Scholarlink

<p>This article responds to the reply by Volbert et&#xa0;al. (2025),—hereinafter referred to as the authors or critics—to our expert report on forensic credibility assessment, commissioned by the Independent Commissioner for Child Sexual Abuse Issues. Central to the discussion is a&#xa0;methodological critique of the so-called null hypothesis, particularly shaped and endorsed by the German Federal Court of Justice ruling of 30 July 1999. This ruling adopted the then-prevailing psychological discourse on witness credibility in a way no longer considered tenable. This misreception, legitimized by the highest court, hindered a&#xa0;nuanced debate on the rationale and limits of the null hypothesis in judicial proceedings for years. The debate initiated by our expert report contributes to a&#xa0;more scientific discussion. It began with the observation that survivors of childhood and adolescent sexual violence perceive the null hypothesis as a sign of fundamental mistrust. The critics acknowledge that the concept can raise false expectations and burden those affected. We view the unreflected use in lower court rulings critically and advocate for abandoning this misleading term.</p><p>There is consensus between the critics and us that credibility assessment is a&#xa0;qualitative, case-specific procedure. The authors criticize that important research findings were missing from our report. We address this here, noting that some relevant meta-analyses were unpublished at the time. In conclusion, we advocate for a&#xa0;methodologically more precise, empirically grounded, and context-sensitive assessment practice. Many of the points raised by Volbert et&#xa0;al. provide opportunities for constructive reflection and shared critical evaluation.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Der Bundesgerichtshof (BGH) ging bei der Bewertung der Treffsicherheit der Glaubhaftigkeitsbegutachtung von falschen Prämissen aus

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年7月10日

查看全文
  • Jörg M. Fegert,
  • Jelena Gerke,
  • Andrea Kliemann,
  • Martin Pusch,
  • Stephan Rixen,
  • Cedric Sachser

摘要

This article responds to the reply by Volbert et al. (2025),—hereinafter referred to as the authors or critics—to our expert report on forensic credibility assessment, commissioned by the Independent Commissioner for Child Sexual Abuse Issues. Central to the discussion is a methodological critique of the so-called null hypothesis, particularly shaped and endorsed by the German Federal Court of Justice ruling of 30 July 1999. This ruling adopted the then-prevailing psychological discourse on witness credibility in a way no longer considered tenable. This misreception, legitimized by the highest court, hindered a nuanced debate on the rationale and limits of the null hypothesis in judicial proceedings for years. The debate initiated by our expert report contributes to a more scientific discussion. It began with the observation that survivors of childhood and adolescent sexual violence perceive the null hypothesis as a sign of fundamental mistrust. The critics acknowledge that the concept can raise false expectations and burden those affected. We view the unreflected use in lower court rulings critically and advocate for abandoning this misleading term.

There is consensus between the critics and us that credibility assessment is a qualitative, case-specific procedure. The authors criticize that important research findings were missing from our report. We address this here, noting that some relevant meta-analyses were unpublished at the time. In conclusion, we advocate for a methodologically more precise, empirically grounded, and context-sensitive assessment practice. Many of the points raised by Volbert et al. provide opportunities for constructive reflection and shared critical evaluation.