Talking past each other: Interviewer and child verbal exchanges in forensic interviews.

Abstract

We used sequential analysis to examine the relationship between interviewer question types, child responsiveness, and subsequent interviewer prompting in 103 forensic interviews investigating sexual abuse allegations with children (6–16 years old). Broad open-ended prompts were more likely to elicit responses (83%) than nonresponses (17%) from children, but nonresponding was more highly associated with this type of prompt than expected by chance. Closed-ended prompts elicited more responses (96%) than nonresponses (4%) from children, and these prompts were more likely to elicit a response than expected by chance. Interviewers did not consistently engage in “pairing” and generally did not alter their questioning style in response to children’s behavior. As expected, more frequent use of pairing was positively associated with open-ended prompting and negatively associated with focused prompting. Similarly, children’s responding style remained consistent irrespective of the questions posed to them. Thus, much of the interviews seemed to be composed of interviewers and children talking past one another. Interviewing training and supervision of interviewing practice may benefit by including a focus on the pairing principle.

Interviewers’ approaches to questioning vulnerable child witnesses: The influences of developmental level versus intellectual disability status

“…Alternatively, as in Agnew et al . 's () study, interviewers may have been poor at monitoring their success in eliciting information from CWID and MA children with open‐ended prompts and they may have adopted a more focused interviewing style as a result (Wolfman et al ., ).…”

“…On the one hand, the increased use of direct questions with children in the MA and ID groups, and more option-posing questions with the CWID, may reflect the interviewers' use of alternate strategies when children were not forthcoming in response to more open prompting (Gilstrap & Ceci, 2005). Open prompts are strongly promoted as the ideal interview question type because they elicit more detailed and accurate responses, but they can also be associated with more non-responding (e.g., Korkman et al, 2006;Korkman, Santtila, Wester aker, & Sandnabba, 2008;Melinder & Gilstrap, 2009;Wolfman, Brown, & Jose, 2016b). Alternatively, interviewers may have persisted with a more narrowly focussed style of questioning with the younger and more impaired groups because of assumptions about their inability to answer questions (Aarons & Powell, 2003;Aarons et al, 2004;Ericson et al, 1994;Milne, 1999;Nathanson & Platt, 2005;Phillips et al, 2012;Sharp, 2001), and usual styles of interacting with children in these groups (e.g., Agnew et al, 2006;Lamb & Brown, 2006).…”

“…Alternatively, interviewers may have persisted with a more narrowly focussed style of questioning with the younger and more impaired groups because of assumptions about their inability to answer questions (Aarons & Powell, 2003;Aarons et al, 2004;Ericson et al, 1994;Milne, 1999;Nathanson & Platt, 2005;Phillips et al, 2012;Sharp, 2001), and usual styles of interacting with children in these groups (e.g., Agnew et al, 2006;Lamb & Brown, 2006). Indeed, several studies have demonstrated that adults do not flexibly alter their questioning style as a result of children's response type (e.g., Klemfuss, Quas, & Lyon, 2014;Korkman et al, 2006Korkman et al, , 2008Wolfman et al, 2016b).…”

“…Interviewers may have had to seek more clarification from CWID to understand their responses (Westcott & Kynan, 2004) or to help structure their accounts (Murfett et al, 2008). Alternatively, as in Agnew et al's (2006) study, interviewers may have been poor at monitoring their success in eliciting information from CWID and MA children with open-ended prompts and they may have adopted a more focused interviewing style as a result (Wolfman et al, 2016b).…”

Can Children Be Useful Witnesses? It Depends How They Are Questioned

“…As seen in the research summarized earlier, by increasing their use of, and children's opportunities to respond to, open-ended prompting, interviewers can increase the quality of children's evidence and minimize the reporting of false details (28). In particular, cued invitations helped children elaborate on their spontaneous accounts (5), and pairing openended questions with more focused questions improved interviewing quality (29). Furthermore, in another study (30), children grasped temporal concepts more effectively than had been suggested by previous research.…”