Publication: Evaluación de la credibilidad de relatos de personas con discapacidad intelectual
Loading...
Date
2015-01
Authors
Manzanero, Antonio L. ; Alemany, Alberto ; Recio, María ; Vallet, Rocío ; Aróztegui, Javier
item.page.secondaryauthor
item.page.director
Publisher
Murcia: Universidad de Murcia, Editum
publication.page.editor
publication.page.department
DOI
item.page.type
info:eu-repo/semantics/article
Description
Abstract
El objetivo del presente trabajo consistió en analizar las características diferenciales de los relatos emitidos por víctimas reales y simuladas con discapacidad intelectual ligera y moderada mediante el procedimiento de análisis de credibilidad de Control de la Realidad (RM). Dos evaluadores entrenados en los procedimientos de
análisis de credibilidad mediante criterios de contenido evaluaron 13 relatos verdaderos y 16 relatos falsos. Los resultados encontrados muestran que existen pocas diferencias entre los dos tipos de relatos. Los únicos criterios que resultan significativos para discriminar entre los dos tipos de relatos son la cantidad de detalles y la longitud de las declaraciones espontáneas obtenidas mediante recuerdo libre. Ninguna de las características fenomenológicas examinadas resultó significativa para discriminar entre víctimas reales y simuladas. La representación gráfica mediante visualización hiperdimensional (HDV) considerando conjuntamente todos los criterios muestra una gran heterogeneidad entre relatos. Un análisis de conglomerados permitió clasificar los dos tipos de relatos con una probabilidad de acierto del 68.75 por ciento.
The objective of this study was to analyze the features that distinguish statements given by actual and simulated victims with mild to moderate intellectual disability, using the credibility analysis procedure known as Reality Monitoring (RM). Two evaluators trained in credibility analysis procedures using content criteria evaluated 13 true statements and 16 false statements. The results obtained show that there is little difference between the two types of statements when analyzed on the basis of content criteria using the RM procedure. The only criteria that proved to be significant for discriminating between the two types of statements were the amount of details and the length of spontaneous statements obtained through free recall. None of the phenomenological characteristics studied. turned out to be significant for discriminating between actual and simulated victims. Graphic representation using high-dimensional visualization (HDV) with all criteria taken into consideration shows that the two types of statements are quite heterogeneous. Cluster analysis can group cases with a 68.75% chance of accuracy.
The objective of this study was to analyze the features that distinguish statements given by actual and simulated victims with mild to moderate intellectual disability, using the credibility analysis procedure known as Reality Monitoring (RM). Two evaluators trained in credibility analysis procedures using content criteria evaluated 13 true statements and 16 false statements. The results obtained show that there is little difference between the two types of statements when analyzed on the basis of content criteria using the RM procedure. The only criteria that proved to be significant for discriminating between the two types of statements were the amount of details and the length of spontaneous statements obtained through free recall. None of the phenomenological characteristics studied. turned out to be significant for discriminating between actual and simulated victims. Graphic representation using high-dimensional visualization (HDV) with all criteria taken into consideration shows that the two types of statements are quite heterogeneous. Cluster analysis can group cases with a 68.75% chance of accuracy.
publication.page.subject
Citation
item.page.embargo
Collections
Ir a Estadísticas
Sin licencia Creative Commons.