RT Journal Article
T1 Undeutsch hypothesis and Criteria Based Content Analysis: a meta-analytic review
T2 La hipótesis Undeutsch y el “Criteria Based Content Analysis”: una revisión meta- analítica
A1 Amado, Bárbara G.
A1 Arce Fernández, Ramón
A1 Fariña Rivera, Francisca
K1 Meta-analysis
K1 CBCA
K1 Credibility
K1 Testimony
K1 Sexual abuse
K1 Child
K1 Meta-análisis
K1 Credibilidad
K1 Testimonio
K1 Abusos sexuales
K1 Menores
AB The credibility of a testimony is a crucial component of judicial decision-making. Checklists of testimonycredibility criteria are extensively used by forensic psychologists to assess the credibility of a testimony, andin many countries they are admitted as valid scientific evidence in a court of law. These checklists are basedon the Undeutsch hypothesis asserting that statements derived from the memory of real-life experiencesdiffer significantly in content and quality from fabricated or fictitious accounts. Notwithstanding, there isconsiderable controversy regarding the degree to which these checklists comply with the legal standards forscientific evidence to be admitted in a court of law (e.g., Daubert standards). In several countries, thesechecklists are not admitted as valid evidence in court, particularly in view of the inconsistent results reportedin the scientific literature. Bearing in mind these issues, a meta-analysis was designed to test the Undeutschhypothesis using the CBCA Checklist of criteria to discern between memories of self-experienced real-lifeevents and fabricated or fictitious accounts. As the original hypothesis was formulated for populations ofchildren, only quantitative studies with samples of children were considered for this study. In line with theUndeutsch hypothesis, the results showed a significant positive effect size that is generalizable to the totalCBCA score, δ = 0.79. Moreover, a significant positive effect size was observed in each and all of the credibilitycriteria. In conclusion, the results corroborated the validity of the Undeutsch hypothesis and the CBCA criteriafor discriminating between the memory of real self-experienced events and false or invented accounts. Theresults are discussed in terms of the implications for forensic practice
AB Con frecuencia, la evaluación de la fiabilidad de un testimonio se lleva a cabo mediante el uso de sistemascategoriales de análisis de contenido. Concretamente, el instrumento más utilizado para determinar lacredibilidad del testimonio es el Criteria Based Content Analysis (CBCA), el cual se sustenta en la hipótesisUndeutsch, que establece que las memorias de un hecho auto-experimentado difieren en contenido ycalidad de las memorias fabricadas o imaginadas. Las opiniones y resultados contradictorios encontradosen la literatura científica respecto al cumplimiento de los criterios judiciales (Daubert standards) así comoel abundante número de trabajos existentes sobre la materia, nos llevó a diseñar un meta-análisis parasometer a prueba la hipótesis Undeutsch, a través de la validez de los criterios de realidad del CBCA paradiscriminar entre la memoria de lo auto-experimentado y lo fabricado. Se tomaron aquellos estudioscuantitativos que incluían muestras de menores, esto es, con edades comprendidas entre los 2 y 18 años. Enlínea con la hipótesis Undeutsch, los resultados mostraron un tamaño del efecto positivo, significativo ygeneralizable para la puntuación total del CBCA, δ = 0.79. Asimismo, en todos los criterios de realidad seencontró un tamaño del efecto positivo y significativo. En conclusión, los resultados avalan la validez de lahipótesis Undeutsch y de los criterios del CBCA para discriminar entre memorias de hechos autoexperimentadosy fabricados. Se discuten las implicaciones de los resultados para la práctica forense
PB Sociedad Española de Psicología Jurídica y Forense
SN 1889-1861
YR 2015
FD 2015
LK http://hdl.handle.net/10347/21937
UL http://hdl.handle.net/10347/21937
LA eng
NO G. Amado, B., Arce, R., & Fariña, F. (2015). Undeutsch hypothesis and Criteria Based Content Analysis: A meta-analytic review. The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 7(1), 3-12. doi: 10.1016/j.ejpal.2014.11.002
NO This research has been carried out within the framework of research project with the Reference Ref. GPC2014/022, funded by the Xunta de Galicia [Galician Autonomous Government], Spain
DS Minerva
RD 28 abr 2026