A Model for Conducting Forensic Interviews with Child Victims of Abuse

Abstract

The Center for Ċhild Protection has been conducting forensic interviews with suspected child victims of abuse since 1978, with videotaping in place since 1983. The forensic interview protocol is described here, including interview phases, use of anatomically detailed dolls, use of open-ended versus direct questioning, and use of strategies to cope with avoidant children. Supervision, quality assurance, and peer review procedures are described and discussed.

Evaluation of a comprehensive interactive training system for investigative interviewers of children.

“…Finally, the practice narrative phase prepares the child for the interview process and allows the interviewer to establish the conversational flow that will continue for the rest of the interview (Davies et al, 1996). The interviewer uses open-ended questions in this phase, mimicking the style of questioning that will later be used if the child discloses abuse.…”

Burnout and Secondary Trauma Among Forensic Interviewers of Abused Children

“…When conducting a forensic interview with a child, the interviewer must remain impartial and objective, and employ non-coercive and developmentally sensitive methods (Davies et al, 1996). There are a number of publications on issues related to the interviewing process, including topics such as the use of anatomical dolls (Aldridge, 1997;Everson & Boat, 1994, 1997Samra & Yuille, 1996), disclosure (Bradley & Wood, 1996;Berliner & Conte, 1995;DeVoe & Faller, 1999;Goodman-Brown, Edelstein, Goodman, Johnes, & Gordon, 2003;Sorenson & Snow, 1991), linguistics (Walker, 1994), and memory and suggestibility (Bruck & Ceci, 1999;Ceci & Bruck, 1993;Saywitz, Goodman, Nicholas & Moan, 1991;Saywitz & Lyon, 2002).…”

Child maltreatment: Case studies in assessment and intervention.

“…UnlikeMelton et al (1995), while we agree that psychologists are seldom skilled investigators and usually lack the training necessary to explore every legal avenue, we nevertheless maintain that reasonable and factually based, ordinary clinical procedures in the office situation by adequately experienced forensic psychologists can be adapted for a variety of purposes (cf. Davies et al, 1996). Sensational cases that have led to claims of therapists generating false accusations and “false memories” (Pope & Brown, 1996) strike us as frequently nothing more than prejudicial blame-the-messenger political positions, rather than substantive views of how skilled therapists actually operate in their office practices.…”