This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Permanent repository link:http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/12074/ Link to published version: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j. 1475-3588.2010.00557.x Copyright and reuse: City Research Online aims to make research outputs of City, University of London available to a wider audience. Copyright and Moral Rights remain with the author(s) and/or copyright holders. URLs from City Research Online may be freely distributed and linked to. BackgroundExecutive functions are 'those skills necessary for purposeful, goal-directed activity'(Anderson, 1998), required for the successful achievement of complex, higher order 2 cognitive goals, including planning future actions, keeping these plans in mind until executed, problem-solving, self-monitoring to check on progress, mental flexibility, and the ability to inhibit irrelevant actions.Executive control is a prominent part of the influential multicomponent model of working memory (Baddeley & Hitch, 1974;Baddeley, 1986Baddeley, , 2000Baddeley, , 2007 and involves focusing, dividing and switching attention. Executive abilities are increasingly regarded as at least partly 'fractionated' or divided (e.g. Lehto, 1996) into separate subcomponents that are, nevertheless, loosely related to each other (Anderson, 2002;Fisk & Sharp, 2004;Garon, Bryson, & Smith, 2008;Huizinga, Dolan, & van der Molen, 2006;Lehto et al., 2003;Miyake et al., 2000). Executive control is not used during routine (automatised) tasks (Shallice, 1990), but for demanding tasks that involve novelty. Measuring executive functioning in childrenThis review will focus on five standardised batteries of executive functioning (see Table 1 at the end of the paper for a summary) designed for school-age children (for information on executive functions in preschoolers, see Garon et al., 2008). Verbal Verbal domainVerbal fluency (e.g. Thurstone Word Fluency Test, Thurstone, 1938;Milner, 1964) Note that category and letter fluency have been linked to different brain areas (Martin et al., 1994;Schwartz et al., 2003), implying that different mechanisms may underlie performance.Inhibition is often measured using the Stroop Test (Stroop, 1935)

This is the unspecified version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Cross-examination of children with and without intellectual disability 2 Permanent repository link: AbstractThe present study assessed how children with a range of cognitive abilities fared during a mock cross-examination. Ninety children (aged 4 to 11 years; 18 with intellectual disabilities [ID], 13 with borderline intellectual disabilities [BID], and 59 who were typically developing [TD]) witnessed a staged event, participated in an initial forensic interview (a few days later), and were cross-examined by a barrister-in-training (ten months later). During cross-examination, 98% of all children changed at least one response from their initial interview when challenged. However, group differences in performance (total number of changed responses, 'resistance' to challenges), controlling for age and memory for event details, were not significant or did not prove reliable at the level of individual group contrasts. Overall, little robust evidence for group differences in performance on crossexamination could be identified, and memory for event details was the most reliable predictor of performance. Keywords: Child witnesses; cross-examination; intellectual disabilitiesCross-examination of children with and without intellectual disability 3 Cross-examination of children with and without intellectual disabilitiesIn an adversarial system of justice such as that of the UK, Australia and the USA, there is a strong emphasis on oral testimony from witnesses about the facts of a disputed case (Ellison, 2001). In court, following the presentation of direct evidence by the prosecution (testimony from the victim, witness or defendant), cross-examination is undertaken by opposing counsel to challenge the reliability of a witness's evidence and, ostensibly, to search for the truth (Wellman, 1986;Yarmey, 1979). Effective cross-examination highlights inconsistencies in witness testimony. Yet the techniques employed to do this, such as pressing the witness to change their response (Zajac, Gross & Hayne, 2003), accusing the witness of lying (Davies, Henderson & Seymour, 1997;Plotnikoff & Woolfson, 2009;Spencer, 2012), repetitive and complex questioning (Plotnikoff & Woolfson, 2012;Zajac, 2009) and deliberately setting the sequence of questioning to confuse the witness (Glissan, 1991) are, in reality, concerned with discrediting a witness (Henderson, 2002). The demands on a witness to produce reliable oral evidence, often many months or even years, after an event are high, and witnesses find the process stressful, aggressive and anxiety provoking (Plotnikoff & Woolfson, 2009Zajac, 2009 However, the questions (and questioning style) used during cross-examination often run counter to available research/protocols, and the use of ABE guidelines does not extend to the process of cross-examination. In fact, legal professionals show considerable resistance to proposals to alter cross-examination procedures (see Spence...

No abstract

This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Permanent repository link CROSS-EXAMINATION CHILDREN, ANXIETY, INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES AND CROSS-EXAMINATION 2 AbstractThe present study explored whether levels of anxiety, and a range of individual differences measures (age, IQ, and suggestibility), could predict performance during crossexamination questioning. Eighty-three children (aged 4-11 years) witnessed a staged event before being interviewed (3-6 days later) and cross-examined (ten months later). Results demonstrated that cross-examination induced a significant rise in anxiety levels. Further, recall of unchallenged details (based on children's initial testimony, which they reviewed prior to cross-examination) and anxiety levels were the only significant predictors of crossexamination performance. Further research is needed to explore the inter-relationship between anxiety and other individual difference measures on cross-examination performance, and to determine how to alleviate the anxiety of child witnesses (to enable them to achieve their best evidence in court). Preparation to ensure children understand the importance of attending to the recording of their original evidence may improve children's resilience under cross-examination and reduce anxiety levels.

No abstract