Mapping Repeated Interviews

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Notes

  1. 1.

    Full analysis of all 21 children’s interview transcripts can be found in Waterhouse et al. (2016).

References

  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. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2149

    Article  PubMed  Google 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2008.01.006

    Article  PubMed  Google 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.19

    Article  Google 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035143

    Article  PubMed  Google 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-3148.2007.00372.x

    Article  Google 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.13477

    Article  PubMed  Google 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 121–136

    Google 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. https://doi.org/10.1037//002I-90IO.S5.1.38

    Article  PubMed  Google 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 167–189

    Google 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0087226

    Article  Google 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 109–128

    Google 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Heydon G (2012) Helping the police with their enquiries: enhancing the investigative interview with linguistic research. Police J 85:101–122. https://doi.org/10.1350/pojo.2012.85.2.581

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Horowitz SW (2009) Direct mixed and open questions in child interviewing: an analog study. Leg Criminol Psychol 14:135–147. https://doi.org/10.1348/135532508X298441

    Article  Google 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731512467511

    Article  Google 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, London

    Google 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 327–361

    Google 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. 31:217–219

  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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.71.5.926

    Article  PubMed  Google 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1318

    Article  Google 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 19–61

    Google 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1489

    Article  Google 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, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  24. McHugh ML (2012) Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica 22:276–282. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2012.031

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google 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: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/victims-and-witnesses/vulnerablewitnesses/achieving-best-evidence-criminal-proceedings.pdf

  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 147–164

    Google 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, Buckinghamshire

  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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2008.12.012

    Article  PubMed  Google 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-011-9093-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Plotnikoff J, Woolfson R (2001) An evaluation of child witness support. The Scottish Executive Central Research Unit. Retrieved from http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2001/

  31. Powell MB, Snow PC (2007) Guide to questioning children during the free-narrative phase of an investigative interview. Aust Psychol 42:57–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/00050060600976032

    Article  Google 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.957

    Article  Google 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316021000044365

    Article  Google 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 87–107

    Google 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, Canada

  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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0193-3973(96)90036-2

    Article  Google 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0145-2134(97)00071-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Teoh YS, Lamb M (2013) Interviewer demeanor in forensic interviews of children. Psychol Crime Law 19:145–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2011.614610

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. The Scottish Executive (2011) Guidance on joint investigative interviewing of child witnesses in Scotland. Retrieved from http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/12/

  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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-011-9087-x

    Article  Google 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2015.1028544

    Article  Google 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3246

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

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.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Genevieve F. Waterhouse.

Ethics declarations

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.

Appendices

Appendix 1 Example Coding Sheet (First Quarter of Child ‘A’ Interview 1)

Explanation of Variables:

  • Time: Each utterance was entered into the sheet as one row. The rows were set out in chronological order, with time indicating that order.

  • Int_Phase: This indicated the phase of the interview the utterance was made in (rapport-building or substantive).

  • Utterance_Type: For an interviewer utterance, the type of question (invitation, directive, option-posing, suggestive, multiple or unknown) or non-question utterance (Supportive, Neutral or Unsupportive) was coded here. For an interviewee utterance, the type of response was coded here; informative (separated by people, actions, locations, items or temporal details) or otherwise (separated into uninformative or non-substantive details).

  • Support_InvestRelevance: For an interviewer question, the support provided (Supportive, Neutral non-supportive) was coded here. For an interviewee informative response, investigative-relevance (high or low) was coded here only for first interviews. For second interviews, the interviewee’s informative response was coded for investigative-relevance, consistency and novelty (high investigative-relevance and new consistent, high investigative-relevance and new contradictory, high investigative-relevance and repeated, low investigative-relevance and new consistent, low investigative-relevance and new contradictory, or low investigative-relevance and repeated).

figureafigurea

Appendix 2 Tables Comparing Question Proportions

Table 3 Number and percentage of question types by interview quality
Table 4 Number and percentage of question types by interview number and quality and percentage difference in question types from second to first interview
Table 5 Child response type by interview quality
Table 6 Child informativeness by question type

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Waterhouse, G.F., Ridley, A.M., Bull, R. et al. Mapping Repeated Interviews. J Police Crim Psych 34, 392–409 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-018-9288-7

Download citation

Keywords

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