What Is a Child-Appropriate Interview? Interaction Between Child Witnesses and Police Officers

Abstract

Over the past decades, researchers have recognized a need to develop more suitable forensic interview protocols to meet children’s right to receive improved and adapted communication. This study examines to what extent a relatively novel implementation of an investigative protocol conducted by highly trained Norwegian police investigators helps children (n = 33), 3–15 years of age, to report more detailed information from a criminal allegation than a previous protocol. Additionally, we investigated the bidirectional dynamics between interviewees and interviewers. We predicted that children’s spontaneous recollection would elicit more open-ended and focused questions from interviewers, and increase their likelihood of posing more open questions. We expected wh-questions to produce more central details regarding the abuse, which in turn allows the interviewers to resist employing suggestive and leading questioning. Results confirm an enriched communication after open-ended questions compared to suggestive and closed questions. Specifically, children reported more detailed central information regarding the abuse after cued recall and wh-questions (ps < .001), and interviewers followed up with more facilitators when children reported details (ps < .001). When the child was reluctant (e.g., said no) or a brief yes, interviewers produced more suggestive questions (ps < .01). We conclude that children may need more communication aids to recount their stressful experiences in an investigative context than what traditional interview protocols provide.

When a different perspective and contextual knowledge change the conclusions: Commentary on Baugerud et al. (2020)

“…We do agree , however, with the authors on two issues. One important finding from the current study, which concurs with past Norwegian studies on child interviewing (e.g., Johnson et al, 2015; Melinder et al, 2020; Thoresen et al, 2009), is the limited use of broad open‐ended invitations. While other aspects have improved over time, such as the reliance on facilitators to improve communication, the issues related to open‐ended question are still at a status quo.…”

“…We would also like to note that the analyses of forensic child interviewing have moved forward to examine more elaborate perspectives of the dynamics between the interviewer and the child by employing sequential analyses (e.g., Gilstrap & Ceci, 2005; Melinder & Gilstrap, 2009; Melinder, Magnusson, & Gilstrap, 2020). These analyses take into consideration the bi‐directional pattern within an interview and help researchers better understand the dynamic interplay between children and interviewers, which the authors stated as one of the aims of their study.…”

Personality, confirmation bias, and forensic interviewing performance

“…Most studies of forensic child interviewing have until recently focused on the type of question asked during the interview (Lamb, Hershkowitz, Orbach, & Esplin, 2008; Thoresen, Lønnum, Melinder, & Magnussen, 2009), or have manipulated isolated variables in the laboratory to study effects of suggestive questioning and social pressure (Ceci & Bruck, 1995), or studied unstructured interviews of mock cases (Melinder & Gilstrap, 2009). Despite the introduction of systematic guidelines and recommendations, many field studies reveal that professionals across countries still struggle in their interview practice (Hershkowitz, Horowitz, & Lamb, 2005; Johnson et al, 2015; Korkman, Santtila, & Sandnabba, 2006), although improvements have also been reported (Cederborg, Alm, Nises, & Lamb, 2013; Melinder, Magnusson, & Gilstrap, 2020).…”

“…Thereafter, the substantial phase starts. A limited amount of research has shown that the interviewer's ability to control their own emotions and to maintain self‐control during the interview are associated with their ability to ask recommended questions (Melinder et al, 2010), which furthermore seems to affect the child's free recall positively (Melinder et al, 2020). Finally, the interviewer is supposed to close the interview session in a child‐sensitive and empathic manner.…”

Preschoolers’ true and false reports: Comparing effects of the Sequential Interview and NICHD protocol

“…Following the implementation of the SI model in Norway (October 2015), two field studies have examined the technique with varied results in terms of the question types used by forensic interviewers (Baugerud, Johnson, Hansen, Magnussen, & Lamb, 2020) and the dialogical communication patterns between child and interviewer (Melinder, Magnusson, & Gilstrap, 2020). However, no study has examined the effects of the SI in a controlled laboratory setting where children's response accuracy can be assessed.…”