Advertisement

Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology

, Volume 30, Issue 3, pp 204–212 | Cite as

Child Interviewing Practices in Canada: A Box Score from Field Observations

  • Kirk Luther
  • Brent Snook
  • Todd Barron
  • Michael E. Lamb
Article

Abstract

A field study of interviews with child witnesses and alleged victims was conducted. The National Institute of Child and Human Development (NICHD) codebook served as the framework to examine a sample of 45 interviews with children ranging in age from three to 16. Results showed that pre-substantive practices were observed rarely. An examination of the questions asked during the substantive phase revealed that, on average, 40% were option-posing, 30% were directive, and 8% were invitations. Invitations produced the longest interviewee responses and the largest number of details that were central to the investigation. The implications of these findings for interviewing practices and policy are discussed.

Keywords

Child interviewing NICHD protocol field study 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Research support was provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada to the first and second authors.

References

  1. Bruck M, Melnyk L (2004) Individual differences in children’s suggestibility: a review and synthesis. Appl Cogn Psychol 18:947–996. doi: 10.1002/acp.1070 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cassel W, Bjorklund D (1995) Developmental patterns of eyewitness responses to repeated and increasingly suggestive questions. Law Hum Behav 61:116–133. doi: 10.1006/jecp.1996.0008 Google Scholar
  3. Ceci SJ, Bruck M (1993) Suggestibility of the child witness: a historical review and synthesis. Psychol Bull 113:403–439. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.113.3.403 Google Scholar
  4. Cederborg A, 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Cohen J (1960) A coefficient for agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas 20:37–46. doi: 10.1177/001316446002000104 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Coxon P, Valentine T (1997) The effects of the age of eyewitnesses on the accuracy and suggestibility of their testimony. Appl Cogn Psychol 11:415–430. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199710)11:5<415::AIDACP469>3.3.CO;2-1
  7. Cyr M, Lamb ME (2009) Assessing the effectiveness of the NICHD investigative interview Protocol when interviewing Frenchspeaking alleged victims of child sexual abuse in Quebec. Child Abuse Negl 57:257–268. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2008.04.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davies GM, Westcott HL (1995) The child witness in the courtroom: empowerment or protection? In: Zaragoza MS, Graham JR, Hall GCN, Hirschman R, Ben- Porath YS (eds) Memory and testimony in the child witness. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp 199–213Google Scholar
  9. Dion J, Cyr M (2008) The use of the NICHD Protocol to enhance the quantity of details obtained fromchildren with low verbal abilities in investigative interviews: a pilot study. J Child Sex Abus 17:144–162. doi: 10.1080/10538710801916564 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Fritzley VH, Lee K (2003) Do young children always say yes to yes-no questions? A metadevelopmental study of the affirmation bias. Child Dev 74:1297–1313. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00608 Google Scholar
  11. Garven S, Wood JM, Malpass RS (2000) Allegations ofwrongdoing: the effects of reinforcement on children’s mundane and fantastic claims. J Appl Psychol 85:38–49CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Hershkowitz I, Orbach Y, Lamb ME, Sternberg KJ, Horowitz D (2006) Dynamics of forensic interviews with suspected abuse victims who do not disclose abuse. Child Abuse Negl 30:753–769. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2005.10.016 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Hughes M, Grieve R (1980) On asking children bizarre questions. First Lang 1:149–160. doi: 10.1177/014272378000100205 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lamb ME, Sternberg KJ, Esplin PW (1998) Conducting investigative interviews of alleged sexual abuse victims. Child Abuse Negl 22:813–823. doi: 10.1016/S0145-2134(98)00056-8
  15. Lamb ME, Sternberg KJ, Orbach Y, Hershkowitz I, Horowitz D, Esplin PW (2002) 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
  16. Lamb ME, Sternberg KJ, Orbach Y, Hershkowitz I, Horowitz D (2003) Differences between accounts provided by witnesses and alleged victims of child sexual abuse. Child Abuse Negl 27:1019–1031. doi: 10.1016/S0145-2134(03)00167-4 Google Scholar
  17. Lamb ME, Orbach Y, Hershkowitz I, Esplin PW, Horowitz D (2007) A structured forensic interview protocol improves the quality and informativeness of investigative interviews with children: a review of research using the NICHD Investigative Interview Protocol. Child Abuse Negl 31:1201–1231. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2007.03.02
  18. Lamb ME, Hershkowitz I, Orbach Y, Esplin PW (2008) Tell me what happened: structured investigative interviews of child victims and witnesses. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  19. Lamb ME, Orbach Y, Sternberg KJ, Aldridge J, Pearson S, Stewart HL, Bowler L (2009) Use of a structured investigative protocol enhances the quality of investigative interviews with alleged victims of child sexual abuse in Britain. Appl Cogn Psychol 23:449–467. doi: 10.1002/acp.1489 Google Scholar
  20. Lamer, The Right Honourable Antonio (2006) The lamer commission of inquiry pertaining to the cases of: Ronald Dalton, Gregory Parsons, Randy Druken. Office of the Queen’s Printer, St. John’sGoogle Scholar
  21. Landis R, Koch G (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174. doi: 10.2307/2529310 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Larsson AS, Lamb ME (2009) Making the most of information-gathering interviews with children. Infant Child Dev 18:1–16. doi: 10.1002/icd.573 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lyon TD, Saywitz KJ (2006) From post-mortem to preventive medicine: next steps for research on child witnesses. J Soc Issues 62:833–861. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2006.00489.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Myklebust T, Alison LJ (2000) The current state of police interviews with children in Norway: how discrepant are they from models based on current issues in memory and communication? Psychol Crime Law 6:331–351. doi: 10.1080/10683160008409810 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Orbach Y, Lamb ME (2001) Enhancing children’s narratives in investigative interviews. Child Abuse Negl 24:1636–1648. doi: 10.1016/S0145-2134(00)00207-6 Google Scholar
  26. Orbach Y, Hershkowitz I, Lamb ME, Sternberg KJ, Horowitz D (2000) Interviewing at the scene of the crime: effects of children’s recall of alleged abuse. Leg Criminol Psychol 5:135–147. doi: 10.1348/135532500167930 Google Scholar
  27. Perry NW, McAuliff BD, Tam P, Claycomb L, Dostal C, Flanagan C (1995) When lawyers question children is justice served? Law Hum Behav 19:609–629. doi: 10.1007/BF01499377 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pipe M-E, Orbach Y, Lamb ME, Abbott CB, Stewart H (2013) Do case outcomes changed when investigative interviewing practices change? Psychol Public Policy Law 19:179–190. doi: 10.1037/a0030312 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Price HL, Roberts KP (2011) The effects of an intensive training and feedback program on police and social workers’ investigative interviews of children. Can J Behav Sci 43:235–244. doi: 10.1037/a0022541 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rischke AE, Roberts KP, Price HL (2011) Using space learning principles to translate knowledge into behavior: evidence from investigative interviews of alleged child abuse victims. J Police Crim Psychol 26:58–67. doi: 10.1007/s11896-010-9073-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Saywitz KJ, Snyder L, Nathanson R (1999) Facilitating the communicative competence of the child witness. Appl Dev Sci 3:58–68. doi: 10.1207/s1532480xads0301_7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Snook B, Keating K (2010) A field study of adult witness interviewing practices in a Canadian police organization. Leg Criminol Psychol 16:160–172. doi: 10.1348/135532510X497258 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Snook B, Luther K, Quinlan H, Milne R (2012) Let 'emtalk!A field study of police questioning practices of suspects and accused persons. Crim Justice Behav 39:1328–1339. doi: 10.1177/0093854812449216 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sternberg KJ, Lamb ME, Orbach Y, Esplin PW, Mitchell S (2001) Use of a structured investigative protocol enhances young children’s responses to free-recall prompts in the course of forensic interviews. J Appl Psychol 86:997–1005. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.86.5.997
  35. Talwar V, Lee K, Bala N, Lindsay RC (2002) Children’s lie-telling to conceal a parent’s transgression: legal implications. Law Hum Behav 28:411–435. doi: 10.1023/B:LAHU.0000039333.51399.f6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Yuille JC, Hunter R, Joffe R, Zaparniuk J (1993) Interviewing children in sexual abuse cases. In: Goodman GS, Bottoms BL (eds) Child victims, child witnesses. Guilford, New York, pp 1–24Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Police and Criminal Psychology 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kirk Luther
    • 1
  • Brent Snook
    • 1
  • Todd Barron
    • 1
  • Michael E. Lamb
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyMemorial University of NewfoundlandSt. John’sCanada
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations