Advertisement

Planning the Forensic Interview

Chapter

Abstract

The overarching goal of forensic interviewing is to seek the truth. Appropriate preinterview planning aids interviewers in accomplishing this goal. In the current chapter, we discuss and make specific recommendations regarding how interviewers should prepare for the child forensic interview. We highlight the potential benefits and risks of conducting interviews with prior knowledge of child and case specific information versus conducting “blind” interviews. We advocate for a hypothesis-testing approach to forensic interviewing and discuss the potential road blocks that preinterview knowledge may have on this process. We ultimately recommend that some child and case specific information is necessary to conduct proper developmentally appropriate forensic interviews. The chapter concludes by providing specific recommendations in preparing for the child forensic interview.

Keywords

Child sexual abuse  Interview planning Preparation planning 

References

  1. American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children. (2012). Forensic interviewing in cases of suspected child abuse. Practice guidelines.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, J., Ellefson, J., Lashley, J., Lukas Miller, A., Olinger, S., Russell, A., … Weigman, J. (2010). The CornerHouse forensic interview protocol: RATAC® . Thomas M. Cooley Journal of Practical and Clinical Law, 12(2), 193–331.Google Scholar
  3. APSAC Task Force on Investigative Interviews in Cases of Alleged Child Abuse. (2002). Practice guidelines: Investigative interviewing in cases of alleged child abuse. Elmhurst, IL: American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children. Retrieved from: https://www.cornerhousemn.org/images/CornerHouse_RATAC_Protocol.pdf.
  4. Bohannan, S., Chianello, T., Flagor, R., Gallagher, J., Kettner, D., Sieg, C., … Van Ness, P. (2004). Oregon interviewing guidelines (2nd ed.). Salem, OR: Oregon Department of Justice. Retrieved from http://www.doj.state.or.us/crimev/pdf/orinterviewingguide.pdf
  5. Bottoms, B. L., Najdowski, C. J., & Goodman, G. S. (Eds.). (2009). Children as victims, witnesses, and offenders: Psychological science and the law. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bruck, M., & Ceci, S. J. (2004). Forensic developmental psychology. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(6), 229–232. doi: 10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00314.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bruck, M., Ceci, S. J., Melnyk, L., & Finkelberg, D. (1999, April). The effect of interviewer bias on the accuracy of children’s reports and interviewer’s reports. Paper presented to the biennial meeting of the Society of Research in Child Development, Albuquerque, NM.Google Scholar
  8. Bruck, M., Ceci, S. J., Melnyk, L., & Finkelberg, D. (1999, April). Does interview bias create tainted reports? Paper presented at the biannual meeting of the Society of Research in Child Development, Albuquerque, NM.Google Scholar
  9. Bruck, M., Ceci, S. J., & Hembrooke, H. (1997). Children’s reports of a pleasant and unpleasant events. In D. Read & S. Lindsay (Eds.),Recollections of Trauma: Scientific Research and Clinical Practice(pp. 199–219). New York, NY: Plenum.Google Scholar
  10. Bruck, M., Ceci, S. J., & Hembrooke, H. (2002). The nature of children’s true and false narratives. Developmental Review, 22(3), 520–554. doi: 10.1016/S0273-2297(02)00006-0.Google Scholar
  11. Bruck, M., Ceci, S. J., & Principe, G. F. (2006). The child and the law. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Series Eds.), & K. A. Renniger & I. E. Sigel (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Child psychology in practice (6th ed., pp. 776–816). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  12. Bull, R. (2010). The investigative interviewing of children and other vulnerable witnesses: Psychological research and working/professional practice. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 15(1), 5–23. doi: 10.1348/014466509X440160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Canter, D., Hammond, L., & Youngs, D. (2012). Cognitive bias in line-up identifications: The impact of administrator knowledge. Science and Justice, 53(2), 83–88. doi: 10.1016/j.scijus.2012.12.001.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Cantlon, J., Payne, G., & Erbaugh, C. (1996). Outcome-based practice: Disclosure rates of child sexual abuse comparing allegation blind and allegation informed structured interviews. Child Abuse & Neglect, 20(11), 1113–1120. doi: 10.1016/0145-2134(96)00100-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ceci, S. J., Bruck, M., & Battin, D. B. (2000). The suggestibility of children’s testimony. In D. F. Bjorklund (Ed.), False-memory creation in children and adults: Theory, research, and implications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  16. Ceci, S. J., Huffman, M. L. C., Smith, E., & Loftus, E. F. (1994). Repeatedly thinking about a non-event: Source misattributions among preschoolers. Consciousness and Cognition, 3(3-4), 388–407. doi: 10.1006/ccog.1994.1022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dror, I. E., & Cole, S. A. (2010). The vision in blind justice: Expert perception, judgment, and visual cognition in forensic pattern recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(2), 161–167. doi: 10.3758/PBR.17.2.161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Goodman, G. S., Sharma, A., Thomas, S. F., & Considine, M. G. (1995). Mother knows best: Effects of relationship status and interviewer bias on children’s memory. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 60(1), 195–228. doi: 10.1006/jecp.1995.1038.Google Scholar
  19. Great Britain Ministry of Justice. (2011). Achieving best evidence in criminal proceedings: Guidance on interviewing victims and witnesses, and guidance on using special measures. London, England: Ministry of Justice.Google Scholar
  20. Hershkowitz, I., Fisher, S., Lamb, M. E., & Horowitz, D. (2007). Improving credibility assessment in child sexual abuse allegations: The role of the NICHD investigative interview protocol. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31(2), 99–110. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2006.09.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hershkowitz, I., Lamb, M. E., Katz, C., & Malloy, L. C. (2013). Does enhanced rapport-building alter the dynamics of investigative interviews with suspected victims of intra-familial abuse? Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 30(1), 6–14. doi: 10.1007/s11896-013-9136-8.Google Scholar
  22. Hewitt, S. K. (1999). Assessing allegations of sexual abuse in preschool children. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  23. Home Office (2007). Achieving best evidence in criminal proceedings: Guidance on interviewing victims and witnesses and using special measures. London, England: Author.Google Scholar
  24. Home Office in conjunction with Department of Health. (1992). Memorandum of good practice on video recorded interviews with child witnesses for criminal proceedings. London, England: HMSO.Google Scholar
  25. Idaho v. Wright, 166 Idaho 382, 775 P.2d 1224. (1989).Google Scholar
  26. International Association of Chiefs of Police. (2013). National summit on wrongful convictions: Building a systemic approach to prevent wrongful convictions. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  27. Kaptchuck, T. J. (1998). Intentional ignorance: A history of blind assessment and placebo controls in medicine. Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 72(3), 389–433. Retrieved from http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/bulletin_of_the_history_of_medicine/v072/72.3kaptchuk.html Google Scholar
  28. Kassin, S. M., Dror, E. E., & Kukucka, J. (2013). The forensic confirmation bias: Problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2(1), 42–52. doi: 10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.01.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kulkofsky, S., & Klemfuss, J. Z. (2008). What the stories children tell can tell about their memory: Narrative skill and young children’s suggestibility. Developmental Psychology, 44(5), 1442–1456. doi: 10.1037/a0012849.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. La Rooy, D., Katz, C., Malloy, L. C., & Lamb, M. E. (2010). Do we need to rethink guidance on repeated interviews? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16(4), 373–392. doi:  10.1037/a0019909.Google Scholar
  31. Lamb, M. E., Hershkowitz, I., Orbach, Y., & Esplin, P. W. (2008). Tell me what happened: Structured investigative interviews of child victims and witnesses. Chichester, England: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lamb, M. E., La Rooy, D. J., Malloy, L. C., & Katz, C. (Eds.). (2011). Children’s testimony: A handbook of psychological research and forensic practice (Vol. 52). Chichester, England: Wiley.Google Scholar
  33. Lamb, M. E., Orbach, Y., Hershkowtiz, I., Esplin, P. W., & Horowitz, D. (2007). A structured forensic interview protocol improves the quality and informativeness of investigative interviews with children: A review of research using the NICHD Investigative Interview Protocol. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31(11–12), 1201–1231. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2007.03.021.Google Scholar
  34. Lamb, M. E., Orbach, Y., Sternberg, K. J., Hershowitz, I., & Horowitz, D. (2000). Accuracy of investigators’ verbatim notes of their forensic interviews with alleged child abuse victims. Law and Human Behavior, 24(6), 699–708. doi: 10.1023/A:1005556404636.Google Scholar
  35. Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., Orbach, Y., Hershowitz, I., Horowitz, D., & Esplin, P. W. (2002). The effects of intensive training and ongoing supervision on the quality of investigative interviews with alleged sex abuse victims. Applied Developmental Science, 6(3), 114–125. doi: 10.1207/S1532480XADS0603_2.Google Scholar
  36. Leichtman, M. D., & Ceci, S. J. (1995). The effects of stereotypes and suggestions on preschoolers’ reports. Developmental Psychology, 31(4), 568–578. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.31.4.568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. London, K., Bruck, M., & Melnyk, L. (2009). Post-event information affects children’s autobiographical memory after one year. Law and Human Behavior, 33(4), 344–355. doi: 10.1007/s10979-008-9147-7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. London, K., Henry, L. A., Conradt, T., & Corser, R. (2010). Suggestibility and individual differences in typically developing and intellectually disabled children. In A. M. Ridley, F. Gabbert, & D. J. LaRooy (Eds.), Suggestibility in legal contexts: Psychological research and forensic implications (pp. 129–148). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  39. Lyon, T. D. (2005). Speaking with children: Advice from investigative interviewers. In P. F. Talley (Ed.), Handbook for the treatment of abused and neglected children (pp. 65–82). Binghamton, NY: Haworth.Google Scholar
  40. Lytle, N., London, K., & Bruck, M. (2015). Young children’s ability to use 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional symbols to show placements of body touches and hidden objects. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 134, 30–42. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2015.01.010.Google Scholar
  41. Morgan, M. (1995). How to interview sexual abuse victims. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Office of the Attorney General (2014, May 22). Attorney General Holder Announces Significant Policy Shift Concerning Electronic Recording of Statements. Retrieved from http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-holder-announces-significant-policy-shift-concerning-electronic-recording
  42. Office of Attorney General (2014). Policy concerning electronic recording of statements. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Google Scholar
  43. Pence, D., & Wilson, C. (1994). Team investigation of child sexual abuse: The uneasy alliance. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  44. Peterson, C., Moores, L., & White, G. (2001). Recounting the same event again and again: Consistency across multiple interviews. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15(4), 353–371. doi: 10.1002/acp.708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pipe, M.-E., Gee, S., Wilson, J. C., & Egerton, J. M. (1999). Children’s recall 1 or 2 years after an event. Developmental Psychology, 35(3), 781–789. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.35.3.781.Google Scholar
  46. Poole, D. A., & Bruck, M. (2012). Divining testimony? The impact of interviewing props on children’s reports of touching. Developmental Review, 32(3), 165–180. doi: 10.1016/j.dr.2012.06.007.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Poole, D. A., & Dickinson, J. J. (2011). Evidence supporting restrictions on uses of body diagrams in forensic interviews. Child Abuse & Neglect, 35(9), 659–669. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2011.05.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Poole, D. A., & Lamb, M. E. (1998). Investigative interviews of children: A guide for helping professionals. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Poole, D. A., & Lindsay, D. S. (2001). Children’s eyewitness reports after exposure to misinformation from parents. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7(1), 27–50. doi: 10.1037/1076-898X.7.1.27.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Poole, D., & Lindsay, D. S. (2002). Reducing child witnesses’ false reports of misinformation from parents. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 81(2), 117–140. doi: 10.1006/jecp.2001.2648.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Powell, M. B., Hughes-Scholes, C. H., & Sharman, S. J. (2012). Skill in interviewing reduces confirmation bias. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 9(2), 126–134. doi: 10.1002/jip.1357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Powell, M. B., Jones, C. H., & Campbell, C. (2003). A comparison of preschooler’s recall of experienced events versus non-experienced events across multiple interviews. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17(8), 935–952. doi: 10.1002/acp.932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Principe, G. F., & Ceic, S. J. (2002). “I saw it with my own ears”: The effects of peer conversations on preschoolers’ reports of nonexperienced events. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 83(1), 1–25. doi: 10.1016/S0022-0965(02)00120-0.Google Scholar
  54. Principe, G. F., DiPuppo, J., & Gammel, J. (2013). Effects of mothers’ conversation style and receipt of misinformation on children’s event reports. Cognitive Development, 28(3), 260–271. doi: 10.1016/j.cogdev.2013.01.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Principe, G. F., & Schindewolf, E. (2012). Natural conversations as a source of false memories in children: Implications for the testimony of young witnesses. Developmental Review, 32(3), 205–223. doi: 10.1016/j.dr.2012.06.003.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Raskin, D. C., & Esplin, P. W. (1991). Statement validity assessment: Interview procedures and content analysis of children’s statements of sexual abuse. Behavioral Assessment, 13(3), 265–291. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1992-33513-001.
  57. Rosenthal, R. (1994). Interpersonal expectancy effects: A 30-year perspective. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 3(6), 176–179. doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.ep10770698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1978). Interpersonal expectancy effects: The first 345 studies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(3), 377–415. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X00075506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Russell, A. (2004). Forensic interview room set-up. Half a nation: The newsletter of the state & national finding words courses, 1–8. Retrieved from https://www.cornerhousemn.org Google Scholar
  60. Salmon, K., & Pipe, M.-E. (2000). Recalling an event one year later: The impact of props, drawing and a prior interview. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14(2), 99–120. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(200003/04)14:2<99::AID-ACP639>3.0.CO;2-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Saywitz, K. J., & Camparo, L. (1998). Interviewing child witnesses: A developmental perspective. Child Abuse & Neglect, 22(8), 825–843. doi: 10.1016/S0145-2134(98)00054-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Saywitz, K. J., Lyon, T. D., & Goodman, G. S. (2011). Interviewing children. In J. E. B. Myers (Ed.), The APSAC handbook on child maltreatment (3rd ed.). London, England: Sage.Google Scholar
  63. Smith, K., & Milne, R. (2011). Planning the interview. In M. E. Lamb, D. J. La Rooy, L. C. Malloy, & C. Katz (Eds.), Children’s testimony: A handbook of psychological research and forensic practice (2nd ed.). Chichester, England: Wiley.Google Scholar
  64. State of Michigan Governor’s Task Force on Children’s Justice and Department of Human Services. (2004). State of Michigan Governor’s Task Force on Children’s Justice and Department of Human Services forensic interviewing protocol. Retrieved from http://www.mi.gov/documents/dhs/DHS-PUB-0779_211637_7.pdf
  65. Sternberg, K. J., Lamb, M. E., Orbach, Y., Esplin, P. W., & Mitchell, S. (2001). Use of a structured investigative protocol enhances young children’s responses to free-recall prompts in the course of forensic interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 997–1005. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.86.5.997.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Steward, M. S., Steward, D. S., Farquhar, L., Myers, J. E. B., Reinhart, M., Welker, J., … Morgan, J. (1996). Interviewing young children about body touch and handling. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 61(4–5), 1–214. doi: 10.2307/1166205 Google Scholar
  67. Talwar, V., & Crossman, A. M. (2012). Children’s lies and their detection: Implications for child witness testimony. Developmental Review, 32(4), 337–359. doi: 10.1016/j.dr.2012.06.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Thompson, W. C., Clarke-Stewart, K. A., & Lepore, S. J. (1997). What did the janitor do? Suggestive interviewing and the accuracy of children’s accounts. Law and Human Behavior, 21(4), 405–426. doi: 10.1023/A:1024859219764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wells, G. L., Small, M., Penrod, S. J., Malpass, R. S., Fulero, S. M., & Brimacombe, C. A. E. (1998). Eyewitness identification procedures: Recommendations for lineups and photospreads. Law and Human Behavior, 22(6), 603–647. doi: 10.1023/A:1025750605807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Zwiers, M. L., & Morrissette, P. J. (1999). Effective interviewing of children: A comprehensive guide for counselors and human service workers. Ann Arbor, MI: Edwards Brothers.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of ToledoToledoUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Southern IndianaEvansvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations