Advertisement

Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders

, Volume 48, Issue 7, pp 2597–2599 | Cite as

Response to ‘No Evidence Against Sketch Reinstatement of Context, Verbal Labels or Registered Intermediaries’

  • Lucy A. HenryEmail author
  • Laura Crane
  • Gilly Nash
  • Zoe Hobson
  • Mimi Kirke-Smith
  • Rachel Wilcock
Letter to the Editor

Dando and colleagues’ letter regarding our recently published paper (Henry et al. 2017) calls for caution before rejecting investigative interviewing techniques for children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). In this response we highlight that this important message was, in fact, emphasised in the original paper. We also provide additional information about our methodology and results to further substantiate our conclusions. Importantly, we highlight that these null results do not mean that these techniques should be rejected for children with ASD. We acknowledge that beneficial effects of these investigative interview adaptations may not be in relation to the parameters measured in our study—volume and accuracy of recall (also see Maras and Bowler 2010; Maras et al. 2014, for data suggesting that alternative interview techniques may not improve recall in autistic adults). We further acknowledge that some of the interview adaptations investigated may actually be the critical factor...

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our thanks to the Registered Intermediaries and other colleagues who commented on initial drafts of this letter.

Author Contributions

All authors wrote this letter jointly and all authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

The original research study to which this letter refers was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (Grant Number: ES/J020893/2).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors (Lucy Henry, Laura Crane, Gilly Nash, Zoe Hobson, Mimi Kirke-Smith and Rachel Wilcock) all declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical Approval

In the original study to which this letter refers, all procedures performed in relation to the human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee, and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments.

Informed Consent

In the original study to which this letter refers, informed consent was obtained from all individual participants in the study.

References

  1. Brown, D., & Pipe, M.-E. (2003). Individual differences in children’s event memory reports and the narrative elaboration technique. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 195–206.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.195.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Dando, C., Wilcock, R., & Milne, R. (2009a). The cognitive interview: Novice police officers’ witness/victim interviewing practices. Psychology, Crime & Law, 15, 679–696.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160802203963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dando, C., Wilcock, R., & Milne, R. (2009b). The cognitive interview: The efficacy of a modified mental reinstatement of context procedure for frontline police investigators. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 138–147.  https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dando, C., Wilcock, R., Milne, R., & Henry, L. (2009c). A modified cognitive interview procedure for frontline police investigators. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 698–716.  https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Henry, L. A., Crane, L., Nash, G., Hobson, Z., Kirke-Smith, M., & Wilcock, R. (2017). Verbal, visual, and intermediary support for child witnesses with autism during investigative interviews. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 47, 2348–2362.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-017-3142-0.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Maras, K. L., & Bowler, D. M. (2010). The cognitive interview for eyewitnesses with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 40(11), 1350–1360.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-010-0997-8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Maras, K. L., Mulcahy, S., Memon, A., Picariello, F., & Bowler, D. M. (2014). Evaluating the effectiveness of the self-administered interview for witnesses with autism spectrum disorder. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(5), 693–701.  https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Mattison, M., Dando, C. J., & Ormerod, T. (2016). Drawing the answers: Sketching to support free and probed recall by child witnesses and victims with autism spectrum disorder. Autism.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361316669088.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Mattison, M. L. A., Dando, C. J., & Ormerod, T. (2015). Sketching to remember: Episodic free recall task support for child witnesses and victims with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 45(6), 1751–1765.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-014-2335-z.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Ministry of Justice (2015). The registered intermediary procedural guidance manual. England: Ministry of Justice.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Language and Communication ScienceCity, University of LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.Centre for Research in Autism and Education (CRAE), UCL Institute of EducationUniversity College LondonLondonUK
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyUniversity of WinchesterWinchesterUK
  4. 4.Goldsmiths, University of LondonLondonUK
  5. 5.Metropolitan Police ServiceLondonUK
  6. 6.West Heath SchoolSevenoaksUK

Personalised recommendations