[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: scales to measure lying in child forensic interviews
<x-html>
<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml"; xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40";>
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>I’m in general agreement with Mark on this one, however,
one might consider some measures as adjunctive in the broader context of
assessment. For example, if defensiveness, random response, or malingering
scales are elevated on child measures that are broad band in nature, this
nuanced data might be useful in the overall armamentarium of the examiner.
When all else fails, look to history of the case. Eye movement, projective
drawings, and other ancillary observations do not meet the threshold for
forensic assessment.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Bill moore<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> bounce-1395858-6833645@list.cornell.edu
[mailto:bounce-1395858-6833645@list.cornell.edu] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Chaffin,
Mark J. (HSC)<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, April 30, 2007 3:12 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Child Maltreatment Researchers<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: scales to measure lying in child forensic interviews<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>Hi Lisa,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>Frankly, I find the idea troubling that people are using
a scale to measure child lying in a forensic interview. I know of no
scale, device or analysis protocol (including polygraphs or statement validity
analysis or Gardner's SAL scale) that has even minimally proven
psychometric adequacy for this purpose with this population. Sure,
you can find advocates for all these approaches, but the fact remains that none
are generally accepted in the scientific community. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>The best advice I could offer to anyone investigating crimes against
children is this: Quit trying to hang the entire determination about an
allegation on the subtle nuances of children's statements during
high-stress snapshot interviews. Beware the shrinks and junk science
proponents who claim to have a secret pipeline to the
truth. Don't underestimate the importance of good, solid,
investigative police work. You know, interview a range of
people, look for physical evidence, check backgrounds, look for potential
witnesses, follow leads, check for possible collateral victims, carefully
examine corroborative or uncorroborative facts, etc. I would have more
confidence in using this type of evidence to evaluate an allegation rather than
using some scale with unknown measurement properties. Everyone wants some
sort of magic test that allows us to see past lies and errors and divine what
really happened. It doesn't exist. Lets not let our desire for
magic lead us to accept unsupported tools risk decreasing our accuracy.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>Mark </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Mark
Chaffin, Ph.D.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Professor
of Pediatrics</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>University
of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>P.O.
Box 26901; CSC 225</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Oklahoma
City, OK 73190</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>(405)
271-8858</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p><em><b>Confidentiality Notice </b></em><br>
This email, including any attachments, contains information from [insert name
of College/Department/Clinic], which may be confidential or privileged. The
information is intended to be for the use of the individual or entity named
above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure,
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately
by a “reply to sender only” message and destroy all electronic and
hard copies of the communication, including attachments.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>
</x-html>