Interviewing of children and other vulnerable witnesses is a highly specialized and challenging skill. High-quality training and incremental instruction is critical to promote deep and enduring learning (Brubacher et al. 2020). Yet, although some research has shown that enduring learning occurs when training is good, ongoing quality assurance is still of benefit because skills can decline over time (Lamb 2016; Lamb et al. 2002a; Smith et al. 2009) and because the research continually evolves (Powell and Brubacher 2020). Indeed, in health and social care professions, ongoing review is a fundamental best practice (Brownson et al. 2018; Rothwell et al. 2021; Steen 2013). The focus of the current research was on the feasibility of a train-the-trainer model to facilitate in-house supervision and peer review as ongoing training.

In a standard train-the-trainer model, training is delivered by experts in the subject matter and learners then replicate the training within their organizations (Brownson et al. 2018). In the present research, we adopted this model specifically for the conduct of supervision and peer review. We adopt Brubacher and colleagues’ (2021) definition of peer review, “investigative interviewers’ assessments of the quality of each other’sFootnote 1 interviews for the purposes of integrating, maintaining, or improving interviewing skills” (p. 2). Such assessments can take place in a group or an individual (supervisor-trainee) format (see Steen 2013, for an overview of supervision formats and pros and cons associated with each). Individualized review is considered optimal for forensic interviewers (Lamb et al. 2002b), but it is expensive and time-consuming (Steen 2013). We implemented a model of in-house supervision and peer review (individual and group formats) in six Canadian police services. Skilled interviewers were selected and upskilled (hereafter, specialists) to facilitate group peer review and individual supervisions of their colleagues’ interviews over a 1-year period. We sought the perceptions of the specialists who were responsible for overseeing the project implementation in their service. In the next section, we consider why such a model might be valuable.

Potential Benefits of a Train-the-Trainer Approach to Peer Review

Ongoing skill development and maintenance is a key recommendation of a recent White paper on child forensic interviewing (Korkman et al. 2023), and in-house review is a common method of achieving this goal. In-house review of interview quality by peers (68%) and supervisors (46%) was the most widespread policy around supervision and evaluation among a sample of 145 US interviewers working at Children’s Advocacy Centres (Rivard and Schreiber Compo 2017). Ongoing review of interview quality is also frequently achieved by having outside experts, such as academics, provide individual evaluations of interviews (Cyr et al. 2012; Rischke et al. 2011; Wolfman et al. 2017).

Peer review among colleagues can have significant benefits in promoting an environment that fosters dialogue and motivation and reduces stress and anxiety (Rothwell et al. 2021). When done well, it can support a safer space of collaboration rather than provide a critical lens that could weaken the confidence of learners (Steele 2018; Tornwall 2018). A review of 24 studies on peer review practices in nursing demonstrated that engaging in peer review resulted in greater ownership over one’s own learning and performance improvement, development of critical thinking skills, greater motivation, collegiality, and a sense of belonging for nurses who participated (Tornwall 2018). Peer review may also have benefits in workplaces where initial training is limited. Not everyone in an organization may be able to receive intensive training before they start interviewing children and other vulnerable witnesses. Initial quality intensive training would be the ideal goal (Benson and Powell 2015a; Korkman et al. 2023; Lamb 2016), but in the meantime, budgets, turnover, unexpected leaves, and other organizational barriers mean that some interviewers will have only limited training (Powell and Barnett 2015). Being part of an ongoing review process (in a group and individually) can provide an added layer of support and build capacity within organizations for training (Brownson et al. 2018).

Peer review has an additional benefit of providing ongoing refreshment of knowledge and skills to those conducting the supervision; it affords a means by which interviewers can reflect on their own practice and self-monitor their skills (Boud and Falchikov 2006). Of course, this notion rests on the assumption that those providing the supervision are highly trained and skilled in demonstrating interview best practices. Indeed, one of the most common challenges identified in the small body of literature on peer review and supervision is professionals not feeling competent enough, or not possessing up-to-date knowledge on interviewing best practices, to deliver feedback that is accurate and effective (Rothwell et al. 2021; Tornwall 2018; Wolfman et al. 2017). In advance of discussing the importance of the “specialist” interviewer role, we briefly review interviewing best practices for children and other vulnerable witnesses.

Interviewing Best Practices

There is a high degree of consensus regarding basic principles of best practice for interviewing children and other vulnerable witnesses (and many of these concepts apply to other interviewee populations as well). It is beyond the scope of this paper to provide an in-depth review of these practices, but interested readers can consult references including, but not limited to Benson and Powell (2015a, b); Brubacher et al. (2020); Korkman et al. (2023); Lamb et al., 2018; and Powell and Brubacher 2020. Key principles include ensuring that the interviewee has an opportunity to provide a narrative account of what happened in their own words, at their own pace; that the interviewer elicits the bulk of the evidence with non-leading open-ended questions; that the interviewer adopts a hypothesis-testing and non-judgmental approach; and that the interview follows a phased approach including a preparatory section (including greetings, ground rules, and narrative practice), a substantive (main) phase, and closure (see Korkman et al. 2023).

Non-leading-open-ended questions are considered the most optimal because they tend to elicit longer and more accurate responses, reduce effects of interviewer bias, and make interviewees feel heard (Brubacher et al. 2020; Lamb et al. 2018). Open-ended questions (e.g. ‘What happened next?’ and ‘Tell me more about [pre-disclosed activity]’) are those that encourage elaboration and do not dictate to interviewees specifically what information to provide. In contrast, interrogative wh- questions (i.e. who, when, where, why, how, and specific what questions such as ‘what color was the car?’) encourage briefer responses and constrain interviewees to provide precisely what the interviewer wants to know. As such, they are less desirable than open-ended questions, but generally preferable to closed (yes-no and other option-posing) questions, which yield a high rate of guessing. Suggestive and leading questions should be avoided as much as possible (Brubacher et al. 2020; Korkman et al. 2023; Lamb et al. 2018).

The Importance of a Specialist Interviewer Role

It is well understood that instructors who have up-to-date expertise in the topic of interest will be more effective at delivering feedback information to learners. Interviewers have reported supervisors’ insufficient topic expertise as a major reason for dissatisfaction with supervision (Rothwell et al. 2021; Wolfman et al. 2017). On the other hand, having a supervisor who actively conducted interviews and had up-to-date knowledge was a key reason for satisfaction with supervision. While academics and other forensic interview experts can, and should, be effective sources of interview review and feedback, the pool of experts who can provide these services is limited (Steele 2018). It is advantageous for organizations to build in-house capacity to monitor interview quality on an ongoing basis, with occasional support from external experts (e.g. to update on new research, to consult on and practice scenarios for emerging challenges, and to check fidelity of specialists). A recent study showed that there were very few differences in refresher training when delivered by peers (i.e. peer review sessions), an expert academic, or in a self-paced online module (Cyr et al. 2021). One negative effect of the peer review condition, however, was that less desirable interrogative questions (i.e. “wh- questions”) had increased from the baseline assessment, while the same question type had decreased for the group who had refresher training from the expert.

Peers themselves can develop highly specialized knowledge in interviewing that would make them effective leaders in maintaining ongoing supervision and peer review in their services (Köpsén and Nyström 2015; Steele 2018). Once peers acquire the requisite content knowledge and expertise, their evaluations of their coworkers’ interviews should more closely match that of external experts. For example, in one study, both nursing students and experts conducted peer review evaluations mid-way through the education term and again at the end of a course (Lai 2016). Student and expert ratings were dissimilar at the mid-point but were well correlated by the end of the course because the students had acquired the expertise to make informed evaluation. It seems obvious that to give effective feedback on performance, one would need to be at least knowledgeable (if not skilled) in the content; however, this is often not a consideration. Without a strong foundation, people are unable to think critically about others’ skills (Kaminske 2019).

Current Study

The present research was motivated by a need and desire to improve child interviewing practices, particularly around how to foster a culture of effective ongoing in-house support. Six Ontario police services were invited to take part. Many police officers who interview children in Ontario receive the Investigating Offences Against Children (IOAC) training course offered by the Ontario Police College; however, this is not a standardized practice. In some services, police are not permitted to interview children until they have taken the course, while this restriction is absent in other services, and some services also choose to receive alternate training (instead, or in addition). Most training takes place in a traditional classroom-based model over approximately 3 days, with some opportunities for role playing interview practice and feedback (see Powell et al. 2022). Written evaluation of mock interviews serves as a formal evaluation of skill in the IOAC course, but the nature of any assessment for police not trained through that course is unknown.

We aimed for each service to hold monthly group peer review and one individual supervision per four to six trainees at each site, over a 6-month intervention period. Two ‘specialists’, who could meet key assessment criteria, were designated at each service to lead the supervision and peer review. At the end of the intervention period, specialists were interviewed regarding their perceptions of the project and feasibility to roll it out on a wider scale (i.e. provincially, and perhaps nationally). This paper provides a qualitative analysis of their perceptions and an overview of the challenges associated with the project.

Method

Participants

We planned for the project to involve six sites (police services and their surrounding areas, where applicable) with two Interview Specialists at each site. Sites were chosen on the basis of the authors having already identified potential specialists at a site, site interest and availability, or both. To participate, sites had to agree to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to designate at least two officers (‘specialists’) who could commit to the field of child forensic interviewing for a minimum of 5 years and to the project for at least 2 years. To qualify as a specialist, the guidelines were that nominees conduct child forensic interviews on a regular basis as part of their jobs, have previously conducted a minimum of 30 child forensic interviews, have participated in specific training for child forensic interviewing, agree to participate in monthly peer review and at least two individual supervisions of new trainees, complete a mock interview, and submit a field interview both meeting a set of standards (outlined in materials). The study was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee at [GU-2022-332].

There were initially 13 specialist interviewers and 25 trainees across 6 police services in the province of Ontario that were invited to take part in the project. Pre-measures could not be collected from two specialists and eight trainees (including all four from a site that withdrew) due to workloads, reassignments, and leaves; these participants did not continue with the project. Sites are described in more detail next.

Site A

The interview specialists from site A had 4–5 years of experience interviewing children and vulnerable adults and had taken relevant child interviewing courses. Both were enrolled in an intensive blended training program at the time the current intervention started (based on the one evaluated in Benson and Powell 2015a). The site has over 800 officers who serve a population of more than 380 K, spread over more than 400 km2. Four trainees were nominated at this site; one did not complete due to parental leave. The site conducted at least six group peer reviews during the intervention period and an individual supervision for each trainee.

Site B

One interview specialist from site B had 2.5 years of experience and the other had 4 years of experience interviewing children, and both had taken relevant child interviewing courses. Both were completing the intensive blended training program at the time the current intervention started. The site has 245 officers and serves a population of over 150 K, over an area of 100 km2. Four trainees were nominated at this site. Two did not complete because they were not assigned to conduct child interviews during the data collection period. The site conducted at least six group peer reviews during the intervention period and an individual supervision for each of the two retained trainees.

Site C

Both interview specialists from site B had approximately 6 years of experience interviewing children and had taken relevant child interviewing courses. Both had previously completed the intensive blended course that specialists in sites A and B were enrolled in. The site has 104 officers and serves a population of over 50 K, over an area of 315 km2. This site withdrew due to organizational changes (e.g. one specialist was reassigned to a different unit). All specialists and trainees from this site were thus excluded.

Site D

The interview specialists from site D had 2–3 years of experience interviewing children and had taken relevant child interviewing courses. Neither had taken the blended intensive training course but were offered enrolments at the beginning of the intervention period. The site has 829 officers and serves a population of over 700 K, over an area of 439 km2. Four trainees were nominated at this site. One did not complete because that officer was unable to engage in pre-intervention measures within the time frame. The site was unable to conduct group peer reviews that included the trainees during the intervention period (group peer review was only done with the specialists and another experienced officer). However, informal individual supervisions were held regularly for all trainees.

Site E

The interview specialists from site E each had 4 years of experience interviewing children and had taken relevant child interviewing courses. Neither had taken the blended course but were offered enrolments at the beginning of the intervention period. The site has 904 officers and serves a population of over 600 K over an area of 38 094 km2. Four trainees were nominated at this site. One did not complete because that officer was unable to engage in pre-intervention measures within the time frame. One specialist took unexpected leave during the intervention period and did not continue. As a result of this and shift schedules, the site was only able to conduct one group peer review during the intervention period, and only one trainee received individual supervision. Thus, the remaining three trainees at this site were excluded from data analysis.

Site F

The interview specialists from site F both had 1.5 years of experience interviewing children and had taken relevant child interviewing courses. Neither had taken the blended intensive interviewing course but were offered enrolments and completed the training during the intervention period. The site has over 2000 officers and serves a population of over 1.4 million, over an area of over 1200 km2. Five trainees were nominated at this site. One did not complete because that officer was unable to engage in pre-intervention measures within the time frame. A second trainee was unable to complete post-measures due to medical leave. The site conducted four group peer reviews during the intervention period and an individual supervision for each trainee.

Materials and Procedure

Specialists were chosen based on the criteria reported in the “Participants” section. In May 2022, they submitted a field interview conducted with a child aged 12 years or younger and engaged in a 20-min mock interview with a trainer who had expertise in playing the role of a child and giving feedback (see Powell et al. 2022). Both interviews were evaluated for the proportions of open-ended questions used and adherence to general interview guidelines (see Appendix 1).

Specialists received two half-day workshops at the end of May 2022. The first workshop refreshed basic-level skills such as question types, the use of open-ended questions to elicit a narrative account, and phases of an interview protocol. The second workshop covered peer review, including topics around the importance and utility of peer review and procedural suggestions for conducting group peer review and individual supervisions. During that workshop, specialists were given guides that they could use as tools to help evaluate interviews (Appendix 1; Brubacher et al. 2021; Danby et al. 2022).

Half the sites (B, C, and D) were randomly chosen to receive a third workshop in June 2022, on providing feedback. The intention of this manipulation was to assess whether there was any added benefit of providing extra instruction on how to give feedback to peers. However, due to unforeseen staffing changes at sites C and D, the impact of this training could not be assessed.

Once the initial measures and training were complete, the intervention period began. Initially, a 6-month period from July 2022 to January 2023 was anticipated, with intention to collect post-measures and follow-up qualitative interviews in February 2023. During the intervention period, sites were required to conduct six group peer review sessions (one per month) and one individual supervision per trainee (4–5 trainees per site). Due a variety of challenges, which will be discussed in the “Results” section, only one site had fully completed the requirements by the end of the period. Qualitative interviews (see Appendix 2 for questions) were undertaken by one of the authors in March and April 2023, to elicit feedback on the project as planned, but also to learn about the challenges sites had faced. For sites B, D, and F, qualitative interviews were conducted with both specialists at the same time. In site A, the two specialists were unable to meet at the same time, so their interviews were conducted separately. For site E, the remaining specialist was interviewed individually, and the session could not be recorded due to a technical issue, so notes were taken. Site C had ceased participation and thus no specialists were interviewed.

After the qualitative interviews, it was decided to give sites another 4 months to complete more group peer review sessions and complete an individual supervision for all trainees. Thus, quantitative data collection on performance changes is ongoing.

Coding of Qualitative Interviews

Thematic analysis was employed to identify meaningful concepts in the data (Braun and Clarke 2006). Audio recordings of the qualitative interviews were transcribed. Two authors then read the transcripts independently, to familiarize themselves with the content. From here, the authors individually began to reduce the data by extracting topic ideas. Initially, the authors took a highly data-driven approach to coding, by making lists of as many topics (codes) as were necessary to capture the text. Throughout this process, topics were revised and recombined as needed, and interviews were re-read considering revised categories. Then, the two authors met to discuss the topics and their perspectives on overarching themes. The authors had both identified similar key themes, so the themes were defined and named at this stage. Finally, the first author re-read the transcripts again to ensure that the themes and sub-topics as defined accurately reflected and fully captured what was discussed.

To verify the trustworthiness of the analysis, four criteria were evaluated: credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability (Shenton 2004). Credibility was assessed via evaluating how congruent the findings are with reality. Both authors who coded the interviews, as well as the fourth author, are experienced forensic interview trainers with between 10 and 20 years of training experience with police, and the third author has been in law enforcement for over 25 years. Thus, the authors can attest to the vast procedural challenges in policing that underlie the difficulties reported by participants in the study. The findings are highly reflective of all authors’ anecdotal experiences. Transferability of findings is achieved through the detailed explanation of the participant selection and characteristics and the study methodology. Dependability was obtained through reflective discussions among the authors about the topics and themes. Confirmability relates to the researchers maintaining objectivity and ensuring that the findings represent the views of the participants rather than the authors. This was achieved by presenting the data back to the participants, embedded in the results section, to verify that the quotes and context were accurate representations of the participants’ sentiments. All participants were invited to offer further comments and clarifications if needed, but none did.

Results

Qualitative interviews indicated overall strong support for the project. Specialists from all services saw the usefulness of in-house review and incremental approaches to developing interviewers, based on their experiences with the project, as illustrated by the following two quotes.

I truly felt like this can improve child interviewing throughout the province in policing if these things are followed up, if we can get these steps done with officers coming into the unit and going through that process, then it is going to work in improving it, and going through the reviews and making our interviewers better so we don’t have to go to see kids and redo the kids’ interviews because we F’d it up.

We saw a lot of benefits – just as your first people land and you’re learning the mistakes and you’re going over what those are, you’re going over the protocol on a regular basis, and then you see the people coming after and you see the practice being put into place. You could really see the difference that it was making with child interviews.

The specialists differed with respect to what aspects of peer review and training they found most useful in their service. Their comments were organized into four overarching themes: Organizational Buy-In is Critical, (Different) Training is Needed at all Levels, Peer Review Format Isn’t One-Size-Fits-All, and Peer Review can Enhance Cohesion. Quotes have been edited for grammar and conciseness, and square brackets indicate additions or replacements (e.g. of peoples’ names) by the author team. All specialists reviewed the edited quotes. To protect anonymity, we removed identifying features, including the site identifier, from the quotes. All five sites participated fully in the qualitative interviews and contributed their thoughts.

Organizational Buy-In Is Critical

Every service articulated the importance of organizational support or “buy-in” for the project. Despite that all services had committed to the project at the outset, they differed in the extent to which they were able to participate fully, and this often had to do with circumstances beyond the specialists’ control. Four subthemes emerged related to organizational buy-in. These involved having adequate time to participate in peer review, the service giving priority to the importance and requirements of the project, identification of participants that met project criteria, and an environmental culture that valued the project and the role of the interview specialists. These themes are described subsequently.

Adequate Time

Specialists from all five services articulated the need for protected time to do peer review, both for the specialist to organize schedules and lead the sessions, and for the trainees to attend. Getting everyone together (at least one specialist plus approximately four trainees) even once per month was tremendously challenging for all given heavy caseloads and other obligations, as explained by one specialist: “It’s just so hard in many policing services. We run low staff but a huge number of cases. Especially when you’re dealing with kids’ cases and they just keep coming in, it’s so hard to set aside that time.” Specialists talked about how helpful it was to have a set time and timeframe for conducting the group sessions.

One thing I did find beneficial was [having] a timeline. I know that we had difficulties with it, but it did force us into peer reviews. We were saying, “we [the unit] have to do a peer review this month” and having time set aside for that, so almost like having those mandated – you have to have this number of peer reviews done in a certain timeframe – it might have been frustrating at first trying to organize it all but if there wasn’t a timeframe set it can easily be put on the backburner.

It can be hard to have time to do all the peer reviews, whether that’s group or one-on-one. I find that we struggle with a regular caseload. The group peer review, maybe it’s just with all the caseloads, [but] the scheduling and stuff–maybe that is something for more of a supervisory role; they do more the administrative stuff and not dealing with the caseload.

One site also noted the importance of dedicated time for individual supervisions:

Ideally having an entire day to work with that one person without distractions, setting up a time to do this individual supervision but having that time and that commitment from the other person and that supervisors allow it. [We need] a designated timeslot where, “No, this is all we’re doing. We’re focusing on this and we’re picking an actual field interview to do and supervising”.

Priority

Specialists from three services talked about the need for their service to make peer review for child interviewers a priority, the benefit of which is highlighted by the following specialist:

We had the buy-in of our staff sergeant. If it came to the day of [a group peer review] and there was an emergency that came in, she’d pull potentially the people that weren’t part of the project if it was really needed, so our timeline was always stuck to, and we never cancelled a meeting.

The theme of priority also included ensuring that trainees were able to take part in pre-requisite steps, like securing a place in an approved child interviewing course, which was required in some services before an officer was allowed to conduct an interview with a child. Relatedly, supervisors should—but did not always—recognize trainees as being part of the project, as explained by another specialist, “We have supervisors hand out calls, so we’re trying to say, ‘we need those individuals to do a child interview that we’ll monitor’, but [the trainees] are being assigned other cases”. When this happened, it reduced the opportunity for specialists to carry out individual supervisions.

Identification of Participants

Leadership regarding choosing the right specialists and trainees was another critical component of organizational buy-in. Despite that specialists had to meet some core requirements, there were differences in their expertise levels. Some specialists conducted all, or nearly all, child interviews at their service and had received multiple and varied trainings, while others were generalist interviewers with less experience specifically interviewing young people. With regard to trainees, in some sites, they were chosen because they had interest and motivation for interviewing children, whereas in other sites, availability and practical needs drove selection.

Our major issue was that [two of our site’s trainees] don’t do child interviews. We can’t differentiate what would be an acceptable child interview [to give them, to monitor] because we don’t want to risk compromising the interview with someone who doesn’t have the experience. It’s been a challenge trying to find that perfect interview, maybe just a child witness where it’s not maybe going to result in charges – but obviously very hard to say for sure that’s not going to result in charges. [Trainee’s interview] was going more and more off the rails, where the kid was like, “I don’t want to talk to this person” and then at that point you’re like, “I’ve explained it to you in my individual supervision”, but also, I’m torturing this child, so we need to like… I don’t know. It was difficult to not intervene there to make sure that we can still help the kid.

We’re considered the “Specialists”, but the trainees are basically coming in at the same level. They’ve done the [same initial] course at the same time [as us] so I definitely think having [the advanced/intensive course] under our belts, to say, “Okay, I’m giving you some feedback on something else that you don’t already know”. Maybe it means a little bit more, like, “Okay I’ve done this [advanced] course and here’s the material to back it up and why it’s done”.

Environmental Culture

All specialists discussed, to some extent, the need for a work environment that values peer review and that recognized the nature of the specialist role. Sites where there was strong organizational support for peer review were better able to meet the needs of the project; “You need a person who is not in an investigative role to oversee and implement it and be following up with those meetings and conducting them. For me, it was so challenging to have to step away from my investigations and organize everything”.

It’s getting everybody onboard in organizations to understand what those aspects are and why they’re beneficial. We [Specialists] are all like, “Yes, this is good. Can you tell our bosses?” I think it needs to be pushed up even higher maybe to a more supervisory role. Even just a presentation, “This is what the studies show, why the [peer] reviews are important, this is what the goal is”.– that’s how I viewed the project… this is a really great idea. I wish people understood.

Specialists from three services talked about the challenges of their specialist role not being recognized by their peers. In some cases, specialists had less overall experience than their trainees, but more specific experience interviewing children. When trainees did not appreciate the expertise that their specialists brought, the trainees did not engage with the peer review process as well.

My partner [trainee] has a tonne of experience interviewing bad guys, but not with children. So, it’s tricky sometimes to make sure that they’re getting the proper instruction and support and that you’re actually taking the time to do that, because–knowing that this person is they’re experienced, they’ve worked here a really long time, but you forget that they haven’t had the course and they haven’t interviewed kids, which is totally different.

We’re supposed to be managing this project, but everyone has projects and they [trainees] don’t really feel the need to help us with ours. With this project, it’s kind of put us in a bit of a supervisory role within our own unit even by labelling. It’s not a huge deal but there is a sense of lack of compliance.

(Different) Training Is Needed at All Levels

All specialists commented on the need for training at all levels of interview experience, from novice interviewer with no experience interviewing (or interviewing children), through to intermediate level interviewers, and the specialists themselves. Their discussions centred on the different types of training that might be appropriate for these experience levels. First and foremost, however, they agreed on the importance of specialized training.

We need our upper management, investigators, and attorneys to understand how important [these skills are] when they’re interviewing the kids so that we can have that commitment. There are a lot of services, not just ours, are like that [without specialized training]. I mean [organization] have a criminal investigation unit where they do everything, and then they have a case involving a child and they’re like, “Oh yes, I did that [a course]”, and they go and do the interview and then you have… –…Just no. It does kind of stress me out sometimes about how we’ve designed this to be done in policing.

It’s not fair to an interviewer [not to have appropriate training] and that interview could get thrown out if the officer is not following the protocol or has no experience. That’s a lot of stress and a lot of pressure for that investigator to try to get a disclosure from a child that has never interviewed a child before. And especially too because most of our cases, all we’re relying on is the statement.

I’ve had requests to do the child interview, from officers who already “trained”. We have a standard that an officer must be “trained” [have completed one of the standard training courses through the Ontario Police College] in order to interview a child aged 10 and under where there are sexual abuse concerns. Child interviews that fall outside of those parameters can be completed by any [anonymized service] officer. Lots of times, these interviews are being done by officers on the road and not necessarily in the detective offices.

Specialists offered up suggestions for what training might look like across different levels of experience. We split their suggestions into three levels of training.

Trainees

Specialists at three services commented that there should be an onboarding process for new interviewers. This initial training could be very basic—just a few hours, and feasibly self-paced (e.g. online). The goal of this initial training should be to deliver some basic principles about interviewing children and an overview of question types and interview phases to ensure that everyone was familiar with the terminology and definitions. Such a process would allow everyone to be “speaking the same language” when peer review sessions were held. This basic training could be available to everyone, even while trainees were waiting to receive a place on child interviewing courses. Specialists also suggested that trainees could shadow specialists for several months.

Training opportunities for front line staff should include basic information about the protocol and why it is used, and some behavioral considerations. This would be helpful for the front-line officer.

What about if you had the new people who came into the office prior to having a full course, what if you even had a half-day online type of thing that gave them a couple of hours of briefly going through a protocol. Week 1 in the office they need to participate in this virtual online training, and then once that happens, eventually they’ll get additional training and then we’ll do peer review and things like that. Just to give them a basic Coles Notes version as to how the protocol should work.

It’s generally our partners that are monitoring and we’re all partnered up with a new person, so they’re watching our interviews, and then on top of that we’re doing their interviews for them if the kid is under 12, so they’re seeing multiple interviews being done. So, when they’re doing interviews with kids over 12, even though none of them have [received training yet], I know [trainee] does a practice narrative, we’ve talked about that why that is and why that’s important but he’s learning all those things just because of how much he’s watching.

I would want a trainee officer who is potentially coming to our unit to have a training spot with us for three to six months that can shadow us for a little bit, that we could do mock interviews, they can start getting those courses, and before that individual even starts in the unit and starts getting a case load they’re trained up. They come with us, they scribe our interviews, they watch how we do our interview style, that’s the first stage of it.

Intermediate

Intermediate level interviewers were considered those who had received basic training, including attending an approved child interviewing course, and were conducting interviews with children on at least a semi-regular basis. These interviewers were expected to continue to interview children regularly. Specialists from three services suggested that the most significant investments in child interview training should be made for this level, because these interviewers were familiar with the terminology and broad principles of interviewing children and had experience upon which to reflect. As such, this group would benefit the most from additional training and from group peer review. Even within the intermediate group, specialists suggested training should be incremental.

Then we would start participating in mock interviews with them, then near the end of the stage of their six months we go, “Okay, we want you to start interviewing kids with cases. Remember these points”, and doing a couple of individual supervision sessions with them throughout those six months. Field interviews are really important, and we have to get there, but I think starting with another process [mocks] first to help it sink in more before going into field interviews.

Specialist

The specialists were somewhat mixed on their thoughts about what type of training specialists should have, but all agreed that it was needed and should be continual (i.e. even after they were recognized as specialists). Some suggested that they would need additional training of some kind (e.g. extra training around supervision and giving of feedback) over and above their peers before taking on the role. Other specialists focused their thoughts on continual training and support available for specialists, like networks and external peer reviews.

If we had designated child interviewers who understood the peer review process -this needs a lot of training not just the five days [standard training]. No matter how many years you’re on, your interviews can improve - there is new research that comes out. Us supervising and going through individual supervisions is training for us as well, because you are reminding yourself of what’s important in a child interview. Honestly, teaching is sometimes the best way to educate yourself as well. You have to have constant reminders, especially in a policing world where you can get off track easily because of the situations. [Having a] refresher mock interview every six months or a year, being able to teach and go into individual supervisions, participating in and watching mock interviews. Participating in those activities can keep you up to date and refreshed and reminding yourself of the protocols and the process in conducting child interviews.

I would love it if there was a regular dissemination of what’s new coming out, like a new case law–instead of me taking the time on my days off to search for that information–if there was a regular distribution among child interviewers in the province.

Instruction along the way has been helpful. We were initially trained in the [standard training] and then you’re doing the actual interviews and then having [the intensive course] has been hugely beneficial for myself. I think most people who take the [standard course], that’s the big week that they really take away from it and everyone raves about the instruction but then it’s nice to have that additional [intensive course] because I found the kids that come in, we get that don’t know why they’re there, and so it’s nice once you’ve met some of those roadblocks to then get further instruction to be like, “okay I get it now because I’ve had that happen three times” or whatever, so it’s nice to have the continuance.

We help to train [the trainees] and make sure that they’re doing things properly but they’re only going to be as good as what we’re teaching them, and if our skills aren’t improving then are we really helping them, truly? One of the benefits that I found for this project was that it made us better interviewers. I think that the [refresher training] that we had at the beginning [of the present project] helped refocus us. I remember going through those sessions [and thinking] “Oh my, I’m not doing that”. It would be beneficial for us to continue to submit interviews, like once a year, so we get that feedback that we really are on the right track, and you have full faith that what we’re providing to the people we’re working with is correct… based on your standards, if we’re actually doing a good job.

[Advanced/intensive training] for child interview specialists and connecting with peers from other services to learn about their approaches and share ideas. Consultation with other child interview specialists to share challenges, successes, and for brainstorming. Refresher training, updates about new case law and interviewing approaches. Review of hallmark case where a well-done child interview is completed and can be reviewed.

Only one service mentioned the importance of feedback delivery (and it was not a service that participated in the feedback training).

We’re lucky in our office everyone is extremely open to feedback. We’re very cognisant of the fact that we’re not [causing] brain overload with the feedback that we’re giving to people. When you watch those videos, “Oh we could have done this so differently” but you have to hone in on just a few things that you’re not going to hinder that development or make them feel not confident moving forward in interviews.

Peer Review Formats Aren’t One-Size-Fits-All

The specialists and their services differed in their perceptions of the utility of peer review formats. Some groups preferred the group peer review, while others thought individual supervision could be more valuable, and other sites did not have a preference but made comments on the pros and cons of both formats. We first present their views on the individual supervision.

Individual Supervision

One site suggested that individual supervision was generally less intimidating for trainees compared to group supervisions. However, the process that we suggested for individual supervision was generally considered too onerous and time-consuming for most sites. Another issue with the individual supervisions was that the specialists were unable to do them very soon after the interviews had been conducted, so they were frequently revisiting an interview with trainees that had been done weeks or months earlier when the trainee was less able to remember the interview.

Like, I have so many statements that I could be working on right now the last thing that I need to do is go and kill two hours talking about how I [as the trainee] did something a couple of months ago. I have people I need to get in now. If you’re going to them a few days later or whatever how many months later, it also may not be as fresh in their memory and they don’t know what you’re talking about.

One problem that compounded the challenge was that specialists at two services tried to monitor and transcribe the interview they were doing an individual supervision on, “You’re trying to transcribe at the same time too and then offer your input afterwards.” They reported that it was difficult to focus on the interview itself. We did not intend for this to be the procedure, but since most sites do not have interviews transcribed regularly, it bears mentioning as an added problem for individual supervision. At the same time, three services found that having a checklist of suggested items was helpful to guide ideas, “to know what to look for and comment on”.

We just hand out [the checklist] and as people are working away, we’ve done it where we just have the video on a laptop, and people use the checklist for the peer review. There are a couple of people in the unit that don’t do the child interviewing on a regular basis, so we found that it was helpful to see what they’re actually looking for.

I gave the feedback the suggestions and really tried to follow that model, “Here’s what you did good with the rules and the questions but you kind of got right into the close-ended kind of yes-no questions a little too quickly”. I’d watch it and give written feedback in a Word document to them. I also summarize how questions are coded and examples.

Further, compared to group peer review, the individual supervisions allowed for a more precise and “data-backed” evaluation of someone’s interview.

I think we sugar-coat everything with the [group] peer review. One [trainee] probably asked about 40 to 50 questions and the kid says a few responses, and there is absolutely no pause before the child could even finish their last word, then there is a new question. The way I worded [the feedback] was just so soft like, “Yes, so just let [the child] do their work. Let that pause happen and then you’ll probably get more information”. I guess it’s fine, but it was almost like I should have said, “These are the amount of questions that you asked and this is the responses”–just the data. This is what happened during this interview–let it speak for itself and say, “so what do you think resulted in these stats?”

Where you’re critiquing an actual transcript which is very different to watching the video. When you read through it – I thought I was asking open-ended questions, but I was actually asking yes-no or almost a forced answer question.

I think it would have been very helpful to actually sit down with people and to be able to give them that time to go through their interviews and code them. I felt like I had the training, it’s just the time.

As an alternative to evaluating a field interview, one service suggested that mock interviews could be used for individual supervision exercises. This would avoid problems of trainees conducting interviews they do not have the training or experience for, and the delays that inevitably occurred between the trainee conducting the interview and the specialist evaluating it. Critically, it would require that the “interviewee” be trained to deliver the mock interview and associated feedback (Powell et al. 2022).

Basically, a peer review of their mock interview… the other benefit with it is the person being interviewed can give feedback. So, the person who is the child can say, “I didn’t really have time to answer that question or think about it because you asked me another question right afterwards”.

Individual supervision was viewed as something that could be done optionally, with certain interviewers, rather than something that should happen for all trainees. For example, it might be relevant for new interviewers who are showing the skill and motivation to move up to intermediate level interviewers. Specialists at two sites reported that while they found it too challenging to conduct formal individual supervisions, they often did brief informal reviews immediately after an interview (either that the trainee did and the supervisor monitored or vice versa). This could be a valuable alternative for services to consider compared to a more formalized process (see Stewart et al. 2011).

There is not a week that goes by where we [specialists] aren’t troubleshooting with somebody, so the individual peer review is constantly going on and we have such a great group of people that everyone is so receptive.

We’ve been doing ongoing peer reviews where we talk about questions. We say, “I wouldn’t have asked it that way”, or even in our own [interviews], like “I shouldn’t have done that. See, when I said that, that was a dumb question”, and so we have those conversations almost daily when it comes to interviews. Or to do it immediately after the interview, a one-on-one when someone has just completed an interview. Let’s say [trainee’s] doing an interview and I’m monitoring it, but I need to monitor based on the information he’s getting as far as the investigation goes, but if we had [other specialist] also in there going through the checklist and almost doing the review live and then we can have a conversation with [trainee] afterwards. Then we’re not having to set a separate time and it’s happening right away. We would still need someone to monitor the statement from a criminality aspect but if we had a peer reviewer there looking at questions and doing something on a more of a condensed form then we could... just to sit down, like [trainee]’s going to do an interview and you’re going to monitor it and I’m going to go through and check things off. Even if we do that once a month would be beneficial.

Group Supervision

Specialists felt that group supervision was more temporally economical than individual supervision, but (a) everyone involved needed to be at a basic level of competency to benefit from and participate meaningfully in the session, and (b) the sessions needed to have a ‘point’ to be worth the time. Specialists agreed that peer review in the form of just another administrative task was a waste of everyone’s valuable time, but that when sessions were well-organized with a specific topic or direction (e.g. a pertinent feature to be discussed), everyone could learn something new. Specialists had ideas for the structure and content of group sessions. For example, one suggested sharing exemplar interviews, “Don’t take in your interview that you think that you did really bad on. Let’s watch some of those great interviews. Bring me your best so we can see how they ask that question”. A specialist at another service also suggested that peer review could be done in real time on a mock interview.

If you do a mock interview… everyone’s watching, making notes, and then we do the peer review to that immediately, so it makes that safer environment but at the same time we’re still making notes of all the things that we need to bring up with the person. Everyone is there together, and it creates more feedback because you feel more familiar with the mock interview as opposed to just a case that you know nothing about. It’s easier to schedule, it’s easier to get done, and then you’re also not affecting a [child] who is really trying to talk about a case and might not have the best person interviewing them at that point because they haven’t done that stage yet.

Specialists at three services suggested that interviews could be watched ahead of the session (so as not to use time during the session), but this procedure had negatives too; “We try to give two- or three-weeks’ notice [to] watch it and then come together. But it’s very hard to get everybody. You maybe get three, or one person didn’t have an opportunity to watch it, or they’re on vacation”. There was also a suggestion that group peer review could be done more widely (beyond the service), in some circumstances.

In the States they have a national centre and so there are more opportunities for people to zoom in on Friday mornings and jump into a peer review and participate in this. We don’t have those opportunities here as easily and so I do think more of those opportunities across a province for people to be able to jump into these and watch another service’s interview and then sit in on the peer review and listen to new research as it comes up.

Specialists from four services expressed that the appeal of group peer review was getting a variety of perspectives, and a general refreshing of skills, as highlighted in these quotes:

You would get different opinions too, where you get different perspectives. Like, one person will say, “That’s open-ended”, and one person was like, “No that was specific”, and then the discussions around that, I thought that was interesting. You can see other people’s opinions on your use of questions and language.

The [group sessions] were amazing. We absolutely loved them. Even though we would be the facilitators, every time somebody took something home, including [us specialists] - a new skillset or a reminder about the temporal stuff or to really hang in there in the narrative practice. Those were things that I know that people really took home in addition to getting to that open-ended funnel. Group peer review, it’s where we’re getting to see a variety, that is the key. Everybody interviews differently, and everyone brings a new skillset and a different tone and demeanour in the room, and I think that that is so important. Meeting with people and doing the individual supervision is fine, I don’t think that it was hugely impactful to be honest. It was just one interview – it’s just my opinion and theirs.

The site that really found the group approach to be beneficial included many other parties in the session, such as prosecutors and victim services:

We had child advocates join us for the [group] meetings. That was hugely impactful because it was a completely different lens. They’re not thinking about the charge package and the warrant like what goes through our minds when we’re taking over an investigation, and they could also add the component as far as what comes out in court later. They’re seeing when these interviews are being played: what are the sticking points, what are the concerns, what are the issues that defence often brings up? The Victim Services worker, the crisis intervention, they added that mental health component and the wellbeing of the child and really working in rapport and comfort language. Not having just six cops in a room sitting around talking about what we thought. I remember one session about genitalia and [the child was using]–to me–reasonable terms that a layperson would understand, and it would be suitable for court. One of the officers just kept going at wanting to get them to say vagina, penis, which was just not in their vocabulary, and the court clinic worker said, “You’re wasting their energy, first of all. And, they’ve already answered that question, and if it came to court, and they were so concerned that maybe the layperson didn’t understand it then that’s when it would be the Crown’s job to ask a little bit more specific questions, but you’ve got the basics of what terms they’re talking about, and which body parts they are, so move on and don’t continue to go down that funnel and waste their energy and start getting into those really closed-ended questions”. It was nice to hear that from somebody who has actually seen that play out in a courtroom.

Some of the services operated on different shifts, which made group supervision difficult. However, other services took this as an opportunity for the two specialists to separately lead meetings as needed, as expressed by this specialist, “I think having two points of contact is very key. This cannot rest on the shoulders of one person to implement it because I know that there were days where [other specialist] couldn’t make a meeting because she had an emergent case come in”. At the same time, the two specialists from this service noted they had different strengths, which they used to their advantage. For example, one specialist was highly organized and took the lead in scheduling the sessions, while the other had more direct child interview experience and thus potentially more specialized content knowledge. The service also suggested that the group peer review did not have to take place every single month, “We decided to take a break [in a busy month] which I think is good too. Everyone just needed to recharge and not have to worry about one more thing on their schedule, so I think it’s important to recognise when maybe you have to slow it down for a little bit”.

Peer Review Can Enhance Cohesion

Three sites expressed the feeling that the project increased cohesion, motivation, or a feeling like the team was part of something important. This sentiment was not expressed at two sites whose shift arrangements meant that the specialists did not work together.

I would say before the pilot we worked much more in our individual teams. One of us [specialists] is available to talk [interview issues] through and so people felt I think a lot more comfortable coming forward with questions. It opened the dialogue and once we started actually doing the peer reviews and we did a couple and then we would have people that were part of the pilot project and they’re like we’ll just join in we’re coming today we want to see what this is all about and then it just developed into this familiarity and people started to get more conscious.

Discussion

In recent years, researchers and practitioners have called for a “best practice” model of supervision for forensic interviewers (Steele 2018; Wolfman et al. 2017)—similar to best practice guidance on how to conduct interviews with children and other vulnerable witnesses (Brubacher et al. 2020; Lamb et al. 2018) and how to train those skills (Benson and Powell 2015a; Lamb, 2016; Stewart et al. 2011). The benefits of a train-the-trainer model for ongoing supervision and peer review were clear; all specialists in the current study endorsed the project, broadly speaking, with different opinions about which parts were most valuable. In sites where both specialists and trainees were typically on the same shifts, they reported increased motivation and cohesion. Some sites found group peer review sessions more efficacious, while other sites preferred individual supervisions (albeit informal in nature).

The finding that specialists at all sites perceived barriers to conducting supervision and peer review is not a novel one. Researchers who have sought the perceptions of forensic interviewers and other professionals (e.g. clinicians, health care professionals) around training, supervision and peer review have found that time and financial constraints limit the number of supervisors with knowledge available and increase scheduling challenges. A lack of managerial support for the process and for the role (both specialist and trainee) and geographical distance can also be barriers (Benson and Powell 2015b; Brownson et al. 2018; Rothwell et al. 2021; Wolfman et al. 2017). Several specialists in the current study articulated concerns about their role as specialists not being clearly recognized in their services; as a result, they were given a job to do but did not have the organizational support to deliver it. This may also implications for the specialists’ abilities to assist trainee interviewers in skill development.

The need for organizational buy-in was the most prevalent theme in our interviews with specialists. Despite that we had MOUs with the sites, each service differed in the extent to which they could comply. Indeed, although only one site was lost during the project (and one specialist from a second site), we learned after the project concluded that both specialists from two additional sites, and another specialist from one site, have been moved into other roles. Thus, approximately 1.5 years after the project began, from the original 12 specialists only four remain. Turnover is a key challenge for the efficacy of train-the-trainer models, particularly when experienced trainers leave their positions (Brownson et al. 2018). This is a hurdle that cannot be fixed by more research on best practice or more funding for effective intensive training. Instead, it needs to be remedied by having the appropriate policies in place for managing and prioritizing ongoing supervision on a large scale, such as the development of a provincial team of child interview specialists who can consult on the most challenging cases and who can facilitate supervision and peer review. Developing and then sustaining a large pool of skilled trainers was one of six critical factors for success in a train-the-trainer model in healthcare (Brownson et al. 2018).

A Proposed Model

Two sites elaborated on what a specialist train-the-trainer model could look like:

There should be [specialist] interviewers for the regions, like Central, West, all those kinds of regions. This is so important that [specialists] should not have any other job other than offering specialized services of child interviewing to regions. Why isn’t there a multi-jurisdictional child interview team? In each region there could be a team. There is obviously going to be some travelling and stuff. There is a task force for everything except this.

There’s a designated interview team that travels the province if someone is murdered. They call the team, and they go and interview them. How they work as a team, and they go they develop their interview plans; they decide who is going to be the best person on their team would fit with these people. It was just unbelievably fascinating – but, “let’s not do that for kids”. It just would be so nice to have this hub of officers across Ontario that specialise in this and that can support each other and share information.

The specialists recognized that specialist interviewers need to be developed over time and that this could be achieved with a tiered approach to training (Milne et al. 2019; Steele 2018). New interviewers could receive a brief self-paced online module (e.g. 4–8 h, over a week) that provides a topical overview and helps novice interviewers understand the terminology being discussed in the individual and group peer review. This procedure would allow the biggest financial resources to be directed at intermediate level interviewers; ultimately developing some of those interviewers to serve as in-house specialists with succession planning. A combination of skill, experience, and motivation could eventually lead to the placement on the provincial team.

The specialists were mixed on their opinions about how much, and what type of, ongoing support would be needed for specialists; we note, however, that the skill level of the specialists in our sample did differ. If services do not choose specialists who are highly knowledgeable and skilled interviewers, or they choose specialists who reinforce poor interview practices, trainee interviewers will not accrue benefits (Steele 2018; Wolfman et al. 2017). We suggest that with an incremental training approach, specialist interviewers would be developed (rather than ‘picked’ as in the current project), so the level of support could be relatively minor and perhaps in consultation with forensic interview and academic experts once or twice per year. Nevertheless, our specialists perceived that continual skilling of supervisors was desirable (Köpsén and Nyström 2015).

Our specialists also differed on their perceptions of the format of peer review. It was clear that format must be flexible because each police service operates differently due to density and size of the population it serves over a particular geographical area, which has carry-on effects on shift assignments, budgets, and the physical location of officers. In the clinical literature, Green (2013) discussed model-specific versus generic approaches to supervision and concluded that a combination of approaches may be of value. Translated to setting standards for forensic interview supervision and peer review, we suggest that a set of guidelines with flexible targets may be best (e.g. engage in monthly peer review for at least 9 months per calendar year; use a checklist of interviewer behaviours to guide content of feedback but do not attempt to address them all). A recognition that flexible formats need to be considered in train-the-trainer models (similar to peer review) has also been reported in public health training (Brownson et al. 2018). Across eight sites interviewed by Brownson and colleagues, site representatives reported five different formats of training delivery including fully face-to-face, fully online, and combinations of both approaches.

Limitations

The challenges in project implementation cannot be understated. Due to the loss of specialists and trainees (including one entire site), we were unable to assess perceptions of the utility of the training on giving feedback to half of the participating sites. Overall, attrition was a significant concern, as was the fact that sites had to adapt our planned model of in-house supervision and peer review to their own circumstances, so the implementation was not the same at all sites. Despite that these limitations affected methodological control, we must embrace them because they are inevitable consequences of the existing policies towards child interview training for police services in the region.

Further limitations to this work involve the generalizability of the data collected. Specialists from five police services in Ontario provided their perspectives. Our collective experience tells us that their viewpoints are broadly representative of the perspectives of skilled, well-trained interviewers elsewhere in Ontario and Canada, but nevertheless, the findings of the current study may not generalize to interviewers in all contexts.

Conclusion

The present project offers numerous learning opportunities in response to the challenges we encountered. Our findings support a call for more effective policies such that evidence-based practices—like incremental training and ongoing review—have a greater potential to be effective in actual practice (Korkman et al. 2023; Powell and Barnett 2015; Milne et al. 2019). The present research shows that a train-the-trainer model can have value in improving interview skill within services, but must be supported by top-down policies and long-term investment in skilled, well-trained interviewers who participate in ongoing professional development and are thus poised to ensure in-house quality control.