Child Sexual Abuse Disclosures
Over the years, approaches to interviewing children have
evolved as research continues to seek best practice methods. In an effort to avoid mass false positives,
reminiscent of the 1980s and 1990s, and to improve the likelihood of full
disclosure, interview methods have been tailored to the developmental
susceptibility of children (Benia, Hauck-Filho, Dillenbur,
& Stein, 2015; Costanzo & Krauss, 2015; Brubacher, Powell, &
Roberts, 2014; Lyon, Ahern, & Scurich, 2012; Reitsema, & Grietens,
2016). Lyon et al. (2012) sought to substantiate the value of child
disclosures as proof of sexual abuse especially when given spontaneously. By critiquing The
Evaluation of Child Sexual Abuse Allegations: A Comprehensive Guide to
Assessment and Testimony by
Connell and Kuehnle (2009), the researchers were able to address several
areas of controversial discussion including the accuracy of child sexual abuse disclosures,
the likelihood of abuse among those evaluated, and the need to conduct
empirically sound interviews.
Article Compendium
To eradicate any confusion on exactly what is meant by the term “child sexual abuse” (CSA)
in this paper, a definition is given from
the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA):
The
employment, use, persuasion, inducement, enticement, or coercion of any child
to engage in or assist any other person to engage in, any sexually explicit conduct
or simulation of such conduct for the purpose of producing a visual depiction
of such conduct; or the rape, and in cases of caretaker or inter-familial
relationships, statutory rape, molestations, prostitution, or other form of
sexual exploitation of children, or incest with children (Children’s Bureau,
2010).
In these
cases of CSA, physical evidence usually does not exist. The only witnesses are
the children themselves and the perpetrators meaning disclosure by the child is
paramount (Anderson, 2016; Benia et al., 2015; Brubacher et
al., 2014; Lyon et al., 2012; Reitsema, & Grietens, 2016). Despite the importance, Herman (2009)
classified the child disclosure as soft evidence that was often unreliable. Lyon
et al. found that Faust, Bridges and
Ahern (2009) confused the probability of abuse given disclosure with the likelihood of disclosure given abuse, dubbed
the inverse fallacy. Lyon and colleagues defined and described Bayes theorem as
the amount one will change their thinking or beliefs when confronted with new
information. They found that the accuracy rate calculated by Faust and colleagues
was also based on an assumption of base
rates and a misunderstanding of the logical implications of the ratios (Lyon et al., 2012). Even if their
numbers had been correct, their conclusion was still incorrect.
The next area addressed centered on the reasons
evaluations are conducted and their
reliability. Disclosure by a child is most likely to happen with someone they
trust, so if it is reported by someone
that was told by the child or someone who suspects abuse, it is referred for evaluation (Anderson, 2016; Lyon et al.
2012; Reitsema & Grietens, 2015). Lyon et al. (2012) challenged the perception by Faust
and colleagues that interviewers brashly believed every child, therefore
confirmed sexual abuse falsely too often. Lyon and associates specifically chose studies conducted on genital touch
disclosure for comparison. Evaluating several studies that employed direct
questions, dolls, and diagrams, they found that the younger the child, the more likely he/she is to give a
false positive report (Lyon et al., 2012). However, younger children are also
more likely to disclose than older
children and as a result, cannot be written off as unreliable (Anderson, 2016).
The second area to consider is the reliability of
the evaluations themselves. The evaluation can be effected by several factors
such as age, gender, race, mental health, single or repeated abuse,
relationship to perpetrator and interview technique (Anderson, 2016; Benia et
al., 2015; Brubacher et al., 2014; Reitsema & Grietens, 2015). The
interview is a unique situation for most children where adults are asking
questions but cannot help them with the answer. Children will also struggle to
recover accurate, detailed memories of the event especially if it has occurred
more than once (Anderson, 2016; Brubacher et al., 2014; Costanzo & Krauss,
2015). Children are often susceptible to wanting to please the adult and consequently, will feel pressured to answer
questions (Benia et al., 2015; Earhart, Rooy, Brubacher, & Lamb, 2014;
Reitsema & Grietens, 2015). Lyon and colleagues cited several studies questioning children on events
that never took place. One study conducted both a low and high-pressure situational interview. The
conclusion was that low pressure interviews have a much lower false positive rate,
yet even the high-pressure interview children did not have significantly
elevated false positive rates (Lyon et al., 2012). The conclusion is one shared
by many scholars, voluntary disclosure by children is exceedingly indicative of
abuse (Anderson, 2016; Brubacher et al., 2014; Lyon et al., 2012; Reitsema
& Grietens, 2015).
Most adults, whether professional or lay,
understand the difference in memory between a child and adult. Buck, Warren,
Bruck, and Kuehnle (2014) found that “…the majority of professionals believe
children are quite accurate witnesses,
but are likely less accurate than adults” (p.869). Due to the lack of
confidence by jurors, judges, and lawyers in the accuracy of children, it is even more important that evaluations be conducted conscientiously (Costanzo &
Krauss, 2015). Lyon et al. (2012) addressed the importance of ethical
interviews in two parts. First, they disqualified the notion that interviews
after disclosure were adding up redundant
information. Since the initial revelation was unlikely to be made to a
professional and possibly made to a self-seeking parent, the information
obtained by the forensic psychologist would not be repeated but rather
expanded. Secondly, they examined ways in which interview techniques can
increase accuracy. Several currently lauded techniques were vetted for proven
efficacy (Lyon et al., 2012). Some of the ways elucidated include interview
instructions, open-ended questions, reinforcement, narrative practice, asking
for details on a singular event, asking for antecedents to the event, seeking
information previously disclosed, source
monitoring, and following NICHD Investigative Interview Protocol. All interview
techniques described by Lyon et al. (2012) are substantiated by more recently
published research including Anderson (2015), Benia et al. (2015), Costanzo
& Krauss (2015), Brubacher et al. (2014), Reitsema, & Grietens (2016)
Lyon and partners wrapped up their review by distinguishing
their conclusion from Herman (2009). Although
both sets of researchers examined comparable information, they used Baye’s
theorem to different ends. Herman (2009) examined interview techniques
and found great fault with interviewers in differentiating between true and false positives which he took as proof
that child disclosures were not a reliable source of evidence (Lyon et al.,
2012). Lyon et al. (2012) looked at the disclosures themselves for true and false positive rates. Since a
spontaneous disclosure is powerful proof that CSA occurred, the odds prove it
to be dependable (Anderson, 2016; Brubacher et al., 2014; Lyon et al., 2012;
Reitsema & Grietens, 2015).
Article Assessment.
Lyon et al.
conducted a thorough examination of The Evaluation of Child Sexual
Abuse Allegations: A Comprehensive Guide to Assessment and Testimony by Connell and Kuehnle (2009). The abstract and title clearly conveyed
the tone and purpose of the book analysis. Excessive jargon was used in places and the explanation
of Baye’s theorem could have been more succinct, but overall it was logically
organized for the ease and understanding of the reader. While the article was a
critique of a book, it was never inflammatory nor disrespectful in
disagreement. The review was balanced in
that similarities were noted along with critiques citing an extensive list of
research. The list of references used within the article not only served to
legitimize their stance, but it also
affords the reader great opportunity for further research. However, 45% of
the references were before the year 2000. Thus, much of their research has been captured or expanded elsewhere and the newer research would be much
more conducive to future studies. The article was found to be free of
grammatical, spelling, and citation errors. As all authors have Ph.D.s or are Ph.D. candidates in the field of psychology,
their qualifications are appropriately suited for this review.
References
Anderson, G. D. (2016). The continuum
of disclosure: Exploring factors predicting tentative disclosure of child
sexual abuse allegations during forensic interviews and the implications for
practice, policy, and future research. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 25(4),
382-402. doi:10.1080/10538712.2016.1153559
Benia, L. R., Hauck-Filho, N.,
Dillenburg, M., & Stein, L. M. (2015). The NICHD
investigative interview protocol: A meta-analytic review. Journal of
Child Sexual Abuse, 24(3), 259-279.
doi:10.1080/10538712.2015.1006749
Brubacher, S. P.,
Powell, M. B., & Roberts, K. P. (2014).
Recommendations for interviewing children about repeated experiences. Psychology,
Public Policy, and Law, 20(3), 325-335.
doi:10.1037/law0000011
Buck, J. A., Warren, A. R.,
Bruck, M., & Kuehnle, K. (2014). How common is “common
knowledge” about child witnesses among legal professionals? Comparing
interviewers, public defenders, and forensic psychologists with
laypeople. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 32(6),
867-883. doi:10.1002/bsl.2150
Children’s Bureau. (2010). Child abuse prevention
and treatment act (CAPTA). Retrieved from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/laws_policies/cblaws/capta/
Connell, M., & Kuehnle, K.
(2009). The evaluation of child sexual abuse allegations: A
comprehensive guide to assessment and testimony. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Costanzo, M., & Krauss, D.
(2015). Forensic and Legal Psychology: Psychological science applied
to law (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Worth Publishers.
Earhart, B., La Rooy, D. J.,
Brubacher, S. P., & Lamb, M. E. (2014). An
examination of “don't know” responses in forensic interviews with
children. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 32(6),
746-761. doi:10.1002/bsl.2141
Faust, D., Bridges, A., & Ahern, D. (2009). Methods
for the identification of sexually abused children: Issues and needed
features for abuse indicators In K. Kuehnle & M. Connell (Eds.), The evaluation of child sexual abuse
allegations: A comprehensive guide to assessment and testimony (pp 3-19,
49-66). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Herman, S. (2009). Forensic child sexual abuse
evaluations: Accuracy, ethics, and admissibility. In K. Kuehnle & M.
Connell (Eds.), The evaluation of child
sexual abuse allegations: A comprehensive guide to assessment and testimony (pp.
247-266)> Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Lyon, T. D., Ahern, E. C.,
& Scurich, N. (2012). Interviewing children versus tossing coins:
Accurately assessing the diagnosticity of children's disclosures of
abuse. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 21(1), 19-44. doi:10.1080/10538712.2012.642468
Reitsema, A. M., &
Grietens, H. (2016). Is anybody listening? The literature on the
dialogical process of child sexual abuse disclosure reviewed. Trauma,
Violence, & Abuse, 17(3), 330-340.
doi:10.1177/1524838015584368
Comments