Children’s Testimony About a Stressful Event: Improving Children’s Reports

Abstract

Age differences in children's ability to recount a stressful event were explored, as were several ways to improve children's reports. Seventy 3- to 7 year olds were videotaped while receiving inoculations at a medical clinic. It was predicted that multiple interviews would maintain memory and strengthen resistance to sugges-tion. It was also predicted that social support would ease intimidation and thus lessen children's suggestibility. To test these predictions, children were inter-viewed either once after a 4-week delay or twice, following 2- and 4-week delays, and under either "reinforcing" or "nonreinforcing" conditions. Age differences in answers to specific and misleading questions and in performance on a photo identification task were prevalent. However, multiple interviews and reinforce-ment supported more accurate reports. Training was effective in reducing false identifications on the photo identification task, especially for older children. Children's accuracy was unrelated to parental ratings of the stressfulness of the event. Our findings have implications for the testimony of child victim witnesses and for child-adult reconstruction of a child's past history.(Psychology)

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

“…The findings obtained in these field implementation studies are important because, as noted earlier, details elicited using recall or open-ended prompts are more likely to be accurate than details elicited using more focused prompts in both field and laboratory analog contexts (Dale et al, 1978;Dent, 1982Dent, , 1986Dent & Stephenson, 1979;Goodman et al, 1991;Hutcheson et al, 1995;Lamb & Fauchier, 2001;Lamb et al, 2007;). …”

“…These findings also indicate that cuedinvitations should be exhausted before 'wh' prompts are introduced because cued-invitations are input-free and thus foster retrieval of free-recall information without limiting responses to investigator-specified categories. Non-suggestive yes/no and forced-choice questions (i.e., option posing prompts), in which interviewers by definition introduce information, should be used only if essential information is still missing after free-recall and directive prompts have been exhausted, because these riskier alternatives are more likely to elicit inaccurate information and their introduction may contaminate subsequent information.The findings obtained in these field implementation studies are important because, as noted earlier, details elicited using recall or open-ended prompts are more likely to be accurate than details elicited using more focused prompts in both field and laboratory analog contexts (Dale et al, 1978;Dent, 1982Dent, , 1986Dent & Stephenson, 1979;Goodman et al, 1991;Hutcheson et al, 1995;Lamb & Fauchier, 2001;Lamb et al, 2007;). …”

“…Investigators are consistently urged to give priority to open-ended recall prompts and use recognition prompts ("Did he touch you?") as late in the interview as possible and only when needed to elicit undisclosed forensically relevant information.The universal emphasis on the value of narrative responses elicited using open-ended prompts is rooted in the oft-replicated results of laboratory analogue studies demonstrating that information elicited using such prompts is much more likely to be accurate than information elicited using more focused recognition prompts (Dale, Loftus, & Rathbun, 1978;Dent, 1982Dent, , 1986Dent & Stephenson, 1979;Goodman & Aman, 1990;Goodman, Bottoms, Schwartz-Kenney, & Rudy, 1991;Hutcheson, Baxter, Telfer, & Warden, 1995;Oates & Shrimpton, 1991;Ornstein, Gordon, & Larus, 1992) probably because open-ended questions force the respondent to recall information from memory, whereas more focused prompts often require the respondent to recognize one or more options suggested by the interviewer. Accuracy is much more difficult to establish in the field than in laboratory analog contexts, of course, because forensic interviewers seldom know what really happened, but the results of field studies in which accuracy was assessed confirm that, as in the laboratory, responses to openended questions posed by forensic interviewers are more likely to be accurate than responses to more focused prompts which are, in turn, more likely to be erroneous (Lamb, Orbach, Hershkowitz, Horowitz, & Abbott, in press;Lamb & Fauchier, 2001;Orbach & Lamb, 1999.…”

Developmental differences in the effects of repeated interviews and interviewer bias on young children's event memory and false reports.

“…For children interviewed repeatedly, each interview took place after a 1-week delay; thus, the final interview took place 3 weeks after the play event. These delays were selected to be comparable to those used in other repeated interview studies (e.g., Goodman, Bottoms, et al, 1991;Leichtman & Ceci, 1995;Ornstein et al, 1992). At the outset of each interview, half of the children were questioned by an interviewer who created a highly biased context that implied children had played with a man (biased interviewer condition).…”

Soutien des intervieweurs et collaboration des enfants lors des entrevues d’enquête1

“…Dans l'étude portant sur le protocole révisé, Hershkowitz et ses collaborateurs (2013) rapportent que les enfants qui reçoivent plus de soutien dans la phase prédéclara-tive de l'entrevue sont aussi ceux qui démontrent moins de résistance dans la phase déclarative. Ces résultats soutiennent donc ceux des autres recherches qui indiquent que les enfants résistants devraient recevoir plus de soutien de la part de l'intervieweur (Carter et al, 1996 ;Goodman et al, 1991 ;Hershkowitz et al, 2006 ;Hershkowitz, Orbach et al, 2007 ;Imhoff et Baker-Ward, 1999).…”