No Evidence Against Sketch Reinstatement of Context, Verbal Labels or the Use of Registered Intermediaries for Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder: Response to Henry et al. (2017)

Abstract

Recently, Henry et al. (J Autism Dev Disord 8:2348-2362, 2017) found no evidence for the use of Verbal Labels, Sketch Reinstatement of Context and Registered Intermediaries by forensic practitioners when interviewing children with a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder. We consider their claims, noting the limited ecological validity of the experimental paradigm, the impacts of repeated interviewing where retrieval support is not provided at first retrieval, question the interviewer/intermediary training and their population relevant experience, and comment on the suppression of population variances. We submit that rejecting these techniques on the basis of this study is completely unwarranted and potentially damaging, particularly if used in legal proceedings to undermine the value of testimony from children with ASD, who continually struggle to gain access to justice.

Police officers’ and Registered Intermediaries’ use of drawing during investigative interviews with vulnerable witnesses

“…Conversely, when drawing was not used during the first interview/retrieval attempt, the beneficial effects for children with and without autism were less apparent (Henry et al, 2017. For further discussions, see Dando et al, 2018;Henry et al, 2018). While no negative effect on recall was found in Henry et al's (2017) study, the absence of improved recall is attributed to two factors.…”

Registered intermediaries’ assessment of children’s communication: An exploration of aims and processes

“…Unfortunately, none of the interventions (RI condition, verbal labelling or sketch reinstatement) improved the quality and quantity of information from children with ASD. This finding has been criticised by Dando et al (2018) for various methodological reasons. The event the children had to remember involved the movement of a set of keys and it is argued that this ‘crime’ is not as salient or traumatic as would be the case in real-world child sexual abuse investigations.…”

‘[Expletive], that was confusing, wasn’t it?’ Defence lawyers’ and intermediaries’ assessment of the language used to question a child witness

“… 2. This study found that intermediary assistance during a mock investigative interview resulted in typically developing children remembering more correct details of a staged event (without an increase in incorrect details or confabulations) compared to children who received a standard Best Practice police interview (Henry et al, 2017). The same was not found for children with autism spectrum disorder, although the basis for this finding has been challenged (Dando et al, 2018). Another experimental study demonstrated that the presence of an intermediary had a positive effect on adults’ perceptions of the mock cross-examination of a child witness.…”