The goal of this study was to analyze the conceptualization of YPA in relation to terms, definitions, typologies and assessment instruments. To achieve this aim, a systematic review was carried out using the PRISMA protocol. Assessment instruments for YPA were examined in accordance with COSMIN. After reviewing the literature on conceptualization and measuring instruments, some gaps were found. The use of some particular terms was justified depending on the age of children and severity of case. Taking into account the theoretical (...) background, a full definition of YPA was offered. Moreover, this study revealed that it was possible to discriminate four typologies of YPA as a function of the coercion level and nature of the violence. Eleven instruments to measure YPA were analyzed exhaustively, with the most reported and robust psychometric properties being internal consistency and structural validity, while other validity evidence was understudied. The CPV-Q obtained the highest rating as a promising instrument. The initial psychodiagnosis of a YPA situation would help in the individual or family intervention, as well as prevent more severe situations of YPA through early intervention. (shrink)

Previous research has shown that inconsistencies across repeated interviews do not indicate deception because liars deliberately tend to repeat the same story. However, when a strategic interview approach that makes it difficult for liars to use the repeat strategy is used, both consistency and evasive answers differ significantly between truth tellers and liars, and statistical software (binary logistic regression analyses) can reach high classification rates (Masip et al., 2016b ). Yet, if the interview procedure is to be used in applied (...) settings the decision process will be made by humans, not statistical software. To address this issue, in the current study, 475 college students (Experiment 1) and 142 police officers (Experiment 2) were instructed to code and use consistency, evasive answers, or a combination or both before judging the veracity of Masip et al.'s ( 2016b ) interview transcripts. Accuracy rates were high (60% to over 90%). Evasive answers yielded higher rates than consistency, and the combination of both these cues produced the highest accuracy rates in identifying both truthful and deceptive statements. Uninstructed participants performed fairly well (around 75% accuracy), apparently because they spontaneously used consistency and evasive answers. The pattern of results was the same among students, all officers, and veteran officers only, and shows that inconsistencies between interviews and evasive answers reveal deception when a strategic interview approach that hinders the repeat strategy is used. (shrink)