Lyon, T. D. & Koehler, J. J. (1998). Where Researchers Fear to Tread: Interpretive Differences Among Testifying Experts in Child Sexual Abuse Cases. S. Ceci & H. Hembrooke (Eds.). What can (and should) an expert tell the court. Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association.

ABSTRACT

In this chapter we address two areas of disagreement among researchers, involving the two most widely discussed areas of expert testimony in child sexual abuse cases: behavioral symptoms and the suggestibility of children. In each case, subjective differences among researchers in their interpretation of the research leads to differences of opinion regarding what an expert may appropriately testify to in court. There are several questions about which reasonable researchers disagree. How does one weigh false positive results against false negative results? How are methodological limitations to be weighed? How closely must the characteristics of a study match those of a given situation in order for the results to apply? How many studies must support a proposition before we should accept the proposition as true? The questions are not new, but their persistence bears repeating in light of strong claims regarding the ethics and admissibility of various types of expert testimony.

In the case of behavioral symptoms, observational research documenting symptoms among some non-abused children leads different researchers to different conclusions. Some believe that this renders symptoms irrelevant as potential evidence of abuse; others believe that symptoms may serve as evidence, but not conclusive evidence, that abuse has occurred. We argue that a few symptoms are relevant evidence of abuse and the proper subject of expert testimony, but that experts should acknowledge the methodological shortcomings of the observational research. In the case of suggestibility, laboratory research demonstrating that some children can be led to make false claims also leads researchers to disagree. Some believe this justifies concerns that a non-trivial number of sexual abuse allegations are the product of coercive interviewing techniques, whereas others question the applicability of the research to most sexual abuse investigations. We believe the laboratory research is often relevant, but that experts must acknowledge the potential differences between the research and the nature of interviewing and the dynamics of sexual abuse.