Advertisement

Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 58–67 | Cite as

Using Spaced Learning Principles to Translate Knowledge into Behavior: Evidence from Investigative Interviews of Alleged Child Abuse Victims

  • Alexis E. Rischke
  • Kim P. Roberts
  • Heather L. Price
Article

Abstract

The present study assessed the progress of 13 investigative interviewers (child protection workers and police officers) before, during, and after an intensive training program (n = 132 interviews). Training began with a 2-day workshop covering the principles of child development and child-friendly interviewing. Interviewers then submitted interviews on a bi-weekly basis to which they received written and verbal feedback over an 8-month period. A refresher session took place two months into training. Interestingly, improvements were observed only after the refresher session. Interviews conducted post-refresher training contained proportionally more open-ended questions, more child details in response to open-ended questions, and proportionally fewer closed questions than interviews conducted prior to training and in the first half of the training program. The need for ‘spaced learning’ may underlie why so many training programs have had little effect on practice.

Keywords

Child memory Child eyewitness testimony Investigative interviewing Child abuse 

References

  1. Aldridge J, Cameron S (1999) Interviewing child witnesses: questioning techniques and the role of training. Applied Developmental Science Special Issues: New Research on child witnesses: Part II 3:136–147. doi: 10.1207/s1532480xads0302_7 Google Scholar
  2. Bala N (1999) Child witnesses in the Canadian criminal courts: recognizing their capacities and needs. Psychol Public Policy Law 5:323–354. doi: 10.1037/1076-8971.5.2.323 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bellezza FS, Young DR (1989) Chunking of repeated events in memory. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 15:990–997. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.15.5.990 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Braun K, Rubin DC (1998) The spacing effect depends on an encoding deficit, retrieval, and time in working memory: evidence from once-presented words. Memory 6:37–65. doi: 10.1080/741941599 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bruck M, Ceci SJ (1999) The suggestibility of children’s memory. Annu Rev Psychol 50:419–439. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.419 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cederborg AC, Orbach Y, Sternberg KJ, Lamb ME (2000) Investigative interviews of child witnesses in Sweden. Child Abuse Negl 24:1355–1361. doi: 10.1016/S0145-2134(00)00183-6 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Challis, BH (1993) Spacing effects on cued-memory tests depend on level of processing. J Exper Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 19:389–396. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.19.2.389 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davies GM, Westcott HL, Horan N (2000) The impact of questioning style on the content of investigative interviews with suspected child sexual abuse victims. Psychology, Crime & Law 6:81–97. doi: 10.1080/10683160008410834 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dent HR, Stephenson GM (1979) An experimental study on the effectiveness of different techniques of questioning child witnesses. Br J Soc Clin Psychol 18:41–51Google Scholar
  10. Gilstrap LL (2004) A missing link in suggestibility research: what is known about the behavior of field interviewers in unstructured interviews with young children? J Exp Psychol Appl 10:13–24. doi: 10.1037/1076-898X.10.1.13 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goodman GS, Aman C (1990) Children’s use of anatomically detailed dolls to recount an event. Child Dev 61:1859–1871. doi: 10.2307/1130842 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goodman GS, Reed DS (1986) Age differences in eyewitness testimony. Law Hum Behav 10:317–332. doi: 10.1007/BF01047344 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jacoby LL (1978) On interpreting the effects of repetition: solving a problem versus remembering a solution. J Verbal Learn Verbal Behav 17:649–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lamb ME, Fauchier A (2001) The effects of question type on self-contradictions by children in the course of forensic interviews. Appl Cogn Psychol 15:483–491. doi: 10.1002/acp.726 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lamb ME, Sternberg KJ, Esplin PW (2000) Effects of age and delay on the amount of information provided by alleged sex abuse victims in investigative interviews. Child Dev 71:1586–1596. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00250 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lamb ME, Sternberg KJ, Orbach Y, Esplin PW, Mitchell S (2002a) Is ongoing feedback necessary to maintain the quality of investigative interviews with allegedly abused children? Appl Dev Sci 6:35–41. doi: 10.1207/S1532480XADS0601_04 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lamb ME, Sternberg KJ, Orbach Y, Hershkowitz I, Horowitz D, Esplin P (2002b) The effects of intensive training and ongoing supervision on the quality of investigative interviews with alleged sex abuse victims. Appl Dev Sci 6:114–125. doi: 10.1207/S1532480XADS0603_2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lamb ME, Hershkowitz I, Orbach Y, Esplin PW (2008) Tell me what happened. Structured investigative interviews of child victims and witnesses. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  19. Litman L, Davachi L (2008) Distributed learning enhances relational memory consolidation. Learn Mem 15:711–716PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Marin BV, Holmes DL, Guth M, Kovac P (1979) The potential of children as eyewitnesses. Law Hum Behav 2:295–305. doi: 10.1007/BF01039808 Google Scholar
  21. O’Callaghan G, D’Arcy H (1989) Use of props in questioning preschool witnesses. Aust J Psychol 41:187–195. doi: 10.1080/00049538908260082 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Orbach Y, Hershkowitz I, Lamb ME, Sternberg KJ, Esplin PW, Horowitz D (2000) Assessing the value of structured protocols for forensic interviews of alleged child abuse victims. Child Abuse Negl 24:733–752. doi: 10.1016/S0145-2134(00)00137-X PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Peterson C, Biggs M (1997) Interviewing children about trauma: problems with “specific” questions. J Trauma Stress 10:279–290. doi: 10.1023/A:1024882213462 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Price DW, Goodman GS (1990) Visiting the wizard: children’s memory for a recurring event. Child Dev 61:664–680. doi: 10.2307/1130952 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Price HL, Roberts KP (2010) The effects of an intensive training and feedback program on investigative interviews of children. Manuscript submitted for publicationGoogle Scholar
  26. Price HL, Connolly DA, Gordon HM (2006) Children’s memory for complex autobiographical events: does spacing of repeated instances matter? Memory 14:977–989. doi: 10.1080/09658210601009005 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Read JD, Connolly DA (2007) The effects of delay on long-term memory for witnessed events. In: Toglia MP, Read JD, Ross DF, Lindsay RCL (eds) The handbook of eyewitness psychology, vol 1: Memory for events. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Mahwah, pp 117–155Google Scholar
  28. Roberts KP, Lamb ME, Sternberg KJ (1999) Effects of the timing of postevent information on preschoolers’ memories of an event. Appl Cogn Psychol 13:541–559. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199912)13:6<541::AID-ACP618>3.).C.O;2-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Roberts KP, Lamb ME, Sternberg KJ (2004) The effects of rapport-building style on children’s reports of a staged event. Appl Cogn Psychol 18:198–202. doi: 10.1002/acp.957 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Roberts KP, Brubacher SP, Powell MB, Price HL (in press) Practice narratives. To appear in Lamb ME, La Rooy D, Katz C, Malloy L (eds) Children’s testimony: a handbook of psychological research and forensic practice. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, UKGoogle Scholar
  31. Rovee-Collier C, Evancio S, Earley LA (1995) The time window hypothesis: spacing effects. Infant Behav Dev 18:69–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Saywitz KJ, Goodman GS, Nicholas E, Moan SF (1991) Children’s memories of a physical examination involving genital touch: implications for reports of child sexual abuse. J Consult Clin Psychol 59:682–691. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.59.5.682 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schmidt RA, Bjork RA (1992) New conceptualizations of practice: common principles in three paradigms suggest new concepts for training. Psychol Sci 3:207–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sternberg KJ, Lamb ME, Hershkowitz I, Yudlievitch L, Orbach Y, Esplin PW, Hovav M (1997) Effects of introductory style on children’s abilities to describe experiences of sexual abuse. Child Abuse Neglect 21:1133–1146. doi: 10.1016/S0145-2134(97)00071-9 Google Scholar
  35. Sternberg KJ, Lamb ME, Orbach Y, Esplin PW, Mitchell S (2001b) Use of a structured investigative protocol enhances young children’s responses to free-recall prompts in the course of forensic interviews. J Appl Psychol 85:997–1005. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.86.5.997 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Walker AG, Warren AR (1995) The language of the child abuse interview: asking the questions, understanding the answers. In: Ney T (ed) True and false allegations of child sexual abuse: assessment and case management. Brunner/Mazel, Philadelphia, pp 153–162Google Scholar
  37. Warren AR, Woodall CE, Thomas M, Nunno M, Keeney JM, Larson SM, Stadfeld JA (1999) Assessing the effectiveness of a training program for interviewing children. Appl Dev Sci 3:128–135. doi: 10.1207/s1532480xads0302_6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexis E. Rischke
    • 1
  • Kim P. Roberts
    • 1
  • Heather L. Price
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyWilfrid Laurier UniversityWaterlooCanada
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of ReginaReginaCanada

Personalised recommendations