Review of the Current Status of the Use of Statement Validity Analysis Procedures in Sex Abuse Cases in the United States

Martha L. Rogers^*

ABSTRACT: Statement Validity Analysis (SVA) is the recently evolved version of Statement Reality Analysis (SRA), in use in Europe for the past 35 years) by which the quality of victim statements concerning alleged sexual abuse is assessed.  Potential barriers to its acceptance in the United States are presented, along with an informal summary of experience in the use of such evidence.  An update on the status of ongoing SVA research is provided.
  

Past History and Context of the Development of SRA/SVA

Statement Validity Analysis (SVA) is an outgrowth of methods used in Europe for the past 35 years for assessing the credibility of alleged sex abuse victims.  Udo Undeutsch is credited as the father of Statement Reality Analysis (SRA), the predecessor of SVA (1982, 1989).  In West Germany, Undeutsch hypothesized that statements which are the product of a real experience differ in structure, quality and content as compared to statements which are the product of fantasy or fabrication.  He identified features of statements that are more frequently associated with true experience.

The German approach to ascertaining truthfulness was a focus upon the statement made rather than the reputation or character of the person making a statement.  In this way, the focus is not upon the character of either the victim or the suspect, as it is in our legal system.  The reasoning goes that a person of sterling reputation will also lie situationally, and perhaps has more to lose by telling the truth if he has committed a sexual offense than someone of poor reputation.  In fact, a person with a bad reputation may be telling the truth about having been victimized or not having perpetrated a sexual crime.

By 1954, the West German Supreme Court had ruled that in cases of sexual offenses where the only evidence was the testimony of the two parties, an assessment of the credibility of the statements would be conducted.  The victim and the alleged perpetrator are carefully evaluated, using standard clinical/forensic methods as well as an assessment of their statements about the incident.  In court, they are questioned further by the judge and attorneys on both sides, based upon an inquisitional model of justice where the goal is a search for and synthesis of data leading to the truth, coming out of Roman law.  Our adversarial model arose out of English common law, where the two sides battle it out.  We might speculate that the origins of SRA were fostered in a social/legal environment that promoted a pooling and synthesis of evidence rather than a contest between opposing viewpoints.

The SRA approach to analyzing victim statements has been widely used for the better part of four decades in West Germany and Europe.  There have been several prominent practitioners over the years who published these methods, primarily in the German language.  After 1982, there was an increase in publications and workshops teaching SRA began, first at the University of Utah in 1985.  In the last three years, the published research on SVA has increased and training has become more available for both law enforcement and mental health professionals.

However, the first formal validity study of CBCA/SVA has yet to be published, while the second validity study is currently in process (Boychuk, Esplin & Raskin, 1988).  In these studies, transcripts of child interviews are scored with Content-Based Criteria Analysis (CBCA) criteria by raters who are unaware of the judged validity of the allegation.  The transcripts came from completely adjudicated cases where a range of corroborating evidence tends to substantiate whether abuse occurred, e.g., confessions of the perpetrators (apart from any plea bargaining), polygraph exams, medical exams, statements of corroborating witnesses, prosecutors declining to press charges, or court judgments or dismissals, etc.  In the first study, the scoreable features of the transcripts based on the nineteen CBCA criteria showed a bimodal distribution with no overlap between them — the confirmed abuse cases clearly appeared to demonstrate higher quality statements as contrasted with the doubtful cases of abuse.  The problem of knowing absolutely that a case reflected a true or false allegation will always remain a problem in this type of research, even though every effort was made to define the experimental groups as rigorously as possible.
  

Factors Impacting Use and Acceptance of SVA in U.S. Courts

Given that the legal systems in the countries where Statement Reality Analysis originated and developed are fundamentally different than that of the United States, the transplantation of this methodology involves more than simply assimilating its use.  The adversarial system is one in which any new technology is likely to go through a period of being challenged before coming into general acceptance.  General acceptance of the polygraph, for example, is still an ongoing process in various states.  The recent advent of genetic material sampling from bodily products and being able to rule in or rule out a given individual as matching those biological products has had an easier time initially than psychological methods, but there is still considerable controversy over this technology.

The standard of the Kelly-Frye rule (People v. Kelly (1976)17 C.3d 24, 130 C.R. 144, 549 P.2d 1240; Frye v. US. [1923] 293 F. 1013, 1014) will probably be raised in the case of any new methodology or development, usually to challenge whether evidence should be accepted and used by the court in making its determinations.

Just when a scientific principle or discovery crosses the line between the experimental and demonstrable states is difficult to define.  Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.

In essence, the reliability of a method must be established.  The witness must qualify as an expert in the subject of the testimony.  And there must be a showing that correct scientific procedures were used, and if they are not, such foundational omissions will invalidate any scientific conclusions which are offered (People v. Dellinger [1984)163 C.A. 3d 284, 293, 209 C.R. 503).

Over time, various psychological/physiological methods used by psychologists have had to come up against the Kelly-Frye standard for admission into evidence in United States courts.  In California V. John W. (185 Cal. App.3d.801, September 19, 1986), the plethysmograph was found not to be a reliable method for diagnosing sexual deviancy, although there were some conceptual misunderstandings of what the plethysmograph can or cannot do evident in the court's published opinion which contributed to its rejection of the plethysmographic method.  California v. Donald Lee Shirley (641 P.2d. 775, 31 Cal.3d 18 [March 11, 1982]) addressed the use of witnesses who had been hypnotized for purposes of restoring their memory of events and the whole issue of restoring versus creating memories became the basis for setting standards for limiting the use of such testimony.  In California v. Eddie Bobby McDonald (690 P.wd 709,37 Cal.3d 351, November 21, 1984) the issue of the reliability of eyewitness identification was addressed.  Whether expert opinion would be admissible to assist the trier of fact with information that goes beyond common experience was contested, and the court concluded that such testimony was not precluded by the Kelly-Frye standards.  The court did not feel that the Kelly-Frye rule applied to expert witnesses on eyewitness identification.

There have been recent court rulings which addressed overlapping issues of whether psychological profiles have to meet the Kelly-Frye standard for use in providing an opinion as to whether a child is a victim of sexual abuse or whether the defendant "fits the profile" for a child molester.

In California (California v. John Andrew Stoll et al., 89 Daily Journal DAR 15164, December 22, 1989), admission of psychological testing to provide evidence as to whether or not the defendant fits the profile of a child molester was found not to have to meet the Kelly-Frye standard.  The reasoning was that psychological methodology, such as the use of the MMPI, has long been routinely admitted for multiple purposes with no suggestion that Kelly-Frye applies.  Such evidence can be admitted as character evidence to prove "conduct in conformity" (p. 15169).  Thus, components of a routine psychological examination are generally admissible in California but the trier of fact then determines how much weight to give the evaluation.

It should be noted that within the ruling of the case itself, there was considerable misunderstanding of what a test such as the MMPI can actually tell us, or of what a competent examination of an alleged sex offender should consist (c.f. Rogers & Echeandia, 1990).  Nevertheless, because common psychological tests have been admitted for other purposes for many years, they do not have to meet the standard of Kelly-Frye for admission as evidence in sex offense cases.  The implication would be that typical clinical procedures of whatever sort may not have to meet such a standard before they can be admitted and weighed by the trier of fact.

Such a ruling has its up and its down sides for the potential for good or for ill for society as well as for the reputation of forensic psychology.  If applied efficaciously and cautiously, there are benefits to be accrued.  However, techniques or tests which have been validated for one purpose may not be appropriately applied to another context, the MMPI certainly being a case in point: there is no evidence to support the belief that the MMPI can identify who is or is not a sex offender, and there is no single profile of a child molester.  The Stoll ruling does not deal with the reliability of the testimony but only that it is admissible and must then be weighed by the trier of fact.

In Utah (Utah v. Phillip Rimmasch, no citation available, published 5/18/89), the court concluded:

In sum, if this Court's position of the spectrum of opinions held by the various courts about the admissibility of scientific evidence could be fixed ... it would probably be somewhere in the middle, where an awareness of the usefulness of scientific evidence is balanced by a concern that the door not be thrown wide open to any evidence that can be labeled "scientific."  We remain wary of the potential of such evidence to distort the fact-finding process by reason of its superficial plausibility and its potential for inducing fact finders to accept experts' judgments on critical issues rather than making their own.  And we are convinced that trial courts sometimes admit 'scientific' evidence without scrutinizing its foundations carefully.  It is for these reasons that we have imposed the threshold reliability requirement.

In this case, it was found that the so-called behavioral symptomatology commonly touted to be suggestive of a child having been sexually abused was not a reliable basis for concluding abuse had occurred.  Additionally, experts' individual assessments and opinions as to the child's veracity, based on their own idiosyncratic or unique approaches, were also found not to be acceptable proof that molestation had occurred.  The court believed that providing testimony as to the character and person of the victim was a different process than testimony purporting to show that the statements she made to psychologists about abuse were truthful as judged by the experts.  It was found to be error that such testimony had been admitted.  It would appear that the bottom line issue of credibility of a child's statement is not a judgment for the psychologist to make in Utah as well as in many other jurisdictions at this time.  In Europe, such judgments as well as their underpinnings are routinely asked for as part of the information and truth-seeking process, but in the United States, the psychologist's proper role is the provision of data, plus elucidation of the reasoning behind his conclusions and their empirical foundations.  The expert is expected to be able to address the strengths and deficits in the existing knowledge base in the field.

The whole issue of whether a child witness would always be believed continues to be a subject for furious debate in the United States, with proponents who state that children never lie developing one line of research, while others who tend to believe the truth is more situational comprising other research directions.  The ecological validity of research in child witness testimony is a thorny issue which may not be resolved quickly (c.f., DeAngelis, 1989; Ceci, Ross, & Toglia, 1989).

The history of Criteria-Based Statement Analysis and SVA has been well described by Steller and Koehnken (1989).  However, the long history and tradition, along with general acceptance of usage of the preceding versions of CBCA in Europe ultimately will not suffice in the United States.  Additional empirical research which more fully establishes the validity and generality of these procedures will be required for them to have wide appeal and application.

Since formal research on CBCA/SVA in the United States and Canada is only a few years old, and the findings only beginning to be more widely disseminated in the professional community, at this stage it would be difficult to find agreement in the relevant scientific community that these techniques have matured to the point that they are recognized as the single standard methodology for assessing the validity of child sexual abuse statements.  In Europe, they have the advantage that the methods have been accepted by field usage for many years, whereas here, CBCA/SVA is not yet part of the armamentarium of most clinical psychologists or even most forensic psychologists specializing in assessment of sex offenders or victims.  Until the needed research is accrued, we need to use these methods cautiously and judiciously as an investigatory tool, and they are best combined with other approaches to assessing sex abuse cases.

There is a need for more information about how the CBCA criteria are impacted by developmental/cognitive/language factors, and the second validity study which is in progress should begin to shed some light on these issues.  In all child abuse cases, statements made by children below the age of five are and will in all probability remain the most difficult to assess, regard-less of the approach used.
  

How are CBCA/SVA Methods Being Used Currently In the Court Systems

Since these are methods just coming into more frequent use in the United States, a review of how they are faring in the court systems around the country would probably be helpful to those who are beginning to use them.

The following is based upon informal discussion with several researchers/clinicians who are primarily responsible for introducing these methods more broadly in the United States, and who have been using them longer than anyone outside of Europe.  Collectively, they have testified in cases at the federal and state level, in criminal, civil, juvenile or military court matters in more than six states approximately 80 times with the use of CBCA/SVA approaches.  There are also many more cases in which they have been consultants where formal court room testimony did not occur, but instead, the input based on CBCA/SVA was used to advise the attorneys and settle the issue.

These professionals are, at this stage, presenting CBCA/SVA methods in such a manner so as to not raise Kelly-Frye issues, or more as an educative tool for the court or jury.  The methods are presented as one more clinical and investigative tool which has been found helpful in understanding the quality of the evidence.  The ultimate issue of credibility is not usually addressed by the psychologist in the proceedings, but the trier of fact is equipped with an understanding of factors influencing the quality of an interview with a child and developmental factors impacting a child's testimonial competence.  Additionally, they are educated about factors that are typically associated with various forms of child sexual abuse, and factors that are associated with a lack of validity in such cases.  The problems in interviewing very young children and the difficulty in obtaining a valid interview are often as issue and at times the issue of competency of a child witness is raised.

Typically, the number of CBCA criteria met in a particular taped interview or comments about the child is not provided in the court room before a jury.  The CBCA/SVA system is not used as a formal or finished method where scores have any sort of absolute meaning, but rather as a method of conceptualizing and systematizing all of the data of an interview.  In some cases, the expert has been allowed to go through all of the actual data and to apply the criteria but without assigning scores.  In this way the factors that the trier of fact should consider in making their own judgments would be presented.  In a few instances, the experts have been allowed to go through the entire set of procedures, including assigning of scores and giving ultimate opinions on the likely credibility of the statement.

Based on experience thus far, the majority of cases in which such testimony has been rendered has been those in which the abuse was being confirmed by these methods.  These included child dependency actions where the court retained jurisdiction over the child because of the continued risk for some form of abuse.

In one state in which fifteen to twenty such cases have led to testimony on the behalf of the county child protective services, all of the child victims had been interviewed by the expert on videotape; the tapes were then reviewed by the court as part of the proceedings.  The expert witness then pointed out various aspects or features of the actual testimony which were felt to reflect the credibility of the allegations.

Where testimony has been rendered about false allegations or doubtful cases, the experts report that these have all come from post-divorce situations.  Some of these cases have been family law actions while others have resulted in criminal charges being brought against a parent.  One expert has testified in approximately twenty-five criminal cases where the testimony was rendered during the process of pretrial motions before a judge.  These have largely resulted in the cases being dismissed.  In those which have gone to trial, the expert has been allowed to testify before a jury but only in an educative role about half the time rather than addressing the ultimate issue.  In one case where the expert was not allowed to address the ultimate issue, the case ended with a hung jury, and the case was not refiled.  In one case, the judge ruled that the input from the expert would not have gone beyond the common sense and understanding of the jury and testimony was not permitted.  The case involved a Sixteen year old who had previously made allegations in another state against a foster parent, which had the same elements as the allegations currently at issue, and the youngster had previously admitted that the earlier allegations were false, but this evidence was not allowed in as a "past bad act."

Often these SVA experts have been retained for consultation by defense in the case of individuals who were guilty of molestation.  Typically, the expert will have reviewed the case, any audiotape or videotape interviews of the victim(s), transcripts and other available evidence, and then advised the defense accordingly.  One of the experts is also an expert in polygraph methods, and in some cases may have reviewed polygraph records of the defendant in addition to reviewing statements of the victims.  Reportedly, the vast majority of cases reviewed in this manner are judged by the experts to be guilty.  In such cases, the expert was not usually asked to testify.  It has also been made explicit that the ethical stance being taken by SVA experts that they will not assist an attorney in applying SVA for purposes of impeaching a child witness whom they believe to have been actually victimized.

There are also many civil actions where these methods are being applied to sort out and assess prior statements of the victims, and assess damages.  These have included preschool, school, or youth organizations where abuse was alleged.  The defense in these cases usually was not disputing whether the abuse occurred but there were issues of how damaged the victims were and how the case should be settled.  These were nonfamilial perpetrators, where the experts represented the victims.  In one case there were 45 victims by a teacher and the purpose of the expert's involvement was to help assess the impact of molestation experiences on and subsequent treatment needs of the children and to reach an agreement on a trust fund for them.
  

Recent Experience with CBCA/SVA in California

I have applied CBCA/SVA to an increasing number of cases in the past two years, most often in presentencing evaluations where the perpetrator was still claiming not to have committed the crime.  I have used SVA in a significant number of such 288.1 PC evaluations to further demonstrate that the alleged abuse most likely took place.  In some of these, the perpetrator ultimately admitted to me that he had, in fact, committed the crime.

Over the years, I have seen roughly four hundred sex allegations cases in either civil or criminal matters, with about two dozen in which I had concluded that the allegations were false, and many of these have been completely adjudicated at this time.  Surprisingly, most of these had not required that I testify, but all that have gone to court were, in fact, ultimately resolved in favor of the defendants.  Most were family law or child dependency actions.

I have testified once in a criminal proceeding on behalf of the prosecution in the case of a mentally retarded adult male alleged to have been molested by a boarding home male caretaker.  I was able to apply the concepts from SRA to the victim statement.  This was before I had had exposure and training to SVA.  In my opinion, there were certain very unique features that strongly suggested that victimization had in fact occurred, but ultimately this young man was judged not to be competent and the criminal action was dropped.  I remain convinced that he was, in fact molested by his caretaker.

In none of these post-conviction or post-plea evaluations situations had I ever identified a case in which I believed that the criminal allegations were in fact false until last year.  I was appointed on this particular case to perform an evaluation prior to being trained in SVA.  In the course of studying this case, I concluded that the allegations were false, using methods I have had available to me earlier, e.g., standard developmental/clinical and forensic sequential analysis methods commonly in use by most forensic psychologists in the United States.

This defendant had already been convicted of multiple counts of sexual abuse, including two allegations of force, which in California would automatically require a state prison sentence.  Subsequently, I went to West Germany and consulted with Dr. Udo Undeutsch, reviewing the victim transcripts with him.  A few months later, after having gone through training in CBCA/SVA, I again reanalyzed all the recorded victim statements using CBCA/SVA.  These data were presented in a Motion for New Trial, subject to not being admitted into evidence if the evidence presented was found by the court not to meet the Kelly-Frye standard.  Nevertheless, all of the data and reasoning in the case, both before and after the use of CBCA/SVA were presented to the court.  The conclusions were the same through the two different processes, which corroborated one another by clear demonstrations of how the child's statements had changed substantially over time, depending on the interview context.  These changes were not within the range of expected fluctuation or discrepancies that would be anticipated and the actual quality of the statements was poor, which application of CBCA/SVA made more clear.

One of the three experts described above also testified in the proceeding, in order to provide the scientific foundations for CBCA/SVA and also to verify my work, since my experience with these methods was quite limited at the time.

Prior to the conclusion of the hearing, the two sides worked out a settlement, in which the two counts which would have required a state prison sentence would be granted a motion for new trial based on insufficiency of the evidence.  The DA agreed not to appeal and then to move to dismiss those counts in the interest of justice.  The defendant then withdrew his motion for new trial on the non-forceful counts, accepted three years of probation, and requirement to register as a sex offender, continuing therapy until it is not needed, and 180 days to be served in an in-home detention or "bracelet program"

Exactly what impact the testimony of the two psychologists involved in this motion and the presentation regarding CBCA/SVA of the victim statements is unknown.  There were many legal issues in this very complex case, but it seems likely that on some level, perhaps below a formal evidentiary level, there was some additive effect that resulted in this outcome, which was totally unanticipated.  The issue of whether SVA would been deemed to meet Kelly-Frye standards was thus sidestepped, but in my judgment would have failed.

More recently, I was appointed in an embroiled family law matter which had gone on for over two years, with allegations and cross allegations of child sexual abuse, against both parents of a boy who was about two and one-half years of age when it all started.  At age four and one-half, after numerous psychologists had been involved and had testified in completely contradictory directions, the court had the young boy testify in court over a three-day period.  He was cross-examined by both attorneys of the parents, as well as questioned in chambers and in open court by the judge.  The sessions were tape recorded and transcribed.  Subsequent to these hearings, the court tentatively ruled that the sexual allegations were found not true.  Some of the psychologists involved then advised the court that it needed to take into account the child's developmental capacities before making a final determination of his veracity or the invalidity of the most recent allegations which were against his father.

The court then asked both sides to submit four resumes of psychologists they would like to see undertake such an analysis.  The materials to be analyzed included the testimony of the boy in chambers and in court, as well as some previous tapes of evaluation and therapy sessions.  The father's attorney submitted my resume as one of his four "entries," and the court selected me to conduct this study.  Based on prior experience in court with SVA and the fact that this child was so young, I decided to systematically analyze the child's statements using three separate but somewhat overlapping approaches:

1. They were reviewed from a developmental/ clinical standpoint, e.g., given this child's age and mental maturity, and given the context and nature of the interview questions, how shall we make sense of what the child said?

2. They were reviewed from a more usual forensic perspective, e.g., sequentially, over time, how do the allegations unfold under the various interview conditions with changing interviewers?  What external influential factors may have had an impact on the statements made?

3. They were reviewed from a Criteria-Based Content Analysis/Statement Validity Analysis perspective.

It was interesting that the three approaches appeared to corroborate the conclusions reached with one another well.  My conclusion was that the child, Tommy, then four years and eleven months of age, had not been competent to render testimony due to his inability to understand his duty to tell the truth.  Like many bright preschoolers, Tommy was well able to handle superficial inquiries of what is the truth and what is a lie.  However, he could not separate out his own thoughts or what he had been told by significant adults from whether events actually took place.  For example, he spontaneously volunteered in court about an event which allegedly involved his father's former wife, Brenda.  Tommy alleged he had witnessed his father throwing Brenda off a balcony of hotel in which they were staying, and then claimed that he himself called 911 for help.  The problem was that this alleged event took place before Tommy was born.  The boy continued to insist that this was the truth, even when confronted with the fact that he could not have been there.  He finally said that it was the truth because his mom had told him that it was true, and the mother acknowledged that she had been the source of information about the alleged event.

Tommy's statements about the sexual abuse depended heavily on the context of interviews and some of these same kinds of problems in sorting things out were also evident; he appeared to lack the ability to know what he did not know and to demonstrate independent experiencing of events apart from what he had been told.  He had been given a great deal of information by adults in the process of being questioned, and most of his accounts were either heavily influenced by the interviewers or were obviously laced with fantasy productions.  Thus, I also concluded that it was unlikely that either parent had molested him, after weighing all the available data and circumstances surrounding the allegations.  The parents were very acrimonious and quite willing to believe the worst about one another and unable to separate out such feelings which markedly impacted their interactions with Tommy.

At the time of the next hearing, the mother's attorney was extremely denigrating and discounting of the findings, which had taken over fifty hours to perform, and I began to settle in for what I anticipated would be a brutal yet uninformed and unsophisticated cross-exam.  However, after a short time, the court cut her off, and accepted the findings.  No sexual abuse was found to have occurred at the hands of either parent.  The court requested that the three psychologists involved in the case at the time, one retained by the father and one by the mother, plus myself as the court-appointed psychologist, develop a joint custody/treatment plan for the youngster.  At that point, a three-week reassessment of the child and his parents took place by me, with input and consultation with the other two psychologists, and a plan signed by all three psychologists was submitted to the court and accepted by both sides of the conflict.  Although the sole use of CBCA/SVA methods would have been quite risky in this situation, the use of more traditional methods in combination with the less well-recognized CBCA/SVA approach was efficacious as far as bringing this case to a conclusion.  Kelly-Frye issues may be side-stepped by this approach as well as by emphasizing the long-established tradition of statement analysis procedures as part of out forensic knowledge base originating from Europe.  Under the Court of Appeals, reasoning in People v. Stoll, et al. (1989), it may be that Kelly-Frye will not be so much of an issue as long as no absolute meaning is assigned to CBCA scores, and the ultimate issues are left to the jury.

As more professionals are trained in CBCA/SVA, a greater body of experience will accrue in their usage in the United States and more research will be possible.  In the use of any established clinical method or technique or in any new or unfamiliar psychological technique, careful application for the specific purposes for which it has been developed or validated must be kept in mind.  Especially until more research has been completed, responsible clinicians will realize that overstating its utility or minimizing its limitations will not serve science or justice well in the long run.
  

References

Boychuk, T. D., Esplin, P. W., & Raskin, D.C. (1988, June18). Children's statements of sexual abuse: Validity of criteria-based content analysis. Presented at the NATO Advanced Study Institute on Credibility Assessment, Maratea, Italy. Op. Cit. in M. Steller (1989), Recent developments in statement analysis. In J. C. Yuille (Ed.), Credibility Assessment () (pp.135-154), NATO Advanced Science Institute Series, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Ceci, S. J., Ross, D. F., & Toglia, M. P (1989). Perspectives on Children's Testimony (). New York: Springer-Verlag.

DeAngelis, T. (1989, September). Controversy marks child witness meeting. The APA Monitor, 20(9), 1, 8-9.

People v. Stoll, et al. (1989). 89 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1S164.

Rogers, M., & Echeandia, D. (1990). Problems in forensic psychological practice reflected in People v. Stoll, et al. [89 Daily Journal D.A.R. 18164]. Unpublished paper to be presented as part of a Seminar for the Orange County District Attorney's Sex Crime Prosecution Unit, 1990.

Steller, M., & Koehnken, G., (1989). G. Criteria-based statement analysis. In D. C. Raskin, (Ed.), Psychological Methods in Criminal Investigation and Evidence () (pp. 217-246). New York: Springer

Undeutsch, Udo. (1982). Statement reality analysis. In A. Trankell (Ed.), Reconstructing the Past: The Role of Psychologists in Criminal Trials () (pp. 27-56). Deventer, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Undeutsch, U. (1989). The development of statement reality analysis. In J. Yuille (Ed.), Credibility assessment: A united theoretical and research perspective. Proceedings of the NATO-Advanced Study Institute in Maratea (Italy), June, 1988. Dordrecht (NL): Kluwer Academic Publishers.