Use of statement validity analysis in minors alleging sexual assault: A systematic review

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, LEGAL
Emilie Wouters MSc, Lauriane Constanty MSc, Sébastien Urben PhD, Joëlle Rosselet Amoussou Master IS, Jacques Gasser PhD
{"title":"Use of statement validity analysis in minors alleging sexual assault: A systematic review","authors":"Emilie Wouters MSc,&nbsp;Lauriane Constanty MSc,&nbsp;Sébastien Urben PhD,&nbsp;Joëlle Rosselet Amoussou Master IS,&nbsp;Jacques Gasser PhD","doi":"10.1111/1556-4029.15604","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This systematic review aims to report on the use of Statement Validity Analysis (SVA) with minors involved in criminal justice proceedings. We conducted a literature search of six bibliographic databases up to March 2024. Additional searches were performed using citation tracing strategies. Nineteen studies published between 1991 and 2023 were retained. Most were published between 1991 and 2000, mainly in the USA. A scientific gap was observed for 10 years before studies resumed between 2011 and 2022. These 19 studies involved 2931 children; most were girls (<i>n</i> = 2080; 71%). The mean age was 9.4 years (SD = 2.40; min = 2; max = 17.5). Most studies did not mention the nature of the relationship between the child and the alleged perpetrator of sexual violence, three studies involved intra-family violence and six studies involved victims of intra- and extra-family violence. Nearly 75% of the interviewers were trained with SVA methods. Most were mental health professionals (52.6%) or police officers (15.8%). No study used the SVA as a whole, 10 studies used 19 criteria of the Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA), and no study used the Validity Check List (VCL). Most studies performed SVA on interview transcripts (<i>n</i> = 8), and two studies performed their analysis on both verbatims and video. The conclusion of our literature review highlights the methodological weaknesses of these studies and encourages more research about the use of SVA in the judicial field to reduce the risk of misleading the judiciary.</p>","PeriodicalId":15743,"journal":{"name":"Journal of forensic sciences","volume":"69 6","pages":"1948-1958"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1556-4029.15604","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of forensic sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1556-4029.15604","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, LEGAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This systematic review aims to report on the use of Statement Validity Analysis (SVA) with minors involved in criminal justice proceedings. We conducted a literature search of six bibliographic databases up to March 2024. Additional searches were performed using citation tracing strategies. Nineteen studies published between 1991 and 2023 were retained. Most were published between 1991 and 2000, mainly in the USA. A scientific gap was observed for 10 years before studies resumed between 2011 and 2022. These 19 studies involved 2931 children; most were girls (n = 2080; 71%). The mean age was 9.4 years (SD = 2.40; min = 2; max = 17.5). Most studies did not mention the nature of the relationship between the child and the alleged perpetrator of sexual violence, three studies involved intra-family violence and six studies involved victims of intra- and extra-family violence. Nearly 75% of the interviewers were trained with SVA methods. Most were mental health professionals (52.6%) or police officers (15.8%). No study used the SVA as a whole, 10 studies used 19 criteria of the Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA), and no study used the Validity Check List (VCL). Most studies performed SVA on interview transcripts (n = 8), and two studies performed their analysis on both verbatims and video. The conclusion of our literature review highlights the methodological weaknesses of these studies and encourages more research about the use of SVA in the judicial field to reduce the risk of misleading the judiciary.

Abstract Image

在未成年人性侵犯指控中使用陈述有效性分析:系统回顾。
本系统综述旨在报告陈述有效性分析(SVA)在刑事司法程序中对未成年人的使用情况。我们对截至 2024 年 3 月的六个文献数据库进行了文献检索。此外,我们还使用引文追踪策略进行了其他检索。我们保留了 19 项在 1991 年至 2023 年间发表的研究。大部分研究发表于 1991 年至 2000 年之间,主要集中在美国。在 2011 年至 2022 年期间恢复研究之前,出现了长达 10 年的科学空白期。这 19 项研究涉及 2931 名儿童,其中大多数是女孩(n = 2080;71%)。平均年龄为 9.4 岁(SD = 2.40;最小 = 2;最大 = 17.5)。大多数研究未提及儿童与被指控的性暴力实施者之间的关系性质,3 项研究涉及家庭内部暴力,6 项研究涉及家庭内部和家庭外部暴力的受害者。近 75% 的访谈者接受过关于 SVA 方法的培训。大多数是心理健康专业人员(52.6%)或警官(15.8%)。没有一项研究使用了整体 SVA,10 项研究使用了基于标准的内容分析 (CBCA) 的 19 项标准,没有一项研究使用了有效性检查表 (VCL)。大多数研究对访谈记录(n = 8)进行了 SVA 分析,有两项研究对逐字记录和视频进行了分析。我们文献综述的结论强调了这些研究在方法上的不足,并鼓励在司法领域使用 SVA 进行更多研究,以降低误导司法机构的风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of forensic sciences
Journal of forensic sciences 医学-医学:法
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
12.50%
发文量
215
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Forensic Sciences (JFS) is the official publication of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS). It is devoted to the publication of original investigations, observations, scholarly inquiries and reviews in various branches of the forensic sciences. These include anthropology, criminalistics, digital and multimedia sciences, engineering and applied sciences, pathology/biology, psychiatry and behavioral science, jurisprudence, odontology, questioned documents, and toxicology. Similar submissions dealing with forensic aspects of other sciences and the social sciences are also accepted, as are submissions dealing with scientifically sound emerging science disciplines. The content and/or views expressed in the JFS are not necessarily those of the AAFS, the JFS Editorial Board, the organizations with which authors are affiliated, or the publisher of JFS. All manuscript submissions are double-blind peer-reviewed.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信