A meta‐analytic review of the Self‐Administered Interview©: Quantity and accuracy of details reported on initial and subsequent retrieval attempts

Abstract

The Self‐Administered Interview (SAI©) is designed to elicit detailed witness reports in the aftermath of incidents. In two sets of meta‐analyses, we compared the number of correct details reported, the number of incorrect details reported, and the accuracy of reports provided by witnesses in initial reports (SAI© vs. other reporting formats) and in subsequent accounts (initial SAI© vs. no initial SAI©). The number of comparisons ranged from 15 to 19, (N = 722 to 977). For initial accounts, the SAI© was associated with more correct details and more incorrect details than other reporting formats; accuracy was slightly lower for the SAI© than for other reporting formats. Subsequent accounts were more detailed and accurate for witnesses who had completed an initial SAI© than for those who had not. The SAI© is an effective tool for capturing detailed initial accounts and for preserving witness memory until a formal interview can be conducted.

“What works?” Systematic reviews and meta‐analyses of the investigative interviewing research literature

“…First, authors of these reviews resoundingly called for important considerations for future research and data collection practices. For example, many of the reviews focused on relatively small literatures that could benefit from more experimental research and improved power in research designs (with cells sizes often too small to detect appropriate effect sizes; (Gabbert et al, 2021;Horry et al, 2021;Luke, 2021;Oleszkiewicz & Watson, 2021;Otgaar et al, 2021;Verschuere et al, 2021). In some instances, replication of findings was encouraged to extend beyond well-defined research groups (Luke, 2021;Verschuere et al, 2021).…”

“…A second set of recommendations related to the need to explore contextual moderators important to ecological validity (Gabbert et al, 2021;Horry et al, 2021;Mac Giolla & Luke, 2021;Oberlader et al, 2021;Otgaar et al, 2021;Verschuere et al, 2021). For example, many of the current experimental paradigms lack elements that are central to the experience of witnesses, victims, sources, or suspects, including the degree of perceived stress or arousal, the variety of motivations associated with providing information, or the complexity of the situations that are so often the purpose of an interview.…”

“…Finally, anyone who has conducted a systematic review or metaanalysis is familiar with the challenges of accessing relevant details associated with a study's methodology or analyses. Scholars in the current issue have similarly called for improvements to the clear and transparent reporting of such information, recommending that materials and data be made available on repositories such as Open Science Framework, and that authors consider limiting potential researcher bias by pre-registering their studies (Horry et al, 2021;Oberlader et al, 2021). Finally, researchers should consider facilitating access to unpublished studies by posting them to repositories such as PsyArXiv.…”

“…The authors assessed 135 independent samples, coding them on a variety of study and sample characteristics. Most notably, Honts and colleagues address possible differences between experimental and field studies and examine the effects of motivation on detection performance.Finally, the authors offer an information gain analysis, demonstrating that the comparison question test provides enhanced detection information for both innocent and guilty respondents beyond that of interpersonal deception judgments.While prior research has demonstrated the effectiveness of witness interviewing approaches such as the Cognitive Interview(Memon et al, 2010), a challenge faced by front-line officers and investigators is the collection of witness statements from large numbers of potential witnesses following a significant event Horry et al (2021). provide a meta-analytic review of 19 studies evaluating the Self-Administered Interview (SAI) protocol, designed to incorporate principles of memory that facilitate recall and allow witnesses to selfreport their accounts.…”

Milestones and signposts in the science of investigative interviewing

“…Looking forward, the future of the practice of investigative interviewing centers around the reliability of both the underlying research and how that research is translated into strategies and tactics. Toward that end, even well-established, evidence-based stratagems require continued study and occasional review to build confidence in their utility (see Horry et al, 2021;Mac Giolla & Luke, 2021;Oleszkiewicz & Watson, 2021). I would like to end with a reminder that investigative interviewing must be viewed not just as a system with interacting agents and emergent properties, but as a system of systems.…”