One hundred twenty-eight 5- to 7-year-old children were interviewed using the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Investigative Interview Protocol about an event staged 4 to 6 weeks earlier. Children were prepared for talking about the investigated event using either an invitational or directive style of prompting, with or without additional practice describing experienced events. The open invitation prompts (including those using children's words to encourage further reporting) elicited more detailed responses than the more focused directive prompts without reducing accuracy. Children were most responsive when they had received preparation that included practice describing experienced events in response to invitation prompts. Overall, children were highly accurate regardless of prompt type. Errors mostly related to peripheral rather than central information and were more likely to be elicited by directive or yes/no questions than by invitations. Children who provided accounts when asked about a false event were less accurate when describing the true event. Children who received preparation that included practice recalling a recent event in response to directive and yes/no questions were least accurate when questioned about the false event first. The data provide the first direct evaluation of the accuracy of information elicited using different prompt types in the course of NICHD Protocol interviews, and underscore the importance of how children are prepared for subsequent reporting.

We used sequential analysis to examine the relationship between interviewer question types, child responsiveness, and subsequent interviewer prompting in 103 forensic interviews investigating sexual abuse allegations with children (6–16 years old). Broad open-ended prompts were more likely to elicit responses (83%) than nonresponses (17%) from children, but nonresponding was more highly associated with this type of prompt than expected by chance. Closed-ended prompts elicited more responses (96%) than nonresponses (4%) from children, and these prompts were more likely to elicit a response than expected by chance. Interviewers did not consistently engage in “pairing” and generally did not alter their questioning style in response to children’s behavior. As expected, more frequent use of pairing was positively associated with open-ended prompting and negatively associated with focused prompting. Similarly, children’s responding style remained consistent irrespective of the questions posed to them. Thus, much of the interviews seemed to be composed of interviewers and children talking past one another. Interviewing training and supervision of interviewing practice may benefit by including a focus on the pairing principle.

We examined interviewers' use of visual aids (e.g., diagrams, dolls, drawings), their questioning strategies, children's productivity, and factors associated with visual aid use in 98 forensic interviews with children (6-16 years) about sexual abuse. Use of aids was common: 62% of interviews included at least one, with sketch-plans being the most common (74% of interviews using aids). Interviewers predominantly asked direct ("wh-") questions alongside visual aids. Interviews with aids comprised fewer invitations than interviews without them (excluding questions that were asked alongside aids). Visual aids did not increase (or decrease) children's productivity: Children remained consistent in their responding style irrespective of whether aids were used or not. We did not identify any significant predictors of interviewers' use of visual aids. Given that visual aids can compromise children's accuracy, we suggest that interviewers minimize their use and be mindful of the questions they pose in conjunction with them.

No abstract

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