The Child Witness Pack: An Evaluation

Gersch, Irvine; Gersch, Adam N.; Lockhart, Ruth; Moyse, Shirley A.

doi:10.1080/0266736990150108

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although the content and scope of these programs differ widely, they are generally designed to familiarize children with the legal process and their role within it (Davies, Devere, & Verbitsky, 2004; Dible & Teske, 1993; Doueck, Weston, Filbert, Beekhuis, & Redlich, 1997; Finnegan, 2000; Gersch, Gersch, Lockhart, & Moyse, 1999; Mellor & Dent, 1994; Morgan Libeau, Woodham, & Rickard, 2003; Welder, 2000), with the ultimate goal of reducing the anxiety and stress associated with giving evidence (Finnegan, 2000; Gersch et al, 1999; Plotnikoff & Woolfson, 1995; Sas, 1997; Sisterman Keeney, Amacher, & Kastanakis, 1992; Welder, 2000). Several qualitative studies suggest that key stakeholders find these programs highly palatable (Davies et al, 2004; Doueck et al, 1997; Gersch et al, 1999). For example, professionals working with children consider that the programs help to comfort children, and parents and caregivers report that the programs support children in taking the stand (Doueck et al, 1997).…”

Section: Preparing Children For Courtmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preparing children for cross-examination: How does intervention timing influence efficacy?

O‘Neill

Zajac

2013

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent research has suggested that a comprehensive pretrial intervention utilizing a practice–feedback approach could help children to remain accurate in the face of challenging cross-examination questioning. We do not know, however, the extent to which this type of intervention remains effective as the delay between preparation intervention and cross-examination increases. To answer this question, 5- and 6-year olds (n = 88) and 9- and 10-year olds (n = 108) participated in a staged event and were then interviewed about it (direct examination). Six months later, children watched a videotape of this interview, and were then interviewed in an attempt to talk them out of their direct examination responses, regardless of accuracy (cross-examination). One day, 1 week, or 1 month prior to cross-examination, some children took part in a preparation intervention. These children were given practice at answering cross-examination-style questions about an unrelated topic, and received feedback on their responses. Remaining children received no preparation. Children's direct examination accuracy scores were high, but accuracy decreased markedly during cross-examination, especially for younger children. The preparation intervention significantly improved cross-examination accuracy above that of the control group when the program was delivered 1 day or 1 week prior to cross-examination, but not at a 1-month delay. Although the intervention conveyed considerable benefits, cross-examination still exerted a negative effect on children's accuracy in all preparation conditions. Our findings underscore the importance of considering not only the components of pretrial preparation programs, but also the timing of their delivery.

show abstract

Section: Preparing Children For Courtmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preparing children for cross-examination: How does intervention timing influence efficacy?

O‘Neill

Zajac

2013

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although preparation programs appear to be well received by many in the legal community as a cost‐effective method of reducing children's stress without infringing on the rights of the accused (Goodman et al, ), there is a scarcity of research on preparation effectiveness. There is some research to suggest that child witnesses who have completed these programs would recommend them to others (Davies et al, ) and that professionals believe the programs support children taking the stand (Doueck, Weston, Filbert, Beekhuis, & Redlich, ; Gersch, Gersch, Lockhart & Moyse, ). Plotnikoff and Woolfson () presented results of a survey in the United Kingdom, in which children and parents reported that a familiarization visit to a courtroom was helpful.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preparing Children for Court: Effects of a Model Court Education Program on Children's Anticipatory Anxiety

Nathanson

Saywitz

2015

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current study examined whether a pretrial preparation program, consisting of legal knowledge education, stress inoculation training, and a mock trial, is associated with decreased anticipatory anxiety of child witnesses. One hundred and ninety-three 4- to 17-year-olds who were awaiting impending legal proceedings attended Kids' Court School in Las Vegas, NV, one to two weeks before their court appearances. Participants completed a measure of anticipatory court-related anxiety before and after the intervention. As predicted, children's anticipatory anxiety decreased significantly from pretest to posttest. Results demonstrate the promise of a brief, unbiased, standardized program for reducing system-induced stress on child witnesses, while maintaining the integrity of the legal process. This study serves as a springboard to guide future research, practice, policy, and implementation on a larger scale.

show abstract