Suggestibility and children with mild learning disabilities: The use of the cognitive interview

Abstract

The aims of this paper were firstly to identify any differences in the level of suggestibility between 20 7 Á9-year-old children with mild learning disabilities and 20 children with average academic ability using the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale 2 (GSS2) and, secondly, to note the impact of the cognitive interview on the response patterns of children with mild learning disabilities.On the GSS2, average academic ability children recalled significantly more correct details than children with mild learning disabilities. There was no significant difference between the two groups of children on distortions, fabrications, total confabulations or on any of the four measures of suggestibility.In the second part of the study, 38 children with mild learning disabilities watched a filmed event and then were interviewed using either a standard or a modified version of the cognitive interview. Following this, all participants were asked specific questions, some of which incorporated misleading information. One week later each participant was re-questioned. This time critical questions were included about the truth of the presuppositions introduced in the initial interview session. It was found that the cognitive interview elicited significantly more correct and incorrect details than a standard interview with no significant difference in fabrications. Use of the cognitive interview did not significantly affect susceptibility to subsequent misleading suggestions.

The Cognitive Interview: novice police officers' witness/victim interviewing practices

“…Further, this effect has been found across various populations (e.g. children: Akehurst, Milne, & Kö hnken, 2003;Holliday, 2003;Holliday & Albon, 2004;Memon, Wark, Bull, & Kö hnken, 1997; children with mild learning difficulties: Robinson & McGuire, 2006;young adults: Fisher et al, 1987;Fisher, Geiselman, & Amador, 1989; and the elderly: Wright & Holliday, 2007). Some studies have reported a slight increase in the amount of incorrect information recalled using the CI nevertheless this has not affected the overall CI accuracy rates (proportion of correct details relative to the total amount of details reported) compared to other forensic interview procedures (see Köhnken, Milne, Memon, & Bull, 1999 for a metaanalysis).…”

Refining the Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory–Patient‐Reported Outcome (PEDI‐PRO) item candidates: interpretation of a self‐reported outcome measure of functional performance by young people with neurodevelopmental disabilities

“…Next, they answered standardized ‘who, what, when, where, how’ open-ended questions about their experiences performing the everyday life situation; these questions primed their memory and assisted with recall and reflection. 14,15 An item set for that situation was then administered on a tablet using touch-activated PowerPoint (Microsoft, Redmond, WA, USA). Each participant chose a second everyday life situation and repeated this process.…”

The influence of social instructions on the effectiveness of a cognitive interview used with very young child witnesses

“…The originality of the CI consists in its composition that combines social and cognitive (i.e., mnemonic) instructions (Fisher & Geiselman, 1992). Its effectiveness has been widely demonstrated, that is in many countries and with various populations (e.g., elderly persons: Wright & Holliday, 2007; adults: Dando, Wilcock, Milne, & Henry, 2009;Fisher, Geiselman, Raymond, Jurkewich, & Warhaftig, 1987;children: Holliday & Albon, 2004;Milne & Bull, 2002;; and people with learning disabilities: Milne & Bull, 1996;Robinson & McGuire, 2006). In addition to its benefit on witnesses' recollection, Fisher and Geiselman (2010) suggested that the CI could have benefits on their well-being.…”