Criteria based content analysis (cbca) is a forensic tool that aims atdistinguishing true from false statements made by crime victims. As such,cbca and similar techniques are regularly employed by psychologicalexpert-witnesses in court. However, it could be argued that the diagnosticaccuracy of cbca is moderate, and too low for application in the forensiccontext. The current article discusses problems that arise if conclusionsabout credibility of testimonies based on cbca are presented in court. Afundamental, yet so far hardly addressed flaw is that cbca suffers from aninherent truth bias. That is, the underlying notion that credibility isexamined by means of searching for signs supporting truthfulness isscientifically less valid than the approach in which credibility isestablished by focusing on alternative explanations and signs of deceit.