Development and Validation of Assessment Standard for Determining Probability of Child Sexual Abuse

본 연구는 아동성폭력 피해 가능성 평가기준을 개발하고 타당화하는 것을 목적으로 하였다. 연구 1은 아동성폭력 피해 가능성 평가기준의 개발 단계로, 만2세 이상～만13세 미만의 성폭력 의심사례 307건을 객관증거와 행동정황증거의 유무를 기준으로 증거존재집단(객관증거집단, 객관-행동정황증거집단, 행동정황증거집단)과 증거부재집단으로 분류한 후 관련 전문가들이 아동성폭력 피해 가능성 평가를 위해 사용하고 있는 기준들이 두 집단을 유의하게 변별해주지를 검증하였다. 그 결과, 진술 시에 아동이 나타낸 감정반응, 진술신빙성점수, 및 최초진술동기에서 증거존재집단이 증거부재집단에 비해 유의하게 높은 점수를 나타내었다. 임상증상 중에서는 급성스트레스증상에서만 행동정황증거가 존재하는 두 집단이 증거부재집단에 비해 높은 점수를 보였고, 객관증거집단은 이들의 중간 정도에 위치하였다. 연령에 부적절한 성행동 증가는 증거부재집단이 증거존재집단에 비해 유의하게 높은 점수를 보였다. 그 밖의 임상증상에서는 집단 간 차이가 유의하게 나타나지 않았다. 변별변인을 탐색하기 위한 로지스틱 회귀분석 및 ROC 분석을 토대로 학령전기의 변별모델을〔진술감정×2 + 진술신빙성요소 + 최초진술동기 + 자극노출 시 주관적 고통감×2〕, 그리고 이 연령대의 기준점수를 6점으로 결정하였고, 학령기의 변별모델을〔진술감정×4 + 진술신빙성요소〕, 그리고 기준점수를 8점으로 결정하였다. 연구 2는 연구 1에서 개발한 평가기준의 타당화단계로, 101명의 성폭력 피해 의심아동 사례를 증거존재집단과 증거부재집단으로 구분한 후 새로 개발된 기준을 사용한 분류와의 일치율을 검증하였다. 그 결과 학령전기의 분류정확률이 95.7%였으며, 학령기의 분류정확률은 90.1%이었고, 두 연령대 모두 카파 계수와 민감도 및 특정도가 만족스럽게 나타났다. 널리 활용되고 있는 진술분석기법인 CBCA 점수를 통한 집단 분류 정확률과 새로 개발된 평가기준을 통한 분류정확률을 비교한 결과, 새로 개발된 평가기준의 정확률이 더 높게 나타났다. 이러한 결과를 종합하여 연구의 시사점과 의의, 제한점, 및 후속연구를 위한 제언을 논의하였다.

keywords: child sexual abuse, assessment standard, determining probability, validation, CBCA, 아동성폭력, 피해가능성, 평가기준, 타당화, CBCA

Abstract

The aims of this study was to develop and validate assessment standard for determining probability of child sexual abuse. In study 1, assessment standard was developed. For this aims, 307 alleged sexual abuse cases which were composed of 2～12 years old were assigned to one of objective evidence group, objective evidence and behavior․context evidence group, behavior․context evidence group, and no-evidence group. Emotional response(congruous emotional response to statement content), statement credibility elements(quantity of details, contextual details, interactions between victim-perpetrator, unusual or specific or declare details), first disclosure type, and clinical symptom(ex. reexperience, hyper-arousal, avoidance, depression, anxiety, increased sexual behavior) were included in dependent variables. These variables were commonly used by experts to assessment the possibility of child sexual abuse. In result of group difference analysis, the groups that objective or behavior․context evidence existed were higher than no-evidence group in emotional response, statement credibility elements, and first disclosure type. Among clinical symptoms, only in acute stress reaction symptom both behavior․context evidence exist group were higher than no evidence group, and objective group was located between behavior․context group and no-evidence group. In age-inappropriate sexual behavior, objective group and no evidence group were higher than both behavior․context evidence exist group. In result of binary logistic regression for discriminant variable to evidence group versus no-evidence group, weighted model was 〔emotional response score×2 + statement credibility score + first disclosure score + subjective distress level during exposure to stimuli related to sexual abuse event×2〕for preschool age, and cutoff point was determined score 6. Weighted model was 〔emotional response score×4 + statement credibility score〕, and cutoff point was determined score 8 for school age. The aims of study 2 validated new assessment standard. For this aims, 101 alleged sexual abuse cases were classified evidence group versus no-evidence group. And the hit ratio were analysis between evidence based group classification and new assessment standard based group classification. In result, in both age group the hit ratios were more than 90%, and Kappa coefficients were relatively high. And, New assessment standard was revealed higher correct classify rate than CBCA. Consequently, new developed assessment standard for determining probability of child sexual abuse was validated. Implications of these findings were discussed.

keywords: child sexual abuse, assessment standard, determining probability, validation, CBCA, 아동성폭력, 피해가능성, 평가기준, 타당화, CBCA

참고문헌

곽금주, 김연수 (2003). 취학전 아동증언에서 참여여부, 질문 및 질문자의 특성에 따른 기억의 정확성. 한국심리학회지: 발달, 16, 1-19.

곽금주, 이승진 (2006). 아동증언에 영향을 주는 요인들. 한국심리학회지: 일반, 25, 13-40.

김재연, 이재연 (2000). 유아증언의 신뢰성연구. 아동학회지, 21(3), 54-68.

김태경, 이영호 (2010). 아동진술조사지침서: 성폭력피해아동의 조사적 면담을 중심으로. 서울: 두감람나무.

김태경, 이영호 (2010). 성폭력 피해 아동의 진술양상. 한국심리학회지: 임상, 29, 301-325

김태경, 최지영, 임자영, 윤소미, 신의진 (2006). 성폭력피해 아동의 로샤반응 특성: 로샤검사가 성폭력 피해의 증거를 제공해주는가? 한국심리학회지: 임상, 25, 765-779.

노일석 (2009). 청소년 절도사범 재범예측요인: 절도 소년보호 관찰대상자 재범위험성 평가도구(LJP-RRAR) 개발연구. 한국심리학회지: 일반, 28, 449-470.

박자경 (1998). 유도질문이 아동진술에 미치는 영향. 충북대학교 석사학위청구논문.

신의진, 김태경, 최경숙 (2008). 성폭력피해 아동의 진술에 영향을 미치는 요인조사. 국회법제사법위원회.

10.

이재연 (1998). 아동증언의 신뢰성판단에 대한 발달적 접근. 아동권리연구, 2(2), 75-90.

11.

조은경 (2004). 성폭력피해아동 진술에 대한 준거기반 내용분석의 타당화를 위한 연구. 한국형사정책연구원.

12.

Adams, J. A. (2004). In training, medical evaluation of suspected child sexual abuse. Journal Pediatric Adolescent Gynecology, 17, 191-197.

13.

Anson, D. A., Golding, S. L., Gully, K. J. (1993) Child sexual abuse allegations: Reliability of criteria-based content analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 331–341.

14.

Bays, J., & Chadwick, D. (1993). Medical diagnosis of the sexually abused child. Child Abuse & Neglect, 17, 91-110.

15.

Blandon-Gitlin, I., Pezdek, K, Rogers, M. & Brodie, L. (2005). Detecting deception in children: An experimental study of the effect of event familiarity on CBCA ratings, Law & Human Behavior.

16.

Blandon-Gitlin, I., Pezdek, K., Lindsay, D. S., & Hagen, L. (2008). Criteria-based content analysis of true and suggested accounts of event. Manuscript submitted for publication.

17.

Briere, J. (2005). Trauma Symptom Checklist for Young Children: Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.

18.

Cassel, W. S., & Bjorkland, D. F. (1995). Developmental patterns of eyewitness memory and suggestibility: An ecologically based short-term longitudinal study. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 507-532.

19.

Ceci, S. J., Toglia, M. P., & Ross, D. F. (1990). The suggestibility of preschooler's recollections: Historical perspectives on current problems. In R. Fivush & J. A. Hudon (Eds.), Knowing and remembering in young children (pp. 285-300). New York Cambridge University Press.

20.

Cederborg, A. C., Lamb, M., & Laurell, O. (2007). Delay of disclosure, minimization and denial when the evidence is unambiguous. A multi victim case. In M. Pipe, M. Lamb, Y. Orbach, and A. C, Cederborg (Eds.). Child sexual abuse: Disclosure, Delay and Denial (pp. 159-174). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

21.

Conte, J. R., Sorenson, E., Fogarty, L., Rosa, J. D. (1991). Evaluating children's reports of sexual abuse: Results from a survey of professionals. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 61, 428-437.

22.

Corwin, D. L. (1988). Early diagnosis of child sexual abuse: Diminishing the lasting effects. In G. Wyatt & G. Powell(Eds). Lasting effects of child sexual abuse(pp. 251-269). Newbury Park. CA:Sage.

23.

Craig, R. A., Scheibe, R., Raskin, D. C., Kircher, J. C., & Dodd, D. (1999). Interviewer questions and content analysis of children's statements of sexual abuse. Applied Developmental Science, 3, 77-85.

24.

DeYoung, M. (1986). A conceptual model for judging the truthfulness of young child's allegation of sexual abuse. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 56, 550-559

25.

Eher, R., Rettenberger, M., Schilling, F., & Pfafflin, F. (2008). Failure of static-99 and SORAG to predict relevant reoffense categories in relevant sexual offender subtype: A prospective study, Sexual Offender Treatment, 3, 132-145.

26.

Elliott, D. M, & Briere, J. (1994). Forensic sexual abuse evaluations of older children: Disclosures and symptomatology. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 12, 261-277.

27.

Faller, K. C. (2007). Interviewing children about sexual abuse: controversies and best practice. NY: Oxford University Press.

28.

Fivush, R., Peterson, C., & Schwarzmueller, A. (2009). 아동진술의 신빙성: 질문기법의 맥락에서 (김태경과 윤소미 역). 진술조사의 맥락에서 본 기억과 피암시성(pp. 373- 400). 서울: 시그마프레스(원전은 2002에 출판).

29.

Friedrich, W. N. (1997). Child Sexual Behavior Inventory: Professional Manual. Odessa, FL:Psychological Assessment Resources.

30.

Friedrich, W. N., Grambsch, P., Damon, L. (1992) Child Sexual Behavior Inventory. Normative and clinical comparisons. Psychological Assessment, 4, 303-311.

31.

Goodman-Brown, T. B., Edelstein, R. S., Goodman, G. S., Jones, D. P. H., & Gordon, D. S. (2003). Why children tell: A model of children's disclosure of sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 27, 525-540.

32.

Greenhoot, A. F. (2000). Remembering and understanding: The effects of changes in underlying knowledge on children's recollections. Child Development, 71, 1309-1328.

33.

Haskett, M. E., Wayland, K., Hutcheson, J. S., & Tavana, T. (1995). Substantiation of sexual abuse allegations: Factors involved in the decision-making process. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 4, 19-47.

34.

Heiman, M. (1992). Annotation. Putting the puzzle together: validating allegations of child sexual abuse. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 33, 311–329.

35.

Hewitt, S. K. (1999). Protecting our children from sexual abuse : Why our current system is not working childhood sexual behavior. In C. T. Hendrix & W. Westgate (Eds.). Assessing allegations of sexual abuse In preschool children : Understanding small voices. Thousand Oaks:Sage.

36.

Johnson, M. K., Hashtroudi, S., & Lindsay, D. S. (2009). Source monitoring. Psychol Bull, 135, 638-677.

37.

Jones, D. P., & McGraw, J. M. (1987). Reliable and fictitious accounts of sexual abuse to children. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 2, 27-45.

38.

Kim, Y. S., Cheon, K. A., Kim, B. N., Chang, S. A., Yoo, H. J., Kim, J. W., Cho, S. C., Seo, D. H., Bae, M. O., So, Y. K., Noh, J. S., Koh, Y. J., McBurnett, K., Leventhal, B. (2004). The reliability and validity of Kiddie-Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia-Present and Lifetime Version- Korean Version(K-SADS-PL-K). Yonsei Med, 45, 81-89.

39.

Kuehnle, K., & Connell, M. (2009). The Evaluation of Child Sexual Abuse Allegations: A Comprehensive Guide to Assessment and Testimony. NJ:Wiley & Sons, Inc.

40.

Lamb, M. E., Orbach, Y., Hershkowitz, I., Explin, P. W., & Horowitz, D. (2007). A structured forensic interview protocol improves the quality and informativeness of investigative interview protocol improves the quality and informativeness of investigative interviews with children: A review of research using the NICHD Investigative Interview Protocol. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31, 1201-1231.

41.

Leitchtman, M., Morse, M. B., Dixon, A., & Wilch-Ross, M. (2000). Source monitoring and suggestibility: An individual differences approach. In K. P. Roberts & M. Blades (Eds.), Chodren's source monitoring (pp.257-288). Mahcah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

42.

Lippert, T., Cross, T. P., Jones, L., & Walsh, W. (2009). Telling interveiwers about sexual abuse: Predictors of child disclosure at forensic interviews. Child Maltreatment, 14, 100-113.

43.

London, K., Bruck, M., Ceci, S. J., & Shuman, D. W. (2005). Disclosure of child sexual abuse: What does the research tell us about the ways that children tell? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 194-226.

44.

Mazzoni, G. K., & Ambrosio, L. (2003). analisi del resoconto testimoniale in bambini: impiego del metodo di analisi del contenuto C.B.C.A. in bambini di 7 anni. Psicologia e Giustizia. (Analyzing child witness reports: using the C.B.C.A. in 7-years-old children). Archive, 1.

45.

Meyer, G. J., Finn, S. E., Eyde, L. D., Kay, G. G., Moreland, K. L., Dies, R. R., Eisman, E. J., Kubiszyn, T. W., Reed, G. M. (2001). Psychological testing and psychological assessment. A review of evidence and issues. The American psychologist, 56, 128-65.

46.

Ornstein, P. A., & Haden, C. A. (2009). 기억의 발달: 아동증언의 이해 (김태경과 윤소미 역). 진술조사의 맥락에서 본 기억과 피암시성 (pp. 33-66). 서울: 시그마프레스. (원전은 2002에 출판)

47.

Otgaar, H., Candel, I., Merckelbach, H., & Wade, K.A. (2009). Abducted by a UFO: Prevalence information affects young children’s false memories for an implausible event(pp. 115-125). Lire le compte rendu sur PsychoTémoins.

48.

Poole, D. A., & Lindsay, D. S. (1998). Assessing the accuracy of young children's reports: Lessons from the investigation of child sexual abuse. Applied & Preventive Psychology, 9, 1-26.

49.

Sgroi, S., Blick, L., & Porter, F. (1982). A conceptual framework for child sexual abuse. In S. Sgroi (Ed.), Handbook of clinical intervention in child sexual abuse (pp. 9–38). Lexington, Massachusetts: D. C. Heath and Company.

50.

Sink, E (1988b). Studies of true and false allegations: A critical review. In E. B. Nicholson (Ed.), Sexual abuse allegation custody and visitation cases (pp. 37-47). Washington, DC: American Bar Association.

51.

Sink, F. (1988a). A hierarchical model for evaluation of child sexual abuse. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 58, 129- 135.

52.

Sporer, S. L. (1997). The less traveled road to truth: Verbal cues in detection deception in accounts of fabricated and self-experienced events. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 11, 373-397.

53.

Steller, M., & Koehnken, G. (1989). Criteria-based statement analysis. In D. C. Raskin (Ed.), Psychological methods in criminal investigation and evidence (pp. 217-245). New York: Springer.

54.

Summit, R. C. (1983). The child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome. Child Abuse & Neglect, 7, 177-193.

55.

Summit. R. C. (1992). Abuse of the Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse. 1. 153-163.

56.

Undeutsch, U. (1984). Courtroom evaluation of eyewitness testimony. International Review of Applied Psychology, 13, 51-67.

57.

Vrij, A. (2005). Criteria-based content analysis: A qualitative review of the first 37 studies. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 3–41.

58.

Vrij, A., Akehurst, L., Soukara, S., & Bull, R. (2004). Let me inform you how to tell a convincing story: CBCA and reality monitoring scores as a function of age, coaching, and deception. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 24, 239-263.

59.

Vrij, A., Edward, K., Roberts, K., & Bull, R. (2000). Detecting deceit via analysis of verbal and nonverbal behaviour. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 24, 239-263.

60.

Wehrspann, W. H., Steinhauer, P., & Klajner-Diamond, H. (1987). Criteria and methodology for assessing credibility of sexual abuse allegation. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 32, 615-623.

61.

Wells, G. L., & Loftus, E. F. (1991). Is this child fabricating? Reactions to a new assessment technique. In J. L. Doris (Ed.), The suggestibility of children's recollections(pp. 168-171). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

62.

Wharff, E. A. (1998). A study of decision-making criteria in child sexual abuse evaluations. Dissertation Abstracts International. Section A: Humanities & Social Sciences, 59(1-A), 0326

바로가기메뉴

논문 상세

Vol.29 No.3

아동성폭력 피해 가능성 평가기준 개발 및 타당화

Development and Validation of Assessment Standard for Determining Probability of Child Sexual Abuse

초록

Abstract

참고문헌

한국심리학회지: 일반