The NICHD interview protocol used by Dutch child protection workers: Effects on interview style, children's reported information and susceptibility to suggestion

Abstract

In the Netherlands, there is currently no quality standard for conducting child forensic interviews in Child Protective Services (CPS) . The lack of such standard causes concern regarding the quality of these interviews, which are used to determine the child's safety and implementing treatment. In the current study, we implemented the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) protocol at Safe Home, the Dutch national reporting agency for child abuse and domestic violence.Professionals at Safe Home received a three-day training in the NICHD protocol with regular follow-up feedback sessions. We compared 38 NICHD interviews with 30 control interviews on variables such as the type of questions asked, number of reported words, and children's mood state. NICHD interviews contained more invitations and fewer suggestive questions compared to non-standardized interviews.Furthermore, children reported more information related to the reported incident when they were interviewed with the NICHD protocol compared to control interviews. After being interviewed, children reported a more positive mood state independent of how they were interviewed (NICHD or control interview). Finally, children interviewed with the NICHD protocol were less likely to succumb to suggestive probes provided after the interview than children in the control group. We argue that child protection professionals need training in an evidence-based interview protocol to improve fact-finding in CPS.

International perspective on guidelines and policies for child custody and child maltreatment risk evaluations: A preliminary comparative analysis across selected countries in Europe and North America

“…However, only 11 out of the 18 guidelines we analyzed specifically state that experts should include empirically validated research findings or use only scientifically validated measures. Whereas one could argue that this should be evident without the need to specifically state this in the guidelines, research has shown that not only scientifically validated measures have been used in practice (e.g., projective techniques; Bow and Quinnell, 2001;Ackerman and Pritzl, 2011;Zumbach and Koglin, 2015;Ackerman et al, 2021;Erens et al, 2022). Only 10 out of the 18 guidelines comment on the necessity to investigate alternative hypotheses or to apply the principle of falsification rather than verification, when conducting the evaluation (Lubit, 2021).…”

White Paper on Forensic Child Interviewing: Research-based recommendations by the European Association of Psychology and Law

“…The NICHD protocol (Orbach et al, 2000) is the most widely used and validated protocol for forensic interviews with children and its use and structure have been extensively researched (Cyr et al, 2012;La Rooy et al, 2015;Olafson, 2012). Numerous studies and meta-analyses have demonstrated that interviewers who follow the NICHD protocol use more open-ended questions, ask fewer suggestive or forced-choice questions, and obtain more detailed information during the interview (Benia et al, 2015;Cyr & Lamb, 2009;Cyr et al, 2012;Erens et al, 2022;Hershkowitz et al, 2014;La Rooy et al, 2015;Lamb et al, 2007). Additionally, some research suggests that using the NICHD protocol may make children less susceptible to subsequent false information (e.g.…”

Legal psychological studies into child sexual abuse investigation in Indonesia

“…Research-based interviewing practices affect the amount and quality of forensically relevant details (e.g., Erens et al, 2022). This is critical for case prosecution.…”

“…Second, our findings highlight the relevance of using the NICHD interview protocol and its training in the Indonesian context (Chapter 6). Interviewers who use the NICHD protocol are in a good position to obtain forensically relevant details that might assist in the criminal investigation and prosecution (Erens et al, 2022;Lamb et al, 2018). The protocol promotes the usage of invitations that lead to the reporting of more event-related details than when closed questions are used.…”