Statement validity assessment: myths and limitations
This paper examines the applicability and limitations of one of the procedures most commonly used to analyze the credibility of a testimony, the Statement Validity Assessment (SVA). The starting point for a successful implementation is a thorough consideration of the possible sources that could lead...
| Autores: | , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2015 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Universidad Complutense de Madrid (UCM) |
| Repositorio: | Docta Complutense |
| Idioma: | español |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:docta.ucm.es:20.500.14352/34995 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14352/34995 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | 343.95 159.98 343.9 Credibility assessment CBCA SVA Child sexual abuse Statements Eyewitness testimony. Eyewitness testimony Forensic psychology Psicología legal Psicología aplicada Criminología |
| Sumario: | This paper examines the applicability and limitations of one of the procedures most commonly used to analyze the credibility of a testimony, the Statement Validity Assessment (SVA). The starting point for a successful implementation is a thorough consideration of the possible sources that could lead to a statement, following the method of falsifiability of hypotheses. Major errors of use are described and the methods for different scenarios to be analyzed are clarified, considering both the relevance of each procedure and its limitations. In conclusion, the dangers of an incorrect or incomplete implementation of SVA, regardless of the hypotheses and the recommended valuation technique, are pointed out, as long as the risk of overgeneralizing the use of content analysis (CBCA). |
|---|