• Korean Journal of Forensic Psychology
• /
• v.12 no.2
• /
• pp.121-149
• /
• 2021

Statement Validity Analysis (SVA) is utilized in criminal investigations and the court to assess the credibility of given statements. During this procedure, the criteria for Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA) are used to evaluate whether statements include the characteristics reflecting actual experiences about the event in question. Various studies had been conducted on the efficacy (classification rates) of CBCA criteria, yet the consistency of the findings was not investigated. In the current study, a meta-analysis was conducted with Korean CBCA studies reported from 2004 to 2020 (a total of fourteen studies). As a result, the total score of CBCA was found to successfully discriminate truth and fabrication. A significant positive (+) effect size was found with four criteria (3, 4, 10, and 12), all of which are classified as cognitive criteria. However, contrary to the underlying assumption for CBCA, criterion 18, classified as one of the motivational criteria, showed a significant negative (-) effect size. Meanwhile, moderator analyses were possible for eleven criteria (2~9, 12, 13, 15) and the results showed the significant effects of potential moderator variables such as the gender and status of the participants, study types and designs, number of raters, and publication status. The current results suggests that more careful attention is required to each criterion-especially the cognitive criteria-rather than the total CBCA score as well as the possible moderator effects in order to assess truthfulness of the statements. The implication, limitations, and suggestions for future studies were discussed.

• The Journal of Industrial Distribution & Business
• /
• v.15 no.3
• /
• pp.11-20
• /
• 2024

Purpose: This study focuses on the Chinese smartphone market to estimate product attributes influencing Chinese customers' preference for developing new smartphones through conjoint analysis. Research design, data and methodology: The online questionnaire survey is processed among Chinese potential smartphone customers. Conjoint analysis including traditional conjoint analysis (TCA) and choice-based conjoint analysis (CBCA), is used to analyze the useful data of 500. Results: Results indicate that price is the most important predictor while screen size is the least for Chinese customers' preference whether the method is TCA or CBCA. However, the importance of brand, capacity, CPU, and screen design is different. Moreover, based on each smartphone attribute level's utility, the new products with the best combinations are different compared with both methods. Finally, the predicted market shares of the top 3 products are the same with maximum utility rule model between TCA and CBCA. However, when considering with the new best combined product, they are significantly different. Conclusions: Managers should recognize the differences between TCA and CBCA and select the best method to develop new smartphones for sustainable business in the Chinese competitive market based on the important attributes of price, brand, capacity, CPU, screen design, and size.

• The Korean Journal of Applied Statistics
• /
• v.27 no.5
• /
• pp.681-691
• /
• 2014

Ranking-based conjoint analysis(RBCA) and choice-based conjoint analysis(CBCA) have attracted significant interest in various fields such as marketing research. When conducting research, the researcher has to select one suitable approach in consideration of strengths and weaknesses. This article performs an empirical comparison of the predictability of RBCA and CBCA in order to provide criterion for the selection. A new concept of measurement set is developed by combining the ranking set and choice set. The measurement set enables us to apply two approaches separately on the same consumer group that allows a fair comparison of predictability. RBCA and CBCA are conducted on consumer preferences for RTD-coffee; subsequently, the predicted values of market shares and hit rates are compared. The study result reveals that their predictabilities are not significantly different. Further, the result indicates that RBCA is recommended if the researcher wants to improve data quality by filtering out poor responses or to implement the market segmentation. In contrast, CBCA is recommended if the researcher wants to lessen the burden on the respondents or to measure preferences under similar conditions with the actual marketplace.

• Journal of the Korean Magnetic Resonance Society
• /
• v.10 no.1
• /
• pp.96-104
• /
• 2006

The gene coding for APG8a (At4g21980), a protein from Arabidopsis thaliana, is involved in the autophagy process. The protein is an interesting candidate for structure determination by NMR spectroscopy. Toward this end, APG8a has been produced recombinantly in Escherichia coli and typical NMR experiments such as $^{15}N-HSQC$, HNCA, HN(CO)CA, CBCA(CO)NH, HCCH-TOCSY, HNCO were performed. The backbone resonances, HN, N, CA, CB, and C' were sequence-specifically assigned, and the secondary structures including 3 $\alpha$ helices and $4\beta$ strands were deduced based on the assignments. Due to the intrinsic flexibility or the effect of the denaturant, the backbone resonances were not fully observed. Since the structure calculation by NMR data was not possible, the 3-dimensional model was built based on the sequence homology, and compared with the NMR results. The overall structure of the model could explain and complement the NMR derived secondary structures.

• Korean Journal of Forensic Psychology
• /
• v.12 no.1
• /
• pp.1-13
• /
• 2021

This study analyzed the use of expert reports in the investigations and trials of cases of sexual violence against people with intellectual disabilities. A total of 670 alleged sexual assault cases against victims with intellectual disabilities were analyzed. Results showed that 97.5% of the cases included at least one expert report. In most cases(91%), the expert reports of statement validity assessment were included. Additionally, doctor's note (41.1%) from obstetricians and Psychiatrists, intermediary reports(36%), and expert witnesses(psychologists') reports (9.5%) were included. In 80 cases (44.4%) of the 180 cases in which a victim' statement credibility was in question during the trial, judges cited the expert's reports of statement validity assessment as the basis for the judgment on the reliability of the victims' accusation. The frequency of citing the report was higher when the victim was under the age of 13, or when the defendant was found guilty. Regrading the report content, the evaluations of criteria-based content analysis(CBCA) was most frequently cited, while the victim's psychological status, cognitive limitation, as well as possibile contamination of victim's account, were also mentioned in the ruling statements. Results showed agreement between experts' statement validity assessments and judges' determinations in 79 cases out of the 80 cases Finally, this study discussed ways to utilize expert options.