A Study Space Analysis for Multiple Interviewing of Child Witnesses

Abstract

This article presents a study space analysis of 44 published research studies examining the use of multiple interviews with child victims/witnesses. Study space analysis is a method of detecting gaps in the existing literature and thus determining whether ecologically valid situations that arise in practice have actually been addressed and studied. The use of this methodology is particularly useful for techniques which are being considered for changes in policy or practice, ensuring that the literature is sufficient to warrant change. Multiple or repeated interviewing has been argued by some authors to be ready for change. However, in the present study space analysis, it is concluded that despite a growing literature, there are still some key variables which require research examination prior to policy change. In particular, research is needed involving samples of children between 11 and 18 years old, participants with multiple needs and interviews regarding repeated events. Findings from the online supplementary material also identify the need for studies with longer delays between the event and the initial interview, more than two interviews of a child, phased multiple interviews and interviews conducted by professional interviewers.‘This article presents a study space analysis of 44 published research studies examining the use of multiple interviews with child victims/witnesses’Key Practitioner Messages Some researchers suggest that interviewing a child more than once about an event can be beneficial for police investigations as it leads to additional accurate details. This study concludes that there are key variables yet to be studied under controlled conditions and thus more research is required before comprehensive policy change is recommended. Future research is required with adolescent participants, children with multiple needs and interviews about repeated events.

Child Protection Work: ‘How Can We Make It a Better Experience?’

“…According to Waterhouse et al . (2020):

‘Study space analysis (SSA) is a way of amalgamating and evaluating published research on a subject, and thus determining whether the research is sufficiently applicable to warrant changes [in policy]. Unlike meta‐analysis, SSA does not look at whether a technique has a statistically robust effect on outcomes, or indeed the results of the studies at all, but looks at the topics that current research has covered, the breadth of these topics and their relation to the associated field of practice.’ (p. 545)

Waterhouse et al .…”

“…Unlike meta‐analysis, SSA does not look at whether a technique has a statistically robust effect on outcomes, or indeed the results of the studies at all, but looks at the topics that current research has covered, the breadth of these topics and their relation to the associated field of practice.’ (p. 545)Waterhouse et al . 's (2020) paper provides a useful overview of the SSA approach with its application of matrices to study different variables listed across the 44 selected research papers. However, an evident weakness of the methodology is that it does not examine the research quality or findings.…”

“…With this in mind, Waterhouse et al . (2020) report ‘that a variety of interviewing conditions have been examined’ in the literature ‘but very rarely do more than one or two studies examine the same independent variables, meaning that there is little replication in the field’ (p. 552). Overall, they found some suggestion that interviewing child victims more than once can be helpful in police investigations, but while it may improve accuracy, it also carries the potential for generating contradictory information.…”

“…Waterhouse et al . (2020) conclude by identifying key gaps in the literature on multiple interviewing, including that little research has been conducted with 11–18‐year‐olds and children with multiple needs and regarding interviews about repeated events [or to‐be‐remembered events]. Waterhouse et al .…”

“…Waterhouse et al . (2020) argue that because of these crucial gaps in the research literature, more research is needed in these areas and ‘that researchers should be cautious in advocating policy change at this stage’ (p. 554).…”