Papers

Afficio Undergraduate Journal

Literature Review on Forensic Interviewing of Children

Overall Winner, Upper Level Social Sciences
Author: Chloe Champion

---

Introduction

            Forensic interviewing of child victims and witnesses poses unique challenges to investigative interviewers and clinicians, that need to be considered when developing and evaluating interview techniques. Research on the subject has focused on conditions of children's developmental capacities that may limit their abilities to produce reliable and cohesive statements in forensic cases (Lamb et al., 2011). First, children's ability to store and recall memories is limited compared to adults (Barrouillet, 2015). Children are also more susceptible to misleading questions and contaminating information from the interviewer during the interview process, meaning interviewers need to carefully consider the types of questions they are asking and how these questions should be worded and phrased (Lamb et al., 2011). Lastly, the risk of re-traumatizing the victims during the investigative process is of more significant societal concern when dealing with young children (Yuille et al., 1993). Thus, emotional and clinical considerations within the process are of increased importance (Yuille et al., 1993).

 

Landmark Cases & The Concern of Child Testimony

             The risks associated with child victims and witnesses during the interview process have raised questions over whether child victims' testimony should even be allowed in the criminal justice system. Over the past few decades, numerous high-profile convictions have been overturned based on bad interview practice/child suggestibility (Schreiber et al., 2006). The most cited of these were a series of child abuse scandals that swept the United States for a decade beginning in the 1980s (Schreiber et al., 2006).

            In 1983, the McMartin Preschool case shocked the nation when over seven employees were accused of sexually abusing hundreds of children since the establishment had opened (Schreiber et al., 2006). Despite the enormous public outcry that resulted from the horrific allegations, none of the accused were ever convicted (Schreiber et al., 2006). The main criticism of the investigation rested on the child victims' interviews, which were considered heavily suggestive and even leading. (Schreiber et al., 2006).

            Five years after the McMartin case first broke into the headlines, a New Jersey daycare worker, Kelly Michaels, was accused of sexually abusing twenty children under her care (Schreiber et al., 2006). While initially convicted and sentenced to almost fifty years in prison, the court threw out Michael's conviction after the defense called into question the reliability of the children's statements given, once again, the suggestive nature of the conducted interviews (Schreiber et al., 2006). Four years after this case, Little Rascals Daycare in North Carolina was hit with a bout of hysteria over abuse allegations when the daycare owners were accused and convicted of physically and sexually abusing multiple victims within their establishment (Twiddy, 2016). These convictions too were overturned because the primary evidence, the child victims' statements, were viewed as unreliable (Twiddy, 2016). 

            These notorious cases are essential for a few core reasons. Firstly, they draw enormous public attention towards professional misconduct cases and poor investigative techniques that require systematic change (Schreiber et al., 2006; Twiddy, 2016). In forensic research, this is very important as numerous factors can influence the system's changes, such as increased funding, governing bodies' formation, and certification of research facilities and individuals (Edwards et al., 2009). Such efforts are understandably expensive, and thus, public outrage can help to push a response from governments to determine what went wrong and what needs to be changed (Edwards et al., 2009).

              In addition to influencing systemic change, these cases affected the research and practical application of forensic interviewing by casting doubt on the usefulness of child testimony and statements taken during the investigative process (Westman, 2018). Child testimony in Canada has had numerous changes to legislation regarding its reliability (Westman, 2018). In 1983, the testimony of child witnesses was allowed only with the inclusion of corroborating evidence, which can be difficult. As discussed by Lamb et al. (2011), children who are victims of abuse are often the only witnesses who can provide information on the details of a specific event or events. The government later amended this rule in 1988 (Westman, 2018). However, there was still a legislative requirement that the children require the ability to communicate proficiently and independently understand the difference between telling the truth and telling a lie (Westman, 2018). The cases described above called into question these abilities. More importantly, they also raised concerns about the methods investigative interviewers utilized when questioning preschool to elementary-aged children (Schreiber et al., 2006; Twiddy, 2016).

             There is no doubt that forensic interviewing is a crucial component of the legal system, Victims' statements are often the only available evidence and are critical for achieving convictions so their reliability is vital to proceeding with a criminal investigation (Lamb et al., 2011). Consider, for instance, the McMartin and Michaels cases if even some of those allegations were to be proven true. In 1992, nine people in Martensville, Saskatchewan were accused of sexually abusing children in over 140 cases at a daycare center (Howse, 1992). The hysteria resulted in increased paranoia amongst the residents and found individuals who even showed a slight interest in the case becoming suspects of the abuse. Ultimately, similar to the previously mentioned cases, numerous individuals were falsely accused of participating in the abuse due to, in part, poor interviewing practices on behalf of the local police forces. However, one individual, a son of the original couple accused, was convicted and found guilty, the sole conviction of the entire case (The Fifth Estate, 2019). That conviction demonstrated that the accounts of the child victims were not entirely false. In that case, the interview methods and practices should be considered gross miscarriages of justice to the victims, their families, and society (The Fifth Estate, 2019).  Thus, the present review aims to describe the importance of good investigative interviewing practices as they pertain to maximizing child victims' and witnesses' ability to recall important details of an event while simultaneously minimizing the contamination of information by the interviewer and questioning process (Chae et al., 2014).

            This review begins with a background on the current literature regarding the interviewee; specifically, a brief discussion on the stages of child cognitive development, social development, and the more remarkable facets of childhood memory. Questions include: What can investigators, and thus the legal system, expect of child witnesses' ability to recall information? What items can interviewers expect children to understand and answer accurately? What conditions and factors improve or reduce this ability (Lamb et al., 2011)?  Following this, the review delves into the interviewer's characteristics that may influence the interview's success or failure, including the interviewer's behaviour, which may affect the child's response, and the training and accreditation process involved in becoming a forensic interviewer. The reviewer will describe how who conducts the interview (i.e., psychologist, doctor, police officer, etc.) influences the quality of the information produced (Yuille et al., 2009). Lastly, the review will address the current methods and practices of interviewing children in forensic situations, weigh the benefits and limitations of each, and close with an acknowledgment of the limitations and gaps in the literature and recommendations for future research areas.

 

Child Cognitive Development

           One of the main concerns often cited by critics of child testimony is that children lack a comprehensive understanding of the physical world around them and cannot produce a trustworthy reconstruction of events for criminal investigative purposes (Lamb et al., 2011). The literature supports the idea that children lack particular cognitive abilities which improve with age, influencing their ability to interpret and articulate responses to specific ideas (Lefmann & Combs-Orme, 2013). This discussion is understandably critical to the practice of forensic interviewing. To understand the limitations of children's ability to give helpful statements, it is crucial first to understand their developmental capacities (Lamb et al., 2011). In other words, to know what cannot be expected of the child witness, one must understand what can be expected of them. This can affect the interviewing method chosen to increase the likelihood of the statement being reliable and truthful (Lamb et al., 2011). Ultimately, contrary to the ideas put forward by those who believe child testimony is unreliable and, therefore, useless (Brainerd and Reyna, 2012), contemporary research on the subject supports the notion that children are just as capable as adults of producing reliable narratives of events (Lamb et al., 2011); they simply require different cues and cautions to acquire such reports.

 

Theories

             Numerous theories on child cognitive development have been proposed over the past four decades, with the basis of most modern-day views being Jean Piaget's theory of cognitive development (Barrouillet, 2015).  Piaget's theory was one of the most influential of the 20th century. According to Huiett and Hummel (2003), Piaget's approach focused on the stages individuals go through on their journey to acquire cognitive thought. Here, cognitive thinking consists of three distinct abilities: mental development, social development, and most importantly, knowledge formation (Smith, 2002). Piaget was heavily influenced by biological theory and thus was a believer in both the genetic and environmental conditions that influence thought development (Smith, 2002). He sought to carry out his studies through observational studies, usually of his children, to witness how children's interaction with their physical environment changes with age (Lefmann & Combs-Orme, 2013). He theorized that cognitive abilities, such as goal-oriented behavior and organized thought, improved with age (Lefmann & Combs-Orme, 2013). Despite this, Piaget also posited that while age chronology was an essential aspect of the developmental stages, it could not be defined as a ‘stage’, as the time at which children reach certain developmental milestones will differ based on their specific genetic and environmental conditions (Smith, 2002). This idea is essential as it suggests that it cannot be assumed children will share cognitive abilities based solely on their age group.

            Apart from Piaget's theory of development, the next most crucial model was Vygotsky's theory. Rowe and Wertsch (2002) focus on common themes of cognition that Vygotsky touched on, namely the role of growing language comprehension and social interaction in developing specific processes like memory. He built upon Piaget's work by theorizing that abilities, like problem-solving and concept understanding, were not solely the result of biological development but were refined and developed through social interaction and improved with age as children entered preschool (Rowe & Wertsch, 2002).

             Both Piaget and Vygotsky utilized empirical research and study groups to develop their theories (Barrouillet, 2015). More modern-day ideologies on child cognitive development have built upon how knowledge and understanding develop throughout a lifetime and influence crucial memory storage processes (Barrouillet, 2015). One such theory is Brainered and Reyna's (2015)  Fuzzy-trace Theory, consisting of a dual-process model of understanding. This theory focuses on children's ability to store events in memory and recall those events to solve problems (Brainered & Reyna, 2015) (see Child Memory below).

 

Developmental Capacities and Limitations

            As the previously mentioned theories have demonstrated, increasing age is undoubtedly a factor at which understanding and knowledge improve (Rowe & Wertsch, 2002; Smith, 2002). However, that does not mean that young children cannot understand interviewers' questions and provide intelligent responses. The accuracy of these responses can be influenced by how children are interviewed and their understanding of both the questions asked and how they perceive their role in the process (Lamb et al., 2011).

             One of the most significant limitations that young children have compared to adult witnesses is their limited vocabulary and linguistic understanding (Lamb et al., 2011). While there is considerable variation among children, even within a similar age group (recall Piaget's theory), most children demonstrate a limited capacity for understanding complex language (Lamb et al., 2011; Smith, 2002). Much of what children are required to do in these scenarios involves confirming whether events are true or false or even compare multiple events within a narrative (Yuille, 1997). The complexity of the wording employed by the interviewer or lawyer will drastically affect the quality of the child's statement (Lamb et al., 2011). 

             The basis of this limited understanding lies in the reduced metalinguistic awareness of children (Lamb et al., 2011). That is, children younger than five lack a cognitive appreciation of language and their own vocabulary (Lamb et al., 2011). Recall Vygostky's research in language development and its role in the formation of knowledge (Rowe & Wertsch, 2002). According to Rowe and Wertsch (2002), Vygotsky believed language to be of vital importance to the development of voluntary memory, which he claimed to be the origin of abstract thought (Rowe & Wertsch, 2002). Longobardi et al. (2013) looked at the relationship between metalinguistic awareness and the ability of children to differentiate between reality and fantasy and found there to be a strong correlation between children's language ability and their ability to understand false beliefs. Thus, children with limited vocabularies appear to have a reduced capacity not only for responding to complex questions but also for understanding the concepts presented to them (Longobardi et al., 2013).

             Another commonly researched aspect of language misinterpretation in children is the inability of preschool-aged individuals to understand temporal concepts, that is, descriptive terms related to time (Orbach & Lamb, 2007). Time is an important concept in forensic investigations as the time at which an event occurred or when multiple events occurred in relation to each other is often crucial to understanding what has happened and pursuing legal action (Orbach & Lamb, 2007).

            Early research by Piaget suggests that children’s concept of  time-related concepts is poor and improves with age (Smith, 2002). He posited that until children reach the ages of 6 or 7, they have trouble reproducing events in a sequential manner and that the ability of children to fully comprehend such concepts does not develop until they reach 9 to 10 years of age (Orbach & Lamb, 2007). However, more current studies have stated that while young children (4-6 years) do have a reduced capacity for understanding and communicating time-related concepts, when questioned appropriately (i.e., using appropriate language), children are able to not only answer specific prompts related to event times and sequence of events but can even produce these responses spontaneously, i.e., in response to the open-ended recall, not just specific questioning (Orbach & Lamb, 2007).

            A study by Orbach and Lamb (2007) focused on the ability of children aged 4 to 10 to respond to requests for temporal information regarding an event by analyzing a series of forensic interviews of alleged victims of sexual abuse. The focus of the study was on the ability of children to respond to questions relating to sequencing or the order of details of events both in the forward and reverse direction (something Piaget claimed children were poor at); date events; number occurrences including the specific date and time at which the events occurred; determine the duration and frequency of events were explored (Orbach & Lamb, 2007). Dating of events was further broken down into two processes: temporal distancing and temporal localization (Orbach & Lamb, 2007). Distancing was defined as the ability to order events in terms of how much time had elapsed between them, whereas localization was defined as the ability to connect an event to either a specific date, a "landmark event" such as a holiday, or a specific reference to the individual's own life such as when an individual attended a school (Orbach & Lamb, 2007).

              This research noted a series of interesting limitations regarding the aforementioned attributes (Orbach & Lamb, 2007). Firstly, young children can easily distance same-day events, but any length of time longer than that they struggle with, i.e., if an interviewer were to ask a 4-year old what they did the morning of the interview, the child should have no difficulty describing the events that had taken place; however, if they were to ask the same child what they did say a month or even a week ago, the child would be unable to provide an accurate narrative description of the event in question (Orbach & Lamb, 2007). Next, when the number of occurrences of an event increased, the ability of children to accurately describe in detail the timing of said events decreased (Orbach & Lamb, 2007). Given the forensic context, abusive incidents typically are not isolated, and thus children's inability to separate events can be of concern to their statement's reliability (Lamb et al., 2011). Ultimately, however, the study found that when appropriate terminology was used by the interviewers who utilized the NICHD protocol (see … below), children's ability to recall temporal details was increased (Orbach & Lamb, 2007).

            Research into the types of interview questions utilized by researchers, either open-ended or leading (i.e., Yes/No/ WH questions, etc.), show that children are less likely to ask for clarification when they don't understand a question or a word and will instead just attempt to answer based on their limited linguistic awareness (Malloy et al., 2015).  Thus, interviewers cannot assume the interviewee understands the question simply because they are able to craft a response. While only scratching the surface of the cognitive abilities of preschool-aged children, it is clear that special consideration needs to be taken by the interviewer, specifically in terms of the language barrier (Lamb et al., 2011).

 

Child Memory

            The development of memory is believed to be closely linked to the development of language in that, as previously mentioned, as children learn the words for something, they are better able to understand it as a physical object and thus are able to code and store information related to that object in their memory (Smith, 2002). As La Rooy et al. (2011) describes, this explains why adults have difficulty recovering memories of their infancy due to the fact that they lacked a sufficient vocabulary at that age, which limited their ability to encode that information. 

            Previous research by Barr et al. (1996) stated that children as young as six months old are able to exhibit deferred imitation after a short period of time (i.e., 24 hours), but it is not until 9-months of age that children are able to recall and utilize the observed skills spontaneously and for longer stretches of time (i.e., weeks) (Bauer, 2002). A study on memory development in children (Bauer, 2002) looked at memory as a learned skill that infants observe in their parents and emulate. It employed a test on infant memory developed by Piaget known as deferred imitation, which essentially involved demonstrating action to an infant and monitoring their ability to repeat that action over a period of time (Bauer, 2002). This implies that infant memory is developed early on and is able to be maintained long-term by ten months of age (Bauer, 2002).

              Schneider (2002) built upon Bauer's study and looked at memory development throughout childhood, focusing on the previously held belief that the ability to process information and store it in active memory increases with age, or in other words, that adults are better able to store and process information in active memory than children. Schneider (2002) rejected the simplicity of these previous findings and held instead that knowledge, not age, is the determining factor that influences the ability of an individual to process information. Thus, a child of above-average intelligence would demonstrate more efficient recall than an adult of below-average intelligence (Schneider, 2002). 

            Schneider (2002) also touches on  Fuzzy-Trace Theory (Brainerd and Reyna, 2015) as it relates to a childhood memory. Brainerd and Reyna (2015) proposed that memory is encoded and stored based on two separate systems. One, referred to as "fuzzy-gist traces," encodes general, background information while "verbatim traces" encodes more specific details, which are therefore of more interest in forensic contexts. Their research suggests that children tend to favor verbatim traces over fuzzy-gist traces, while adolescents and adults tend to favor the opposite. The increased favouring of fuzzy-gist traces with age implies a "verbatim to gist shift”(Schneider 2002). However, Brainerd and Reyna (2015) also posit that the storage of information is affected by prior knowledge and experience. Thus, adults are better at encoding information as they possess more prior knowledge and experience of a wider variety of events than children (Brainerd & Reyna, 2015).

             Brainerd and Reyna's (2015) theory is of interest to the forensic discipline as it covers the development of semantic false memories, both in children and adults. They build upon past research that the creation of false memory decreases with age (Ceci et al., 2007, as cited by Brainerd & Reyna, 2015). Brainerd and Reyna (2015) also acknowledge the ability of children and adults to encode information about displayed content (e.g., words, pictures, etc.) and then recall the relationship between the content. Unsurprisingly, adults perform well at this task as they can draw upon both the general meaning of the content as well as the specific details stored in their semantic memory (Brainerd & Reyna, 2015). However, despite the relationship between verbatim traces and specific details, which researchers would expect the children to display, children perform quite poorly at this task displaying almost no semantic processing (Brainerd & Reyna, 2015). The reasoning for this is still unexplained; however, it has strong implications for the theory of how false memories are created in children (Brainerd & Reyna, 2015). Thus, more research needs to be done to determine what mechanisms may be influencing the storage of false memories.

 

Suggestibility and Contamination

             As demonstrated in the Daycare Scandals of the 1980s and 1990s, contamination of children's statements during the interview process can have detrimental effects on an investigation and the resulting trials (Schreiber et al., 2006). Thus, most of the research on child forensic interviewing has focused on children's suggestibility and how the types of questions asked can influence the quality and reliability of their answers (Lamb et al., 2011). The findings of the literature, however, are not conclusive (Lamb et al. 2011) as to whether children are inherently more suggestible than adults. Given that intelligence, not age, may be the determining factor in a witness's suggestibility (Schneider, 2002), acquiescence to suggestive or even coercive interview techniques is not unique to child witnesses (La Rooy et al., 2011). As is reviewed in the ground-breaking eyewitness memory research done by Elizabeth Loftus, adults too can come to produce false memories (La Rooy et al., 2011). Thus, while certain factors may make children more susceptible to such poor interview methods, claiming that children's statements are uniquely unreliable is an unfair judgment.

            Multiple external factors are said to influence a child's memory of an event; here, we focus on only one— the child’s perception of the authority of the interviewer (La Rooy et al., 2011). As children are less likely than adults to ask for clarification regarding questions or information they do not understand (Malloy et al., 2015), instead of replying "I don't know" to a statement, a child may instead feel obliged to agree with the interviewer in response to leading questions if they perceive that the answer is what the interviewer wants (La Rooy et al., 2011). This creates serious problems for law enforcement as most children would perceive police officers as authority figures and thus may feel pressured to give in to misleading or suggestive lines of questioning. 

 

Additional Characteristics of the Interviewee

            Aside from the known differences in child cognitive development and memory, there are other factors that can influence the accuracy and reliability of a child's testimony. Throughout the description of the various methods of investigative interviewing detailed in this review, it is important to remember that these variations exist, both within and outside of age groups, and can change the approach of the interviewer. Thus, flexibility is a core expectation of any interview structure.

            The motivations of the child witness, namely their eagerness to participate in the interview, can have consequences on the amount of information that an interviewer can elicit from the child. Studies that have concentrated on so-called 'reluctant child witnesses' often compare interviews with children who willingly disclosed their abuse (often to parents) versus those who did not disclose but were brought forward by some other circumstance (Hershkowitz, 2011). Such reluctance to disclose can be attributed to feelings of embarrassment given the nature of the abuse; fear of potential consequences for disclosing; or, if the perpetrator is known to the victim, wanting to protect the individual (Blasbalg et al.,2018). Hershkowitz (2011) found that children who disclosed their abuse were more likely to be engaged in the interview than those who did not. Blasbalg et al. (2018) analyzed over 200 forensic interviews of suspected abuse victims ages 6-14 years and found that reluctance was negatively correlated with how informative the children's statements were. Further, children who did not disclose their abuse often required longer and more expansive rapport-building sessions prior to the questioning phase of the interview (detailed below) (Blasbalg et al., 2018; Hershkowitz, 2011) Thus, interviewers need to be prepared to increase the time spent on this stage for children who are less willing to participate in the interview.

            Evidence suggests that children's attachment styles may also influence their memory and suggestibility. Chae et al. (2014) predicted that attachment theory could be utilized as a predictor for children’s accuracy when recalling details of a distressing event, such that better, more accurate recall would be associated with stronger parental attachment. Participants were first evaluated for their attachment style to their parents, were exposed to a 'distressing event' (a routine inoculation) and were then tested on their memory of the event afterward. The researchers' hypothesis was supported as children with less avoidance attachment styles provided more accurate statements of the event than those with more avoidant attachment styles. While it is questionable if routine inoculations can be considered a fair comparison to forensic casework such as emotional and/or physical abuse, the study provided strong empirical support for the role of parental attachment in children's memory and suggestibility. This information is important for interviewers to understand when considering a child victim's statements and can be used to increase the efficacy of interview protocols.

            Unique differences in children, such as neurodevelopmental conditions, require even more special considerations during the interview process. Milne et al. (2013) found that children with intellectual disabilities (IDs) are more likely to misunderstand or give incorrect answers to misleading questions than children without. They theorize that this could be due to the inability of the children with IDs to scan and encode as much detail as quickly as the children without IDs (Milne, 2013).

 

Interviewer Characteristics

            The role of the interviewer in the investigative process cannot be overstated. Much of the present research on child investigative interviewing methods focus on the requirements and training of the interviewers for maximum effectiveness (Yuille et al., 2009).  Yuille et al. (2009) highlight the importance of knowledge of the relevant research on child memory and cognitive development as well as the intersection of abuse and mental health. These areas provide the interviewer with an understanding of how best to respond to the specific needs of the witness. They also bring up an important point for aspiring forensic interviewers to know before embarking on such a career: do they feel emotionally capable of taking on this role? Interviewing children is a difficult task. It requires a far greater understanding of cognitive principles than a standard interview, and, more crucially, it requires the interviewer to remain impartial and unemotional when listening to child victim statements (Yuille et al., 2009). Given the troubling and understandably distressing information that will undoubtedly arise in these cases, individuals must understand their own limitations and address early-on if they possess the capabilities required in the position (Yuille et al., 2009).

            Another important aspect interviewer’s have to consider is caring for reluctant participants. In such cases, lengthier rapport-building sessions may be required before the substantive phase of the interview begins (Hershkowitz, 2011). Here, the role of the interviewer becomes even more important as research has shown that the appearance of a supportive interviewer may be a benefit for both the wellbeing of the child and the outcome of the interview. Goodman et al. (1991) and Carter et al. (1996) demonstrated that social support resulted in children being better equipped to resist misleading questions. Supportiveness has also been found to positively correlate with decreased reluctance and increased participation of the child witness during the interview process (Blasbalg et al., 2018). Ultimately, the benefits of having a supportive interviewer provide the child with a more comfortable experience, with decreased risk of re-traumatization, while also increasing the success of the interview overall (Blasbalg et al., 2018).

 

General Characteristics of the Investigative Interview

            Investigative interviewing of children typically utilizes three distinct protocols: the Cognitive Interview (CI), the Step-Wise Interview, and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Protocol. Much research has informed numerous revisions of these methods since their initial inceptions (Davies & Malloy, 2011; Yuille et al., 2009). Despite there being notable differences and variations within each of these protocols, they share the goals of the interview, the planning stages, and the introduction and rapport-building stages (Fisher et al., 1989; NICHD, 2011; Yuille et al., 2009).

 

Goals of the Investigative Interview

             Yuille et al. (2009) detail the goals of any investigative interview as follows:

1. Maximizing the amount of correct information from the child while simultaneously minimizing the incorrect or contaminated information.
2. Prevent any influence the interview process can have on re-traumatizing the child

             These goals detail that while the overall hope of the interview is to produce information that will be useful to the investigative process and the later trial stages, it is also of vital importance that the emotional and mental wellbeing of the child be monitored and protected (Yuille et al., 2009). This belief is carried throughout the interview protocols when concerning child witnesses and victims.

 

Planning Stage

            The planning stage of an investigative interview includes two main components: information gathering (of the witness and the offense), and the logistics of the interview (location, recording, individuals present) (Smith and Milne, 2011). Assessing the witness, in this case, the child, includes basic information such as the child's age, sex, and culture as well as more sensitive information such as their physical, mental, and emotional wellbeing (Smith & Milne, 2011), which may require outside assistance from a therapist or psychologist. An important distinction needs to be made between the role of the investigative interviewer and a clinical interviewer (Yuille, 1997). While the investigative interviewer should also be aware of and concerned with the welfare of the child (see … for more details) their role is not to be paired with that of a clinician (Yuille, 1997). Both these roles have their own goals, which are not always compatible; therefore, they need to be separated (Yuille, 1997). Thus, any interviews for a clinical or therapeutic purpose should take place prior to and perhaps following the investigative interview - they should never overlap (Yuille et al., 2009). Information regarding the case that is important for the interviewer to know includes any temporal information that the child may be asked to recall, such as the date and time of the offense as well as the type of event the allegation is referring to (i.e., a sexual assault) (Smith & Milne, 2007). These details will assist the interviewer in assessing the credibility of the child's statement (Yuille et al., 2009).

            The logistics of the interview, such as the location, participants, and the recording process, are explained in detail in the original Step-Wise protocol (Yuille, 1997). According to Yuille (1997), the primary goal when choosing a location for the interview is to create an environment where the child is simultaneously comfortable while free of distractions such as noise, other people, toys, etc. Thus, a busy police station with multiple individuals entering and exiting the interview space and lots of noise would be a very poor space to interview a child. An ideal location would be a private area where the interview can occur uninterrupted, but where the child still feels safe (Yuille, 1997). The necessity of a quiet interview space leads to the question of who should be present during the interview process.

            Generally, it is acceptable for one or two professionals (interviewers, police officers, etc.) to be present along with the witness (Yuille, 1997). In the case of two professionals, Yuille (1997) stresses that only one should take the role of the interviewer as if the child has to divert their attention between two individuals when answering questions, they could become stressed or confused to the detriment of the process. Therefore, Yuille (1997) recommends that while one individual is acting as the interviewer, the other should be taking notes or caring for the recording equipment. These roles should be decided upon ahead of time (Smith & Milne, 2011).  Ideally, a parent or other guardian should not be present during the interview; however, in the majority of cases, parental consent is a requirement for the interview to take place (Yuille, 1997). Therefore, if they insist, safeguards can be put in place to minimize the influence a parental guardian can have on the child's statement (Yuille, 1997). An example would be allowing the parent to witness the interview out of the child's eyesight (either behind a one-way glass or, as a last resort, sitting behind the child) (Yuille, 1997).

             Recording the interview, either in video, audio, or written format, is of critical importance and is a requirement for most contemporary protocols (Smith & Milne, 2011). Video is the most preferred method, compared to hand-written or typed notes, as not only can the interviewer create transcripts of the recording later, but it benefits the child immensely (Smith & Milne, 2011). If the interview is recorded, the frequency at which the child will be asked to repeat their story decreases, which reduces the risk of re-traumatization (Smith & Milne, 2011). Yuille (1997) also dictates specifics of how the interview is to be filmed, namely including both the interviewer and the interviewee in the shot. If possible, audio recordings may be taken along with video recordings in the event that the statement is unable to be heard by whomever is documenting the transcript (Yuille, 1997).

 

 Introduction

            Each interview method includes a beginning step where the interviewer introduces themselves to the child and establishes the date, time, location, and present individuals for the purpose of the recording (Yuille, 1997).

 

 Rapport Building

            The CI, Step-Wise, and NICDH protocols all feature a rapport-building step which occurs post-introduction (Appendix, 2011; Fisher et al., 1989; Yuille et al., 2009). The goal of a rapport building step is two-fold. First, it serves to make the child more comfortable, allowing them to acclimate to the interview process and the interviewer (Yuille, 1997). Second, the step provides the interviewer with the opportunity to assess the 'baseline' information of the child; this includes their language capabilities, how effective they can communicate a narrative of an event unrelated to the abuse (i.e., a birthday party), and how they understand certain concepts (i.e., temporal attributes) (Yuille, 1997). This process should follow the standard approach of allowing the child to speak freely before asking any open-ended questions (Fisher et al., 1989; Appendix, 2011; Yuille et al., 2009). The interviewer should be mindful of how the child answers any questions, namely how long their responses tend to be, their word choice, and their body language (Yuille, 1997). These details can be used to assess accuracy later on if the child deviates significantly from the baseline (Yuille et al., 2009). 

            As is detailed in Yuille (1997), Yuille et al. (2009), and Hershkowitz (2009), the rapport-building stage will change depending on the needs of the child and thus must be flexible. Younger children may be more apprehensive of the interviewer, and the process might require a longer rapport-building stage (Hershkowitz, 2009). On the contrary, older children (adolescents) may be irritated by a long rapport building session and may wish to proceed more rapidly to the active interview stages. Hershkowitz (2011) establishes that rapport building that lasts too long (> 8 minutes) can have a negative impact on the length of the child's statements provided. Although, it should be mentioned that there is a substantial discourse in the literature as to what age group this impacts most (Hershkowitz, 2011). Regardless, the interviewer should be prepared to shorten or increase the length of this step to align with the needs of the child (Yuille et al., 2009).

             While there are slight variations in each stage of the interview styles described below (i.e., the wording could change in training scripts), the goals and purpose of each remain the same. The following sections focus on the three specific interview protocols utilized when interviewing children, witnesses, and victims.

 

Cognitive Interview

Background

            The Cognitive Interview is one of the most heavily researched and tested of the interview methods used in forensic practice (Toglia et al., 2007). The method was created in the mid-1980s by Fisher, Geiselman, and Raymond in response to the growing research on faulty eyewitness memory and fallible police investigation techniques (Fisher et al., 1989; Toglia et al., 2007). Fisher et al. were concerned at the apparent impatience of police officers when questioning suspects as they identified the following common trends in interview transcripts: while beginning with open-ended questions, officers usually transitioned to leading questions once details were given by the interviewee and furthermore, officers had a tendency to interrupt the interviewees instead of allowing them to finish their statements before asking additional questions (Toglia et al., 2007).

 Fisher (1995) attributed much of these issues as being the result of poor training of the officers and the reliance on intuition as opposed to research-driven protocols. The Standard Interview was defined as consisting of an introduction but with little to no structure otherwise (Fisher, 1995). Indeed, Fisher (1995) acknowledged that once questioning began, officers would interject often and ask questions before the witness had fully exhausted their account of the target event. Furthermore, officers seemed to always ask targeted questions regarding, in cases where the suspect is unknown, a suspect's appearance. Another noted trend was that questions asked appeared similar interview to interview, suggesting a lack of flexibility of the interview to accommodate the witness (Fisher, 1995).

             The aim of the cognitive interview was to begin moving away from Yes/No or WH questions (what, why, when, etc.) towards more open-ended questions that encouraged interviewees to use their free-recall memory (Fisher, 1995). That is, recollection in the absence of memory cues, as opposed to their recognition memory, which occurs when interviewees search their memory for answers to specific questions by the interviewer (La Rooy et al., 2011; Memon & Bull, 1991). It also aimed to put the focus on the statements made by the interviewee rather than the questions asked by the interviewer (Toglia et al., 2007). Lastly, Fisher wanted to identify ways that the interview could be structured that would encourage the interviewee to exhaust their memory of an event (Fisher, 1995). 

            Later in the 1980s, a revised or 'enhanced' version of the CI was put forward to remedy some of the limitations of the original, namely in its application with child witnesses (Köhnken et al., 1999). The retrieval instructions, as described below, were found to be challenging for younger children to understand – recall Orbach & Lamb’s (2007) findings that children have difficulty recognizing time-related cues such as ‘before’, ‘after’, ‘next’, ‘first’, etc. Thus, additional instructions or mnemonics, as they are commonly referred to, were added to improve the quality, not just the quantity, of child witnesses' statements (Yuille et al., 2009).

 

Protocol

            According to Toglia et al. (2007), the Cognitive Interview features an introduction step where rapport is developed between the interviewer and the witness, and the rules and expectations of the process are set. This is followed by an overview of the witnesses' statement where the interviewer asks no questions but rather allows the interviewee to speak uninterrupted (Toglia et al., 2007). After this step, the interviewer will then ask pointed questions based on the narrative the witness has presented. However, the questions will still be relatively open-ended and will encourage the witness to independently review their own statement and draw new details from their recollection (Toglia et al., 2007). After the interviewer feels that sufficient detail has been drawn from the witnesses' memory, they will begin to ask for clarification on any details and review any notes taken during the interview before dismissing the interviewee (Toglia et al., 2007).

             The probing stage of the Cognitive Interview is the main aspect that sets it apart from other interview styles aimed at minimizing external contamination (Toglia et al., 2007). Instead of asking the aforementioned Yes/No and WH type questions, the Cognitive Method instead employs retrieval instructions for the interviewee, which requires them to retrieve specific details from their memory without external memory cues from the interviewer (Verkampt & Ginet, 2010). According to Verkampt and Ginet (2010), the retrieval instructions are described as follows. Contextual instructions ask that the interviewee thinks of the factors that influenced their encoding of the memory (i.e., music playing at the time, the weather, general background information). Recall all instructions are what takes place during the open narrative portion of the witnesses' statement, where the interviewer requests that the interviewee provides all the details they can about an event and allow them to proceed with their statement uninterrupted (Verkampt & Ginet, 2010; Toglia et al., 2007). The last two conditions are referred to as change instructions as they require that the interviewee change an aspect of their recollection, namely the perspective (i.e., "Pretend you are observing [the event] from outside the window, tell me what you see") or the order of events (i.e., "Recall the events in reverse/out of sequence/etc.") (Verkampt & Ginet, 2010).

            The enhanced version of the CI involved additional principles or mnemonics that served to not only increase the number of details in a witness' statement but also ensure those details were correct (Yuille et al., 2009). The first principle was known as event interview specificity, which follows the theory of encoding specificity (La Rooy et al., 2011). In other words, an individual is more apt to recall an event in greater detail if both the internal factors (emotions) and external factors (sounds, weather, etc.) are the same as they were at the moment the event was encoded in their memory (Fisher et al., 1989). Thus, an interviewer should try as much as possible to recreate the internal and external factors of the target event for the individual. This might include, if it is feasible, holding the interview in the victim's home if that was the location of an abusive episode, though the aforementioned criteria of an ideal interview location should still be followed (Smith & Milne, 2011). The second principle is known as the focused retrieval principle, which is a response to the trend that Fisher acknowledged in the 1995 paper – that police officers often fail to encourage the witness to attempt multiple retrievals of information using different instructions (Fisher et al., 1989; Fisher, 1995). This principle is where the retrieval instructions are introduced. The third principle is most relevant to the present review as it focuses on witness-compatible questioning (Fisher et al., 1989). This idea is a direct response to the criticism that the original CI interview lacked application to child victims due to question complexity (Yuille et al., 2009). It encouraged the interviewer to be more flexible when it came to varying needs of the witness and utilize the language and developmental baseline of the witness to adjust their questioning and interpretation of the witness' responses (Fisher et al., 1989). Lastly, the enhanced CI includes specific instructions in response to certain challenges that might be met during the interview (Fisher et al., 1989). This includes attaining whatever details are possible, even if incomplete; keeping witnesses focused (important for children); instructions regarding assisting with the witness' welfare; and a more structured explanation of the CI's format to make it easier for instructors to train police officers in its application (Fisher et al., 1989).

 

In Practice

Several studies have been conducted to assess the success of the CI outside of laboratory experiments.  Fisher et al. (1989) trained police officers to apply and execute the CI interview in cases where a witness to a crime had to recount the details of the event. The findings of the study demonstrated that the CI resulted in 63% more information from witnesses compared to the standard interview (Fisher et al., 1989). Additionally, when compared to the standard structure interview employed by investigators, every iteration of the cognitive interview was better at producing accurate details of children’s common event recollection than the structured interview (Verkampt & Ginet, 2010). The most successful iteration was the version of the cognitive interview with the instruction to recall events out of sequence omitted, aligning with children's difficulty in understanding and employing temporal constructs (Orbach & Lamb, 2007). 

             A meta-analysis conducted by Köhnken et al. (1999) addressed the differences between the original CI and the enhanced version. This meta-analysis was able to look at differences between studies that might influence the effectiveness of the interview, namely the length of time between the target event and the interview, and identify variability in the research regarding the CI's application to child witnesses. They cite Geiselman & Padilla (1988) which found the CI increased only the amount of correct information in children while Memon et al. (1997) contradicted these findings and suggested that the CI increased both correct and incorrect details (Köhnken et al., 1999). The meta-analysis revealed that the reported increase in correct details is greater than the reported increase in incorrect details, resulting in a 3% higher overall accuracy rate of the CI over the structured interview at the time of publishing (Köhnken et al., 1999).

             

Step-Wise Interview

Background

             The Step-Wise Interview was developed by John Yuille in the late 1990s in response to the need for better interview practices to maximize the effective recall of child witnesses while minimizing the potential for contaminating information (Yuille et al., 2009). Additionally, it sought to reduce the chance of the child witness/victim to incur additional trauma from revisiting distressing events (Yuille, 1997). This distinction is what sets the Step-Wise interview apart from the previous CI; its focus was almost exclusively on child witnesses and had a specific focus on the wellbeing of said children who were victims of abuse (Yuille et al., 2009). While not subject to the same academic attention of the CI, the Step-Wise Interview has proved very useful in the application, as Hewelett (2000) reported it to be the standard protocol utilized by RCMP across the country. 

 

Protocol 

            Similar to the Cognitive Interview, the Step-Wise interview begins with an introduction between the interviewer and the interviewee and a step to establish rapport between the two individuals (Yuille, 1997). The rapport step here serves not only to establish trust between the interviewee and the interviewer but, particularly in the case of interviewing young children, to allow the interviewer to assess the developmental capabilities of the child (Yuille et al., 2009). This is the step where the child's ability to understand temporally related concepts, their language abilities, and their ability to distinguish truth from fiction is assessed (Yuille et al., 2009; Lamb et al., 2011). Yuille (1997) focuses on explaining to the child the importance of telling the truth as well as the importance of the child being honest if they do not remember a particular detail or if they simply do not know the answer to the interviewer's questions. The original Step-Wise interview included an optional 'Interview Rules' section where the following is stressed to the child: their right to stop the interview at any time if they feel uncomfortable (Yuille (1997) includes a nonverbal way for the child to do this to increase comfort); the importance of telling the truth and the importance of saying "I don't know" when appropriate (Yuille, 1997).

            After these introductory steps are completed, and the expectations of the interview are set, the interviewer will then commence what is referred to as "Introducing the Topic of Concern" (Yuille, 1997). Yuille et al. (2009) describe the importance of what they refer to as "the funnel approach." This consists of asking general questions such as "Why do you think you are here?" to the child in an effort to induce the desired free recall on behalf of the child (Yuille et al., 2009). However, some children require more probing than others, and therefore more specific questions need to be asked in order to elicit a sufficient response. Thus, the funnel approach encourages the interviewer to start with the least leading questions and move towards more specific inquiries as necessary (Yuille et al., 2009).

            This leads into the disclosure phase of the interview where, hopefully, the interviewee will discuss at length the event of interest, and the interviewer will only engage with questions if necessary to encourage the child to continue elaborating on the event (Yuille, 1997). The questions will ideally be open-ended and non-leading so as to minimize the risk of contamination. The questioning phase here also obeys the funnel-approach in that once the open-ended questions have exhausted their abilities to encourage sufficient recall, more specific questions will be utilized but only as necessary (Yuille et al., 2009). Once the interviewer is satisfied that the child can no longer report any additional information, the child is thanked for their participation, and the interview is concluded (Yuille, 1997).

             In the original version of the Step-Wise protocol, the disclosure phase was broken up into three distinct steps: the free narrative phase, the open-ended question phase, and, only if necessary, the specific question phase (Yuille et al., 2009). The 'Free Narrative' phase was defined as the most important of the entire protocol, and, ideally, this is where the majority of the details of the incident are be produced (Yuille, 1997). Yuille (1997) detailed specific instructions for when a witness recalls multiple incidents of sexual abuse as opposed to a single incident. Essentially, the interviewer is told to instruct the child to speak openly regarding all incidents and create a 'script' for what usually occurs in abusive situations (Yuille, 1997). From there, the interviewer and the child must both agree on 'labels' for each incident that are easily distinguishable from each other so as not to confuse them (Yuille, 1997). Apart from that, the process of allowing the child to speak about the events uninterrupted is followed. In the open-ended questioning phase, the Step-Wise protocol advises the use of WH questions as opposed to close-ended Yes/No questions and again ensures the child is aware that saying "I don't know" and/or "I don't remember" are valid responses and should be used when appropriate (Yuille, 1997). Specific questions are optional as they are the most at risk for contaminating the child's account of events; Yuille (1997) advises against questions with options unless there are more than two that the child can choose from. Prior to the conclusion of the interview, the interviewer can ask any final questions regarding inconsistencies in the child's statement but in a manner that will not upset the child (Yuille, 1997). Such inconsistencies or deviations from the baseline can be used by the interviewer to later determine credibility (Yuille, 1997). 

             The Step-Wise interview, similar to the CI, was subject to later revisions, and a "New Generation" was produced (Yuille et al., 2009).  This version included specific instructions for variations in child witness needs, including cultural and age differences (namely between young children and adolescents). The rapport building step in this version was greatly increased to better assess children's understanding of certain concepts – such as temporal attributes – while also including instructions for older children for whom a shorter rapport session may be appropriate. The 'Interview Rules' step was completely removed as the author’s discovered through personal experience administering the protocol that children had a difficult time understanding and applying the rules when explained all at once. Thus, Yuille et al. (2009) instructed investigators to instead remind the children of the rules frequently throughout the interview, particularly before and after the free narrative steps. They also mentioned that adolescents might be annoyed or feel patronized by the rule step, which could influence their participation, thus weakening the whole process (Yuille et al., 2009). Another step that was significantly reduced in the New Generation was the 'Establishing Truth' instruction (Yuille et al., 2009). Again, Yuille et al. (2009) reported that adolescents might find this instruction insulting. They further demonstrated that while most children do understand the difference between telling the truth versus telling a lie, even if they do not, simply instructing them to do so likely will not make a difference (Yuille et al., 2009). They determined that setting the expectation early in the introduction and rapport building was just as effective, and thus the step was unnecessary and ineffective. The remainder of the protocol remained largely the same (Yuille et al., 2009). Noteworthy, Yuille et al. (2009) actually suggest the use of the CI as an addition to the Step-Wise protocol to further promote the recall of event details, although only in cases involving adolescent children (approximately ages 12-16).

 

In Practice

            Compared to the Cognitive Interview, the research surrounding the Step-Wise interview is greatly limited. However, it is still widely used in practice in Canada, the U.S., and Europe (Hewlett, 2000). The majority of the research compiled compared the effectiveness of the Step-Wise Interview to other known protocols. A comparison study by De Rosa et al. (2019)  looked at the ability of both the CI and the Step-Wise interview to elicit what is known as differential recall enhancement (DRE). The researchers predicted that individuals who are being knowingly deceptive are more likely to rely on a 'script' of the abuse. Comparatively, honest responders would produce more spontaneous recollection of detail throughout the interview. The results of the study found that the CI produced notable changes in details between the honest and deceptive witnesses, while the Step-Wise interview did not (De Rosa et al., 2019). The accuracy of the Step-Wise condition was also less than the CI (58% compared to 73%, respectively) (De Rosa et al., 2019).

            Another comparison study carried out by Lindberg et al. (2002) focused on the follow-up question phase of the interview that commenced once free-recall was exhausted. The study consisted of children being shown a video of a mother hitting their child before being interviewed by students who had been trained in one of three methods, including the Step-Wise protocol. The found that the Step-Wise was effective at producing accurate descriptions of the video, though not the best of the methods used (Lindberg et al., 2002). This could potentially be due to the limitation of the focused-questioning phase to only open-ended WH questions as opposed to more specific Yes/No type questions (Lindberg et al., 2002). More research is required on the subject moving forward. Another study produced similar results to the above study in terms of the ability of the Step-Wise interview to promote resistance to misleading information (Hardy & van Leeuwen, 2004). Children between 2 and 8 years were interviewed about a staged event with four different versions of the Step-Wise interview (Hardy & van Leeuwen, 2004). The results of the study were that older children (5-8 years old) were better at resisting suggestions than the younger children (3-5 years old) and were provided more accurate details regarding the target event (Hardy & van Leeuwen, 2004). However, none of the variations to the original Step-Wise Protocol enhanced or decreased susceptibility to misleading information (Hardy and van Leeuwen, 2004).

 

NICHD Protocol

Background

            A common trend noted across the literature on investigative interviewing is that, while the protocols themselves may have demonstrated successes in their applications, interviewers rarely adhere to the protocol as intended (Lamb et al., 2011). Hewlett (2000) looked at the instances that RCMP interviewers follow the Step-Wise Protocol guidelines as they had been trained to do. They found that, while, in general, adherence was good, in the areas where it was most important (beginning with open-ended questions before proceeding to more specific, but not suggestive, questions), the participants failed to follow the protocol. As mentioned previously in field studies of the CI, after the training sessions for the investigators, a follow-up session following a practice interview was required to critique the investigators on their adherence to the method (Fisher et al., 1989). In response to this concern, Lamb et al. (2007) at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) developed a named protocol for investigative interviewing of children, which focused heavily on training investigators and assessing the application of the tested protocols to real-world applications.

 

Protocol

            The format of the NICHD protocol is very similar to that of the Step-Wise interview in terms of the pre-substantive and substantive interview phases and the funnel approach to specific questioning (Lamb et al., 2007). Thus, many of the steps are the same between the two methods but are referred to by different names.

            The introduction of the target event is referred to as the 'Transitional Phase' between the introductory phases and the active interview phase. This is where the child would be asked questions such as "Do you know what you are here for today?" (Lamb et al., 2007). If this general probing of the target event did not elicit a sufficient response from the child, the interviewer was told to move forward carefully with more specific probes, i.e., "I talk to children who something bad has happened to, has anything bad happened to you recently?" (Lamb et al., 2007).

            After that, the format of the protocol adheres to the standard, with a free-recall phase being exhausted before moving on to gradually more focused questions. The NICHD protocol is unique for its use of specific categories of 'invitations' or focused questions that proceed from the most open-ended (Facilitatory Invitations) to the most specific (Option-Posing). Examples of the invitations are as followed:

• Facilitator Invitations: Utilized during the free-recall phase or while the child is providing a statement as an indication for the child to continue talking – "Yes, Uh-huh."
• Cued Invitations: Utilized if the child requires increased prompting to continue, utilizes aspects/details they have provided previously in their statement (not introducing new details – "You mentioned [this], and then what happened?"
• Directive Invitations: WH questions
• Option-Posing Invitations: Yes/No, multiple-choice questions – only if necessary
• Suggestive Invitations: Introducing information not mentioned by the child in question format, i.e., "When she did [this], did it hurt?" – discouraged, not to be utilized at all (Lamb et al., 2007)

           

In Practice

            The NICHD protocol is frequently employed in numerous countries around the world, including Canada, and the findings produced by the research have been demonstrated universally (Lamb et al., 2007). Lamb et al. (2007) found that the funnel-approach to questioning detailed in the protocol was immensely successful in producing accurate and uncontaminated information from child witnesses. More than half of the information elicited was done so via the free-recall stage. Furthermore, interviewers who utilized the protocol were found to use significantly less (50%) suggestive lines of questioning than those who interviewed without (Lamb et al., 2007). More recently, Otgaar et al. (2020) demonstrated the effectiveness of the protocol by questioning child participants who witnessed a presentation about the details of the event, using the NICHD method, before having them complete a 20-component memory questionnaire. The results of the study found that the NICHD protocol produced more accurate narratives than the control groups regarding the target event with the least amount of misinformation being communicated (Otgaar et al., 2020). This is immensely important as it suggests that the NICHD protocol might actually decrease the risk of contaminating information when interviewing juvenile witnesses (Otgaar et al., 2020).

The usefulness of the NICHD protocol in real-world forensic applications has also been demonstrated. Hershkowitz et al. (2007) looked specifically at the ability of the NICHD protocol to produce credible statements when interviewing child victims of sexual assault. What they determined was that statements obtained by the NICHD were more often judged, by experienced practitioners, to be credible or incredible, whereas statements obtained without the protocol often failed to be judged either way (Hershkowitz et al., 2007). This is important, as in real-world applications, if conclusions are unable to be drawn regarding the credibility of the witness statements, this can potentially result in wrongful convictions of innocent suspects or failure to convict guilty offenders (Hershkowitz et al., 2007).  

            As was described in the background information on the NICHD protocol, the goal of the method was to facilitate an environment where the protocol would be adhered to outside of the laboratory (Lamb et al., 2007). Discouragingly, Lamb et al. (2007) noted that, while officers who were trained in the NICHD protocol appeared to learn and understand the usefulness of the protocol when interviewing child witnesses, they rarely implemented what they had been taught in practice. They concluded their study with a note of the importance of continued feedback being provided to interviewers and frequent follow-ups after training to ensure the protocol was being applied as intended (Lamb et al., 2007). Davies and Malloy (2011) echoed this sentiment and expanded on the notion that, while the methods of the protocol – and indeed other investigative interview protocols - are established in empirically supported research, this scientific basis is of little relevance if it cannot be utilized practically. In other words, if practitioners are unwilling to use the methods as intended and resort to their previous habits, such as interrupting the child during free-recall or asking suggestive questions, the effectiveness of the protocol will suffer (Davies & Malloy, 2011). 

  

Conclusion

Closing Thoughts

            The importance of effective, empirically established interviewing techniques for child witnesses and victims is evident, taking into account the unique developmental challenges that arise. Considering each of the three methods focused on in this review, it is clear to see that each have their own goals, benefits, and limitations.

            The Cognitive Interview is one of the most well-researched and employed interview techniques across all ages and disciplines. Its implementation, as a response to poor eyewitness recollection, benefits from an increased recall of specific details (Milne et al., 2013). Furthermore, the enhanced version of the CI benefitted its application to child witnesses via the inclusion of witness-compatible questioning (Milne et al., 2013). However, there is disagreement in the literature as to the net increase in the overall accuracy of information produced by the CI, with certain studies claiming no difference in the accuracy of the information produced while others claim to see an increase in both accurate and inaccurate information (Köhnken et al., 1999; Milne et al., 2013). Certain instructions, such as the change-order instruction, have presented challenges for younger witnesses to understand and respond to (Verkampt & Ginet, 2010). Thus, protocols such as the Step-Wise Interview instruct the use of CI mnemonics only when interviewing adolescent witnesses (Yuille et al., 2009). Additionally, field studies have shown that when inexperienced interviewers attempt to employ the CI, it often takes longer and requires more mental concentration on the part of the interviewer – as they often have to make quick decisions and change the course of the interview to accommodate changes in the witness' statement (Fisher et al., 1989).

            The Step-Wise approach is the most relied on interview protocol in Canada and has popularized the funnel approach to questioning (Goodman & Melinder, 2007). The protocol's major advantages come from its development being focused not just on producing accurate recall but also minimizing the traumatizing effects the interview process can have on the child. Its use of an expanded rapport-building session and Yuille et al. (2009) stressing the importance of flexibility when questioning child witnesses make it highly beneficial for dealing with children of all ages and developmental levels. However, studies have raised concerns about the ability of the Step-Wise Interview to reduce the influence of suggestive or misleading information (Hardy & van Leeuwen, 2004). Though, it should be noted, this is a broad concern of most interview protocols, not only the Step-Wise (Goodman & Melinder, 2007). Additionally, the protocol is severely lacking in recent, empirical research compared to its alternatives (Goodman & Melinder, 2007). This calls into question the protocol's application and, considering concerns surrounding practitioners' adherence to the steps of this method, more studies need to be conducted to ensure the Step-Wise is still operating as intended (Hewlett, 2000).

            Lastly, the NICHD protocol is certainly advantageous over its predecessors in terms of current research and continued application (Lamb et al., 2007; Lamb et al., 2011; Otgaar et al., 2020). While continued research on its effectiveness still needs to be carried out, of greater concern is the assurance that interviewers practicing the protocol are adhering to steps as they have been trained (Goodman & Melinder, 2007).  A study by Lamb et al. (2002) found that when interviewers trained in the NICHD protocol were left unsupervised, they used fewer open-ended questions and more suggestive prompts. This is of immense concern to all investigative interviewing researchers, regardless of the protocol being used. Considering the importance of effective interviewing techniques, there is little value in empirically proven methods if these methods are not adhered to.

 

Limitations of Research

            Generalizability of the procedures and methods utilized in the laboratory studies to real-world application is a frequent concern to researchers. Whether moderately distressing events such as inoculations are sufficiently comparable to abusive events or if a child's ability to recall details of presentation or story in a lab environment is reasonably similar to their ability to recall details of multiple counts of abuse is up for debate (Lamb et al., 2011; La Rooy et al., 2011; Milne et al., 2013). Unfortunately, these minimally distressing procedures are often the best options available, as anything more severe would be considered highly unethical for any participants, much less those as young as 4 years old. Thus, researchers must do the best they can to ensure that the conditions of the studies are sufficiently similar to real-world applications, though it is understood that there are limits to what can be expected. 

            Studies such as Lamb et al. (2007) have called into question the usefulness of the measures of success for the investigative interview, specifically that of accuracy. While the number of details available in a laboratory scenario, such as a presentation or magic show, can be counted and determined by the experimenters, outside of the lab in forensic casework, this level of specificity is impossible to ensure (Lamb et al., 2007). Most of the time, investigators have no way of knowing how accurate a child's statement is as the statement itself is often the only piece of evidence available. Thus, while accuracy might be a positive assessor of a questioning method's success in lab environments, it fails to be as beneficial in real-world application (Lamb et al., 2007).

Future Directions

            Ultimately, more research needs to be conducted on the effectiveness of interviewing protocols outside of laboratory studies, especially commonly used studies such as the Step-Wise Interview that have not been subject to as much academic scrutiny (Goodman & Melinder, 2007; Hewlett, 2000). Additionally, future research needs to focus on practitioner adherence to interview protocols. Without effective implementation of the most crucial aspects of the above procedures, namely the importance of open-ended, overly suggestive prompts, the potential for contaminating and misleading information will continue to plague the discipline (Lamb et al., 2002). This will benefit not only the academic studies of investigative interviewing but will improve practitioner application overall.

 

 

References

 

("Appendix: The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Protocol: Interview Guide," 2011) 

 

Barrouillet, P. (2015). Theories of cognitive development: From Piaget to today. Developmental Review, 38, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2015.07.004 

 

Barr, R., Dowden, A., & Hayne H. (1996). Developmental changes in deferred imitation by 6- to 24-month-old infants. Infant Behaviour and Development, 19, 159-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0163-6383(96)90015-6 

 

Bauer, P.J. (2002).Long-Term Recall Memory: Behavioral and Neuro-Developmental Changes in the First 2 Years of Life. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 137-141. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00186 

 

Blasbalg, U., Hershkowitz, I., & Karni-Visel, Y. (2018). Support, reluctance, and production in child abuse investigative interviews. In Psychology, Public Policy, and Law (Vol. 24, Issue 4, pp. 518–527). American Psychological Association.          https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000183 

 

Brainerd, C. J., & Reyna, V. F. (2015). Fuzzy-trace theory and lifespan cognitive development. Developmental Review, 38, 89–121. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2015.07.006 

 

Brainerd, C. J., & Reyna, V. F. (2012). Reliability of Children's Testimony in the Era of Developmental Reversals. Developmental Review, 32, 224–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2012.06.008 

 

Carter, C.A., Bottoms, B.L., & Levine, M. (1996). Linguistic and socioemotional influences on the accuracy of children’s reports. Law and Human Behaviour, 20, 335-358. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01499027

 

Chae, Y., Goodman, G. S., Larson, R. P., Augusti, E.-M., Alley, D., VanMeenen, K. M., Culver, M., & Coulter, K. P. (2014). Children's memory and suggestibility about a distressing event: The role of children's and parents' attachment. Journal of      Experimental Child Psychology, 123, 90–111. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2014.01.005 

 

Davies, G. M., & Malloy, L. C. (2011). Relationship Between Research and Practice. In Children's Testimony (pp. 371–401). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119998495.ch18 

 

De Rosa, J., Hiscock-Anisman, C., Blythe, A., Bogaard, G., Hally, A., & Colwell, K. (2019). A comparison of different investigative interviewing techniques in generating differential recall enhancement and detecting deception. Journal of          Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 16(1), 44–58.                                https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.1519 

 

Edwards H.T. et al. (2009) Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward. Washington, DC: the National Academy of Sciences.

 

Fisher, R. P., Geiselman, R. E., & Amador, M. (1989). Field test of the cognitive interview: Enhancing the recollection of actual victims and witnesses of crime. In Journal of Applied Psychology (Vol. 74, Issue 5, pp. 722–727). American          Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.74.5.722 

 

Goodman, G.S., Bottoms, B.L., Schwartz-Kenney, B. & Rudy, L. (1991). Children’s memory for a stressful event: Improving children’s reports. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 1, 69-99. https://benjamins.com/catalog/jnlh.1.1.05chi 

 

Goodman, G. S., & Melinder, A. (2007). Child witness research and forensic interviews of young children: A review. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 12(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1348/135532506X156620 

  

Hardy, C. L., & Van Leeuwen, S. A. (2004). Interviewing young children: Effects of probe structures and focus of rapport-building talk on the qualities of young children's eyewitness statements. In Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science / Revue Canadienne des sciences du comportement (Vol. 36, Issue 2, pp. 155–165). Canadian Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0087226 

 

Hell to Pay (2019). The Fifth Estate. CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1467783747593 

 

Hershkowitz, I. (2011). Rapport Building in Investigative Interviews of Children. In Children's Testimony (pp. 109–128).        https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119998495.ch6 

 

Hershkowitz, I., Fisher, S., Lamb, M. E., & Horowitz, D. (2007). Improving credibility assessment in child sexual abuse allegations: The role of the NICHD investigative interview protocol. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31(2), 99–110.                    https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2006.09.005 

 

Hewlett, M. G. (2000). Adherence to the step-wise interview protocol by trained RCMP investigators during forensic sexual abuse interviews with children. doi: https://doi.org/10.24124/2000/bpgub197   

  

Howse, J. (1992). The Martensville Scandal. Maclean's. https://archive.macleans.ca/article/1992/6/22/the-martensville-scandal 

 

Huitt, W., & Hummel, J. (2003). Piaget's Theory of Cognitive Development. Educational Psychology Interactive, Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cognition/piaget.html 

 

Köhnken, G., Milne, R., Memon, A., & Bull, R. (1999). The Cognitive Interview: A Meta-Analysis. Psychology Crime & Law - PSYCHOL CRIME LAW, 5, 3–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683169908414991 

 

Lamb, M. E., Orbach, Y., Hershkowitz, I., Esplin, P. W., & Horowitz, D. (2007). 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. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31(11–12), 1201– 1231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2007.03.021 

 

Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., Orbach, Y., Esplin, P. W., & Mitchell, S. (2002). Is ongoing feedback necessary to maintain the quality of investigative interviews with allegedly abused children? In Applied Developmental Science (Vol. 6, Issue      1, pp. 35–41). Lawrence Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532480XADS0601_04 

 

La Rooy, D. J., Malloy, L. C., & Lamb, M. E. (2011). The Development of Memory in Childhood. In Children's Testimony (pp. 49–68). https://doi.org/doi:10.1002/9781119998495.ch3 

 

Lamb, M. E., Malloy, L. C., La Rooy, D. J., La Rooy, D. J., Malloy, L. C., & Lamb, M. E. (2011). Setting Realistic Expectations: Developmental Characteristics, Capacities, and Limitations. In Children's Testimony (pp. 15–48).                            https://doi.org/doi:10.1002/9781119998495.ch2 

 

Lefmann, T., & Combs-Orme, T. (2013). Early Brain Development for Social Work Practice: Integrating Neuroscience with Piaget's Theory of Cognitive Development. Journal of  Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 23(5), 640–647. https://doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2013.775936 

 

Lindberg, M. A., Chapman, M. T., Samsock, D., Thomas, S. W., & Lindberg, A. W. (2003). Comparisons of Three Different Investigative Interview Techniques With Young Children. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 164(1), 5–28.                          https://doi.org/10.1080/00221320309597500 

 

Longobardi, E., Spataro, P., & Renna, M. (2014). Relationship between False Belief, Mental  State Language, Metalinguistic Awareness, and Social Abilities in School-age Children. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 114, 365–371.              https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.713

 

Malloy, L. C., Katz, C., Lamb, M. E., & Mugno, A. P. (2015). Children's Requests for Clarification in Investigative Interviews About Suspected Sexual Abuse. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 29(3), 323–333. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3101 

 

Memon, A., & Bull, R. (1991). The cognitive interview: Its origins, empirical support, evaluation, and pracications. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 1(4), 291–307. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2450010405tical impl 

 

Milne, R., Sharman, S. J., Powell, M. B., & Mead, S. (2013). Assessing the  Effectiveness of the  Cognitive Interview for Children with Severe Intellectual Disabilities. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 60(1), 18–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2013.757137 

 

Orbach, Y., & Lamb, M. E. (2007). Young Children's References to Temporal Attributes of  Allegedly Experienced Events in the Course of Forensic Interviews. Child Development, 78(4), 1100–1120. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-              8624.2007.01055.x   

 

Otgaar, H., de Ruiter, C., Sumampouw, N., Erens, B., & Muris, P. (2020). Protecting Against Misinformation: Examining the Effect of Empirically Based Investigative Interviewing on Misinformation Reporting. Journal of Police and Criminal                Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-020-09401-2 

 

Revised Investigative Interview Protocol (2014). NICHD Protocol. http://nichdprotocol.com/

 

Rowe, S. M., & Wertsch, J. V. (2002). Vygotsky's Model of Cognitive Development. In Blackwell Handbook of Childhood Cognitive Development (pp. 538–554). https://doi.org/doi:10.1002/9780470996652.ch24 

 

Schneider, W. (2002). Memory Development in Childhood. In Blackwell Handbook of Childhood Cognitive Development (pp. 236–256). https://doi.org/doi:10.1002/9780470996652.ch11 

 

Schreiber, N., Bellah, L. D., Martinez, Y., McLaurin, K. A., Strok, R., Garven, S., & Wood, J.M. (2006). Suggestive interviewing in the McMartin Preschool and Kelly Michaels daycare abuse cases: A case study. Social Influence, 1(1), 16–47.     https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510500361739 

 

Smith, L. (2002). Piaget's Model. In Blackwell Handbook of Childhood Cognitive Development (pp. 515–537). https://doi.org/doi:10.1002/9780470996652.ch23 

 

Smith, K., & Milne, R. (2011). Planning the Interview. In Children's Testimony (pp. 87–107). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119998495.ch5 

 

Toglia, M. (Ed.), Read, J. (Ed.), Ross, D. (Ed.), Lindsay, R. (Ed.). (2007). The Handbook of Eyewitness Psychology: Volume I. New York: Psychology Press, https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315086309 

 

Twiddy, A. (2016) The Little Rascals Case: A Case for Regulating Children's Testimony. In The People, Ideas, and Things Journal. (7). Accessed by: https://pitjournal.unc.edu/article/little-rascals-case-case-regulating-                  children%E2%80%99s-testimony  

 

Verkampt, F., & Ginet, M. (2010). Variations of the cognitive interview: Which one is the most effective in enhancing children's testimonies? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24(9), 1279–1296. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1631 

 

Westman, J.L. (2018). No Matter How Small: Child Witnesses in Canadian Criminal Trials. Appeal: Review of Current Law and Law Reform (23). Accessed by: https://journals.uvic.ca/index.php/appeal/issue/view/1355 

 

Yuille, J. 1997. The Step-Wise Interview, University of British Columbia, Department of Psychology. Unpublished manuscript. Available from John Yuille Ph.D

 

Yuille, J. C., Hunter, R., Joffe, R., & Zaparniuk, J. (1993). Interviewing children in sexual abuse cases. In Child victims, child witnesses:  Understanding and improving testimony. (pp. 95–115). The Guilford Press.

 

Yuille, J.C., Cooper, B.S., & Hervé H.F. (2009). The step-wise guidelines for child interviews: The new generation. In M. Casonato & F. Pfafflin (Eds.), Pedoparafile: Psychological perspectives, forensic psychiatric (published in Italian). Italy:            Franco Angeli.