No abstract

The current study explored the effectiveness of three interview protocols on the number and specificity of details provided by minimally verbal adults about a staged repeated event. Eighty adults (with expressive sentence length of around 5 words, matched on measures of expressive language and intellectual functioning) participated in three live events and were pseudo-randomly assigned to receive one of three interviews. The narrative-first protocol exhausted recall with open-ended questions before focused questions were asked, the intermixed protocol paired openended questions immediately followed by related focused questions, and the visual cues protocol mimicked the narrative-first protocol but with the use of cue cards. Overall, participants reported more correct information about the last occurrence in the intermixed and visual than narrativefirst interview. The narrative-first interview elicited fewer internal intrusions (experienced details attributed to the wrong occurrence) compared to the visual, but not the intermixed interview.Expressive language and intellectual function were positively associated with the reporting of event-related details. Providing information about repeated events was challenging for minimally verbal adults; reporting of generic event details was more frequent than occurrence-specific details, one-third of participants answered a question about event frequency incorrectly (by saying they participated once), and the remaining participants provided few details about the other occurrences when directed to do so. Findings were consistent with the broader repeated event literature on children and adult witnesses recalling repeated events. This research provides guidance for investigative interviewers on how best to obtain accurate event-related information from minimally verbal adults about their experiences.

Successful interview training includes components beyond content learning (e.g., coding question types, practicing skills in simulated interviews), but the advantages conferred by adding components are unclear. The present research evaluated best practice questioning and behavior following the addition of a series of training components delivered in a logical order. In Study 1, randomly assigned treatment (n = 34) and control (n = 41) participants received an intensive 1-day content lecture. Next, the treatment condition completed workbook exercises (self-paced) followed by small-group practical sessions over 6 weeks. Both conditions were assessed prior to and immediately following the lecture, after the coding exercises, after the small-group sessions, and 9 months posttraining. Improved skill was observed in all participants after the lecture. The treatment condition continued to progress with cumulative training, whereas the control condition leveled off or decreased in skill with time. There was no deterioration for the treatment condition 9 months posttraining. Study 2 replicated the treatment condition from Study 1 except that all training was delivered online (with face-to-face components via videochat) and learners (n = 12) differed from Study 1 participants in their profession, country of employment, and recruitment. Study 2 results indicated that the training program could be delivered completely online with the same positive outcomes as when the program included in-person components. Overall, results indicated increased learning with the addition of components and showed that, when initial learning is intensive, skill is maintained.

The authors are grateful to the children and parents who participated, and to Belinda Guadagno for assistance with data collection and analysis for the pilot study. Parts of the paper were

Adults with communication impairment are vulnerable to abuse and are over-represented as victims in the criminal justice system. Investigative interviewers rely largely on verbal accounts to establish whether a criminal offence occurred, and therefore the way these accounts are elicited is paramount. To date, little research has evaluated whether current interviewing protocols are appropriate for eliciting accurate and detailed information from adults with communication impairment. The present study explored this issue through qualitative interviews with professionals from various disciplines. Specifically, professionals (N ¼ 22) who had extensive experience in interviewing, disability advocacy, and cognitive and communication impairment reflected on current recommended practice and how it could potentially improve. The results indicated widespread support for the current (open questioning) approach, although the professionals perceived that additional verbal and visual scaffolding could potentially enhance the amount of detail obtained without compromising accuracy. Suggestions for interview protocol modifications and future research are discussed.