A Comparison of Responses to Substantive Transition Prompts in Interviews With Children

Earhart, Becky; Danby, Meaghan C.; Brubacher, Sonja P.; Powell, Martine B.; Sharman, Stefanie J.

doi:10.1177/1077559518756827

Cited by 11 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For this reason, we not only decided to present the best model, but also two competitors (Tables 3 and 5). Finally, although some results from this study are supported by previous experimental work (Earhart et al, 2018), further studies that include manipulation of the input variables (e.g., transition prompts) and randomization of the target population must be conducted before establishing causal effects between transition prompts and type of responses.…”

Section: Limitationssupporting

confidence: 51%

“…Improved ability to respond to concrete questions has been shown in samples of nonmaltreated and maltreated children, laboratory interviews about neutral events, police interviews about allegations of abuse, and in courtroom testimony (Ahern et al, 2018;Andrews et al, 2016;Malloy et al, 2017). A recent experimental study also found more immediately informative responses to a transition prompt with what versus why phrasing in a sample of 401 nonmaltreated children aged 5 to 9 years (Earhart et al, 2018). Taken together, these findings suggest that when seeking information relevant to disclosure in forensic interviews with allegedly maltreated children, a transition prompt with what phrasing will be more effective than with why phrasing.…”

Section: Effect Of Linguistic Variations On Children's Responsesmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The influence of transition prompt wording on response informativeness and rapidity of disclosure in child forensic interviews.

García¹,

Powell²,

Brubacher³

et al. 2022

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Investigators hope to elicit disclosure or other case-related (informative) responses quickly when transitioning to the substantive phase of forensic interviews. Interviewing protocols suggest directly asking the child about the purpose of the interview to obtain early disclosure. However, interviewers sometimes rephrase scripted transition prompts, which has unknown consequences. The present study examined the effects that the first transition prompt phrasing and case-related variables have on the informativeness and rapidity of disclosure among a sample of 328 allegedly abused children who ultimately disclosed during a police interview. Regression models were fit and compared. Findings suggested that transition prompts that used what were 60% more likely to obtain informative responses than those that used why. Additionally, transition prompts that started with Do you know decreases by 91% the probability of obtaining immediate informative responses, compared with those phrased directly (e.g., “What have you come to talk to me today?”). Children in this sample produced equally informative responses to direct prompts and indirect Can you prompts. Further analyses showed that transition prompts phrased with why obtained disclosure later than those phrased with what. Moreover, children who are 8 years and older, as well those who engaged in a practice narrative, required half the number of substantive utterances to disclose compared with younger children. Overall, this research shows that there are some aspects within an interviewer’s control that are important to elicit case-related information and rapid disclosure in forensic interviews and should not be discretionary.

show abstract

Section: Limitationssupporting

confidence: 51%

Section: Effect Of Linguistic Variations On Children's Responsesmentioning

confidence: 97%

The influence of transition prompt wording on response informativeness and rapidity of disclosure in child forensic interviews.

García¹,

Powell²,

Brubacher³

et al. 2022

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These topic prompts could be considered leading for the children who had experienced the event, and misleading for the children who had not experienced the event. Hence, these findings demonstrate the problematic nature of trying to steer the conversation towards the issue under investigation without being suggestive (for more information on this topic, see Earhart, Danby, Brubacher, Powell, & Sharman, 2018). Even with relatively minor forms of suggestive influence (followed by open-ended requests to elaborate), some preschoolers who had not met the pirate provided false information that appeared largely based on stereotypes about pirates (see Ceci & Bruck, 1995, for more information about the risks of stereotype induction).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Preschoolers’ true and false reports: Comparing effects of the Sequential Interview and NICHD protocol

Magnusson

Joleby

Ernberg

et al. 2020

Legal Criminol Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose. The current study aimed to examine a Norwegian technique for conducting investigative interviews with preschoolers: the Sequential Interview (SI). The SI advocates for increased initial rapport building and includes a predetermined break before the substantive phase. To explore the potential benefits and risks of the SI, the technique was compared with an adapted version of the National Institute of Child Health and Development (NICHD) protocol. Methods. A total of 129 preschoolers (3-6 years) were interviewed with either the SI or NICHD protocol about a self-experienced (Exp. I) or non-experienced (Exp. II) event. Result. For Exp. I, no significant difference was observed across interview conditions in the number of reported details about a self-experienced event. Children interviewed with the SI exhibited a slightly lower accuracy rate compared to those interviewed with the NICHD protocol. For Exp. II, a total of 31.1% of the preschoolers initially assented to remembering a fictive (false) experience and 15.6% gave an account (>40 details) of the non-experienced event. We found no difference between interviewing conditions in assent rates or number of false accounts. Conclusions. The study provides valuable insights into the difficulties involved when interviewing young children. The results showed few differences between the novel SI model and the well-established NICHD protocol. While many preschoolers could provide accurate testimony, some embedded worrisome false details in their narratives. Furthermore, a minority of children gave false reports about non-experienced events when interviewed with the two techniques. Methodological limitations and suggestions for future research will be discussed.

show abstract

“…The prediction was supported: 5‐ to 9‐year‐old children ( n = 401) were more likely to give an informative response immediately to the what construction compared to the why . This was especially true for the youngest (5‐ to 6‐year‐old) children (Earhart, Danby, Brubacher, Powell, & Sharman, 2018).…”

Section: Research Underlying the Core Phases And Variants Of The Simmentioning

confidence: 99%

The origin, experimental basis, and application of the standard interview method: An information‐gathering framework

Powell

Brubacher

2020

Australian Psychologist

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The standard interview method (SIM) is a guidance framework for information gathering interviews. This article describes the purpose, scope, origin, experimental basis, and practical application of the SIM. It provides an informative overview of developments to date for psychologists and researchers within the behavioural sciences, as well as for practitioners who might use the SIM. The SIM contains core evidence-based components but is otherwise open to tailoring and modifications to suit a variety of interviewing purposes such as policing, justice, education, and business. It provides an interview structure and exemplar dialogue, aligned with research into best-practice interview technique. Method: A detailed overview of the SIM's interview phases, instructions, and exemplar dialogue is provided. The basis for these elements is explained in terms of the experimental and qualitative research that has informed their development. Results: The SIM provides evidence-based guidance for investigative interviewers, and numerous versions have been created to suit different investigation types, interviewee groups, and jurisdictional or organisational requirements. It is continually refined as new findings from experimental research around best-practice interviewing emerge. Conclusions: Rather than a single entity or completed product, the SIM represents a dynamic evolution of research, collaboration, and testing. Its flexible nature will allow it to keep pace with the ever-progressing knowledge base that informs interview protocol and guidance development, and adapt to local cultures, legislation, processes, and systems of operation.

show abstract

A Comparison of Responses to Substantive Transition Prompts in Interviews With Children

Cited by 11 publications

References 13 publications

The influence of transition prompt wording on response informativeness and rapidity of disclosure in child forensic interviews.

The influence of transition prompt wording on response informativeness and rapidity of disclosure in child forensic interviews.

Preschoolers’ true and false reports: Comparing effects of the Sequential Interview and NICHD protocol

The origin, experimental basis, and application of the standard interview method: An information‐gathering framework

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About