The New Jersey Supreme Court held in New Jersey v. J.L.G. (2018) that experts can no longer explain to juries why sexually abused children might deny abuse. The court was influenced by expert testimony that “methodologically superior” studies find lower rates of denial. Examining the studies in detail, we argue that the expert testimony was flawed due to three problems with using child disclosure studies to estimate the likelihood that abused children are reluctant to disclose abuse: the ground truth problem, disclosure suspicion bias, and disclosure substantiation bias. Research identifying groups of children whose abuse can be proven without reliance on disclosure reveals that denial of sexual abuse is common among abused children.

中文翻译：

---

在新泽西州诉JLG案后理解关于拒绝儿童性虐待的专家证词：事实真相，披露怀疑偏见和披露实证偏见

新泽西最高法院在新泽西州诉JLG案中进行了判决。（2018年），专家们无法再向陪审团解释为什么遭受性虐待的儿童可能会拒绝虐待。法院受到专家证词的影响，专家证言“方法论上的优势”研究发现拒绝率较低。仔细检查研究结果，我们认为专家证词存在缺陷，这是由于使用儿童披露研究来估计受虐待儿童不愿披露虐待的可能性存在三个问题：事实真相问题，披露怀疑偏见和披露依据偏见。研究确定了可以在不依靠披露的情况下证明其虐待的儿童群体的研究表明，否认性虐待在受虐待的儿童中很普遍。