RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN STATEMENT ANALYSIS

Max Steller
Institute for Forensic Psychiatry
Free University of Berlin
Limonenstrasse 27
D-10oo Berlin 45
Federal Republic of Germany
ABSTRACf. Criteria-based content analysis (CBCA) and statement validity
assessment (SVA) are semi-standardized methods for the credibility assessment of
children's statements in cases of sexual abuse. CBCA consists of a systematic
analysis of the content of children's statements using a set of defined criteria, while
SVA incorporates additional information from other sources than the statement
itself. ThiS chapter provides condensed descriptions of CBCA and SVA and
summarizes recent simulation and field studies on the validity of CBCA. The
results of these studies demonstrate the usefulness of CBCA for the purpose of
credibility assessment of children's statements about sexual abuse.

1. Introduction
In Germany, the psychological assessment of the credibility of statements by child
witnesses in cases of sexual abuse consists of a complex diagnostic approach that
includes an analysis of the individual characteristics and motives of the child
witness, as well as an analysis of the content of the statement itself. The analysis of
the content of a statement is the crucial part of the credibility assessment
(Undeutsch, in this volume; Wegener, in this volume). This analysis is conducted
according to a set of criteria, the so-called reality criteria. The evaluation of the
quality of a statement by use of reality criteria is made against the background of
the child's cognitive and verbal competence.
In order to differentiate between the statement content analysis and the
complete overall credibility assessment, the terms "statement validity assessment"
(SVA) and "criteria-based content analysis" (CBCA) were introduced (Steller,
Raskin, Yuille, & Esplin, in press). CBCA refers to the quality analysis of the
content of a given statement using a set of defined criteria. SVA refers to the
overall diagnostic procedure, including the results of CBCA as well as the
evaluation of other data like biographical information, test scores, behavioral
indicators, information as to the origin of the statement and the relationship
between the witness and the accused.
This chapter contains two major sections. The first presents an overview of
CBCA and SVA, the procedures to evaluate a child's statement. The second part
of this chapter focuses on the scientific basis of CBCA. Field as well as simulation
research is discussed and recent studies are reported that aim at evaluating the
validity of CBCA.
135
1. C. Yuille (ed.), Credibility AssessmenJ,135-154.
© 1989 Springer Science+Business Media New York
136

2. Criteria-Based Content Analysis

2.1. DESCRIPTION OF CONTENT CRITERIA
The basic assumption of criteria-based content analysis is that statements which are
based on memories of real (self-experienced) events are different in quality from
statements which are not based on experience but are mere products of fantasy
(Un deutsch, 1967, p. 125). The "reality criteria" or "content criteria" reflect specific
features which differentiate truthful from invented testimonies. After Undeutsch's
(1967) first description of reality criteria, similar compendia were published in West
Germany by Arntzen (1970, 1983a) and in East Germany by Szewczyk (1973; cf.
also Dettenborn, Froehlich, & Szewczyk, 1984). Because the term "reality criteria"
has been used in different ways by these writers, and to avoid confusion about the
nature of statement assessment, we have replaced the term "reality criteria" with
the term "content criterion". This emphasizes that the criteria are used to judge the
content of the statement. The term SVA refers to the overall assessment and uses
all available information including the results of CBCA.
Table I provides a list of the content criteria used within statement analysis.
This system constitutes an integration of the criteria listed by Undeutsch (1967),

1
Arntzen (1970, 1983a), Szewczyk (1973), and Dettenborn et al. (1984). Based on
the criticIsm that the previous a roaches lacked systematic organization and
precise definitions (and distinctions , the newly organized system of content criteria
was initially developed by Steller & oehnken (in press).
The 19 criteria of CBCA are organized into five major categories. Each content
criterion is an indicator of the truthfulness of a statement, that is, its presence in a
given statement is regarded as a sign indicating the truthfulness of this statement
(see Un deutsch, in this volume). Their absence does not necessarily mean the
statement is false.
The first major category concerns the general characteristics of the statement.
The content criteria of this category are related to the complete testimony and
require the examination of the statement as a whole. They can be viewed as a first
step in the analysis and can be assessed without reference to the details of the
statement content. Logical structure is found when the different details in a
statement independently describe the same course of events. In effect, this
criterion is concerned with whether the whole statement fits together.
Unstructured production is based on the observation that false testimonies are
likely to be presented in a continuously structured, mostly chronological manner.
The third general criterion (quantity of details) is fulfilled when, for example, the
statement contains sufficient details, for example, about the location, persons,
objects and actions involved in the abuse. It should be noted that, unlike the
remaining, criteria, these first three criteria are necessary to support the credibility
of a statement, that is, their absence, especially of criteria one and two, indicates a
lack of statement credibility.
The second and third categories of content criteria are progressively more
specific than the first category. For this aspect of the analysis the specific aspects of
the testimony become the focus of the assessment. Contextual embedding refers to
descriptions which anchor the event under investigation in time and space.
Descriptions of interactions, reproduction of conversations, and the report of
unexpected complications during the incident are further specific contents which
are considered as signs of the veracity of a statement.