View in EDS PDF Full Text

Validity of content‐based techniques for credibility assessment—How telling is an extended meta‐analysis taking research bias into account?

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Validity of content‐based techniques for credibility assessment—How telling is an extended meta‐analysis taking research bias into account?
Authors: Oberlader, Verena A. (AUTHOR), Quinten, Laura (AUTHOR), Banse, Rainer (AUTHOR), Volbert, Renate (AUTHOR), Schmidt, Alexander F. (AUTHOR), Schönbrodt, Felix D. (AUTHOR)
Source: Applied Cognitive Psychology. Mar2021, Vol. 35 Issue 2, p393-410. 18p. 1 Diagram, 5 Charts, 2 Graphs.
Subjects: Research bias, Fix-point estimation, Content analysis
Abstract: Summary: Content‐based techniques for credibility assessment (Criteria‐Based Content Analysis [CBCA], Reality Monitoring [RM]) have been shown to distinguish between experience‐based and fabricated statements in previous meta‐analyses. New simulations raised the question whether these results are reliable revealing that using meta‐analytic methods on biased datasets lead to false‐positive rates of up to 100%. By assessing the performance of and applying different bias‐correcting meta‐analytic methods on a set of 71 studies we aimed for more precise effect size estimates. According to the sole bias‐correcting meta‐analytic method that performed well under a priori specified boundary conditions, CBCA and RM distinguished between experience‐based and fabricated statements. However, great heterogeneity limited precise point estimation (i.e., moderate to large effects). In contrast, Scientific Content Analysis (SCAN)—another content‐based technique tested—failed to discriminate between truth and lies. It is discussed how the gap between research on and forensic application of content‐based credibility assessment may be narrowed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Applied Cognitive Psychology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
Text:
  Availability: 0
Header DbId: pbh
DbLabel: Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection
An: 149411710
AccessLevel: 6
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Validity of content‐based techniques for credibility assessment—How telling is an extended meta‐analysis taking research bias into account?
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Oberlader%2C+Verena+A%2E%22">Oberlader, Verena A.</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Quinten%2C+Laura%22">Quinten, Laura</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Banse%2C+Rainer%22">Banse, Rainer</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Volbert%2C+Renate%22">Volbert, Renate</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Schmidt%2C+Alexander+F%2E%22">Schmidt, Alexander F.</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Schönbrodt%2C+Felix+D%2E%22">Schönbrodt, Felix D.</searchLink> (AUTHOR)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JN" term="%22Applied+Cognitive+Psychology%22">Applied Cognitive Psychology</searchLink>. Mar2021, Vol. 35 Issue 2, p393-410. 18p. 1 Diagram, 5 Charts, 2 Graphs.
– Name: Subject
  Label: Subjects
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research+bias%22">Research bias</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Fix-point+estimation%22">Fix-point estimation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Content+analysis%22">Content analysis</searchLink>
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Summary: Content‐based techniques for credibility assessment (Criteria‐Based Content Analysis [CBCA], Reality Monitoring [RM]) have been shown to distinguish between experience‐based and fabricated statements in previous meta‐analyses. New simulations raised the question whether these results are reliable revealing that using meta‐analytic methods on biased datasets lead to false‐positive rates of up to 100%. By assessing the performance of and applying different bias‐correcting meta‐analytic methods on a set of 71 studies we aimed for more precise effect size estimates. According to the sole bias‐correcting meta‐analytic method that performed well under a priori specified boundary conditions, CBCA and RM distinguished between experience‐based and fabricated statements. However, great heterogeneity limited precise point estimation (i.e., moderate to large effects). In contrast, Scientific Content Analysis (SCAN)—another content‐based technique tested—failed to discriminate between truth and lies. It is discussed how the gap between research on and forensic application of content‐based credibility assessment may be narrowed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
– Name: AbstractSuppliedCopyright
  Label:
  Group: Ab
  Data: <i>Copyright of Applied Cognitive Psychology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract.</i> (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=pbh&AN=149411710
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/acp.3776
    Languages:
      – Code: eng
        Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 18
        StartPage: 393
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Research bias
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Fix-point estimation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Content analysis
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Validity of content‐based techniques for credibility assessment—How telling is an extended meta‐analysis taking research bias into account?
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Oberlader, Verena A.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Quinten, Laura
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Banse, Rainer
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Volbert, Renate
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Schmidt, Alexander F.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Schönbrodt, Felix D.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 03
              Text: Mar2021
              Type: published
              Y: 2021
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 08884080
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 35
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Applied Cognitive Psychology
              Type: main
ResultId 1