Premium
Reliability of criteria‐based content analysis of child witness statements: Response to Tully
Author(s) -
Horowitz Steven W.
Publication year - 1998
Publication title -
legal and criminological psychology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.65
H-Index - 57
eISSN - 2044-8333
pISSN - 1355-3259
DOI - 10.1111/j.2044-8333.1998.tb00359.x
Subject(s) - reliability (semiconductor) , psychology , witness , statement (logic) , social psychology , quality (philosophy) , poison control , validity , applied psychology , psychometrics , computer science , clinical psychology , medicine , law , medical emergency , programming language , power (physics) , philosophy , physics , epistemology , quantum mechanics , political science
Tully (1998) suggests that the quality of statements from child witnesses is likely to affect the reliability of criteria‐based content analysis (CBCA) ratings. Recent studies suggest that this may be true. He also suggests that giving raters more latitude in their ratings, rather than less, might improve both reliability and validity. This is an interesting idea that is worth testing. Finally, Tully argues that CBCA and statement validity assessment (SVA), of which it is a part, are protocols rather than psychometric instruments. Therefore, CBCA should not be subject to the rigours of testing for reliability and validity. With this I must disagree.