Contested Issues in the Evaluation of Child Sexual Abuse

<p>This book represents a significant contribution to the highly contested debate surrounding how allegations of child sexual abuse should be evaluated. Despite decades of substantial research in this sensitive area, professional consensus remains elusive. A particular source of contention is the sensitivity vs. specificity debate; whether evaluators should give priority to reducing the number of true allegations that are labelled false or to reducing the number of false allegations that are labelled true.</p><p>This edited collection aims to address directly and offer new insights into this debate. It responds directly to Kuehnle and Connell's edited volume, <i>The</i> <i>Evaluation of Child Sexual Abuse Allegations: A Comprehensive Guide to Assessment and Testimony (2009), </i>which included chapters which advocated strong specificity positions at the expense of sensitivity. The chapters in this collection feature both challenges to, and replies by, the authors in Kuehnle and Connell's book, making this an essential resource that moves the debate forward.</p><p>This book was originally published as a special issue of the <i>Journal of Child Sexual Abuse</i>.</p> <p>Preface <b>Section 1: Balancing Sensitivity and Specificity in Evaluation of Sexual Abuse </b>1. Contested Issues in the Evaluation of Child Sexual Abuse Allegations: Why Consensus on Best Practice Remains Elusive <i>Kathleen Coulborn Faller and Mark D. Everson </i>2. Interviewing Children Versus Tossing Coins: Accurately Assessing the Diagnosticity of Children’s Disclosures of Abuse <i>Thomas D. Lyon, Elizabeth C. Ahern, and Nicholas Scurich </i>3. Reliability of Professional Judgments in Forensic Child Sexual Abuse Evaluations: Unsettled or Unsettling Science? <i>Mark D. Everson, José Miguel Sandoval, Nancy Berson, Mary Crowson, and Harriet Robinson </i>4. Mental Health Professionals in Children’s Advocacy Centers: Is There Role Conflict? <i>Theodore P. Cross, Janet E. Fine, Lisa M. Jones, and Wendy A. Walsh </i>5. Base Rates, Multiple Indicators, and Comprehensive Forensic Evaluations: Why Sexualized Behavior Still Counts in Assessments of Child Sexual Abuse Allegations<i> Mark D. Everson and Kathleen Coulborn Faller </i>6. A Call for Field-Relevant Research about Child Forensic Interviewing for Child Protection <i>Erna Olafson </i><b>Section 2: Commentaries and Responses </b>7. "Nobody’s Perfect"—Partial Disagreement with Herman, Faust, Bridges, and Ahern <i>John E. B. Myers </i>8. Comment on Cross, Fine, Jones, and Walsh (2012): Do Mental Health Professionals Who Serve on<i>/</i>with Child Advocacy Centers Experience Role Conflict? <i>Colleen Friend </i>9. Comment on Cross, Fine, Jones, and Walsh (2012): We Are Now on the Same Page <i>Seth L. Goldstein </i>10. Comment on Cross, Fine, Jones, and Walsh (2012): Good Therapeutic Services—Therapeutic Advocacy and Forensic Neutrality <i>Mary Connell </i>11. A Response to Commentary on Faust, Bridges, and Ahern’s (2009) "Methods for the Identification of Sexually Abused Children" <i>David C. Ahern, Ana J. Bridges, and David Faust </i>12. What Poole and Wolfe (2009) Actually Said: A Comment on Everson and Faller (2012)<i> Debra Ann Poole</i></p>