The discrimination of Criteria-Based Content Analysis(CBCA) in assessing the credibility of statements made by adults alleging sexual violence

Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA) is part of Statement Validity Analysis (SVA), a process that checks for the presence of 19 criteria that are known to be frequently found in the statements of truth-tellers. This study examined how well CBCA scores predict trial outcomes (guilty or not guilty) and which conventions are associated with higher conviction rates in order to validate the analysis of adult sexual assault victim statements. The results showed that the CBCA total score was not a reliable predictor of guilt or innocence. Next, we examined the truth discriminatory power of CBCA subcategories: logical structure and superfluous details were significantly higher in the guilty group and self-deprecation was significantly higher in the innocent group. The logical structure of the statement was found to be of significant value in assessing credibility, while the other cues were found to be of varying value depending on the characteristics and psychological state of the individual interviewee and the nature of the case, and thus need to be judged in a case-specific manner. These findings suggest that CBCA is a useful tool for analyzing adult sexual assault victim statements, but it is only valuable when used as part of an SVA and cannot be used as a stand-alone authenticity tool.