Analysis of credibility verbal statements represents an important part of forensic psychological evaluations. Currently there are several main methods for evaluating the content of verbal statement to estimate credibility of the statement.

The objective of the present study was to compare the main methods for credibility analysis of verbal statements in the Czech language. This is the first study in this area in the Czech republic.

We examined a group of non-psychiatric adult population with at least average intelligence and no cognitive impairments (n = 150) within classical credibility analysis setting - a part of the group (n = 75) exposed to a scene, the second part of the group (n = 75) was not exposed, but they were just told what happened. Further they were interviewed by independent psychologists. The methods of Statement validity assessment (SVA), Reality monitoring (RM) and Scientific content analysis (SCA) were used to detect those who experienced the situation and those who did not. The analysis of the statements was done in a double blind setting.

SCA and RM methods proved 85% (p < 0.01) success while SVA analysis only 65% (p < 0.01).

This pilot study supports validity of use of RM and SCA methods for analysis of credibility of verbal statements in adult non-psych iatrical persons in the Czech language, while in agreement with previous findings the method of SVA seems not to be suitable for adult persons.