Interviewing alleged victims with mild and moderate intellectual disabilities and autism: A field study of police‐investigated cases of physical and sexual abuse in a Norwegian national sample

Abstract

Background People with intellectual disabilities (IDs) or autism are at great risk of being victims of physical and sexual abuse. This study uses transcriptions of real‐life investigative interviews to examine the interview techniques (e.g. question type) used in investigative interviews of these groups of alleged victims. Methods A national sample of transcribed investigative interviews (N = 96) of alleged victims with mild ID (n = 48, age 5–70 years old), moderate ID (n = 18, age 14–43 years old) and autism (n = 16, age 5–50 years old) was analysed. Results The study shows a preponderance of alleged sexual offences (70.7%) and reveals that open‐ended questions account for only 2.6% of the total number of questions asked. The interviewers relied heavily on yes/no (53.4%) and directive questions (32.2%). Suggestive questions (8.6%) were frequently used. Conclusions The use of question type varied considerably within and across the diagnostic group. The study reveals the need for a more in‐depth analysis of variables that influence investigative interviews of people with cognitive impairments.

Forensic Interview Techniques in Child Sexual Abuse Cases: A Scoping Review

“…Eleven selected studies analyzed sexual victimization in children and adults with a mental health diagnosis: intellectual disabilities (ID), autism spectrum disorder (ASD), attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), developmental disabilities, anxiety, depression, cognitive impairment and/or an unspecific disability ( Åker & Johnson, 2020 ; Anderson et al, 2014 ; Cantlon et al, 1996 ; Cederborg & Lamb, 2008 ; Cederborg et al, 2008 ; Cederborg et al, 2011 ; Hershkowitz, Lamb, Horowitz, 2007 ; Hlavka, 2014 ; Lee & Kim, 2020 ; Melkman et al, 2017 ; Westcott et al, 2006 ). Two of the included studies analyzed the forensic interview in a specific ethnic group (Aboriginal children; Hamilton et al, 2016a , 2016b ).…”

“…In the remaining 15 included studies, some children had more than one interview to collect the testimony about their victimization experiences. The number of interviews ranged from one to two ( M = 1.1, SD = 0.3; Sumampouw et al, 2019 ), one to three ( M = 2.0, SD = 0.9; Leander, 2010 ), one to four ( Åker & Johnson, 2020 ), one to six ( M = 2.3, SD = 1.6; Korkman et al, 2006 ), one to six ( M = 3.4, SD = 1.5; Lamb & Fauchier, 2001 ), one to six ( M = 2.3, SD = 1.6; Santtila et al, 2004 ), one to seven ( M = 3.2, SD = 1.4; Azzopardi et al, 2014 ), two to five ( M = 2.52; Waterhouse et al, 2016 ), more than one ( Alves et al, 2019 ; Cederborg et al, 2008 ), two for all children in the study ( Blasbalg et al, 2021 ; Hershkowitz et al, 2021 ; Katz, 2014 ; Waterhouse et al, 2018 ), and three for all children in the study ( Patterson & Pipe, 2009 ). In two of the studies, the repeated interviews with the child were conducted by the same interviewer as the previous one ( Azzopardi et al, 2014 ; Waterhouse et al, 2018 ).…”