Specialisation within specialisation? Thoughts on the content of contemporary forensic psychology programs

This paper provides details of, and the rationale for, a Doctorate of Forensic Psychology recently developed at Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia. The course prioritises training in psycho-legal issues with children and young people. In discussing this program, the presenters identify two issue  that guided the development of the program. The first concerns the need to delineate forensic content from that in clinical programs, while still maintaining appropriate focus on the skills needed to work effectively in forensic settings. The second addresses the need for courses to acknowledge the marked diversity among forensic clientele and to develop competencies that lead to effective work practices with these sub-groups. In constructing the Deakin forensic program, it was noted that forensic psychologists required an increasing degree of expertise in the procedural and substantive aspects of the legal system. The authors propose that as forensic psychology gains momentum as a discrete area of expertise, there is an increasing need for practitioners to have a sound understanding of the legal institutions and practices they work under, as well as being able to apply specialist knowledge to particular sub-groups. This paper discusses these issues, and outlines how the authors sought to address them in their course curriculum

An examination of the types of leading questions used by investigative interviewers of children

Purpose &ndash; The purpose of this paper is to examine the nature of leading questions used by a representative sample of investigative interviewers of children. In particular, it examined whether these interviewers use the type of questions that are known to elicit reports of false activities or events among child samples.Design/methodology/approach &ndash; A total of 82 police officers who were authorized to conduct interviews with alleged child abuse victims conducted individual mock interviews with children aged 5-7 years. The focus of the interviews was an event that was staged in the children\u27s school a week earlier. Prior to the interview, each officer was provided with accurate and inaccurate information about the event, including details about an activity that did not occur. The officers\u27 task was to elicit as detailed and accurate account of the event as possible using the techniques they would &ldquo;normally&rdquo; use in the field.Findings &ndash; Although the officers refrained from using coercive interview techniques, two problematic types of questions were relatively common. These include: questions that presumed that an activity/detail occurred that had not been previously mentioned by the child; and questions that included highly specific details about an activity. Both of these techniques had featured in prior laboratory research on children\u27s false event narratives.Research limitations/implications &ndash; These results support the need for better training techniques for assisting officers to avoid the use of leading questions.Originality/value &ndash; While it is well established that investigative interviewers do sometimes use leading questions when interviewing children, this is the first study to specify the incidence of various types of leading questions.of leading questions.<br /

Do simple "groundrules" reduce preschoolers\u27 suggestibility about experienced and nonexperienced events?

This study examined whether providing preschool children with simple groundrules (the importance of being complete, saying &bdquo;I don‟t know‟, correcting the interviewer and not guessing) would reduce false details in their recall of a staged event. Forty-nine preschool children participated in an event that consisted of two activities. One or two days later they were given a biasing interview that included false suggestions about one of the experienced activities as well as a non-experienced activity. For the other activity, no suggestions were made. Eight, 15, and 22 days after the event, the children were required to recall all three activities in their own words. Immediately prior to their recall, half of the children were provided with the groundrules while the remaining children were not. The children in the control group also participated in a fifth interview in which they received the groundrule instructions. The results revealed that the provision of the groundrules had negligible impact on the accuracy of information provided irrespective of the context or order of the interview or the activity being recalled. The implications of these results are discussed and suggestions for future research are offered.<br /

Designing effective training programs for investigative interviewers of children

\u27Best-practice\u27 guidelines for conducting investigative interviews with children are well established in the literature, yet few investigative interviewers actually adhere to such guidelines in the field. One of the problems is that little discussion has focused on how such guidelines are learned and sustained by professionals. To address this concern, the current article reviews the key elements of interview training programs that are known to promote competent interviewing. These elements include: (i) the establishment of key principles or beliefs that underpin effective interviewing, (ii) the adoption of an interview framework that maximises narrative detail, (iii) clear instruction in relation to the application of the interview framework, (iv) effective ongoing practice, (v) expert feedback and (vi) regular evaluation of interviewer performance. A description and justification of each element is provided, followed by broad recommendations regarding how these elements can be implemented by police and human service organisations in a cost-effective manner.<br /

An Overview of Current Initiatives to Improve Child Witness Interviews about Sexual Abuse

This comment provides an overview of the main barriers to eliciting quality evidence from child witnesses in sexual abuse cases and recent attempts within several Australian jurisdictions to overcome these barriers. The comment takes a constructive approach. Recommendations relate to five themes: adoption of a narrative framework, quality of training, interviewer workplace climate, prosecutor feedback, and ongoing case tracking and evaluation. While the focus is on child witnesses, the recommendations also apply to other vulnerable witnesses and adults

The effect of a suggestive interview on children’s memory of a repeated event: Does it matter whether suggestions are linked to a particular incident?

This study examined the impact of linking misleading information to a particular occurrence of a repeated event. Children aged 5- to 6-years took part in the same staged event four times and 16 target details varied in each occurrence (e.g., the colour of a cloak varied each time). Three days or three weeks later they were asked questions, some of which included false information, about the final occurrence. The next day, the children were required to recall what happened in the final occurrence. Compared to children whose biasing interview was not focused on any particular occurrence of the repeated event, linking the biasing interview to the final occurrence increased the number of suggested details that were reported. Interestingly, the children whose biasing interview was not focused on any occurrence were also less likely to report the false suggestions than another group of children who had only experienced the event once and whose biasing interview was linked to that single occurrence. These findings have implications for how lawyers and investigative interviewers question children about multiple incidents

Retrieval of episodic versus generic information: Does the order of recall affect the amount and accuracy of details reported by children about repeated events?

Children (N = 157) 4- to 8-years old participated 1 (single) or 4 times (repeated) in an interactive event. Across each condition, half were questioned a week later about the only or a specific occurrence of the event (Depth-first), and then about what usually happens. Half were prompted in the reverse order (Breadth-first). Children with repeated experience who first were asked about what usually happens reported more event-related information overall than those asked about an occurrence first. All children used episodic language when describing an occurrence; however children with repeated-event experience used episodic language less often when describing what usually happens than did those with single experience. Accuracy rates did not differ between conditions. Implications for theories of repeated-event memory are discussed

Mental context reinstatement reduces resistance to false suggestions after children have experienced a repeated event

When children allege repeated abuse, they are required to provide details about specific instances. This often results in children confusing details from different instances and so we examined whether ‘mental context reinstatement’ (MCR) could be used to improve children’s accuracy. Children (N = 120, 6-7-year olds) participated in 4 activities over a 2-week period and were interviewed about the last (4th) time with a standard recall or mental context reinstatement interview. They were then asked questions about specific details, and some questions contained false information. When interviewed again a day later, children in the MCR condition resisted false suggestions that were consistent with the event more than false suggestions that were inconsistent; in contrast, children in the standard interview condition were equally suggestible for both false detail types and showed a ‘yes bias’. The results suggest a practical way of eliciting more accurate information from child witnesses

Investigative interviewers\u27 perceptions of their difficulty in adhering to open-ended questions with child witnesses

Best practice guidelines for conducting investigative interviews of children emphasise the importance of obtaining free narrative accounts with the use of open-ended questions. However, research indicates that most investigative interviewers underutilise open-ended questions, even following intensive training in their use. The aim of the current study was to explore investigative interviewers\u27 perceptions of their difficulty in asking open-ended questions. During a training course on how to use open-ended questions, eight child abuse investigators were individually interviewed about why they had asked specific questions in a 10-minute mock interview conducted immediately earlier with a school child. Overall, three reasons were identified. These related to: 1. the specificity of the information required from children; 2. the unfamiliar nature of the open-ended discourse style; and 3. the complex distinction between open-ended versus specific questions. Each of these themes is discussed, along with the implications for trainers and researchers in child investigative interviewing.<br /