Bogaard et al. (2014) suggested that contextual information biases how participants evaluate the credibility of victim statements in CBCA-based (Criteria-Based Content Analysis) assessments. Later studies found no contextual bias in the CBCA, but in final credibility judgments. In this direct replication (n = 105), participants scored four statements (kidnapping, murder, sexual abuse, rape) on CBCA criteria and final credibility. The statements were preceded by either credibility-enhancing (e.g., prior abuse allegations) or credibility-reducing (e.g., motive to lie) information. As predicted, statements paired with credibility-enhancing information received higher CBCA (d = 0.33; BF+0 = 39.38) and final credibility scores (d = 0.88; BF+0 = 1.356 × 1012). Exploratory analyses suggest the effect is strongest in the sexual abuse statement, with Criteria 1 (Logical Structure), 3 (Amount of Detail), and 19 (Crime Characteristics) most affected. Future research should examine which types of contextual information are strong enough to elicit bias in CBCA scores.