Event report training: An examination of the efficacy of a new intervention to improve children's eyewitness reports

Abstract

This study tested the efficacy of Event Report Training (ERT), a training procedure designed to improve children's memory reports and decrease suggestibility. Children (N ¼ 58) participated in two forensically relevant play events. Two weeks later, children received ERT or participated in control procedures, after which they received a memory interview. Results indicated that ERT decreased suggestibility to abuse-related questions in preschoolers; their responses were highly accurate and age differences were eliminated. ERT did not increase the amount of information preschoolers provided in response to open-ended questions. However, with ERT 7-to 8-year-olds reported 32% more information which included a 32% increase in actions, without an accompanying increase in incorrect information. Due to school-aged children's high accuracy rates, it was impossible to gauge the effectiveness of ERT in reducing suggestibility. The failure to obtain an effect of ERT in preschoolers' open-ended recall is discussed in terms of their cognitive-developmental limitations.

The use of ground rules in investigative interviews with children: A synthesis and call for research

“…Available evidence dispels any concern that interview instructions will be uniformly unhelpful to young children, as benefits have been found among children as young as 4 years (e.g., a collection of instructions that included interviewer naiveté in Krackow & Lynn, 2010, and warning instruction by Endres et al, 1999, Study 1). Moreover, in some contexts instruction effects are greater among younger than older children (who sometimes perform well without instructions; e.g., naiveté instruction in Waterman & Blades, 2011).…”

“…Similar to Geddie et al (2001), Gee, Gregory, and Pipe (1999), Krackow and Lynn (2010), and Saywitz and Moan-Hardie (1994) provided practice in correcting the interviewer but using different procedures. Gee et al (1999) trained half of their 9-to 13-year-old participants to tell the interviewer when they did not know an answer or thought there was no answer.…”

“…Some studies that employed this ground rule as a direct statement (e.g., "I wasn't there, I don't know what happened") also simultaneously included other rules (e.g., Beuscher & Roebers, 2005;Cordón, Saetermoe, & Goodman, 2005;Geddie, Beer, Bartosik, & Wuensch, 2001;Krackow & Lynn, 2010;Saywitz & Moan-Hardie, 1994). For example, in addition to modeling complete recall and correcting an interviewer's mistakes, Krackow and Lynn (2010) gave 4-to 5-and 7-to 8-year-old children in their training group an explanatory statement about naiveté ("Sometimes adults ask questions in a way that makes it sound like they know the answers.…”

“…For example, in addition to modeling complete recall and correcting an interviewer's mistakes, Krackow and Lynn (2010) gave 4-to 5-and 7-to 8-year-old children in their training group an explanatory statement about naiveté ("Sometimes adults ask questions in a way that makes it sound like they know the answers. However, unless an adult was there with you, they do not know the answers," p. 874).…”

“…Yet, because the focus was on instructing children to say "don't know" when the interviewer made a mistake, it is difficult to disentangle the two instructions in these experiments. Krackow and Lynn (2010) and Saywitz and Moan-Hardie (1994) gave children very explicit instructions about correcting interviewers (e.g., in the latter, the training group was taught to use self-statements such as "I won't go along. I'll tell her she's wrong," p. 415).…”