This paper examines the applicability and limitations of one of the procedures most commonly used to analyze the credibility of a testimony, the Statement Validity Assessment (SVA). The starting point for a successful implementation is a thorough consideration of the possible sources that could lead to a statement, following the method of falsifiability of hypotheses. Major errors of use are described and the methods for different scenarios to be analyzed are clarified, considering both the relevance of each procedure and its limitations. In conclusion, the dangers of an incorrect or incomplete implementation of SVA, regardless of the hypotheses and the recommended valuation technique, are pointed out, as long as the risk of overgeneralizing the use of content analysis ( CBCA). (C) 2015 Colegio Oficial de Psicologos de Madrid. Published by Elsevier Espana, S.L.U.