1 / 12

Steve Herman, Ph.D.

The Accuracy of Forensic Judgments about Allegations of Child Sexual Abuse 116 th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association Boston, Massachusetts August 17, 2008. Steve Herman, Ph.D. Demonstration: Evaluate a child sexual abuse allegation.

zagiri
Download Presentation

Steve Herman, Ph.D.

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Accuracy of Forensic Judgments about Allegations of Child Sexual Abuse116th Annual Convention of the American Psychological AssociationBoston, MassachusettsAugust 17, 2008 Steve Herman, Ph.D.

  2. Demonstration: Evaluate a child sexual abuse allegation

  3. Scenario 7 Probability Ratings (N = 110)

  4. Psychometric Reliability of Judgments about CSA Allegations • Reliability • Consistency of judgments across evaluators • Measures: Cohen’s kappa (κ), interrater correlations • Empirical data on CSA judgment reliability • Scenario 7: κ = .10 • 5 other studies of CSA-related judgments: mean κ = .20 • κ = 0 - .40: poor; .41 - .59: fair; .60 - .74: good; .75+: excellent (Garb, 1998; Herman, 2005)

  5. Evaluator judgments about uncorroborated CSA allegations have low reliability.

  6. Psychometric Validity of Judgments about CSA Allegations • Validity • Measures: Error rates, correlation between test and criterion • Empirical data on CSA judgment validity • Realmuto and colleagues, 2 studies of CSA-related judgments: r = .06 • 15 studies of clinical forensic judgments in other domains: mean r = .11 (see Herman, 2005 for details) • Hershkowitz et al. (2007) • false positive rate = .44 • false negative rate = .33 • overall error rate = .39 • r = .35 (Grove et al., 2000; Herman, in-press; Realmuto et al., 1990, 1992)

  7. Evaluator judgments about uncorroborated CSA allegations have low validity.

  8. Ethics and Errors • False negative error • Sole agent of harm to the child is perpetrator (assuming nonnegligent investigation) • Often ethically justified • False positive errors • Primary agent of harm to the child and others is the MHP/State (esp. in cases in which MHPs create false allegations). Harm may be severe. • Contravenes principles of nonmaleficence, justice, competence because we know that these judgments have low validity

  9. Conclusions • Current science indicates that judgments by MHPs (and other professionals and laypersons) about uncorroborated CSA allegations have low reliability and validity • Ethical practitioners should resist internal and external pressures to directly or indirectly validate uncorroborated CSA allegations • Ethical practitioners should inform legal decision makers about the limits of science in this domain, and vigorously challenge questionable validations of uncorroborated allegations

  10. References 1 • DeVoe, E. R., & Faller, K. C. (1999). The characteristics of disclosure among children who may have been sexually abused. Child Maltreatment, 4(3), 217-227.  • DiPietro, E. K., Runyan, D. K., & Fredrickson, D. D. (1997). Predictors of disclosure during medical evaluation for suspected sexual abuse. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 6(1), 133-142. • Dubowitz, H., Black, M., & Harrington, D. (1992). The diagnosis of child sexual abuse. American Journal of Diseases of Children, 146(6), 688-693. • Elliott, D. M., & Briere, J. (1994). Forensic sexual abuse evaluations of older children: Disclosures and symptomatology. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 12(3), 261-277.

  11. References 2 • Garb, H. N. (1998). Studying the clinician: Judgment research and psychological assessment. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. (1998) x, 333 pp. • Gordon, S., & Jaudes, P. K. (1996). Sexual abuse evaluations in the emergency department: Is the history reliable? Child Abuse and Neglect, 20(4), 315-322. • Grove, W. M., Zald, D. H., Lebow, B. S., Snitz, B. E., & Nelson, C. (2000). Clinical versus mechanical prediction: A meta-analysis. Psychological Assessment, 12(1), 19-30. • Herman, S. (2005). Improving decision making in forensic child sexual abuse evaluations. Law and Human Behavior, 29(1), 87-120. • Herman, S. (in press). Forensic child sexual abuse evaluations: Accuracy of evaluators' judgments. In K. Kuehnle & M. Connell (Eds.), The evaluation of child sexual abuse allegations: A comprehensive guide to assessment and testimony. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

  12. References 3 • Hershkowitz, I., Fisher, S., Lamb, M. E., & Horowitz, D. (2007). Improving credibility assessment in child sexual abuse allegations: The role of the NICHD investigative interview protocol. Child Abuse and Neglect, 31(2), 99-110. • Realmuto, G. M., Jensen, J. B., & Wescoe, S. (1990). Specificity and sensitivity of sexually anatomically correct dolls in substantiating abuse: A pilot study. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 29(5), 743-746. • Realmuto, G. M., & Wescoe, S. (1992). Agreement among professional about a child's sexual abuse status: Interviews with sexually anatomically correct dolls as indicators of abuse. Child Abuse and Neglect, 16(5), 719-725.

More Related