Statement Validity Assessment (SVA) proposes that baseline statements on different events can serve as a within-subject measure of a witness’ individual verbal capabilities when evaluating scores from Criteria-based Content Analysis (CBCA). This assumes that CBCA scores will generally be consistent across two accounts by the same witness. We present a first pilot study on this assumption. In two sessions, we asked 29 participants to produce one experience-based and one fabricated baseline account as well as one experience-based and one fabricated target account (each on different events), resulting in a total of 116 accounts. We hypothesized at least moderate correlations between target and baseline indicating a consistency across both experience-based and fabricated CBCA scores, and that fabricated CBCA scores would be more consistent because truth-telling has to consider random event characteristics, whereas lies must be constructed completely by the individual witness. Results showed that differences in correlations between experience-based CBCA scores and between fabricated CBCA scores took the predicted direction (cexperience-based = .44 versus cfabricated =.61) but this difference was not statistically significant. As predicted, a subgroup of event-related CBCA criteria were significantly less consistent than CBCA total scores, but only in experience-based accounts. The discussion considers methodological issues regarding the usage of total CBCA scores and whether to measure consistency with correlation coefficients. It is concluded that more studies are needed with larger samples.

中文翻译：

---

口头基准：不同真实帐户和虚构帐户之间CBCA分数的主题内一致性

陈述有效性评估（SVA）提出，在评估基于标准的内容分析（CBCA）的分数时，有关不同事件的基线陈述可以用作证人个人言语能力的主题内度量。假设同一证人的两个帐户的CBCA分数通常保持一致。我们提出了关于该假设的第一个初步研究。在两个会议中，我们要求29位参与者提供一个基于经验的帐户和一个虚假的基准帐户，以及一个基于经验的帐户和一个虚假的目标帐户（每个帐户针对不同的事件），总共有116个帐户。我们假设目标与基准之间至少存在中等程度的相关性，这表明基于经验的和虚构的CBCA分数均具有一致性，虚假的CBCA分数将更加一致，因为说实话必须考虑随机事件的特征，而谎言必须完全由单个证人构成。结果表明，基于经验的CBCA得分之间的相关性与虚构的CBCA得分之间的相关性差异沿预测的方向发展（基于经验的= 0.44与虚构的= 0.61），但该差异在统计学上并不显着。正如预测的那样，与事件相关的CBCA标准的一个子组与CBCA总得分的一致性明显较差，但仅在基于经验的帐户中才如此。讨论考虑了有关总CBCA分数的使用以及是否用相关系数衡量一致性的方法论问题。结论是，对于较大的样品，需要更多的研究。