Do measures of memory, language, and attention predict eyewitness memory in children with and without autism?

Abstract

Background and aims: There are few investigations of the relationship between cognitive abilities (memory, language, and attention) and children's eyewitness performance in typically developing children, and even fewer in children on the autism spectrum. Such investigations are important to identify key cognitive processes underlying eyewitness recall, and assess how predictive such measures are compared to intelligence, diagnostic group status (autism or typically developing) and age. Methods: A total of 272 children (162 boys, 110 girls) of age 76 months to 142 months (M ¼ 105 months) took part in this investigation: 71 children with autism and 201 children with typical development. The children saw a staged event involving a minor mock crime and were asked about what they had witnessed in an immediate Brief Interview. This focused on free recall, included a small number of open-ended questions, and was designed to resemble an initial evidence gathering statement taken by police officers arriving at a crime scene. Children were also given standardised tests of intelligence, memory, language, and attention. Results & conclusions: Despite the autism group recalling significantly fewer items of correct information than the typically developing group at Brief Interview, both groups were equally accurate in their recall: 89% of details recalled by the typically developing group and 87% of the details recalled by the autism group were correct. To explore the relationship between Brief Interview performance and the cognitive variables, alongside age, diagnostic group status and non-verbal intelligence quotient, multiple hierarchical regression analyses were conducted, with Brief Interview performance as the dependant variable. Age and diagnostic group status were significant predictors of correct recall, whereas non-verbal intelligence was less important. After age, non-verbal intelligence, and diagnostic group status had been accounted for, the only cognitive variables that were significant predictors of Brief Interview performance were measures of memory (specifically, memory for faces and memory for stories). There was little evidence of there being differences between the autism and typically developing groups in the way the cognitive variables predicted the Brief Interview. Implications: The findings provide reassurance that age -the most straightforward information to which all relevant criminal justice professionals have access -provides a helpful indication of eyewitness performance. The accuracy of prediction can be improved by knowing the child's diagnostic status (i.e. whether the child is on the autism spectrum), and further still by using more specific assessments (namely memory for faces and memory for stories), possibly via the input of a trained professional. Importantly, the findings also confirm that whilst children with autism may recall less information than typically developing children, the information they do recall is just as accurate.

Effects of delay on episodic memory retrieval by children with autism spectrum disorder

“…In line with previous research on both children and adults (e.g., Henry, Crane, et al, , except in the Registered Intermediary vs. best practice interview comparison; Maras & Bowler, ; Maras et al, ; Maras et al, ), we found that the memory reports of children with ASD were as complete and elaborated as that of non‐ASD children in response to both open‐ended and cued recall questioning. Additionally, children in the ASD and comparison groups did not differ with respect to the accuracy of their reports, replicating previous findings (e.g., Henry, Crane, et al, ; Henry, Messer, et al, ; Maras et al, ; Maras et al, ; Maras & Bowler, ; McCrory et al, ). However, our findings contrast with those obtained in studies that have shown episodic memory deficits in autistic children (Bruck et al, ; Henry, Messer, et al, ; Mattison et al, , ; McCrory et al, ).…”

“…However, various studies have also reported that autistic individuals can provide as much correct information about an event as TD peers, especially when appropriate support is given at retrieval (Henry, Crane, et al, ; Maras et al, ; Maras & Bowler, ). With regard to the accuracy of the information recalled soon after an event, the research findings are also not consistent, with some suggesting that individuals with ASD are less accurate than non‐ASD peers (e.g., Bruck et al, ; Maras & Bowler, , , ), whereas others have found that they are just as accurate (e.g., Henry, Crane, et al, ; Henry, Messer, et al, ; Maras et al, ; Maras et al, ; Maras & Bowler, ; McCrory et al, ). Still, other researchers have reported that specific interview techniques can help autistic children be as accurate as non‐ASD peers (Mattison et al, , ).…”

“…The majority of studies exploring episodic or autobiographical memory in individuals with ASD have interviewed children or adults once after a short delay between the target event and the investigative interview. Delays in such studies have ranged from immediately after the event (20 to 60 min; e.g., Henry, Messer, et al, ; Maras & Bowler, , , ; Maras, Memon, Lambrechts, & Bowler, ; Mattison, Dando, & Ormerod, ; Millward, Powell, Messer, & Jordan, ) to a few days (1 to 12 days) after the event (Maras, Gaigg, & Bowler, , experiment 1; McCrory, Henry, & Happé, ).…”

“…Most eyewitness studies suggests that, after short delays, children and adults with ASD tend to recall less information than TD peers (Bruck et al, ; Henry, Messer, et al, ; Mattison et al, ; Mattison, Dando, & Ormerod, ; McCrory et al, ; Millward et al, ). However, various studies have also reported that autistic individuals can provide as much correct information about an event as TD peers, especially when appropriate support is given at retrieval (Henry, Crane, et al, ; Maras et al, ; Maras & Bowler, ).…”

“…Additionally, the relevant studies conducted so far have assessed the episodic memory of children with ASD shortly after the event was experienced using a variety of methods, and none has examined changes in their recall over time. Some assessed the overall completeness of the children's recall, using a checklist of relevant event features such as actions or descriptions of items and people that were present (e.g., Bruck et al, ; Mattison et al, , ; Millward et al, ); others counted the number of unique units of information or narrative details (e.g., Henry, Crane, et al, ; Henry, Messer, et al, ), whether or not they were accurate. These coding procedures represent complementary ways of measuring children's recall.…”