Statement validity assessment of students’ sexual assault accounts: Comparison of honest reports, false denials and false allegations using the criteria‐based content analyses and the verifiability approach

Abstract

Purpose

In this study, we investigated whether three types of sexual assault (SA) accounts, Full disclosure (Honest), False denial and False allegation, could be distinguished using Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA) and the Verifiability Approach (VA).

Method

Student participants were pre-screened for a history of SA. Those with such a history were randomly assigned to either the Full disclosure group (n = 39) or the False denial group (n = 48), while students without prior SA experience were allocated to the False allegation group (n = 95). Each group received tailored instructions corresponding to their condition: to report honestly (Full disclosure), to omit the assault (False denial) or to fabricate an assault (False allegation). We hypothesized that honest reports and false denials would yield higher scores than false allegations on both CBCA and VA criteria.

Results

CBCA results revealed significant group differences only for the Logical Consistency criterion, with false allegations rated as significantly more coherent than both false denials and full disclosures. In contrast, the VA analysis showed no significant differences across conditions in any of the narrative characteristics examined.

Conclusion

Overall, the use of CBCA and VA failed to identify meaningful distinctions among narratives of full disclosure, false denial, and false allegation of sexual assault. The study’s limitations and implications for the assessment of SA accounts are discussed.