Two independent raters received training in CBCA scoring. First, both raters read several major published papers about CBCA (Raskin & Esplin, 1991; [Steller], 1989; Steller & Kohnken, 1989; [ALDERT VRIJ], 2000; Vrij & Akehurst, 1998). Second, they were trained in CBCA scoring by a British CBCA expert. The expert explained each criterion under investigation in this study (see below) and gave examples of each criterion. Third, both the trainee raters and the expert rater evaluated one example transcript individually (from a different study). The three raters compared their results and feedback was given by the expert rater. Fourth, the trainees received more transcripts and were asked to rate these transcripts at home. In a follow-up meeting, the results were evaluated and, again, feedback was given by the expert. After that meeting the expert felt that at that time the two raters had obtained sufficient rating skills and it was decided that the raters could commence their coding task for the present experiment. Coding was carried out individually by the two trained coders only (they coded the statements at home) and took place on the basis of the written transcripts of the interviews. The raters were blind to the hypotheses under investigation, to the staged event, and to the experimental conditions to which the participants were allocated (although they were aware that some transcripts would be truthful and some not). Some criteria (e.g., "accurately reported details misunderstood," Criterion 10; "pardoning the perpetrator," Criterion 18; and "details characteristic of the offence," Criterion 19) were not scored, as they are specifically related to (sexual) crimes. "Self-deprecations" (Criterion 17) was initially to be scored but was never in fact present. This criterion was therefore disregarded, leaving a total of 15 CBCA criteria to be assessed. The coders scored the strength of presence of Criteria 1 and 2 in each statement on 5-point Likert scales ((I ) = absent, (5) is strongly present), and scored the frequency of occurrence of the other criteria in each statement. We then calculated a total CBCA score. This has been done before not only in experimental laboratory research (Tye et al, 1999; Vrij et al., 2000, 2001a, 2001b, 2002, 2004; Winkel & Vrij, 1995) but also in real-life situations (Craig, Scheibe, Raskin, Kircher, & Dodd, 1999; [Hershkowitz], [Roberts, Lamb], Sternberg, & Esplin, 1997; Lamb et al., 1997a, 1997b; Parker & Brown, 2000). In order to create the CBCA scale, the criteria were dichotomized. Dichotomizations for Criteria 4 to 16 were based on the absence or presence of each of the criteria in the interview. A score of O was assigned when the criterion was absent, and a score of 1 when the criterion was present. For Criteria 1 and 2, a O was assigned when the criterion obtained a "1" rating on the 5-point Likert scale, and a 1 was assigned when the criterion obtained a score of 2, 3, 4, or 5 on the 5-point Likert scale. For dichotomization of Criterion 3, median splits were used.4 Total CBCA scores were calculated for both coders. The correlation between these two CBCA scores was moderate but acceptable (.66). In the present analyses, we used as total CBCA score the average score of the two coders. The score could range from O to 15.5

Children & youth
Cognition & reasoning
Lying