procedure. It is, therefore, not surprising that if two
experts disagree about the truthfulness of a statement in
a German criminal case, they are likely to disagree
about the likely impact of Validity Checklist issues on
that statement. One study revealed that Swedish experts
sometimes use the Validity Checklist incorrectly, and
this could be due to difficulties with applying it. First,
although SVA experts sometimes highlight the influ-
ence of Validity Checklist issues on children’s state-
ments in general, they do not always discuss how these
issues might influence the statement of the particular
child they are asked to assess. Second, although experts
sometimes indicate possible external influence on state-
ments, they are inclined to rely on the CBCA outcome
and tend to judge high-quality statements as truthful
and low-quality statements as fabricated.
In sum, although SVA assessments are used as evi-
dence in (criminal) courts to evaluate the veracity of
child witnesses’ testimonies in trials for sexual offenses,
the accuracy of these assessments is unknown.
However, research has shown that CBCA-trained evalu-
ators make mistakes in classifying truth tellers and liars
and that the use of the Validity Checklist is problematic
for a variety of reasons.Aldert VrijSee alsoChildren’s Testimony; Child Sexual Abuse;
Detection of Deception in Children; False MemoriesFurther Readings
Goodman, G. S., & Melinder, A. (2007). Child witness
research and forensic interviews of young children: A
review. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 12,1–19.
Gumpert, C. H., & Lindblad, F. (1999). Expert testimony
on child sexual abuse: A qualitative study of the Swedish
approach to statement analysis. Expert Evidence,
7,279–314.
Köhnken, G. (2004). Statement validity analysis and
the “detection of the truth.” In P. A. Granhag & L. A.
Strömwall (Eds.),Deception detection in forensic
contexts(pp. 41–63). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Steller, M., & Boychuk, T. (1992). Children as witnesses in
sexual abuse cases: Investigative interview and assessment
techniques. In H. Dent & R. Flin (Eds.),Children as
witnesses(pp. 47–73). New York: Wiley.
Vrij, A. (2005). Criteria-based content analysis: A
qualitative review of the first 37 studies. Psychology,
Public Policy, and Law, 11,3–41.STATIC–99 AND
STATIC–2002 INSTRUMENTS
The STATIC–99 and the STATIC–2002 are actuarial
instruments that predict sex offender recidivism. They
were designed to be widely applicable risk scales for
the prediction of sexual recidivism that could be
scored using commonly available file information
from forensic settings such as prisons and forensic
hospitals. Actuarial instruments for sex offender re-
offense categorize sexual offenders into distinct risk
levels such as low, moderate, and high risk to re-
offend. Identifying the level of risk for sexual offend-
ers improves the management of sexual offenders in
the criminal justice system by allowing for appropri-
ate level of supervision and treatment depending on
risk level. Lower-risk sexual offenders may be placed
on probation and participate in outpatient short-term
treatment programs. A high degree of control supervi-
sion and intensive treatment can be allocated to sexual
offenders identified as being higher risk to sexually
re-offend. In more extreme cases, actuarial instru-
ments can assist the evaluator in making decisions for
the civil commitment of sexual offenders deemed to
have a mental disorder that causes them to be too dan-
gerous for release from custody and in need of inpa-
tient treatment and custody.The STATIC–99
The STATIC–99 was developed by R. Karl Hanson and
David Thornton in 1999 to measure the prediction of vio-
lent and sexual recidivism. It is designed to be used for
adult males who have already been charged with or con-
victed of at least one sexual offense against a child or a
nonconsenting adult. The instrument is not appropriate
for females or juvenile sexual offenders. The STATIC–99
is a combination of two existing actuarial scales for sex-
ual recidivism: the Rapid Risk Assessment for Sex
Offender Recidivism (RRASOR) and the Structured
Anchored Clinical Judgment (SAC–J–MIN). As the
name implies the scale contains only static risk factors, or
historical risk factors, that have been found in research to
predict sexual re-offense. The STATIC–99 was developed
on three Canadian samples of sexual offenders from men-
tal health and correctional facilities. Institut Philippe Pinel
(n=344) in Montreal provided long-term (1–3 years)
treatment for sex offenders referred from both the mental
health and correctional systems. Millbrook Correctional760 ———STATIC–99 and STATIC–2002 InstrumentsS-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:44 PM Page 760