Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39639926›Full record

ArticleForensic science international. Synergy2024

Evaluating the validity of testimony: The role of the order of evidence.

Henry Otgaar, Tamara L F De Beuf, Melanie Sauerland, Alexa Schincariol

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Forensic science international. Synergy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Henry OtgaarFaculty of Law and Criminology, Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium.
Tamara L F De BeufFaculty of Law and Criminology, Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium.
Melanie SauerlandFaculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, the Netherlands.
Alexa SchincariolFaculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Legal practitioners sometimes ask psychologists to evaluate the validity of statements of victims, witnesses, and suspects. For their assessment, psychologists often have access to different pieces of evidence (e.g., a video recording of the interview, the suspect's statements). Research has demonstrated that the order of reviewing the evidence can affect decision-making. To examine expert witnesses' views about this, we surveyed 52 legal psychologists about their preferred order for considering the evidence in a statement validity assessment in a fictional sexual abuse case. The assessment was about the validity of the statement of the alleged child victim. The case file included the following documents: an audiovisual recording of the child interview at the police station, a verbatim transcript of that same interview, and a written statement of the suspect. Legal psychologists indicated their preferred order for reviewing these documents and explained the rationale behind their choice. There was no uniform approach among legal psychologists. About one third of respondents would first examine the audiovisual recording, then the verbatim transcript and finally the suspect's statement. In contrast, about one third would first look at the verbatim transcript, then at the recording and last at the suspect's statement. These differences in approach likely highlight the challenges and trade-offs entailed in deciding on the optimal order and emphasize the need for a discussion in the expert witness community about these issues.

Indexed as

Cognitive biasExpert witnessLegal psychologyLinear sequential unmaskingStatement validity

Identifiers

PMID39639926
PMCPMC11617973

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.