-NICHD protocol for children who have actually experienced child sexual abuse (CSA) has been supported by research, to date no study assessed the effect of each individual socio-emotional interview technique in both interviewees with and without CSA experiences. The current study aimed to address this gap in research by means of an online vignette-study, asking participants to rate the identified rapport-building and supportive techniques on the scales well-being, willingness to talk, and perceived pressure. A total of 187 participants were randomly assigned to either a hypothetical "abused" or a hypothetical "not abused" group by means of a vignette-manipulation. The results suggest that many socio-emotional interview techniques were perceived as supportive and non-suggestive, while a number of techniques were perceived as not supportive but suggestive. Few differences emerged between the hypothetical "abused" group and the hypothetical "not abused" control group. To conclude, most but not all rapport-building and supportive techniques proposed by the R-NICHD protocol had a positive effect on interviewees.

What Judges Want to Know From Forensic Evaluators in Child Custody and Child Protection Cases: Analyzing Forensic Assignments With Latent Dirichlet Allocation.

This study analyzes the questions on aspects of child custody, visitation rights, or child endangerment that judges pose to forensic psychologists in family law proceedings. Before conducting a psychological evaluation, the legal question in the referral has to be translated into case-specific, forensically relevant issues. The only overarching principle guiding this process is the "best interests of the child" criterion. Literature indicates that judges often struggle to define what variables should be specified for a psychological evaluation in their referral questions. This study aims to contribute to a better understanding of the information judges would like to ascertain from psychological evaluators in child custody and child protection proceedings-an understanding allowing a clearer determination of whether forensic psychologists as experts can deliver this information. Latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) is used to analyze the referral questions that these judges pose to forensic evaluators in terms of (a) underlying topics (latent dimensions) that can be identified within the referral questions and (b) the probability distributions of legal terms and forensic issues contained in the referral questions. This analysis is based on unclassified text data extracted from German court files. Five topics (latent dimensions) were identified within referral questions resembling cases when the issue was as follows: (a) potential child endangerment in the context of visitation contacts, (b) a possibly limited parenting capacity and its potential effects on child well-being, (c) an impairment of the child has already occurred or could occur, (d) a better option concerning custody and residence, and (e) an unclear topic addressing questions on custody, residence, and visitation in which no specific psychological constructs are involved. In four of the five topics, judges utilize their referral questions to ask for case-group-specific psychological information. In one topic addressing questions on custody, residence, and visitation, judges seem to struggle to define criteria that forensic evaluators should assess. Overall, results help to identify and define more clearly the relevant constructs that forensic experts should examine from the perspective of the courts with the goal of making clearer and more accurate recommendations.

How Information on a Motive to Lie Influences CBCA-Based Ratings and Veracity Judgments.

We investigated how information on a motive to lie impacts on the perceived content quality of a statement and its subsequent veracity rating. In an online study, 300 participants rated a statement about an alleged sexual harassment on a scale based on Criteria-based Content Analysis (CBCA) and judged its veracity. In a 3 × 3 between-subjects design, we varied prior information (motive to lie, no motive to lie, and no information on a motive), and presented three different statement versions of varying content quality (high, medium, and low). In addition to anticipating main effects of both independent variables (motive information and statement version), we predicted that the impact of motive information on both ratings would be highest for medium quality statements, because their assessment is especially ambiguous (interaction effect). Contrary to our hypotheses, results showed that participants were unaffected by motive information and accurately reproduced the manipulated quality differences between statement versions in their CBCA-based judgments. In line with the expected interaction effect, veracity ratings decreased in the motive-to-lie group compared to controls, but only when the medium- and the low-quality statements were rated (truth ratings dropped from approximately 80 to 50%). Veracity ratings in both the no-motive-to-lie group and controls did not differ across statement versions (≥82% truth ratings). In sum, information on a motive to lie thus encouraged participants to consider content quality in their veracity judgments by being critical only of statements of medium and low quality. Otherwise, participants judged statements to be true irrespective of content quality.

Verbal baselining: within-subject consistency of CBCA scores across different truthful and fabricated accounts / La línea base verbal: la congruencia intrasujeto de las puntuaciones del CBCA en diferentes relatos veraces e inventados

Statement Validity Assessment (SVA) proposes that baseline statements on different events can serve as a within-subject measure of a witness' individual verbal capabilities when evaluating scores from Criteria-based Content Analysis (CBCA). This assumes that CBCA scores will generally be consistent across two accounts by the same witness. We present a first pilot study on this assumption. In two sessions, we asked 29 participants to produce one experience-based and one fabricated baseline account as well as one experience-based and one fabricated target account (each on different events), resulting in a total of 116 accounts. We hypothesized at least moderate correlations between target and baseline indicating a consistency across both experience-based and fabricated CBCA scores, and that fabricated CBCA scores would be more consistent because truth-telling has to consider random event characteristics, whereas lies must be constructed completely by the individual witness. Results showed that differences in correlations between experience-based CBCA scores and between fabricated CBCA scores took the predicted direction (cexperience-based = .44 versus cfabricated =.61) but this difference was not statistically significant. As predicted, a subgroup of event-related CBCA criteria were significantly less consistent than CBCA total scores, but only in experience-based accounts. The discussion considers methodological issues regarding the usage of total CBCA scores and whether to measure consistency with correlation coefficients. It is concluded that more studies are needed with larger samples

El Statement Validity Assessment (SVA) propone que las declaraciones sobre diferentes eventos pueden servir como una línea base intrasujeto de la medida de las capacidades verbales individuales de un testigo al evaluar las puntuaciones del Criteria Based Content Analysis (CBCA). Esto implica que las puntuaciones del CBCA serán congruentes en dos relatos del mismo testigo. Presentamos un primer estudio piloto sobre este supuesto. Se pidió a 29 participantes en dos sesiones que elaboraran un relato verdadero (línea base) y otro inventado, además de un relato verdadero y otro inventado (cada uno en situaciones diferentes), arrojando un total de 116 relatos. Se planteó la hipótesis de una correlación al menos moderada entre la declaración fabricada y la verdadera, que indicaría una consistencia entre las puntuaciones en el CBCA de relatos inventados y experimentados y que las puntuaciones en el CBCA inventadas serían más consistentes porque la verdad incluye las características aleatorias de los hechos, mientras que las mentiras las construye totalmente el testigo. Los resultados mostraron que las diferencias en las correlaciones entre las puntuaciones en el CBCA de relatos experimentados y fabricados iban en la dirección predicha (cvivido = .44 frente a cinventado = .61), pero esta diferencia no fue significativa. Como se predijo, un subgrupo de criterios de CBCA relacionados con los hechos fue menos congruente que las puntuaciones totales de CBCA, pero sólo en los relatos de hechos experimentados. Se discuten las implicaciones metodológicas relacionadas con el uso de las puntuaciones totales del CBCA y si se debe medir la consistencia mediante el coeficiente de correlación. Se concluye que se necesitan otros estudios con muestras más grandes

Confessions and Denials When Guilty and Innocent: Forensic Patients' Self-Reported Behavior During Police Interviews.

Several self-report studies together with analyses of exoneration cases suggest that suspects with mental disorder are especially prone to making false confessions. The present study asked 153 forensic patients in Germany about their behavior during suspect interviewing by the police. Self-reported ground truth of guilt and innocence was asked for, thereby taking into account that the risk of false confession is present only if a person has ever been interviewed when innocent. Indeed, surveying samples that include suspects who have never been interviewed when innocent may lead to underestimating the risk of false confessions. In the present study, all patients reported having been interviewed previously when guilty; and almost two-thirds (62%, n = 95), that they had also been interviewed at least once when innocent. These participants stated that they remained silent while being interviewed significantly more often when guilty (44%) compared to when innocent (15%). This corroborates laboratory research findings indicating that the right to remain silent is waived more often by innocent than by guilty suspects. Out of all 95 participants who were ever interviewed when innocent, 25% reported having made a false confession on at least one occasion. This result is in line with previous international research showing a high percentage of false confessions among suspects with mental disorder.

The Strategic Meaning of CBCA Criteria From the Perspective of Deceivers.

In 2014, Volbert and Steller introduced a revised model of Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA) that grouped a modified set of content criteria in closer reference to their assumed latent processes, resulting in three dimensions of memory-related, script-deviant and strategy-based criteria. In this model, it is assumed that deceivers try to integrate memory-related criteria-but will not be as good as truth tellers in achieving this-whereas out of strategic considerations they will avoid the expression of the other criteria. The aim of the current study was to test this assumption. A vignette was presented via an online-questionnaire to inquire how participants (n = 135) rate the strategic value of CBCA criteria on a five-point scale. One-sample t-tests showed that participants attribute positive strategic value to most memory-related criteria and negative value to the remaining criteria, except for the criteria self-deprecation and pardoning the perpetrator. Overall, our results corroborated the model's suitability in distinguishing different groups of criteria-some which liars are inclined to integrate and others which liars intend to avoid-and in this way provide useful hints for forensic practitioners in appraising the criteria' diagnostic value.