This method leverages the idea that linguistic patterns and subconscious cues in speech can provide insight into a person’s true intentions and knowledge about a given event.
The SVA is a tool that was originally designed to determine the credibility of child witnesses testimonies in trials for sexual offences.
[2] More recently, a meta-analytic review found CBCA criteria to be a valid technique for discriminating between memories of real self-experienced events and invented or false accounts.
[5] The potential influence of familiarity on CBCA scores raises concerns about the validity of the tool for assessing credibility in children.
[6] In conclusion, there is still great controversy surrounding the use of the SVA and many studies have investigated its core component, the CBCA, in order to determine its validity and reliability.
The creator of Scientific Content Analysis (SCAN), Avinoam Sapir, gives the example of someone saying, "I counted the money, put the bag on the counter, and proceeded to go home."
[15] Critics argue that the technique encourages investigators to prejudge a suspect as deceptive and affirm a presumption of guilt before the interrogation process has even begun.
[8] In 2016, the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG), a federal agency group consisting of the FBI, the CIA, and the United States Department of Defense, released a report which found that studies commonly cited in favor of SCAN were scientifically flawed and that SCAN's evaluative criteria did not withstand scrutiny in laboratory testing.