Interviewing Children about a Repeated Event: Does Prior Practice in Describing a Specific Instance of an Unrelated Repeated Event Improve the Amount and Quality of Elicited Information?

Five- to 6- and 7- to 8-year old (N=118) participated, in groups, in 4 sessions of the Laurier Activities over a 2-week period. The Laurier Activities centered around tasks such as listening to a story, completing a puzzle, mild physical exercise, relaxation, getting refreshed, and getting a surprise. Across sessions of these activities, instantiations of each task (e.g., the content of the story) were presented at different frequencies. Instantiations were fixed (the same every time), variable (changed every time), or “Hi/Lo” (the Hi frequency instantiation presented at 3 sessions, the Lo frequency instantiation presented at 1 session). Children were interviewed individually based on the NICHD protocol (Orbach et al., 2000) after a week delay. This protocol consists of rapport-building, ground rules, a practice phase in which the child is encouraged to report episodic details in response to open-ended questions, and a substantive phase. The current study focused on the Practice Phase of this interview and manipulated the type of practice in 3 between-subject conditions. In the experimental conditions, children practiced describing specific instances of a repeated autobiographical event (incident-specific practice), or what generally happens during the repeated event (general practice). Children in teh control condition described a single-experience, novel, event. Incident-specific practice benefited children most when recalling the Laurier Activities by encouraging them to disclose multiple incidents earlier, to recall more details, and to mention more differences among occurrences. Age by condition interactions suggested, however, that incident-specific practice led to a larger increase in performance over other conditions for younger children, while older children tended not to differ significantly across conditions on many variables of interest. Differences in accuracy across conditions were not significant for either age group. Findings are discussed in terms of practical implications for field interviewers

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

Sources of Unreliable Testimony from Children

We distilled research findings on sources of unreliable testimony from children into four principles that capture how the field of forensic developmental psychology conceptualizes this topic. The studies selected to illustrate these principles address three major questions: (a) how do young children perform in eyewitness studies, (b) why are some children less accurate than others, and (c) what phenomena generate unreliable testimony? Throughout our research, our focus is on factors other than lying that produce inaccurate or seemingly inconsistent autobiographical reports.Collectively, this research has shown that (a) children’s eyewitness accuracy is highly dependent on context, (b) neurological immaturity makes children vulnerable to errors under some circumstances, and (c) some children are more swayed by external influences than others. Finally, the diversity of factors that can influence the reliability of children’s testimony dictates that (d) analyzing children’s testimony as if they were adults (i.e., with adult abilities, sensibilities, and motivations) will lead to frequent misunderstandings. It takes considerable knowledge of development—including information about developmental psycholinguistics, memory development, and the gradual emergence of cognitive control—to work with child witnesses and to analyze cases as there are many sources of unreliable testimony

Children’s ability to recall unique aspects of one occurrence of a repeated event

Preschool and school-age children’s memory and source monitoring were investigated by questioning them about one occurrence of a repeated lab event (n = 39). Each of the four occurrences had the same structure, but with varying alternatives for the specific activities and items presented. Variable details had a different alternative each time; hi/lo details presented the identical alternative three times and changed once. New details were present in one occurrence only and thus had no alternatives. Children more often confused variable, lo, and new details across occurrences than hi details. The 4- to 5-year-oldchildren were less accurate than 7- to 8-year-old children at attributing details to the correct occurrence when specifically asked. Younger children rarely recalled new details spontaneously, whereas 50% of the older children did and were above chance at attributing them to their correct occurrence. Results are discussed with reference to script theory, fuzzy-trace theory and the source-monitoring framework

Effects of practicing episodic versus scripted recall on children’s subsequent narratives of a repeated event

Children (N = 240) aged 5 to 8 participated in 1 or 4 activity sessions involving interactive tasks (e.g., completing a puzzle); children with single-event participation served as a control group. One week after their last/only session, all children were practised in episodic recall of unrelated experiences by asking about either 1) a single-experience event, 2) a specific instance of a repeated event, or 3) scripted recall of a series of events. Children were subsequently interviewed in an open-ended, non-suggestive manner about one of the activity sessions; children with repeated experience were permitted to nominate the session they wanted to talk about. For children who participated 4 times, practice recalling a specific instance benefited 5- and 6-year old children most; they reported more target details than other conditions and showed awareness of the repeated nature of the activity sessions. Accuracy levels were maintained regardless of practice type. Children with single-event experience were largely unaffected by manipulation of practice condition. Practical implications for interviews with child victim/witnesses and theoretical implications on children’s ability to recall specific incidents of repeated events are discussed

Children\u27s performance on ground rules questions: implications for forensic interviewing

Ground rules, also called interview instructions, are included in investigative interviews with children around the world. These rules aim to manage the expectations of children who are typically unaccustomed to being questioned by adults who are naïve to the children\u27s experiences. Although analog research has examined the efficacy of ground rules instruction, a systematic analysis of children\u27s ability to respond appropriately to each of the rules has not been reported. In the current study, we scored the accuracy of children\u27s (N = 501, 4 to 12 years) responses to 5 ground rules practice questions (e.g., "What is my dog\u27s name?") and 2 questions that asked whether they would follow the rules, and then assigned inaccurate responses to 1 of several error categories. Few children answered every question correctly, but their performance on individual questions was encouraging. As expected, there were marked differences in children\u27s understanding across ground rules questions (especially among the younger children), with "Don\u27t guess" and "Tell the truth" rules being the easiest to comprehend. Together with evidence that ground rules instruction takes little time to deliver (typically 2 to 4 min) and is associated with improved accuracy in previous research, these findings support the use of ground rules in investigative interviews of children 4 years and older

The use of ground rules in investigative interviews with children : a synthesis and call for research

Guidelines for conducting investigative interviews with children often include instructions that explain the conversational rules of the interview. Despite the widespread and international use of such instructions (also referred to as "ground rules"), the body of research characterizing children\u27s understanding of these rules and documenting the impact of instruction on memory reports is relatively small. We review the use of ground rules in investigative interviews, the developmental differences that likely underlie children\u27s ability to make sense of these rules, and research pertaining to the effects of the ground rules commonly included in interview guidelines on the reports of 3- to 13-year-old children. We then present a study space analysis concerning the five ground rules reviewed: (a) a statement about interviewer naïveté regarding the target events, (b) instructions to tell the interviewer when a mistake has been made, (c) cautions that some questions may be repeated, and instructions to say (d) "I don\u27t understand" and (e) "I don\u27t know." The results demonstrate obvious gaps in this body of literature, with only the "I don\u27t know" ground rule having received significant attention. In addition to exploring how individual rules impact interview performance, we encourage more process-oriented studies that relate developmental differences in ground rules benefits to the cognitive processes that underlie rule understanding and implementation. Optimally, this research should identify the most suitable format and placement of instruction in interviews and broaden to more often include field studies of child witnesses

Developmental Differences in the Ability to Provide Temporal Information about Repeated Events

Children (n = 372) aged 4 - 8 years participated in 1 or 4 occurrences of a similar event and were interviewed 1 week later. Compared to 85% of children who participated once, less than 25% with repeated experience gave the exact number of times they participated, although all knew they participated more than once. Children with repeated experience were asked additional temporal questions and there were clear developmental differences. Older children were more able than younger children to judge relative order and temporal position of the four occurrences. They also demonstrated improved temporal memory for the first and last relative to the middle occurrences, while younger children did so only for the first. This is the first systematic demonstration of children’s memory for temporal information after a repeated event. We discuss implications for theories of temporal memory development and the practical implications of asking children to provide temporal information

Prosecutors’ Perceptions on Questioning Children About Repeated Abuse

The purpose of the present study was to elicit guidance from prosecutors across Australia on questioning children about repeated events. Two focus groups were conducted; the first sought broad feedback concerning questioning children about repeated events. The second focused more specifically on eliciting feedback about techniques for aiding children in describing specific instances of repeated events. These techniques were derived either from empirical research, best practice interview guidelines, or both. Data from both focus groups were compiled because themes were highly similar. Thematic analysis of the focus group discussions revealed three broad themes in prosecutors’ perceptions about questioning children about repeated abuse: a) permitting children to provide a full generic account before describing individual episodes of abuse, b) using the information obtained during the generic account to create episode labels, and c) probing incidences of abuse chronologically. These themes are discussed within the context of the child development and mnemonic literature, and implications for interviewing protocols are drawn

Expected consequences of disclosure revealed in investigative interviews with suspected victims of child sexual abuse

The current study explored the expected consequences of disclosure discussed by 204 5- to 13-year-old suspected victims of child sexual abuse during the course of investigative interviews conducted using the NICHD Investigative Interview Protocol. Expected consequences were mentioned in nearly half of all interviews, with older children and those alleging multiple incidents more likely to do so. Most consequences were mentioned spontaneously by children and most consequences were expected to befall the children themselves. The most common consequences were physical harm and feeling negative emotions for the child and jail/legal consequences for the suspect. Expecting consequences for the child or another family member were associated with delaying disclosure, but expecting consequences for the suspect was not related to delay. Results provide insight into developmental and socio-motivational influences on children\u27s disclosure of negative events and are of considerable practical interest to legal and clinical professionals who must interview, treat, and evaluate children alleging sexual abuse