Title of Poster / Presentation

Direct Versus Indirect Assessment of Truthfulness

Location

Portland State University, Portland, Oregon

Start Date

12-5-2015 11:00 AM

End Date

12-5-2015 1:00 PM

Subjects

Forensic psychology, Deception, Truthfulness and falsehood

Description

This study uses a verbal content analysis measure, the Forensic Assessment of Client Truthfulness (FACT), derived from the most empirically-supported measures in deception detection, Criteria-Based Content Analysis and Reality Monitoring. This study tests the accuracy of the indirect assessment of truthfulness (i.e. consideration of the FACT criteria, which are empirically-related to truthfulness) in comparison to direct assessment of truthfulness (i.e. subjective consideration of whether a statement is true or false). The FACT, an indirect measure, is employed along with a direct assessment of truthfulness to distinguish between true and false statements. The study contains four research conditions including the true and false statements of men accused of sex offenses and of insanity defense claimants. Using a repeated measures design, the four statements were rated by 127 university students. Using ANOVA analyses and t-tests, the results showed that the eight items composing the FACT all significantly differentiate between true and false statements. The FACT score is more accurate at ascertaining truthfulness or deception (83% accuracy) in comparison with the direct measure (74% accuracy). These results strongly support the idea that indirect assessment can be more accurate when the criteria of the indirect assessment (e.g. clarity of detail, reconstructability) have a strong empirical relationship with truthfulness, despite no inherent or clear connection to truthfulness. Use of the FACT measure as an adjunct to the psychologist’s available methods for assessing client truthfulness could contribute to reliably answering the question of client deception.

Persistent Identifier

http://archives.pdx.edu/ds/psu/19820

Share

COinS
 
May 12th, 11:00 AM May 12th, 1:00 PM

Direct Versus Indirect Assessment of Truthfulness

Portland State University, Portland, Oregon

This study uses a verbal content analysis measure, the Forensic Assessment of Client Truthfulness (FACT), derived from the most empirically-supported measures in deception detection, Criteria-Based Content Analysis and Reality Monitoring. This study tests the accuracy of the indirect assessment of truthfulness (i.e. consideration of the FACT criteria, which are empirically-related to truthfulness) in comparison to direct assessment of truthfulness (i.e. subjective consideration of whether a statement is true or false). The FACT, an indirect measure, is employed along with a direct assessment of truthfulness to distinguish between true and false statements. The study contains four research conditions including the true and false statements of men accused of sex offenses and of insanity defense claimants. Using a repeated measures design, the four statements were rated by 127 university students. Using ANOVA analyses and t-tests, the results showed that the eight items composing the FACT all significantly differentiate between true and false statements. The FACT score is more accurate at ascertaining truthfulness or deception (83% accuracy) in comparison with the direct measure (74% accuracy). These results strongly support the idea that indirect assessment can be more accurate when the criteria of the indirect assessment (e.g. clarity of detail, reconstructability) have a strong empirical relationship with truthfulness, despite no inherent or clear connection to truthfulness. Use of the FACT measure as an adjunct to the psychologist’s available methods for assessing client truthfulness could contribute to reliably answering the question of client deception.