Mi SciELO
Servicios personalizadosServicios Personalizados
Revista
Articulo
texto en 
Inglés (pdf)
Articulo en XML
Referencias del artículo
Traducción automática
Enviar articulo por emailIndicadores
-
Citado por SciELO -
Accesos
Links relacionados
-
Citado por Google -
Similares en
SciELO -
Similares en Google
Compartir
Permalink
Acción Psicológica
versión On-line ISSN 2255-1271versión impresa ISSN 1578-908X
Acción psicol. vol.14 no.2 Madrid jul./dic. 2017 Epub 11-Sep-2023
https://dx.doi.org/10.5944/ap.14.1.21347
Artículos del Monográfico
Content analysis of the witness statements: evaluation of the scientificand judicial valididy of the hypothesis and the forensic proof
EXTENDED SUMMARY
Introduction
The evaluation of the veracity of a testimony is the cornerstone on which most judicial decisions rest on (Novo & Seijo, 2010), particularly in cases of crimes committed in the private and domestic sphere such as sexual and violent crimes (e.g., family and gender violence), which are characterised by contradictory versions of events. This contingency has been estimated to affect approximately 85 % of trials worldwide (Hans & Vidmar, 1986). In order for one version to prevail over the other or to confer credibility to a victim's-plaintiff's testimony where circumstances may concur to undermine the credibility of a testimony (e.g., resentment, hostility, financial gain, conflicts of interest), it must be ratified and substantiated by admissible evidence.
Evaluation of the Undeutsch hypothesis under the Daubert standard
In the case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993), the US Supreme Court established the criteria for the admission of expert testimony as scientific evidence in a court of law, which has also been tested in scientific research: 1) Is the scientific hypothesis/ technique testable? Not only is it possible to test it, it has already been tested in both experimental (laboratory) studies, and field studies. As for the validation of a theory (hypothesis), the US Supreme Court ruled that validating a theory only on the findings of experimental studies was insufficient, and it should be further substantiated by field studies. Both of the study designs have advantages and shortcomings. The advantage of experimental studies is the high degree of control over the independent variable (causal) manipulated by the researcher, meaning the reliability of the classification of real or fabricated accounts is total at the cost of external validity, particularly in the field of research on the psychology of testimonies. Thus, a study comparing testimonies in a high fidelity experimental study and a field study found inconsistent results (Fariña, Real, & Arce, 1992). The strength of field studies lies in the external validity of the designs, but their weakness is internal validity as they lack control over the manipulated variables i.e., the classification criterion (ground truth) of real events. 2) Has the hypothesis/technique been tested? It has been widely tested and validated by numerous studies (i.e., it is statistically significant in discriminating between memories of real-life events and fabricated accounts), both in experimental studies (δ = 0.56 and 0.32, in populations of children and adults, respectively), and field studies (δ = 2.71 and 0.45; in children and adults, respectively); in plaintiff testimonies in populations of children (δ = 0.79), and adults (δ = 0.56); in eyewitnesses (δ = 0.51) and defendants (δ = 0.35); in an array of crimes (e.g., child sex abuse, δ = 0.79; sexual assault and gender violence, δ = 0.87); and in several contexts (memories of criminal and noncriminal events; memories of fabricated events, induced or suggested accounts) (Amado et al., 2015, 2016). The validity of the hypothesis in both field and experimental studies underscores its robust study design (convergent validity). In other words, it is robust to sources of error linked to the design of experimental studies (external validity), and field studies (internal validity). Moreover, it is equally valid in different contexts (i.e., types of crimes), and exhibits inter-context consistency. In addition, the hypothesis has not been rejected by inconvenient results i.e., negative or adverse to the hypothesis mean effect sizes. Likewise, the ground truth factor does not mediate effects in results acquiring consistency among ground truth standards. Thus, the hypothesis has not only been tested and substantiated, it has also been validated and is powerful (moderate, large and more than large effect sizes in different settings). 3) Is there a known error rate? Given that the hypothesis was formulated but not corroborated by the author, that the categorial systems were created on the basis of the authors' experiences (top-down) derived from thousands of cases without a strict and objective decision criterion, and that it was not tested, would explain why the error rate was not published. Nevertheless, the meta-analysis of Amado et al. (2015, 2016) calculated the statistical margin of error following a systematic analysis of the literature to be around 31.5% of false negatives in the population of children and 36.5% in adults. 4) Has the hypothesis/ technique been subjected to peer review and publication (it is not a prerequisite ‘sine qua non’)? On more than 800 occasions (effect size) (Amado et al., 2015, 2016). 5) Is the hypothesis upon which the technique rests on generally accepted as appropriate by the scientific community? The US Supreme Court resorts to the scientific community to attest the method and principles of the hypothesis. To our knowledge, there has been no surveys regarding this or any other psychological hypothesis. From a scientific point of view, the means for consulting the scientific community involves a systematic, meta-analytical review of the literature to determine broad support for the hypothesis i.e., validation by the scientific community (general acceptance). The metaanalysis of Amado et al. (2015, 2016) not only reveals general acceptance, but also found no meta-analytical result (i.e., mean effect size) contradicting the hypothesis.
Evaluation of the content analysis technique of SVA/CBCA statements in scientific, legal, and jurisprudential criteria
Compliance of the hypothesis with the Daubert standard does not intrinsically imply that the same is applicable to the technique derived from it (ecological phalacy), nor do the criteria stipulated by the US Supreme Court satisfy the mandatory requirements for forensic evidence (technique); thus, the need for additional scientific (see Table 1), legal, and jurisprudential criteria as shown in Table 2 (Arce, 2017). Of the forensic techniques derived from the Undeutsch hypothesis, SVA/CBCA (Steller & Köhnken, 1989), is the reference of choice, and is a product of combining previous techniques (Arntzen, 1970; Dettenborn, Froehlich, and Szewczyk, 1984; Szewczyk, 1973; Undeutsch, 1967). SVA describes the technical procedure (see Table 3) and provides a validity checklist (see Table 5), whereas CBCA outlines the reality criteria (see Table 4). As for the scientific criteria applied to the forensic technique, the categorical system of reality criteria, CBCA is not methodic i.e., it is neither reliable nor valid as it has no means for estimating the correct application of the technique to a specific case; and there is no strict and objective decision criterion, making the decision semi-objetive or semi-standardized. In relation to legal and jurisprudential criteria, the technique does not safeguard the constitutional principle of the presumption of innocence (translated into the jurisprudential maxim that a person is considered innocent unless proven guilty, that is, guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, or otherwise the accused must be acquitted); the technique does not meet legal and jurisprudential standards for taking statement given that the semi-structured interview includes an interrogation that can contaminate the evidence; without evaluating the consistency of the testimony (only one statement is obtained and analysed). In short, the underlying Undeutsch hypothesis is valid, but the technique fails to meet the scientific, legal, and jurisprudential criteria.
Design, psychometric properties, and criteria of the Global Evaluation System for the classification of memories of real-life events
Besides the Undeutsch hypothesis, the Reality Monitoring model (Johnson & Raye, 1981), has also proven to be valid for discriminating between external (i.e., perceived, real-life events) and internal memories (i.e., fabricated or fictitious accounts). Succinctly, certain categories of content analysis significantly discriminated between both types of memory, whilst others did not or were unproductive, and some were even contrary to the model (Masip, Sporer, Garrido, & Herrero, 2005; Vrij, 2008). By combining categories from both models and adding more content categories of statements, a reliable and valid methodic categorial system was designed based on CBCA, the combination of reality categories, memory attributes and others derived from the analysis of cases to ensure the forensic technique complies with the Daubert standards, as well as with the scientific, legal, and jurisprudential requirements of a forensic technique (Arce and Fariña, 2013, 2014).
The design of the categorial system was in accordance with the guidelines of Bardin (1996) to ensure it was methodic i.e., reliable and valid: mutual exclusion, homogeneity, objective, adequate and relevant, exhaustive, fidelity and productivity. The resulting categorial system (see Table 7) was internally consistent (homogeneity), α = .789 and .856 (Arce, Fariña, Novo, & Vilariño, 2013; Vilariño, Novo, & Seijo, 2011). Moreover, the categories discriminated (discriminant validity) significantly between memories of real-life events and fabricated accounts (Arce et al., 2013; Arce, Fariña, & Vivero, 2007; Vilariño, 2010; Vilariño et al., 2011). A strict decision criterion was empirically (objectively) defined (criterion validity with false positives = 0; principle of the presumption of innocence); a correct execution control system was designed (fidelity) of the measure in the designs of N = 1 (inter- and intra-rater, and inter-context consistency) and to overcome the deficiencies of SVA. In fact, the Global Evaluation System is a forensic technique that must be carried out by a trained expert; statements must be recorded and archived (external review of the methods used and judicial validity of the evidence); the coding of statements must be registered and archived (external review of the registered criteria and their reliability); codings must be carried out independently by two experts (evaluation of the reliability of the measure); two statements are obtained (evaluation of the consistency of the evidence); and that statements are obtained through a cognitive interview ‒control of the contamination of evidence resulting from the interrogation‒: free-recall and techniques to aid memory recall (without interrogation). The evaluation of the validity of the testimony (validity of the evidence) is ensured if the following 5 criteria based on the analysis of judicial judgements are met (Arce, Seijo, & Novo, 2010): internal consistency (Are there internal contradictions in the account?); external consistency (Is it consistent with robust or other irrefutable evidence?); consistency with prior and subsequent testimonies (Is there consistency between the central aspects and actions of the event?); persistence (Are statements stable in time in the contexts?); and consistent with scientific laws and the laws of nature (Does the account mention events incompatible with scientific laws and the laws of nature?). If the evidence fails to meet any of these validity criteria, no content analysis is undertaken as the evidence is invalid. Moreover, there should be sufficient evidence for it to be the object of content analysis, sufficient evidence (Is it beyond the witness' memory capacity? Does it contain all the necessary information regarding the events?).
Further lines of research
Taking into account content categories discriminate between memories of self-experienced real-life events versus fabricated or fictitious accounts; that a methodic categorial systems may be designed; that there can be more categories, mainly those specific to contexts of victimization i.e., school bullying, gender violence, harassment at work, sexual assault in adults (exhaustive), research should seek to detect and analyse new content categories for the previously mentioned contexts. The most efficacious and productive method entails successive approximations (Fariña, Arce, & Novo, 2002) based on statements from judicial cases and fabricated accounts, and applying the techniques described to the categories identified in accordance with the guidelines of Bardin for designing a methodic categorial system. Furthermore, a strict decision criterion (to ensure the number of false positives is 0) must be continuously revised since lying is also subject to continuous evolution (thus the importance of not revealing intricacies of the technique to prevent the learning of the technique); in comparison, honesty always remains constant.
Referencias
Amado, B. G., Arce, R. y Fariña, F. (2015). Undeutsch Hypothesis and Criteria Based Content Analysis: A Meta-Analytic Review. European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 7, 3-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpal.2014.11.002 [ Links ]
Amado, B. G., Arce, R., Fariña, F. y Vilariño, M. (2016). CBCA Reality Criteria in Adults: A meta-analytic Review. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 16, 201-210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijchp.2016.01.002 [ Links ]
Arce, R. (2015). Manifesto de rexeitamento da violencia de xénero. 25 de novembro 2015 [Declaration of Rejection of Gender Violence. November 25, 2015]. Recuperado de https://xornal.usc.es/xornal/opinions/opinion_0175.html [ Links ]
Arce, R. (2017, mayo). Criterios Daubert, científicos, jurisprudenciales, procesales y legales a aplicar a la prueba psicológica forense [Daubert Scientific, Jurisprudential, Procedural, and Legal to Apply to the Forensic Psychological Test]. En Taller en el X Congreso Internacional de Psicología Jurídica y Forense, Sevilla, España. [ Links ]
Arce, R. y Fariña, F. (2013a). Evaluación psicológicaforense en casos de violencia de género: El Sistema de Evaluación Global (SEG). En S. P. Colín, E. García-López y L. A. Morales (Coords.), Ecos de la violencia, voces de la reconstrucción (pp. 95-120). Morelia, Michoacán, México: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Morelia. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.1885.1040. [ Links ]
Arce, R. y Fariña, F. (2013b). Psicología forense experimental. Testigos y testimonio. Evaluación cognitiva de la veracidad de testimonios y declaraciones [Experimental Forensic Psychology. Witnesses and Testimony. Cognitive Evaluation of the Accuracy of Testimonies and Statements]. En S. Delgado (Dir. Tratado), y S. Delgado, y J. M. Maza (Coords., Vol. V), Tratado de Medicina Legal y Ciencias Forenses: Vol. V. Psiquiatría legal y forense (pp. 21-46). Barcelona, España: Bosch. [ Links ]
Arce, R. y Fariña, F. (2014). Práctica de la prueba psicológica-forense: El Sistema de Evaluación Global (SEG) [Practice of Forensic Psychological testing: The Global Assessment System (GAS)]. En C. Chan, C. Estrada, y F. J. Rodríguez (Eds.), Aportaciones a la Psicología Jurídica y Forense desde Iberoamérica (pp. 47-61). México, DF: Manual Moderno. [ Links ]
Arce, R., Fariña, F., Carballal, A. y Novo, M. (2006). Evaluación del daño moral en accidentes de tráfico: Desarrollo y validación de un protocolo para la detección de la simulación [Evaluating Psychological Injury in Motor Vehicle Accidents (MVA): Development and Validation of a Protocol for Detecting Simulation]. Psicothema, 18, 278-283. Recuperado de http://www.psicothema.com/pdf/3210.pdf [ Links ]
Arce, R., Fariña, F., Carballal, A. y Novo, M. (2009). Creación y validación de un protocolo de evaluación forense de las secuelas psicológicas de la violencia de género [Creation and Validation of a Forensic Protocol to Assess Psychological Harm in Battered Women]. Psicothema, 21, 241-247. Recuperado de http://www.psicothema.es/pdf/3621.pdf [ Links ]
Arce, R., Fariña, F., Novo, M. y Vilariño, M. (2013). Contraste de la efectividad en la detección de declaraciones fabricadas de los criterios de validez del Sistema de Evaluación Global en casos de violencia contra la mujer [Contrast of Effectiveness in Detecting Manufactured Statements against the Global Assessment System's Validity Criteria in Cases of Violence Against Women]. En F. Expósito, I. Valor-Segura, M. Vilariño y A. Palmer (Eds.), Psicología Jurídica aplicada a los problemas sociales (pp. 153-161). Santiago de Compostela, España: Sociedad Española de Psicología Jurídica y Forense. [ Links ]
Arce, R., Fariña, F. y Vivero, A. (2007). Estudio exploratorio de la efectividad de las técnicas de análisis de contenido de las declaraciones en casos de violencia de género [Exploratory Study of the Effectiveness of the Techniques of Content Analysis of Declarations in Cases of Gender-Based Violence]. En C. Guillén y R. Guil (Coords.), Psicología social: Un encuentro de perspectivas (Vol. 1, pp. 590-604). Cádiz, España: Asociación de Profesionales de la Psicología Social. [ Links ]
Arce, R., Seijo, A. y Novo, M. (2010). Testimony Validity: A Comparative Study of Legal and Empirical Criteria. Psychology in Spain, 14, 1-7. Recuperado de http://www.psychologyinspain.com/content/full/2010/14010.pdf [ Links ]
Arntzen, F. (1970). Psychologier der Zeugenaussage [Psychology of Testimony]. Göttinger, Alemania: Hogrefe. [ Links ]
Bardin, L. (1996). El análisis de contenido [Content analysis] (2a. ed.). Madrid, España: Akal. [ Links ]
Boente, S. E. R. (2011). La prueba en los supuestos de violencia de género [Evidence in GBV Assumptions]. Revista Iberoamericana de Estudios Utilitaristas, XVIII(1-2), 231-246. Recuperado de http://www.usc.es/revistas/index.php/telos/article/download/1413/1656 [ Links ]
Campbell, D. T. (1969). Reforms as Experiments. American Psychologist, 24(4), 409. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0027982 [ Links ]
Daubert vs. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993). [ Links ]
Dettenborn, H. Froehlich, H. y Szewczyk, H. (1984). Forensische Psychologie [Forensic Psychology]. Berlín, Alemania: Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften. [ Links ]
Fariña, F., Arce, R. y Novo, M. (2002). Heurístico de anclaje en las decisiones judiciales [Anchorage in Judicial Decision Making]. Psicothema, 14(1), 39-46. Recuperado de http://www.psicothema.com/pdf/684.pdf [ Links ]
Fariña, F., Arce, R. y Real, S. (1994). Ruedas de identificación: De la simulación y la realidad [Linepus: A Comparison of High-Fidelity Research and Research in a Real Context]. Psicothema, 6, 395-402. Recuperado de http://www.psicothema.es/pdf/935.pdf [ Links ]
Hans, V. P. y Vidmar, N. (1986). Judging the Jury. New York, NY: Plenum Press. [ Links ]
Horowitz, S. W., Lamb, M. E., Esplin, P. W., Boychuk, T. D., Krispin, O. y Reiter-Lavery, L. (1997). Reliability of Criteria-Based Content Analysis of Child Witness Statements. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 2, 11-21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8333.1997.tb00329.x [ Links ]
Johnson, M. K. y Raye, C. L. (1981). Reality Monitoring. Psychological Review, 88, 67-85. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.88.1.67 [ Links ]
Köhnken, G. (2004). Statement Validity Analysis and the Detection of the Truth. En P. A. Granhag y L. A. Strömwall (Eds.), The detection of Deception in Forensic Contexts (pp. 41-63). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511490071.003 [ Links ]
Köhnken, G., Milne, R., Memon, A. y Bull, R. (1999). The Cognitive Interview: A Meta-analysis. Psychology, Crime & Law, 5, 3-27. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683169908414991 [ Links ]
Konecni, V. J. y Ebbesen, E. B. (1992). Methodological Issues on Legal Decision-Making, with Special Reference to Experimental Simulations. En F. Lösel, D. Bender y T. Bliesener (Eds.), Psychology and Law: International Perspectives (pp. 413-423). Berlín, Alemania: Walter de Gruyter. [ Links ]
Masip, J., Sporer, S. L., Garrido, E. y Herrero, C. (2005). The Detection of Deception with the Reality Monitoring Approach: A Review of the Empirical Evidence. Psychology, Crime & Law, 11, 99-122. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160410001726356 [ Links ]
Memon, A., Meissner, C. A. y Fraser, J. (2010). Cognitive interview. A Meta-Analytic Review and Study Space Analysis of the past 25 years. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16, 340-372. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020518 [ Links ]
Memon, A., Wark, L., Bull, R. y Köhnken, G. (1997). Isolating the Effects of the Cognitive Interview Techniques. British Journal of Psychology, 88(2), 179-198. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1997.tb02629.x [ Links ]
Ministerio de Justicia. (2005). Guía y manual de valoración integral forense de la violencia de género y doméstica. Madrid, España [Guide and Manual for the Comprehensive Forensic Assessment of Domestic and Gender-Based Violence]: Secretaría General Técnica del Ministerio de Justicia, España. Recuperado de http://goo.gl/7dVRxN [ Links ]
Novo, M. y Seijo, D. (2010). Judicial Judgement-Making and Legal Criteria of Testimonial Credibility. European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 2, 91-115. Recuperado de http://sepjf.webs.uvigo.es/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=26&Itemid=110&lang=en [ Links ]
Pearse, J. y Gudjonsson, G. H. (1996). Police Interviewing Techniques at Two South London Police Stations. Psychology, Crime and Law, 3, 63-74. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683169608409795 [ Links ]
Popper, K. R. (1961). The Logic of Scientific Discovery (2ª. ed.). New York, NY: Harper and Row. [ Links ]
Roma, P., San Martini, P., Sabatello, U., Tatarelli, R. y Ferracuti, S. (2011). Validity of Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA) at trial in free-narrative interviews. Child Abuse & Neglect, 35, 613-620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2011.04.004 [ Links ]
Sentencia 210/2014 del TS, Sala de lo Penal, de 14 de marzo de 2014. Recuperado de https://supremo.vlex.es/vid/abuso-sexual-victimadeclaraciones-503438218 [ Links ]
Sentencia 213/2002 del TS, Sala de lo Penal, 14 de febrero de 2002. Recuperado de http://supremo.vlex.es/vid/agresion-sexualabsolucion-fa-u-15055496 [ Links ]
Sentencia 246/2016 de la AP de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Sala de lo Penal, de 28 de junio de 2016. Recuperado de https://www.iberley.es/jurisprudencia/sentenciapenal-n-246-2016-ap-palmas-sec-1-rec-62-2015-28-06-2016-47669530 [ Links ]
Sentencia 7070/1988 del TS, Sala de lo Penal, de 28 de septiembre de 1988. Recuperado de http://lawcenter.es/w/file/download/64666 [ Links ]
Sporer, S. L. (1997). The Less Travelled Road to Truth: Verbal Cues in Deception Detection in Accounts of Fabricated and Self-Experienced Events. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 11, 373-397. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199710)11:5<373::AID-ACP461>3.0.CO;2-0 [ Links ]
Sporer, S. L. (2004). Reality Monitoring and Detection of Deception. En A. Granhag y L. A. Strömwall (Eds.), The Detection of Deception in Forensic Contexts (pp. 64-102). Cambridge, UK. Cambridge University Press. [ Links ]
Steller, M. (1989). Recent Developments in Statement Analysis. En J. C. Yuille (Ed.), Credibility Assessment (pp. 135-154). Dordrecht, Holanda: Kluwer Academic Publishers. [ Links ]
Steller, M. y Böhm, C. (2006). 50 años de jurisprudencia del Tribunal Supremo alemán sobre psicología del testimonio. Balance y perspectiva [50 Years of German Supreme Court Case Law on Witness Psychology. Balance and Perspective]. En T. Fabian, C. Böhm y J. Romero (Eds.), Nuevos caminos y conceptos en la psicología jurídica (pp. 53-77). Berlín, Alemania: Lit Verlag. [ Links ]
Steller, M. y Köhnken, G. (1989). Criteria-Based Content Analysis. En D. C. Raskin (Ed.), Psychological methods in Criminal Investigation and Evidence (pp. 217-245). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. [ Links ]
Sooniste, T., Granhag, P. A., Strömwall, L. A. y Vrij, A. (2015). Statements about True and False Intentions: Using the Cognitive Interview to Magnify the Differences. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 56(4), 371-378. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12216 [ Links ]
Steller, M. y Köhnken, G. (1989). Criteria-Based Content Analysis. En D. C. Raskin (Ed.), Psychological Methods in Criminal Investigation and Evidence (pp. 217–245). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. [ Links ]
Szewczyk, H. (1973). Kriterien der beurteilung kindlicher zeugenaussagen [Criteria for Assessing the Validity of Child Declarations]. Probleme und Ergebnisse der Psychologie, 46, 46-66. [ Links ]
Undeutsch, U. (1967). Beurteilung der glaubhaftigkeit von zeugenaussagenn [Assessing the Credibility of Witnesses]. En U. Undeutsch (Ed.), Handbuch der psychologie, Vol. II: Forensische psychologie (pp. 26-181). Göttingen, Alemania: Verlag für Psychologie. [ Links ]
Undeutsch, U. (1989). The Development of Statement Reality Analysis. En J. Yuille (Ed.), Credibility Assessment (pp. 101-119). Dordrech, Holanda: Kluwer Academic Publishers. [ Links ]
Vilariño, M. (2010). ¿Es posible discriminar declaraciones reales de imaginadas y huella psíquica real de simulada en casos de violencia de género? [Is it Possible to Discriminate Real Statements from Imagined and Real Psychological Footprint of Simulated in Cases of Gender-Based Violence?] (Tesis doctoral, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, España). Recuperado de http://goo.gl/rPD728 [ Links ]
Vilariño, M., Novo, M. y Seijo, D. (2011). Estudio de la eficacia de las categorías de realidad del testimonio del Sistema de Evaluación Global (SEG) en casos de violencia de género [Study of the Effectiveness of the Reality Categories of Global Evaluation System (GAS) Testimony in Cases of Gender-Based Violence]. Revista Iberoamericana de Psicología y Salud, 2, 1-26. Recuperado de http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/2451/245116403001.pdf [ Links ]
Volbert, R. y Steller, M. (2014). Is this Testimony Truthful, Fabricated, or Based on False Memory? Credibility assessment 25 years after Steller and Köhnken (1989). European Psychologist, 19, 207-220. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000200 [ Links ]
Vrij, A. (2000). Detecting Lies and Deceit. Chichester, UK: Wiley. [ Links ]
Vrij, A. (2005). Criteria-based Content Analysis. A Qualitative Review of the First 37 Studies. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 3-41. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.11.1.3 [ Links ]
Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting Lies and Deceit: Pitfalls and Opportunities (2a. ed.). Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons. [ Links ]
Walsh, D. W. y Milne, R. (2008) Keeping the PEACE? An Analysis of the Taped Interview Performance of Benefit Fraud Investigators Within the DWP. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 13, 39-57. https://doi.org/10.1348/135532506X157179 [ Links ]
Weick, K. E. (1985). Systematic Observational Methods. En G. Lindzey y E. Aronson (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 567-634). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA. [ Links ]
Yuille, J. C., Hunter, R., Joffe, R. y Zaparniuk, J. (1993). Interviewing Children in Sexual Abuse Cases. En G. Goodman y B. Bottoms (Eds.), Child Victims, Child Witnesses: Understanding and Improving Children's Testimony (pp. 95-115). Nueva York, NY: Guilford Press. [ Links ]
Received: July 07, 2017; Accepted: September 28, 2017
Este es un artículo publicado en acceso abierto (Open Access) bajo la licencia Creative Commons Attribution, que permite su uso, distribución y reproducción en cualquier medio, sin restricciones siempre que el trabajo original sea debidamente citado.
