Examining forensic interviewers’ perceptions of practice-focused supervision

Abstract

Regular supervision influences interviewing quality with child witnesses. It is unclear, however, whether interviewers recognize the importance of supervision, and how often they access it. The present study surveyed 39 New Zealand Specialist Child Witness Interviewers (otherwise known as forensic interviewers), and examined: (a) their access to, and, perceptions of supervision, and (b) factors that may influence their access to, and, perceptions of supervision. We identified 26 interviewers who received some form of practice-focused supervision. Within this group, there was considerable variability in terms of how often they accessed supervision, and, their ratings of how satisfied they were with their access to, and the content of, supervision. Furthermore, some of those who did participate in supervision felt they did not actually receive specific input about their interviewing. Thus, an important area for investment in promoting good interviewing practice is developing effective approaches to facilitate interviewers engaging in regular practice-focused supervision, perhaps, at least in part, by addressing some of systemic barriers identified (e.g. limited financial support, time constraints, lack of experienced supervisors, lack of understanding/support from managerial staff and geographical isolation).

Interviewers’ approaches to questioning vulnerable child witnesses: The influences of developmental level versus intellectual disability status

“…We saw variations in questioning across and within groups, even though the interviewers were well trained and had access to frequent supervision and fidelity monitoring. Field studies have shown that access to supervision is associated with better interviewing quality (Lamb, 2016;Lamb, Sternberg, Orbach, Esplin, et al, 2002;Wolfman, Brown, & Jose, 2016c) and so our results may paint a more optimistic picture than would be seen in the field where interviewers may have difficulty obtaining regular feedback about their work (Wolfman et al, 2016c).…”

Dolls, Diagrams and Drawings: Interviewers’ Perspectives on Visual Aids in Child Witness Interviews

“…This may have been due to work pressure, access to computers or potentially a reluctance for their practice to be analysed. Despite this attrition rate, we had a similar rate of participation to other studies (Wolfman et al, 2016a;Wright & Powell, 2006), but a challenge remains for researchers as to how to increase engagement and participation with studies involving forensic interviewers.…”

Dolls, Diagrams and Drawings: Interviewers’ Perspectives on Visual Aids in Child Witness Interviews

“…Regular supervision and feedback focused on interviewing practice has been shown to significantly contribute to the adherence of best practice interviewing (Cyr, Dion, McDuff & Trotier-Sylvain, 2012;Wolfman, Brown & Jose, 2016a). No significant differences were found between the frequency of supervision and the amount of interviewers' knowledge of research.…”

“…given the probability interviewers' self-report may be inaccurate, and the likelihood they may be overestimating their use of open questions and underestimating their use of closed (Wolfman, Brown & Jose, 2015;Wolfman, Brown & Jose, 2016a). These results therefore may be the result of two factors; interviewers subjectively overestimating their use of good questioning, or the positive impact of recent initiatives.…”

“…As research in other health fields has suggested, other systemic issues may be individual and institutional factors that are acting as barriers to interviewers implementing evidence based practice (Freeman & Sweeney, 2001;Pravikoff, Tanner, & Pierce, 2005). At an individual level this may be the access to a computer (Wolfman et al, 2016a) or a lack of skills to understand and critique the literature (Freeman & Sweeney, 2001). Institutionally, constant training and professional development activities may over-burden a limited pool of resources; in terms of the organisations' budgets and workload (Freeman & Sweeney, 2001).…”