ArticleLaw and human behavior2025
Automated question type coding of forensic interviews and trial testimony in child sexual abuse cases.
Article in Law and human behavior, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveQuestion-type classification is widely used as a measure of interview quality. However, question-type coding is a time-consuming process when performed by manual coders. Reliable automated question-type coding approaches would facilitate the assessment of the quality of forensic interviews and court testimony involving victims of child abuse. HYPOTHESES: We expected that the reliability achieved by the automated model would be comparable to manual coders.
methodWe examined whether a large language model (Robustly Optimized Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers Approach) trained on questions (
resultsThe model achieved high reliability (95% agreement; κ = .93). To determine whether disagreements were due to machine or manual errors, we recoded inconsistencies between the machine and manual codes. Manual coders erred more often than the machine, particularly by overlooking invitations and nonquestions. Correcting errors in the manual codes further increased the model's reliability (98% agreement; κ = .97).
conclusionsAutomated question-type coding can provide a time-efficient and highly accurate alternative to manual coding. We have made the trained model publicly available for use by researchers and practitioners. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.