Powell, Martine B. --- "Designing Effective Training Programs for Investigative Interviewers of Children" [2008] CICrimJust 25; (2008) 20(2) Current Issues in Criminal Justice 189
- Introduction
- The Establishment of Key Principles or Beliefs that Underpin Effective Interviewing
- The Adoption of an Interview Framework that Maximises Narrative Detail
- Clear Instruction in Relation to the Application of the Interview Framework
- Effective Ongoing Practice
- Expert Feedback
- Conclusion
- Cases
- References
Designing Effective Training Programs for Investigative Interviewers of Children[†]
Martine B. Powell[∗]
Abstract
‘Best-practice’ 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.
Introduction
In cases of suspected child abuse, children are usually crucial witnesses (McGough 1994). To ensure that the evidence obtained from child abuse witnesses is both accurate and admissible in court, investigative interviewers require specialised skills in forensic interviewing. Decades of controlled research in both field and laboratory settings has resulted in clear international consensus regarding the most effective way of eliciting reliable and detailed statements from children (see Poole & Lamb 1998; Powell et al 2005 for review). The central aim of all investigative interview protocols is to obtain a comprehensive narrative account of the alleged offence, with as little specific prompting as possible from the interviewer (Poole & Lamb 1998; Wilson & Powell 2001). Unfortunately, however, most professionals do not adhere to this approach when interviewing children. Instead, investigative interviewers mostly ask specific questions, which risk contaminating the child’s account (see Powell et al 2005 for review).
In most jurisdictions, professionals are not permitted to conduct interviews with child witnesses for investigative or evidential purposes until they have completed a training course in investigative interviewing of children. The global incompetence of investigative interviewers, therefore, should be conceptualised as inadequacy of training, rather than complete lack of engagement in training per se. Until recently the limitations of investigative interviewer training courses were not well identified. Most of the research had merely documented the ineffectiveness of specific training programs by measuring interviewers’ adherence to best-practice guidelines pre-and post-training (Lamb, Sternberg, Orbach, Esplin et al 2002; Lamb, Sternberg, Orbach, Hershkowitz et al 2002; Orbach et al 2000; Sternberg et al 1999; Sternberg et al 1997; Sternberg et al 2001) as opposed to directly examining the particular barriers to implementing ‘best-practice’ interview guidelines. Further, while concerns have been raised about the quality of investigative interviewer training, criticisms have usually arisen within the context of broad evaluations of the usefulness of electronically recorded evidence (Clarke & Milne 2001; Davies et al 1995; McConachy 2002) or research projects examining the benefit of isolated training techniques (e.g., Powell, Fisher et al 2008; in press). Thus, descriptions of how training courses should be delivered have not typically been provided.
To address the urgent need for practical guidance in this area, the current article describes the key features of investigative interviewer training programs known to promote and sustain competent interviewers. This article draws primarily on recent research specifically related to this issue, as well as the author’s longstanding practical experience as a trainer and the large body of literature regarding the development of complex skills in other domains. Overall, six essential elements of training programs are identified and discussed in this review. 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.
The Establishment of Key Principles or Beliefs that Underpin Effective Interviewing
A major challenge for trainers in investigative interviewing (as with any practical skill) is to facilitate students’ learning in a manner that will positively impact students’ behaviour or performance in the field. To have any practical benefit, courses need to be practical in focus. In other words, courses need to teach trainee interviewers exactly what they need to achieve, how they will achieve it, and the reason why they need to adopt the particular skills being taught. An underlying philosophy or set of beliefs that is compatible with best-practice interview guidelines is also critical for long-term retention of information and for motivating participants to engage in effortful learning (Ericsson et al 1993; Macaulay & Cree 1999). Indeed, investigative interviewers’ lack of awareness of their role within the interview context has been shown to be a major barrier inhibiting transfer of learning from the classroom to the workplace (Wright & Powell 2006, 2007; Wright et al 2007).
Core beliefs that underpin adherence to best-practice interviewing evolve over time as interview models become more refined. One broad shift in the past few years relates to the precise impact of open-ended questions (i.e., those questions that encourage elaborate responses without dictating what specific information is required). Over a decade ago, most experts perceived that children’s responses to open-ended questions (while accurate) were scant in detail, and that additional support via specific or closed questions and physical cues/props was usually needed to elicit detailed accounts (e.g., Dent & Stephenson 1979; Goodman & Reed 1986; Powell & Thomson 1994). Recent research indicates that this is not so (e.g., Lamb et al 2003; Orbach & Lamb 2007). Although children’s initial responses to free recall or open-ended prompts may be brief and lacking in detail, gentle persistence with open-ended questions (particularly those that use children’s utterances as cues for further information) can often result in extensive or contextually elaborate accounts, even among very young children (e.g., four years of age).
To identify and instil appropriate beliefs or principles that underpin effective interviewing, trainers not only require up-to-date knowledge of the scientific literature related to children’s testimony, they also require up-to-date knowledge of human learning processes. The educational psychology literature shows that the acquisition of new beliefs and knowledge is a highly complex, constructive, and cumulative process (Shuell 1990). Meaningful learning that will be retained in the long-term requires several elements including: active engagement in the learning process, repeated exposure to material in varied contexts, and conceptual embedding of the information within real life examples related to one’s own practice (Conway et al 1997; Herbert & Burt 2004; Shuell 1990). Applying these elements is a drawn out process, thus trainers must be highly selective regarding the content that is taught in their courses. Courses that try to cover too much material risk leaving trainees confused and remembering very little (Fisher & Geiselman 1992). It would be far more effective for trainers to select a few key concepts that are critical for the acquisition of practical interviewing skills and to ensure that these are consolidated, rather than to try to cover all relevant material in a single course.
One priority at the commencement of interviewer training courses should be to identify and dispute any core beliefs of trainee interviewers that are incompatible with the scientific literature on interviewing. Although beliefs vary among individuals, three myths are common, which are destructive because they undermine the critical role of open-ended questions and the fact that extensive training is needed to ensure that these questions are learned and sustained. First, many professionals believe that personal attributes or background factors related to the individual interviewer are associated with adoption of best-practice interviewing guidelines (Wright & Powell 2007). Although a wide range of personal and background factors related to the interviewer has been explored (e.g., experience in interviewing, knowledge of child development or law, job rank or status, gender), the only factor currently shown to contribute to the variance in individual interviewers’ adherence to best-practice interview technique is training that adheres to the elements outlined in this paper (Lamb & Garretson 2003; Lamb, Sternberg, Orbach, Esplin et al 2002; Lamb, Sternberg, Orbach, Hershkowitz et al 2002; Powell et al 2005; Smith et al in press; Sternberg et al 2001; Warren et al 1999).[1]
Second, many investigative interviewers falsely believe that the credibility (believability) of a witness statement is associated with statement accuracy (Poole & Lindsay 1998) and that potential contamination of a child witnesses’ account is determined predominantly by the presence of leading questions (i.e., questions that presume or suggest details that have not been previously mentioned by the child; Wright & Powell 2007; Wright et al 2007). In contrast, research has shown that children can provide quite convincing but entirely false accounts of events, even events involving their own bodies (Ceci, Crotteau-Huffman et al 1994; Ceci, Loftus et al 1994; Quas et al 1999), and that children’s accounts can be shaped to confirm interviewers’ inaccurate beliefs in a variety of ways. These include: using repeated suggestions, peer pressure, selective reinforcement of responses, invitations to speculate and providing highly specific contextual cues (Bruck et al 2002; Ceci & Bruck 1995; Erdmann et al 2004; Ghetti & Alexander 2004; Hughes-Scholes & Powell in press; Pezdek & Hodge 1999; Powell 2000).
Third, professionals often overestimate the value of auxiliary interview techniques (e.g., ground rule instructions, developmental and competency assessments, cues and props) in minimising errors or misunderstandings and in overcoming ‘emotional’ inhibitions to truthful reporting. The reality is that when children misreport events or they withhold information it is usually due to the nature of the questions asked (Agnew & Powell 2004; Bala et al 2000; Ceci et al 2002; Ellis et al 2003; Poole & Lamb 1998; Powell et al 2000; Powell et al 2002). Further, extensive use of warnings (Nesbit & Markham 1999; Righarts 2007) or drawings (Brown et al 2007) has been shown in some contexts to impede desirable interview outcome.
The Adoption of an Interview Framework that Maximises Narrative Detail
The aim of any investigative interview is to elicit the most accurate, detailed and complete account of an event or situation, in a manner that minimises unnecessary stress or discomfort of the interviewee (Poole & Lamb 1998; Wilson & Powell 2001). As mentioned previously, the best way to achieve this goal is to elicit as much information as possible via open-ended questions, and to conduct the interview in a supportive distraction-free environment where the interviewer’s questions and behaviour emphasise the witness’s capabilities and role as informant (Orbach et al 2000; Poole & Lamb 1998; Milne & Bull 1999; Wilson & Powell 2001). Ideal questions (irrespective of whether they are open-ended) are those that: are non-leading, allow flexibility in the response, are simply phrased and target concepts that are appropriate for the developmental level of the interviewee (Graffam Walker 1999; Powell & Snow 2007a). Ideal behaviours are those that: show the witness that (s)he is being heard, understood and not judged, show faith in the witness’s ability to competently communicate and are accepting of any response – even ‘don’t know’ (Agnew et al 2006; Wilson & Powell 2001).
To assist interviewers in eliciting reliable and detailed statements during investigations of abuse, interview protocols have been developed to target particular interviewee groups. For example, the Cognitive Interview was developed mainly for interviewing cooperative adults and Conversation Management was designed for use with hostile witnesses or suspects.[2] Two prominent protocols developed specifically for use with child witnesses (i.e., 3- and 18 years of age)[3] include Achieving Best Evidence in Criminal Proceedings (Home Office 2007) and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Protocol (Sternberg et al 2002). Achieving Best Evidence is used throughout the UK, whereas the NICHD protocol (in its entirety) is used mostly in the US, Israel and Europe. In Australia, police and human service organisations have tended to develop their own protocols which represent a hybrid of different protocols. For example ‘The Tri-partite interview’ technique used in Victoria and the ‘Four Phased Interview Technique’ used in Western Australia are adaptations of the UK model (a phased approach) yet they also feature a preliminary interview about an innocuous event modelled on the NICHD interview. Further, the Tri-partite interview consists of strategies dictated by Powell for eliciting a disclosure of abuse (see Powell 2005; Powell & Snow 2007b).
Irrespective of their features, however, all child interview protocols share several core elements since they have evolved from the same underlying principles of memory and social cognition that have been articulated in the literature. Each model includes: (a) an initial greeting, (b) a brief rapport-building period and establishing the proper social role for the witness, (c) introducing the topic of concern, (e) eliciting a narrative account of the entire crime event, (f) more focused or specific questions regarding critical details not previously provided and (g) closure of the interview in a way that promotes further communication. Importantly, the interview protocols merely dictate an ‘ideal approach’ and flexibility on the part of the interviewer is required when administering them. For example, while specific questions should ideally be postponed until later in an interview, specific and even leading questions may (in certain contexts) be appropriate to establish what offence occurred prior to seeking a narrative account of the offence. In some cases (i.e., where the child has good language skills, good memory of the offence, and few inhibitions to reporting), no focused or specific questions may be warranted in the interview at all.
Rather than emphasising adherence to an interview protocol as the goal of investigative interviewers, trainers should define a good interview as one where the interviewer has facilitated the voice of the child in a way that enables the child to accurately describe his or her experiences and the nature of the criminality alleged. A frequent, legitimate complaint of legal professionals and interviewing experts is that interviewers become too ‘focused and lost in the minutiae’ without realising that the elements needed to support the charges are often contained within the child’s ‘story’, which is impeded by numerous questions (Davis et al 1999; Guadagno & Powell in press; Guadagno et al 2006; Wright & Powell 2007). An account which adheres to a story framework facilitates comprehension of the listener by including elements such as the setting, the initiating and central actions, motivations and goals, internal responses and consequences in a manner that enables the relationships between events and actors to be clearly labelled (Murfett et al 2008; Snow et al 2008; Westcott & Kynan 2004). Although research is still refining which questions promote the elicitation of various story elements, we know that open-ended questions play a critical role, particularly broad open-ended questions and those that focus the account on ‘what happened’ as opposed to eliciting descriptive details (Snow et al 2008; Powell & Snow 2007a).
Another recent area of research that will probably drive future reform of interview protocols is interviewing about repeated abuse. This is such a crucial area because most child abuse offences are usually repeated and one major difficulty in prosecuting such cases is lack of particularising details (Guadagno et al 2006; Podirsky v R 1990; S v R 1989). Further, with repeated offences there is a high risk of intrusion of details from other incidents or offences into the target incident or offence that is being recalled (Roberts & Powell 2001). Preliminary research in this area has led to several recommendations for minimising intrusion errors including: using broad open-ended questions, avoiding presumptions about the timing of events, conducting the interview as soon as possible and exhausting accounts of several occurrences or offences (one at a time) before eliciting generic (typical) recall (Powell et al 2007). Researchers are now focusing their attention on identifying different types of memory practice that may facilitate the discrimination and labelling of distinct experiences of abuse (Brubacher et al 2008; Powell & Thomson 2003; Roberts & Powell 2003).
Clear Instruction in Relation to the Application of the Interview Framework
Having a general interview guide or framework does not necessarily imply that interviewers can conduct an interview in a manner that would be viewed favourably by experts in interview technique. Trainee interviewers must also have the tools (i.e., effective questions) to apply the framework. Such tools need to be learned because they are not habitually used in English speaking cultures (Powell 2002).
In recognition of the immense difficulty trainee interviewers have in applying general interview guidelines, some expert trainers have become prescriptive in their approach, providing key phrases, common question stems and sequences of questions to use at various stages through the interview (Powell 2003; Powell & Snow 2007b; Sternberg et al 2001). Further, some experts have become more refined in their classification of open-ended questions (Powell & Snow 2007a). The danger of not providing a partially ‘scripted’ protocol is that there is considerable scope for trainee interviewers to re-interpret the interview model to fit with the tools or questions that come naturally to them (i.e., specific ‘who’, ‘what’, ‘when’, ‘where’, ‘how’ questions; Wright & Powell 2006). For example, a common misinterpretation is that the narrative account (which should form the major component of the interview) is perceived to be a relatively brief component of the interview (Wright & Powell 2006). In particular, once the witness has responded to the initial question (‘Tell me everything that happened from beginning to end’), interviewers often interpret their role as being to ‘drill down’ or ‘flesh out’ parts of the initial account using specific questions.
As explained earlier, poor use of open-ended questions to expand the narrative account is due (in part) to misconceptions about the value of such questions. The use of the terms ‘phases’ or ‘stages’ in interview models may possibly compound this misconception because the words imply that questions inevitably become more specific or focused as the interview progresses and that the narrative account represents a discrete phase of the interview. This is no longer perceived by experts to be so (Lamb et al 2003; Powell & Snow 2007a, 2007b). For a small proportion of witnesses adherence to open-ended questions may not be possible. However, in the majority of field interviews described in evaluation studies, the witness appeared willing and able to give extensive narrative detail about their experiences, but their ability to do so was severely restricted by under use of open-ended questions (see Powell et al 2005 for review). Experts now recommend that the majority of detail obtained in an investigative interview should be preceded by open-ended questions.
In addition to the provision of a structured or partially ‘scripted’ protocol, misconceptions of the interview process can be minimised during training courses in four ways. First, they can be minimised by emphasising the practical implications arising from material presented in the course. There is little point in relaying information or theories about child development and the nature of sexual assault unless clear, precise and empirically validated recommendations can be drawn about how hurdles or limitations arising in the interview can be overcome. If the information relayed has no practical benefit or meaning, it is likely to be quickly forgotten or will be merely retained in memory as isolated facts (Herbert & Burt 2004). The onus for drawing practical implications must be placed on the expert instructor rather than trainee interviewers. If trainee interviewers have limited prior experience and knowledge in applying interview technique, there would be minimal value in conducting group brainstorming exercises in order to generate recommendations about how specific challenges can be overcome.
Second, misinterpretations of the interview process are minimised when trainee interviewers are given clear exemplars of best practice illustrating how various principles can be applied. Exemplars of best-practice can be provided in many forms (e.g., actual interview transcripts, simulated role-playing exercises, films). Training videos or DVDs (including actual or simulated interviews) have proven particularly beneficial in facilitating the acquisition of practical skills compared to learning relayed via verbal instruction only (Arnspiger 1933; Bashman & Treadwell 1995; Berger 1970; Walter 1975). Viewing an entire interview first-hand helps trainee interviewers to see how the various skills or elements of an interview model are interconnected, and it can help shape realistic expectations of the job (Davies, Marshall et al 1998). A single interview, however, cannot capture all the common hurdles or ‘pot holes’ that arise in interviews with children. Expertise in interviewing (as with any professional skill) arises from the development of highly complex mental representations of numerous and varied experiences where challenges in skill mastery have been successfully overcome (Herbert & Burt 2004).
Third, misinterpretations about how to apply interview protocols are minimised when terminology for various questions is consistent within the training program and with prominent guides in the area. In the child eyewitness arena, classification of questions is quite distinct from those used in the adult interviewing area (e.g., Fisher & Geiselman 1992; Milne & Bull 1999). In relation to adult interviewing, questions are generally classified as being open or closed depending on whether they were designed to elicit an elaborate response. In contrast, prominent child interview guides (e.g., Poole & Lamb 1998; Wilson & Powell 2001) classify questions according to two dimensions: the degree of elaboration and the degree to which they dictate what specific information needs to be recalled. Thus questions tend to be classified by child interview experts as open-ended or specific, with the latter category including closed questions (e.g., questions that elicit a one or two word response) as well as cued-recall questions that focus on what specific detail needs to be recalled (e.g., Who, What, When, Where, How questions). The need for this multi-dimensional definition of open-ended questions has arisen from the recognition that children are more suggestible than adults and they often attempt to answer highly focused questions even when they have no recollection of the detail requested (Waterman et al 2000, 2001). While some child interview guides (e.g., Wakefield 2006) define open-ended questions as ‘Wh’ questions (e.g., questions starting with ‘Who’, ‘When’), it is unlikely that such questions would elicit narrative accounts from children.
Finally, elaborate understanding of interview frameworks arises from experience applying the models within controlled settings where performance can be carefully monitored by an expert (Powell et al 2005; Stevenson et al 1992). Indeed, it is often not until trainee interviewers try to put the skills into practice that their limitations can be perceived and appropriate forms of remedial intervention determined (Powell & Guadagno in press). This issue is expanded on in the next section of this article.
Effective Ongoing Practice
Ongoing practice plays a critical role in the mastery of complex skills across all professional domains (Donovan & Radosevich 1999; Ericsson et al 1993; Helsen et al 1998; Hodges & Starkes 1996). In relation to interviewing child witnesses, the role of practice has been demonstrated by tracking an increase in investigative interviewers’ use of open-ended questions (and the later introduction of specific questions) with the adoption of this element and a decline in performance following a period of time (e.g., 12 weeks) when no practice (in addition to the interviewers’ usual workplace duties) has been maintained (Lamb, Sternberg, Orbach, Esplin et al 2002; Lamb, Sternberg, Orbach, Hershowitz et al 2002; Orbach et al 2000; Sternberg et al 2001; Powell, Fisher et al in press; Smith et al in press).[4] The important role of practice is recognised by both experts and trainee interviewers. In qualitative interviews where interviewers have been asked to relay how their training could have been improved, the need for more practice was one of the most commonly cited suggestions (Aarons et al 2004; Clarke & Milne 2001; Guadagno et al 2006; McConachy 2002; Powell & Wright in press; Schollum et al 2006; Wright & Powell 2007; Wright et al 2006; Wright et al 2007).
To be most effective, practice needs to be spaced (interspersed with rest intervals) and maintained over a long period of time (Donovan & Radosevich 1999). It cannot be confined to a two or three week training course. Further, practice tasks need to target specific goals and be tailored to an individual’s ability level. Stimuli (e.g., silence, lack of specific detail, irrelevant or ambiguous responses) that would normally provoke an inappropriate question from the particular interviewer in the field must be included in the task. In other words, when practising a skill, one learns what to do by making errors and correcting them, as well as by making the correct responses themselves (McGeogh 1947). This is one advantage of using actors to play the role of the child in simulated training exercises. Trained actors can adapt their performance to the ability level of the interviewer and can respond to questions in a way that is reminiscent of the challenges that interviewers encounter in the workplace with different interviewee groups (Powell, Fisher et al in press; Powell & Wright in press). While the use of trained actors is more costly than using fellow trainee interviewers (i.e., training of these actors must be monitored and can take up to 20 hours), the benefit of this investment has been demonstrated well after the training course has been completed (Powell, Fisher et al in press).
One of the limitations of prior evaluation research is that critiques have focused almost solely on interviewers’ poor choice of specific questions, given the prevalence of these within interviews. As interviewers start to use more open-ended questions, more detailed critiques will emerge regarding the limitations of these latter questions. For example, Powell and Guadagno (in press) identified several limitations in the use of open-ended questions among interviewers who had undergone an intensive course in open-ended question usage. Common problems included: inviting free-narrative recall without establishing what event occurred, asking for descriptive information such as what a person looked like prior to establishing what actually happened, using phrases that discourage elaborate responses, using a limited range of open-ended questions, including repetitive, unnecessarily wordy questions and vocabulary and concepts that were inappropriate for the child’s developmental capacity. Importantly, these problems were not limited to those interviewers who used a low frequency of open-ended questions.
Identification of individual interviewers’ particular limitations when using open-ended questions is essential for the design of fine-tuned remedial strategies in interview technique. For example, interviewers who abandon open-ended questions early would probably benefit from practice with adult respondents who can behaviourally reinforce the use of open-ended questions (Powell, Fisher et al in press). For those interviewers who use open-ended questions but the range and structure of the questions are limited, practice may be needed in the rote learning of different question stems (Powell & Wright in press). For those trainee interviewers who persist with leading questions, or use vocabulary or concepts that are too advanced for the child, practice tasks could be established where children recall innocuous videotaped events that were staged at their school. The advantage of this latter technique is that interviewers can later observe first hand (by comparing the children’s responses to the actual event) the detrimental effect of poorly phrased questions (Powell 2002). Interviewers who are highly susceptible to preconceived ideas about what occurred may also benefit from engaging in strategies designed to assist in overcoming errors and biases in thinking (Gibbs & Gambrill 1996; Poole & Lamb 1998).
Expert Feedback
Although interviewing performance has been shown to improve (in some circumstances) with practice alone (Powell, Fisher et al in press; Powell, Fisher et al 2008), performance is clearly maximised when practice is combined with expert feedback (Powell, Fisher et al 2008). The importance of feedback is twofold. First, when it is accurate, feedback assists in narrowing the gap between professionals’ subjective appraisals of their (or other professionals’) abilities and actual performance (as measured against best-practice interview models). For example, investigators trained by Fisher and Geiselman (1992) claimed that they rarely interrupted eyewitnesses but were surprised when recordings of their interviews indicated otherwise. In a study by Berliner and Lieb (2001) interviewers rated their interviews more positively than experts. Further, Wright et al (2007) demonstrated a negligible relationship between interviewers’ appraisals of, and actual performance, in relation to use of open-ended questions. Thus without expert feedback, interviewers have no way of knowing whether they have achieved the goals specified by best-practice interview guidelines.
Second, feedback is a form of positive educational intervention when it focuses on the task per se (as opposed to being perceived as a personal attack on the individual) and it elaborates on why certain questions are problematic and assists the interviewer in generating alternative questions or behaviours (Kluger & DeNisi 1996). For example, Lamb, Sternberg, Orbach, Esplin et al (2002), Lamb, Sternberg, Orbach, Hershkowitz et al (2002), and Powell, Fisher et al (2008) demonstrated the long term benefits of line-by-line feedback administered by an expert for improving trainee interviewers’ adherence to, and understanding of, best-practice interview technique. One of the most effective forms of feedback demonstrated to date is that where trainee interviewers are stopped at various stages in the simulated interviews so that an expert instructor can immediately identify a problem, assist in generating alternative questions and prevent errors from being further rehearsed (Powell, Fisher et al 2008).
Research in relation to the benefits of feedback, however, is still in its infancy. As with practice, the precise combination and number of feedback opportunities needed to produce optimal benefits can not yet be specified. The importance of further research in this area is highlighted by a meta-analysis of 3,000 papers examining the effect of feedback interventions on performance (across all domains). This meta-analysis showed that in over a third of all instances, performance declined as a result of feedback[5] (Kluger & DeNisi 1996). Thus it is possible that feedback currently provided in training courses on interviewing, or feedback provided to interviewers by legal professionals may well be contributing to the poor quality statements elicited from child witnesses. As emphasised in previous papers (e.g., Powell 2005; Powell, Wright et al in press), collaboration between investigative interviewers and legal professionals is crucial, particularly in those jurisdictions where the investigative interviews can be used as witnesses’ evidence-in-chief. However, unless feedback is delivered in a way that promotes active learning and recognises the boundaries of professionals’ expertise in interview technique (i.e., those professionals giving and receiving feedback), the quality of witness statements is unlikely to improve.
Regular Evaluation of Interviewer Performance
The final essential component of training courses in the area of investigative interviewing of children is quality control evaluation. Without testing samples of performance output using objective measures, it cannot be concluded that the training has had a positive impact on interviewer performance. Trainees’ perceptions of the effectiveness of courses or their knowledge of best-practice interviewing are not useful indicators of course effectiveness because there is no significant relationship between these factors and adherence to best-practice guidelines (Warren et al 1999; Wright et al 2007). Further, given that the impact of training interventions in most prior research has been short lived, trainee interviewer performance needs to be measured prior to, immediately after and well after the completion of the course, and if mock (simulated) interview paradigms are used, it needs to be established that they produce measures of performance that are generalisable to the field context (Gregory 2004).
Eliciting measures of interviewer performance has widespread benefits, not merely for refining and evaluating training procedures. On an organisational level, indicators of individual interviewers’ performance is necessary for: effective selection and monitoring of individual interviewers, identifying training needs, assigning workloads, predicting case outcomes and benchmarking organisation capabilities (Powell, Wright et al in press). Thus trainers and organisations would benefit from the establishment of a quick, formal test (i.e., interview paradigm with objective scoring criteria) that can be reliably used to assess performance in the workplace. Standardised measures with good predictive validity are available for assessing interviewee’s ability to provide accurate and detailed accounts of offences (e.g., Gudjonsson 1987; Scullin & Ceci 2001) and they are available for testing the competency of interviewers in other professional domains such as telemarketing, motivational interviewing, medical interviewing or hostage negotiation (Pierson et al 2007; Pratt et al 2007; Squires et al 1991; Van Hasselt et al 2005). However, there is currently no empirically validated tool for assessing investigative interviewer capability. Criminal justice outcomes are not reliable measures of interviewer competency because they are subject to a variety of factors beyond the interviewer’s skill in asking questions (e.g., degree of corroborative evidence; Davis et al 1999). Likewise interviews with actual witnesses (i.e., field interviews) may not be suitable for assessing performance on a routine basis because there are often considerable legal and practical restraints inhibiting immediate access to these (Powell 2002).
The basis of any reliable and valid ‘test’ of performance requires adherence to several principles (Ericsson & Lehmann 1996; Gregory 2004). Specifically, performance needs to: be consistent across a variety of measurement points (test-retest reliability), capture the types of challenges normally faced in the field (concurrent validity), predict individuals’ performance in the field under comparable conditions (predictive validity) and be perceived by professionals as vivid and relevant to the field (face validity). While a brief measure of investigative interviewer performance is an achievable task, preliminary work suggests that mock-interview paradigms involving the use of trained actors and structured coding protocols provide useful yet crude assessment tools for measuring adherence to best-practice interview guidelines (Cavezza 2008). It would be inappropriate at present to use them (or any other non-validated tool) to provide fine-tuned discrimination between interviewers, or to predict future behaviour in the field setting. Further research in this area is urgently warranted.
Conclusion
This review has illustrated that the design and delivery of interviewer training is a highly complex task. To be effective in the long term, training needs to be continuous (not merely contained to a 2-3 week training program), it needs to be tailored to individuals’ skill level and be consistent with the scientific eyewitness memory and interviewer training research. The critical elements of interviewer training courses 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. While the impact of these elements has been established directly, their importance is also indicated by evaluation research from across the globe (e.g., Burton et al 2006; Clarke & Milne 2001; McConachy 2002; Richards et al 2007; Schollum et al 2006) identifying the absence of these elements (in particular, inadequate ongoing practice, feedback and quality control evaluation) in jurisdictions where interviewer competency is acknowledged to be a problem.
To produce training outcomes that are commensurate with organisations’ investments, consideration must be given to the elements identified in this article as well as the high level of expertise required to implement these elements effectively. One of the current barriers to implementing these elements within Australia, for example, is that police and human service organisations in each state and territory are independently responsible for writing, coordinating, delivering and evaluating their own interview training programs and for setting the benchmark of what constitutes best-practice. Training coordinators, assessors and instructors are usually assigned from within organisations, are rotated regularly, and have little expert knowledge of the eyewitness memory, expertise and human learning literature. While some organisations recruit the assistance of external consultants with expertise in interviewing, their input is typically limited to the delivery of a single lecture or workshop in interview technique due to limited budgets and availability of such experts (the majority of training budgets are currently spent on travel, accommodation and other costs associated with the abstraction of large numbers of trainee interviewers into the classroom).
Given the highly specialised nature of interviewing, there is strong argument for the development of a national curriculum or protocol dictating what constitutes an appropriate interviewer training program and how training delivery should be assessed, evaluated and accredited. Legislation relating to the use of investigative interviews and the admissibility of interview evidence differs across jurisdictions, but core interview techniques do not. Further, given the limited number of experts in this area, and the proven effectiveness of distance learning and on-line training technologies in imparting knowledge of procedures as well as practical skills such as the use of open-ended questions (Head et al 2002; HM Inspectorate of Constabulary 1999; Powell, Skouteris et al 2008; Powell & Wright in press) there is also strong argument for centralised delivery of components of training programs as well. If a National Interview Training Centre was staffed appropriately and supported by a range of organisations across Australia, this centre could take on the responsibility for setting and maintaining standards in training delivery, performance evaluation and for coordinating research leading to the development of new improved training curriculum, services and resources. Further, the centre could provide a library of resources and services for use by organisations on a needs basis. Such resources could include educational videos, interview protocols, interview assessment tools, and self-administered (on-line) practical training exercises. Services could include the provision of trained actors to play the role of interviewees, expert instructors, and specialists who can stage practical exercises (either via face-to-face or using on-line and telecommunication technologies).
The urgent need for global reform in training is justified by the low reporting, prosecution, and conviction rates for sex offences against children (Victoria Law Reform Commission 2004). Improvement in the competency of investigative interviewers, however, would have widespread benefits well beyond the quality and usefulness of child witness statements. More consistent and competent standards in service delivery within police and human service organisations would improve job satisfaction and reduce the rapid burnout of workers (Wright et al 2006). It would enhance the status of these organisations by enabling them to be at the forefront of new training developments and innovative training technologies (HM Inspectorate of Constabulary 1999). Further, widespread acknowledgement of the specialised nature of forensic interviewing would lead to greater investment in quality training among other professional groups who interview children (e.g., lawyers, doctors, psychologists) as well. While the functions of investigative interviews may differ across jurisdictions and professional groups (see Hoyano & Keenan 2007 for review), the core skills in eliciting accurate, detailed and complete accounts of events or situations from children or adults are the same irrespective of the professional or interviewee group or the context in which the interview is delivered.
Cases
Podirsky v R [1990] 3 WAR 128
S v R [1989] HCA 66; (1989) 168 CLR 266
References
Aarons N Powell M & Browne J 2004 ‘Changing Cultures: Police Perceptions of Interviews with Children with Intellectual Disabilities’ Policing and Society vol 14 pp 269-278
Agnew S & Powell M 2004 ‘The Effect of Intellectual Disability on Children’s Recall of an Event Across Different Question Types’ Law and Human Behavior vol 28 pp 273-294
Agnew S Powell M & Snow P 2006 ‘An Examination of the Questioning Styles of Police Officers and Caregivers when Interviewing Children with Intellectual Disabilities’ Legal and Criminological Psychology vol 11 pp 35-53
Arnspiger V 1933 Measuring the Effectiveness of Sound Pictures as Teaching Aids Teachers College Columbia University New York
Bala N Lee K Lindsay R & Talwar V 2000 ‘A Legal and Psychological Critique of the Present Approach to the Assessment of the Competence of Child Witnesses’ Osgoode Hall Law Journal vol 39 p 409
Bashman J & Treadwell T 1995 ‘Assessing the Effectiveness of a Psychodrama Training Video’ Journal of Group Psychotherapy, Psychodrama & Sociometry vol 48 pp 61-69
Berliner L & Lieb R 2001 Child Sexual Abuse Investigations: Testing Documentation Methods Washington State Institute for Public Policy Washington
Berger M 1970 Videotape Techniques in Psychiatric Training and Treatment Brunner/Mazel New York
Brown D Pipe M-E Lewis C Lamb M & Orbach Y 2007 ‘Supportive or Suggestive: Do Human Figure Drawings Help 5- to 7- Year-Olds to Report Touch?’ Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology vol 75 pp 33-42
Brubacher S Roberts K & Powell M 2008 ‘Does Type of Memory Practice Matter when Interviewing Children about a Repeated Event?’ Paper presented at the 2008 American Psychology – Law Society Annual Conference March 5-8 Jacksonville Florida
Bruck M Ceci S & Hembrooke H 2002 ‘The Nature of Children's True and False Narratives’ Developmental Review vol 22 pp 520-554
Burton M Evans R & Sanders A 2006 Are Special Measures for Vulnerable and Intimidated Witnesses Working? Evidence from the Criminal Justice Agencies (Home Office Online Report 01/06) Home Office London
Cavezza C 2008 An Examination of the Consistency of Investigative Interviewers’ Performance Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation Deakin University Melbourne Australia
Ceci S & Bruck M 1995 Jeopardy in the Courtroom American Psychological Association Washington DC
Ceci S Crotteau-Huffman M Smith E & Loftus E 1994 ‘Repeatedly Thinking about a Non-event: Source Misattributions among Preschoolers’ Consciousness and Cognition vol 3 pp 388-407
Ceci S Loftus E Leichtman M & Bruck M 1994 ‘The Possible Role of Source Misattributions in the Creation of False Beliefs among Preschoolers’ The International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis vol 62 pp 304-320
Ceci S Powell M & Principe G 2002 ‘The Scientific Status of Children’s Memory and Testimony’ in Faigman D Kaye D Saks M & Sanders J (eds) Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony vol 2 pp 144-205 West Pub Co St Paul MN
Clarke C & Milne R 2001 National evaluation of the PEACE investigative interviewing course (No. PRAS/149) Home Office London
Conway M Gardiner J Perfect T Anderson S & Cohen G 1997 ‘Changes in Memory Awareness During Learning: The Acquisition of Knowledge by Psychology Undergraduates’ Journal of Experimental Psychology: General vol 126 pp 393-413
Davies G Marshall E & Robertson N 1998 Child Abuse: Training Investigative Officers (Police Research Series Paper No. 94) Policing and Reducing Crime Unit London
Davies G Wilson C Mitchell R & Milsom J 1995 Videotaping Children’s Evidence: An Evaluation Home Office London
Davis G Hoyano L Keenan C Maitland L & Morgan R 1999 An Assessment of the Admissibility and Sufficiency of Evidence in Child Abuse Prosecutions: A Research Report for the Home Office Home Office London
Dent H & Stephenson G 1979 ‘An Experimental Study of the Effectiveness of Different Techniques of Interviewing Child Witnesses’ British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology vol 18 pp 41-51
Donovan J & Radosevich D 1999 ‘A Meta-Analytic Review of the Distribution of Practice Effect: Now You See It, Now You Don’t’ Journal of Applied Psychology vol 84 pp 795-805
Ellis L Powell M Thomson D & Jones C 2003 ‘The Usefulness of Conversational ‘Groundrules’ in Reducing Preschoolers’ Suggestibility about Experienced and Nonexperienced Events’ Psychiatry, Psychology & Law vol 10 pp 334-345
Erdmann K Volbert K & Bohm C 2004 ‘Children Report Suggested Events Even when Interviewed in a Non-suggestive Manner: What are the Implications for Credibility Assessment?’ Applied Cognitive Psychology vol 18 pp 589-611
Ericsson K Krampe R & Tesch-Romer C (1993) ‘The Role of Deliberate Practice in the Acquisition of Expert Performance’ Psychological Review vol 100 pp 363-406
Ericsson K & Lehmann A 1996 ‘Expert and Exceptional Performance: Evidence of Maximal Adaptation to Task Constraints’ Annual Review Psychology vol 47 pp 273-305
Fisher R & Geiselman R 1992 Memory-enhancing Techniques in Investigative Interviewing: The Cognitive Interview Thomas Springfield IL
Fisher R & McCauley M 1995 ‘Improving Eyewitness Memory with the Cognitive Interview’ in Zaragoza M Graham J Hall G Hischman R Ben-Porath Y (eds) Memory and Testimony in the Child Witness Sage California
Geiselman E 1999 ‘Commentary on Recent Research with the Cognitive Interview’ Psychology, Crime & Law vol 5 pp 197-202
Ghetti S & Alexander K 2004 ‘“If it happened, I would remember it”: Strategic Use of Event Memorability in the Rejection of False Autobiographical Events’ Child Development vol 75 pp 542-561
Gibbs L & Gambrill E 1996 Critical Thinking for Social Workers: A Workbook Pine Forge Press Thousand Oaks California
Goodman G & Reed R 1986 ‘Age Differences in Eyewitness Testimony’ Law and Human Behavior vol 10 pp 317-332
Graffam Walker A 1999 Handbook on Questioning Children: A Linguistic Perspective ABA Center on Children and the Law Washington
Gregory R 2004 Psychological Testing: History, Principles and Applications Allyn & Bacon Needham Heights MA
Guadagno B & Powell M in press ‘A Qualitative Examination of Police Officers’ Questioning of Children about Repeated Abuse’ Police Practice and Research
Guadagno B Powell M & Wright R 2006 ‘Police Officers’ and Legal Professionals’ Perceptions Regarding how Children are, and should be, Questioned about Repeated Abuse’ Psychiatry, Psychology & Law vol 13 pp 251-260
Gudjonsson G 1987 ‘A Parallel form of the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale’ British Journal of Clinical Psychology vol 26 pp 215-221
Head J Lockee B & Oliver K 2002 ‘Method, Media and Mode: Clarifying Education Effectiveness’ The Quarterly Review of Distance Education vol 3 pp 261-268
Helsen W Starkes J & Hodges N 1998 ‘Team Sports and the Theory of Deliberate Practice’ Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology vol 20 pp 12-34
Herbert D & Burt J 2004 ‘What do Students Remember? Episodic Memory and the Development of Schematization’ Applied Cognitive Psychology vol 18 pp 77-88
HM Inspectorate of Constabulary 1999 Managing Learning: A Study of Police Training HMSO London
Hodges N & Starkes J 1996 ‘Wrestling with the Nature of Expertise: A Sport Specific Test of Ericsson, Krampe and Tesch-Romer’s (1993) Theory of Deliberate Practice’ International Journal of Sport Psychology vol 27 pp 400-424
Home Office 2007 Achieving Best Evidence in Criminal Proceedings: Guidance on Interviewing Victims and Witnesses, and Using Special Measures HMSO London
Hoyano L & Keenan C 2007 Child Abuse: Law and Policy across Boundaries Oxford University Press Oxford
Hughes-Scholes C & Powell M in press ‘An Examination of the Types of Leading Questions used by Investigative Interviewers of Children’ Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management
Kluger A & DeNisi A 1996 ‘The Effects of Feedback Interventions on Performance: A Historical Review, a Meta-analysis, and a Preliminary Feedback Intervention Theory’ Psychological Bulletin vol 119 pp 254-284
Lamb M & Garretson M 2003 ‘The Effects of Interviewer Gender and Child Gender on the Informativeness of Alleged Child Sexual Abuse Victims in Forensic Interviews’ Law and Human Behaviour vol 27 pp 157-171
Lamb M Sternberg K Orbach Y Esplin P & Mitchell S 2002 ‘Is Ongoing Feedback Necessary to Maintain the Quality of Investigative Interviews with Allegedly Abused Children?’ Applied Developmental Science vol 6 pp 35-41
Lamb M Sternberg K Orbach Y Esplin P Stewart H & Mitchell S 2003 ‘Age Differences in Young Children’s Responses to Open-ended Invitations in the Course of Forensic Interviews’ Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology vol 71 pp 926-934
Lamb M Sternberg K Orbach Y Hershkowitz I Horowitz D & Esplin P 2002 ‘The Effects of Intensive Training and Ongoing Supervision on the Quality of Investigative Interviews with Alleged Sex Abuse Victims’ Applied Developmental Science vol 6 pp 114-125
Macaulay C & Cree V 1999 ‘Transfer of Learning: Concept and Process’ Social Work Education vol 18 pp 183-194
McConachy D 2002 Evaluation of the Electronic Recording of Children’s Evidence: Final Report New South Wales Police New South Wales
McGough L 1994 Child Witnesses Yale University Press London
McGeoch J 1947 The Psychology of Human Learning: An Introduction Longmans, Green and Co New York
Milne R & Bull R 1999 Investigative Interviewing: Psychology and Practice John Wiley & Sons Ltd Chichester
Murfett R Powell M & Snow P 2008 ‘The Effect of Intellectual Disability on Children’s Adherence to a ‘Story-telling’ Framework During an Investigative Interview’ Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability vol 33 pp 2-11
Nesbitt M & Markham R 1999 ‘Improving Young Children’s Accuracy of Recall for an Eyewitness Event’ Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology vol 20 pp 449-459
Orbach Y Hershkowitz I Lamb M Sternberg K Esplin P & Horowitz D 2000 ‘Assessing the Value of Structured Protocols for Forensic Interviews of Alleged Child Abuse Victims’ Child Abuse & Neglect vol 24 pp 733-752
Orbach Y & Lamb M 2007 ‘Young Children’s References to Temporal Attributes of Allegedly Experienced Events in the Course of Forensic Interviews’ Child Development vol 78 pp 1100-1120
Pezdek K & Hodge D 1999 ‘Planting False Childhood Memories in Children: The Role of Event Plausibility’ Child Development vol 70 pp 887-895
Pierson H Hayes S Gifford E Roget N Padilla M Bisett R et al 2007 ‘An Examination of the Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity Code’ Journal of Substance Abuse and Treatment vol 32 pp 11-17
Poole D & Lamb M 1998 Investigative Interviews of Children: A Guide for Helping Professionals American Psychological Association Washington DC
Poole D & Lindsay D 1998 ‘Assessing the Accuracy of Young Children’s Reports: Lessons from the Investigation of Child Sexual Abuse’ Applied & Preventative Psychology vol 7 pp 1-26
Powell M 2000 ‘P.R.I.D.E.: The Essential Elements of a Forensic Interview with an Aboriginal Person’ Australian Psychologist vol 35 pp 186-192
Powell M 2002 ‘Specialist Training in Investigative and Evidential Interviewing: Is it Having any Effect on the Behaviour of Professionals in the Field?’ Psychiatry, Psychology and the Law vol 9 pp 44-55
Powell M 2003 ‘A Guide to Introducing the Topic of an Interview about Abuse with a Child’ Australian Police Journal vol 57 pp 259-263
Powell M 2005 ‘Improving the Reliability of Child Witness Testimony in Court: The Importance of Focusing on Questioning Techniques’ Current Issues in Criminal Justice vol 17 pp 137-143
Powell M Fisher R & Hughes-Scholes C 2008 ‘The Effect of Unidirectional versus Interactive Feedback when Training Investigative Interviewers how to Interview a Child’ Child Abuse & Neglect vol 32 pp 213-227
Powell M Fisher R & Hughes-Scholes C (in press) ‘The Effect of Using Trained versus Untrained Adult Respondents in Simulated Practice Interviews about Child Abuse’ Child Abuse & Neglect
Powell M Fisher R & Wright R 2005 ‘Investigative Interviewing’ in Brewer N & Williams K (eds) Psychology and Law: An Empirical Perspective pp 11-42 Guilford Press New York
Powell M & Guadagno B (in press) ‘An Examination of the Limitations in Investigative Interviewers’ use of Open-ended Questions’ Psychiatry, Psychology & Law
Powell M Roberts K & Guadagno B 2007 ‘Particularisation of Child Abuse Offences: Common Problems when Questioning Child Witnesses’ Current Issues in Criminal Justice vol 19 pp 64-74
Powell M Skouteris H & Segrave S 2008 ‘“Unreal Interviewing”: An Interactive Computer Simulated Exercise to Promote Effective use of Open-ended Questions with Child Abuse Victims’ Manuscript Submitted for Publication
Powell M & Snow P 2007a ‘Guide to Questioning Children during the Free-narrative Phase of an Investigative Interview’ Australian Psychologist vol 42 pp 57-65
Powell M & Snow P 2007b ‘Recommendations for Eliciting a Disclosure of Abuse from a Young Child’ Australian Police Journal vol 61 pp 76-80
Powell M & Thomson D 1994 ‘A Review of Children's Eyewitness Memory Research and its Implications for the Investigatory Interview’ Families in Society: Journal of Contemporary Human Services vol 75 pp 204-216
Powell M & Thomson D 2003 ‘Improving Children’s Recall of an Occurrence of a Repeated Event: Is it a Matter of Helping them to Generate Options?’ Law and Human Behavior vol 27 pp 365-384
Powell M Wilson J & Croft C 2000 ‘The Effect of Uniform and Prior Knowledge on Children's Event Reports and Disclosure of Secrets’ Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology vol 15 pp 27-40
Powell M Wilson J & Hasty M 2002 ‘Evaluation of the Usefulness of ‘Marvin’: A Computerized Assessment Tool for Investigative Interviewers of Children’ Computers in Human Behavior vol 18 pp 577-592
Powell M & Wright (in press) ‘Investigative Interviewers’ Perceptions of the Value of Different Training Tasks on their Adherence to Open-ended Questions with Children’ Psychiatry, Psychology & Law
Powell M Wright R & Clark S in press ‘Improving the Competency of Police Officers in Conducting Investigative Interviews of Children’ Police Practice and Research
Pratt S Kelly S Muesler K Patterson T Golman S & Bishop-Horton S 2007 ‘Reliability and Validity of a Performance-based Measure of Skills for Communicating with Doctors for Older People with Serious Mental Illness’ Journal of Mental Health vol 16 pp 569-579
Quas J Goodman G Bidrose S Pipe M-E Craw S & Ablin D 1999 ‘Emotion and Memory: Children’s Long-term Remembering, Forgetting, and Suggestibility’ Journal of Experimental Child Psychology vol 72 pp 235-270
Richards P Morris S Richards E & Siddall K 2007 On the Record: Evaluating the Visual Recording of Joint Investigative Interviews with Children: Final Report Scottish Executive Social Research Edinburgh
Righarts S 2007 Reducing the Negative Effect of Cross-examination Questioning on the Accuracy of Children’s Reports Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation University of Otago Dunedin New Zealand
Roberts K & Powell M 2001 ‘Describing Individual Incidents of Sexual Abuse: A Review of Research on the Effects of Multiple Sources of Information on Children’s Reports’ Child Abuse and Neglect vol 25 pp 1643-1659
Roberts K & Powell M 2003 ‘What was different about the time when….?’ Paper presented at the 2003 Meeting of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition Aberdeen
Schollum M Westera N Grantham R & Chartres M 2006 Investigative interviewing: Evaluation of Manurewa Trial New Zealand Police Wellington NZ
Scullin M & Ceci S 2001 ‘A Suggestibility Scale for Children’ Personality and Individual Difference vol 30 pp 843-856
Shuell T 1990 ‘Phases of Meaningful Learning’ Review of Educational Research vol 60 pp 531-547
Smith R Powell M & Lum J in press ‘The Relationship Between Job Status, Interviewing Experience, Gender and Police Officers’ Adherence to Open-ended Questions’ Legal and Criminological Psychology
Snow P Powell M & Murfett R 2008 ‘Getting the Story from Child Witnesses: Applying a Story Grammar Framework’ Manuscript under Review
Squires P Torkel S Smither J & Ingate M 1991 ‘Validity and Generalizability of a Role Play Test to Select Telemarketing Representatives’ Journal of Occupational Psychology vol 64 pp 34-47
Sternberg K Lamb M Esplin P & Baradaran L 1999 ‘Using a Scripted Protocol in Investigative Interviews: A Pilot Study’ Applied Developmental Science vol 3 pp 70-76
Sternberg K Lamb M Hershkowitz I Yudilevitch L Orbach Y Esplin P et al 1997 ‘Effects of Introductory Style on Children's Abilities to Describe Experiences of Sexual Abuse’ Child Abuse and Neglect vol 21 pp 1133-1146
Sternberg K Lamb M Orbach Y Esplin P & Mitchell S 2001 ‘Use of a Structured Investigative Protocol Enhances Young Children’s Responses to Free-recall Prompts in the Course of Forensic Interviews’ Journal of Applied Psychology vol 86 pp 997-1005
Sternberg K Lamb M Esplin P Orbach Y & Hershkowitz I 2002 ‘Using a Structured Protocol to Improve the Quality of Investigative Interviews’ in Eisen M Quas J & Goodman G (eds) Memory and Suggestibility in the Forensic Interview pp 409-436 Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Mahwah NJ
Stevenson K Leung P & Cheung K 1992 ‘Competency-based Evaluation of Interviewing Skills in Child Sexual Abuse Cases’ Social Work Research and Abstracts vol 28 pp 11-16
Van Hasselt V Baker M Romano S Sellers A Noesner G & Smith S 2005 ‘Development and Validitation of a Role-play Test for Assessing Crisis (Hostage) Negotiation Skills’ Criminal Justice and Behavior vol 32 pp 534-361
Victorian Law Reform Commission 2004 Sexual Offences: Final Report Victorian Law Reform Commission Melbourne Victoria
Wakefield H 2006 ‘Guidelines on Investigatory Interviewing of Children: What is the Consensus in the Scientific Community?’ American Journal of Forensic Psychology vol 24 pp 57-74
Walter G 1975 ‘Effects of Videotape Training Inputs on Group Performance’ Journal of Applied Psychology vol 60 pp 308-312
Warren A Woodall C Thomas M Nunno M Keeney J Larson S et al 1999 ‘Assessing the Effectiveness of a Training Program of Interviewing Child Witnesses’ Applied Developmental Science vol 3 pp 128-135
Waterman A Blades M & Spencer C 2000 ‘Do Children Try to Answer Nonsensical Questions?’ British Journal of Developmental Psychology vol 18 pp 211-226
Waterman A Blades M & Spencer C 2001 ‘Interviewing Children and Adults: The Effect of Question Format on the Tendency to Speculate’ Applied Cognitive Psychology vol 15 pp 521-531
Westcott H & Kynan S 2004 ‘The Application of a 'Story-telling' Framework to Investigative Interviews for Suspected Child Sexual Abuse’ Legal and Criminological Psychology vol 9 pp 37-56
Wilson C & Powell M 2001 A Guide to Interviewing Children: Essential Skills for Counsellors, Police, Lawyers and Social workers Allen & Unwin Sydney
Wright R & Powell M 2006 ‘Investigative Interviewers’ Perceptions of their Difficulty in Adhering to Open-ended Questions with Child Witnesses’ International Journal of Police Science and Management vol 8 pp 316-325
Wright R & Powell M 2007 ‘What Makes a Good Investigative Interviewer of Children? A Comparison of Police Officers’ and Experts’ Perceptions’ Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management vol 30 pp 21-31
Wright R Powell M & Ridge D 2006 ‘Child Abuse Investigation: An In-depth Analysis of How Police Officers’ Perceive and Cope with Daily Work Challenges’ Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management vol 29 pp 498-512
Wright R Powell M & Ridge D 2007 ‘What Criteria do Police Officers use to Measure the Success of an Interview with a Child Witness?’ Psychology, Crime and Law vol 13 pp 395-404
[†] This paper was funded by the Child Interview Unit WA, Department for Child Protection & WA Police as a resource for all organisations. The views expressed, however, are those of the author. Thanks to Carolyn Hughes-Scholes and Natalie Hall for their feedback in relation to an earlier draft of this manuscript.
[∗] Professor Martine Powell has conducted research in the area of investigative interviewing of children since 1989 and plays a major role in the training of police officers, social workers, prosecutors and judicial officers throughout Australia. Any correspondence about this article should be directed to Prof M. Powell at School of Psychology, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Hwy, Burwood, VIC. 3186, Australia. Ph; (03) 9244 6106, FAX: (03) 9244 6858, Email: martine.powell@deakin.edu.au
[1] Research in this area is still in its infancy. With further refinement of performance measures and global improvements in interviewer competency, personal or background attributes that facilitate or moderate training outcomes may be identified. However, the current findings are robust and clearly indicate that quality of training is the over-riding variable.
[2] Without substantial modification, these protocols are generally considered unsuitable for children (Fisher & McCauley 1995; Geiselman 1999). The PEACE interview model and accompanying training program, developed in the UK (see Clarke & Milne 2001) incorporates the use of either Conversation Management or the Cognitive Interview, thus this model is generally not referred to in the child interview literature.
[3] Interview protocols for use with children are also generally suitable for other vulnerable witnesses such as persons with an intellectual disability and persons from cultural minority groups.
[4] In most prior studies, practice was combined with feedback and instruction, however its benefit in isolation of other training elements has been demonstrated (Powell, Fisher et al 2008).
[5] Overall, the results suggested that feedback effectiveness ‘decreases as attention moves up the hierarchy closer to the self and away from the task’ (Kluger & DeNisi 1996:254).