SCANning for truth : scholars’ and practitioners’ perceptions on the use(fulness) of Scientific Content Analysis in detecting deception during police interviews

SCAN (Scientific Content Analysis) is an analytic method that claims to detect deception in written statements. Although the validity of SCAN is contested in academic literature, various (law enforcement) agencies across the globe are trained in using the technique. To date it remains unknown how SCAN is perceived and to what extent it is used in practice. Based on a scoping review and an open- and closed-ended survey, we identified Belgian practitioners’ and international scholars’ prevailing perceptions on the use(fulness) of SCAN. Data were collected from 48 participants (35 Dutch-speaking practitioners and 13 international scholars). Key findings illuminate a discrepancy between practitioners and academics, since practitioners position themselves positively towards SCAN and academics urge for a complete disappearance of the technique. Practitioners furthermore apply an incomplete, personalized version of SCAN. As such, practitioners continue to use an academically unsound technique and are not aware of academically substantiated alternatives. This finding demonstrates an urgent need for cross-fertilization between academia and practice in the field of investigative interviewing.SCAN (Scientific Content Analysis) is an analytic method that claims to detect deception in written statements. Although the validity of SCAN is contested in academic literature, various (law enforcement) agencies across the globe are trained in using the technique. To date it remains unknown how SCAN is perceived and to what extent it is used in practice. Based on a scoping review and an open- and closed-ended survey, we identified Belgian practitioners’ and international scholars’ prevailing perceptions on the use(fulness) of SCAN. Data were collected from 48 participants (35 Dutch-speaking practitioners and 13 international scholars). Key findings illuminate a discrepancy between practitioners and academics, since practitioners position themselves positively towards SCAN and academics urge for a complete disappearance of the technique. Practitioners furthermore apply an incomplete, personalized version of SCAN. As such, practitioners continue to use an academically unsound technique and are not aware of academically substantiated alternatives. This finding demonstrates an urgent need for cross-fertilization between academia and practice in the field of investigative interviewing.C