Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology

, Volume 34, Issue 4, pp 392–409 | Cite as

Mapping Repeated Interviews

  • Genevieve F. WaterhouseEmail author
  • Anne M. Ridley
  • Ray Bull
  • David J. La Rooy
  • Rachel Wilcock


The present study introduces an adaptation of the Griffiths Question Map (GQM; Griffiths and Milne 2006) which extends the chronological, visual map of question types used in an investigative interview to include child interviewee’s responses (through the addition of the Interview Answer Grid, IAG). Furthermore, it provides a rare evaluation of repeated interviews with children. From a sample of transcripts of Scottish repeated interviews with child victims, two ‘good’ and two ‘poor’ first interviews were chosen based on interviewer question types. First and second investigative interviews of these four children were mapped using the GQM and IAG in order to examine across the two interviews the similarity of interviewer and interviewee behaviours and the consistency and investigative-relevance of information provided. Both ‘good’ and ‘poor’ interviews were found to include practices discouraged by interviewing guidelines, which would not have been identified by examining question proportions alone. Furthermore, ‘good’ first interviews were followed by second interviews which began with poor question types, suggesting a possible impact of confirmation bias. Social support was also assessed and found to be used infrequently, mainly in response to the child being informative rather than pre-emptively by interviewers in an attempt to encourage this. Children were also found to disclose throughout their second interviews, suggesting that rapport-maintenance is vital for single and multiple interviews. The use of the GQM and IAG is encouraged as a technique for determining interview quality.


Investigative interviewing Child victims Repeated interviews Social support Question types Griffiths Question Map 



The lead author conducted the research as part of her PhD which was funded by London South Bank University’s Institute of Social Science Research.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

The study obtained ethical approval from London South Bank University where the lead author was conducting her PhD and the second and final author held academic positions at the time of data collection.

Informed Consent

The present study entailed analysis of transcripts of police interviews. Transcripts from cases that had gone to trial had been provided by lawyers to one of the authors for quality assessment through that author’s work as an expert witness, and the author gave consent for anonymised versions to be used for the study.


  1. Ahern EC, Hershkowitz I, Lamb ME, Blasbalg U, Winstanley A (2014) Support and reluctance in the pre-substantive phase of alleged child abuse victim investigative interviews: revised versus standard NICHD protocols. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 32:762–774. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Almerigogna J, Ost J, Akehurst L, Fluck M (2008) How interviewers’ nonverbal behaviors can affect children’s perceptions and suggestibility. J Exp Child Psychol 100:17–39. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Ask K, Granhag PA (2005) Motivational sources of confirmation bias in criminal investigations: the need for cognitive closure. J Investig Psychol Offender Profiling 2:43–64. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown DA, Lamb ME, Lewis C, Pipe M-E, Orbach Y, Wolfman M (2013) The NICHD investigative interview protocol: an analogue study. J Exp Psychol Appl 19:367–382. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Cederborg A-C, La Rooy D, Lamb ME (2008) Repeated interviews with children who have intellectual disabilities. J Appl Res Intellect Disabil 21:103–113. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dodier O, Denault V (2017) The Griffiths question map: a forensic tool for expert witnesses’ assessments of witnesses and victims’ statements. J Forensic Sci 63:266–274. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Fisher RP, Brewer N, Mitchell G (2009) The relation between consistency and accuracy of eyewitness testimony: legal versus cognitive explanations. In: Bull R, Valentine T, Williamson T (eds) Handbook of psychology of investigative interviewing: current developments and future directions. Wiley, Chichester, pp 121–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Garven S, Wood JM, Malpass RS (2000) Allegations of wrongdoing: the effects of reinforcement on children’s mundane and fantastic claims. J Appl Psychol 85:38–49. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Griffiths A, Milne R (2006) Will it all end in tiers? Police interviews with suspects in Britain. In: Williamson T (ed) Investigative interviewing: rights, research and regulation. Willan, Devon, pp 167–189Google Scholar
  10. Hardy CL, Van Leeuwen SA (2004) Interviewing young children: effects of probe structures and focus of rapport-building talk on the qualities of young children’s eyewitness statements. Can J Behav Sci 36:155–165. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hershkowitz I (2011) Rapport building in investigative interviews of children. In: Lamb ME, La Rooy DJ, Malloy LC, Katz C (eds) Children’s testimony: a handbook of psychological research and forensic practice. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, pp 109–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hershkowitz I, Terner A (2007) The effects of repeated interviewing on children’s forensic statements of sexual abuse. Appl Cogn Psychol 21:1131–1143. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Heydon G (2012) Helping the police with their enquiries: enhancing the investigative interview with linguistic research. Police J 85:101–122. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Horowitz SW (2009) Direct mixed and open questions in child interviewing: an analog study. Leg Criminol Psychol 14:135–147. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Katz C, Hershkowitz I (2013) Repeated interviews with children who are the alleged victims of sexual abuse. Res Soc Work Pract 23:210–218. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Korkman J, Pakkanen T, Laajasalo T (2017) Child forensic interviewing in Finland: investigating suspected child abuse at the forensic psychology unit for children and adolescents. In: Johansson S, Stefansen K, Bakketeig E, Kaldal A (eds) Collaborating against child abuse: exploring the Nordic Barnahus model. Palgrave Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. La Rooy D, Lamb ME, Pipe M-E (2009) Repeated interviewing: a critical evaluation of the risks and potential benefits. In: Kuehnle K, Connell M (eds) The evaluation of child sexual abuse allegations: a comprehensive guide to assessment and testimony. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 327–361Google Scholar
  18. La Rooy D, Earhart B, Nicol A (2013) Joint investigative interviews (JIIs) conducted with children in Scotland: a comparison of the quality of interviews conducted before and after the introduction of the Scottish Executive (2011) guidelines. S. L. T. 31:217–219Google Scholar
  19. Lamb ME, Sternberg KJ, Orbach Y, Esplin PW, Stewart H, Mitchell S (2003) Age differences in young children’s responses to open-ended invitations in the course of forensic interviews. J Consult Clin Psychol 71:926–934. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Lamb ME, Orbach Y, Hershkowitz I, Horowitz D, Abbott CB (2007) Does the type of prompt affect the accuracy of information provided by alleged victims of abuse in forensic interviews? Appl Cogn Psychol 21:1117–1130. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lamb ME, Hershkowitz I, Orbach Y, Esplin PW (2008) Factors affecting the capacities and limitations of young witnesses. In: Tell me what happened: structured investigative interviews of child victims and witnesses. Wiley, Chichester, pp 19–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lamb ME, Orbach Y, Sternberg KJ, Aldridge J, Pearson S, Stewart HL, Esplin PW, 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lamb ME, La Rooy DJ, Malloy LC, Katz C (2011) Children’s testimony: a handbook of psychological research and forensic practice (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell, ChichesterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McHugh ML (2012) Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica 22:276–282. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Ministry of Justice (2011) Achieving best evidence in criminal proceedings: guidance on interviewing victims and witnesses, and guidance on using special measures. Retrieved from:
  26. Orbach Y, Pipe M-E (2011) Investigating substantive issues. In: Lamb ME, La Rooy DJ, Malloy LC, Katz C (eds) Children’s testimony: a handbook of psychological research and forensic practice. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, pp 147–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Oxburgh L, Oxburgh G, Gabbert F (2016) Assessing and evaluating quality of interviews: The Forensic Interview Trace™. Paper presented at the International Investigative Interviewing Research Group’s conference, BuckinghamshireGoogle Scholar
  28. Patterson T, Pipe M-E (2009) Exploratory assessments of child abuse: children’s responses to interviewer’s questions across multiple interview sessions. Child Abuse Negl 33:490–514. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Phillips E, Oxburgh G, Gavin A, Myklebust T (2012) Investigative interviews with victims of child sexual abuse: the relationship between question type and investigation relevant information. J Police Crim Psychol 27(1):45–54. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Plotnikoff J, Woolfson R (2001) An evaluation of child witness support. The Scottish Executive Central Research Unit. Retrieved from
  31. Powell MB, Snow PC (2007) Guide to questioning children during the free-narrative phase of an investigative interview. Aust Psychol 42:57–65. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Roberts KP, Lamb ME, Sternberg KJ (2004) The effects of rapport-building style on children’s reports of a staged event. Appl Cogn Psychol 18:189–202. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Santtila P, Korkman J, Sandnabba NK (2004) Effects of interview phase, repeated interviewing, presence of a support person, and anatomically detailed dolls on child sexual abuse interviews. Psychol Crime Law 10:21–35. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Smith K, Milne R (2011) Planning the interview. In: Lamb ME, La Rooy DJ, Malloy LC, Katz C (eds) Children’s testimony: a handbook of psychological research and forensic practice. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, pp 87–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stein LM, Stracke CB, Griffiths A, Milne BJ (2012) Using the Griffiths Question Map (GQM) to assess questions and responses in children’s interviews. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Investigative Interviewing Research Group, Toronto, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  36. Sternberg KJ, Lamb ME, Hershkowitz I, Esplin PW, Redlich A, Sunshine N (1996) The relation between investigative utterance types and the informativeness of child witnesses. J Appl Dev Psychol 17:439–451. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sternberg KJ, Lamb ME, Hershkowitz I, Yudilevitch L, Orbach Y, Esplin PW, Hovav M (1997) Effects of introductory style on children’s abilities to describe experiences of sexual abuse. Child Abuse Negl 21:1133–1146. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Teoh YS, Lamb M (2013) Interviewer demeanor in forensic interviews of children. Psychol Crime Law 19:145–159. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. The Scottish Executive (2011) Guidance on joint investigative interviewing of child witnesses in Scotland. Retrieved from
  40. Walsh D, Bull R (2012) Examining rapport in investigative interviews with suspects: does its building and maintenance work? J Police Crim Psychol 27:73–84. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Walsh D, Bull R (2015) Interviewing suspects: examining the association between skills, questioning, evidence disclosure, and interview outcomes. Psychol Crime Law 21:661–680. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Waterhouse GF, Ridley A, Bull R, La Rooy DJ, Wilcock R (2016) Dynamics of repeated interviews with children. Appl Cogn Psychol 30:713–721. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Police and Criminal Psychology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychology, Faculty of Humanities and Social SciencesUniversity of WinchesterWinchesterUK
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyLondon South Bank UniversityLondonUK
  3. 3.Department of Criminology and LawUniversity of DerbyDerbyUK
  4. 4.School of LawRoyal Holloway University of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations