Storage.googleapis.com



1 As I was preparing my presentations for today’s seminars, I recalled a comment that was made by a college chemistry professor during one of his lectures. He was discussing some of the problems in doing research, and he said that the terms “hard science” and “soft science” were really misused. It was his firm belief that research such as psychology, or sociology, or political science were really the “hard sciences;” that it was much more difficult to do good research in these areas than in disciplines like chemistry or physics, simply because you couldn’t do the research in a laboratory and it was much more difficult to isolate the variables one is researching from the other variables in the environment.

Besides, I hope, giving you some useful information on the topics that we will be discussing, I hope that you will also leave today realizing that, for all of these topics, the subtleties and nuances associated with them are very important; that much of what we need to discern are varying shades of gray, and that little is black and white.

2

3 CSA and Interviewing Methods for Children

Questions concerning the reliability and credibility of children's accounts are often raised in adversarial legal proceedings, and these have fostered a highly contentious debate concerning the value and limitations of children's testimony (Lamb, 1994). Much of the research dealing with interviewing children and the reliability of children's testimony is the result of the increased attention and increased reports of child sexual abuse over the last 30 years. Most of the examples I give on improper interviewing techniques will center on child sexual abuse. However, the interviewing techniques that have been developed to properly interview children regarding possible child sexual abuse are valid for any circumstance.

Bruck and Ceci (1995) note that the current research indicates that certain interview conditions have a high risk of contaminating young children's reports. Contrary to previously-held beliefs, errors made by children are not limited to errors of omission (i.e., failure of the child to report important events).

Several factors affect the likelihood of children giving misinformation about personal events. Foremost among these are the interviewing methods which are used in obtaining the testimony. Repeated questioning, delayed questioning, suggestive and misleading interviewing, the emotional tone of the interview, and the status of the person conducting the interview can all have a significant negative impact on the testimony which is obtained from the child. Furthermore, if the interviewer has a bias, the interviewer's methods of questioning may be adversely affected and the child's response or testimony might be consistent with the interviewer's bias.

Improper Interviewing Methods and Their Negative Effect on Children's Testimony

Interviews with children, whether in suspected sexual abuse cases or for other reasons, far too often are conducted using improper interviewing techniques. Mapes (1995) has identified a continuum of questioning methods, ranging from spontaneous disclosure by the child with non-leading techniques, through minimally leading, moderately leading, to maximally leading techniques.

Mapes notes that if the child is presented with inaccurate post-event information, interpretations, or explanations, the misleading information will modify the child's memory of the event being recalled. Generally speaking, the younger the child, the more likely the child will accept someone else's interpretation of an event if it bears a resemblance to the original event. Numerous studies demonstrate that improper interviewing methods may negatively affect the reliability of children's testimony.

The New Jersey Supreme Court, in State v. Michaels, relied on the social science literature on child witnesses and "accepted as its central inquiry whether the interview techniques used by the State in this case were so coercive or suggestive that they had a capacity to distort substantially the children's recollections of actual events and thus compromise the reliability of the children's statements and testimony based on their recollections (McGough, p. 371).

After the use of improper interviewing methods, a determination of what, in fact, actually happened to the child becomes virtually impossible.

Unfortunately, the legal system, according to McGough (1995), does little to insulate a child from this susceptibility; on the contrary, it compounds and undermines a child's resistance. Substantial intervals often occur between the observed events and testimony at trial. Multiple pretrial interviews are conducted. Interviewers who are authority figures (police officer, prosecutor, parent, or counsel) may consciously or unconsciously influence the child's accounts. In light of these factors, substantial impairment and distortion of a child's memories seem inevitable.

Repeated Questioning

Several studies show that asking children the same question repeatedly within an interview and across interviews often results in the child changing his or her answer (Ceci & Bruck, 1995; Poole & White, 1991). Preschool age children are particularly vulnerable to the contaminating effects of repeated questioning. Bruck and Ceci (1995) note that children seem to reason, "The first answer I gave must be wrong, that is why they are asking me again. Therefore, I should change my answer" (p. 279). They cite studies in which children who were questioned in a contradictory manner quickly changed their stories to conform to the suggestions and beliefs of the interviewer. Suggestions planted in the first interview session were quickly taken up and mentioned in the second interview session. This means that if a child is originally interviewed using improper methods, the "testimony" of that child can be contaminated through all subsequent interviews.

In the Michaels case, the defendant, Kelly Michaels was accused of hundreds of counts of sexual abuse and later convicted of 115 counts of sexual abuse against 20 three- to five-year old children. She was said to have licked peanut butter off children's genitals, played the piano while nude, made children drink her urine and eat her feces, and raped and assaulted these children with knives, forks, spoons, and Lego blocks. She was accused of performing these acts during regular school hours over a period of 7 months. During this time, none of the alleged acts were noticed by staff or reported by children to their parents. Ms. Michaels was later sentenced to 47 years in prison, but was released on bail after 5 years (Ceci & Bruck, 1995).

In addition to conversations likely held between the children and their parents, the children were repeatedly interviewed by a child therapist, by an investigator for the Division of Youth and Family Services, and by an expert for the prosecution. Bruck and Ceci (1995) analyzed available audiotapes of the interviews and describe the highly suggestive, coercive, and inappropriate interview techniques. They note that the children who ultimately became witnesses in court were interviewed dozens of times before they "testified." The risks of contamination of the children's testimony were mammoth. The interviewers' misconduct in conducting the interviews furnished the pivot of the New Jersey appellate's decision to reverse Kelly Michaels' conviction (McGough, 1995). (For a more detailed description of that case and other famous day-care cases, see Bruck and Ceci [1995] and Ceci and Bruck [1995]).

Unfortunately, even today, in many parts of the country, repeated interviewing is far more likely to be the rule rather than the exception in suspected sexual abuse investigations.

Suggestive or Misleading Questioning

A number of studies show that repeatedly giving children misleading information in a series of interviews can have serious effects on the accuracy of their later reports. Not only can misinformation become directly incorporated into the children's subsequent reports, it can also lead to fabrications or inaccuracies which do not directly mirror the content of the misleading information or questions. It is now known that misinformation presented in initial or early interviews can taint the testimony that the child gives later. In other words, as Bruck and Ceci (1995) note, the "primary evidence has been destroyed" (p. 272).

Investigators approaching a crime scene are taught not to touch objects, weapons, or features of the surroundings because of the imminent risk of destroying the evidence. Yet investigators who engage in repetitive child sexual abuse cases appear to have no knowledge whatsoever of the potential of their own interviewing methods in destroying the evidence, i.e., the child's testimony.

Emotional Tone of the Interview

Children may give incorrect information to misleading questions when the interviewer creates an emotional tone of accusation (Bruck & Ceci, 1995). In some studies, when an accusatory tone is set by the examiner, children may fabricate reports of past events even in cases when they have no memory of any event occurring. Goodman, Wilson, Hazan, and Reed (1989) demonstrated that "an atmosphere of accusation" can be created, in which children will produce reports of abuse when none has occurred.

Effects of Peer Pressure

In some cases, interviewers have told children that their friends have "already told" about being abused, even when this is not true. Bruck and Ceci (1995) note numerous examples of the use of peer pressure in the Michales case, both by telling the child what other children had allegedly reported, and by threatening to tell other children that the child being interviewed had been uncooperative. In one example, the interviewer said, "Oh, come on, we talked to a few more of your buddies. We talked to everyone now. And everyone told me about the nap room, and the bathroom stuff and the music room stuff and the choir room stuff and the peanut butter stuff and everything. Nothing surprises me anymore."

Effects of Being Interviewed by Adults with High Status

Young children are sensitive to the status and power of their interviewers (Bruck & Ceci, 1995). As a result, they are especially likely to comply with the implicit and explicit agenda of such interviewers. Children are more likely to believe adults than other children, they are more willing to go along with the wishes of adults, and are more apt to incorporate adults' beliefs into their reports.

Children's testimony is susceptible to contamination from several factors.

Effects of Interviewer Bias on Children's Reports

Several researchers note a distinct "confirmatory bias" on the part of interviewers, i.e., that abuse has occurred and the purpose of the interview is to get the child to admit the abuse. Bruck and Ceci (1995) observe that some interviewers blindly pursue a single hypothesis that sexual abuse has occurred and fail to explore rival hypotheses that might explain the behavior of the child. When Bruck and Ceci reviewed tapes in the Wee Care case, they found them replete with interviewer bias. They report that when children said something that was not part of the interviewer's hypothesis, the interviewer ignored it.

When interviewers of the children in the Wee Care case were asked how they conducted their interviews, one admitted that "her goal was to induce the children to discuss sexual abuse" (Bruck & Ceci, 1995, p. 278), while another primary interviewer stated, "The interview process is in essence the beginning of the healing process" (p. 279). A third of the primary interviewers said, "So you open the interview in an effort to disempower (the accused person) of these super powers that she allegedly has . . . and also to let the children know that telling about these things was okay and they would be safe" (p. 279). Such statements reveal a clear assumption that abuse has occurred and demonstrate that these interviewers held preconceived biases that pervaded their interviewing methods and subsequent conclusions.

In a study conducted by Pettit, Fegan, and Howie (1990), children who were interviewed by biased interviewers gave the most inaccurate information. If an interviewer's belief was contrary to what the child had experienced, interviews were characterized by an overabundance of misleading questions which resulted in children providing highly inaccurate information.

It is generally recognized that the most reliable and accurate information is obtained from children who are responding to open-ended questions designed to elicit free narrative accounts of events that they have experienced. When direct questions are asked, they should be formulated as non-suggestively as possible, using developmentally and individually appropriate vocabulary and sentence construction. Repeated, highly-leading, or suggestive questions asked in an accusatory manner are most likely to promote distortion on the part of the child and may introduce details that are incorporated into and contaminate subsequent accounts (Lamb, 1994, p. 155).

Risks of Inaccuracies in Hearsay Testimony in Child Sexual Abuse Cases

A great deal of literature reveals that the credibility and reliability of testimony obtained from children may be compromised when improper interviewing methods are used. Several major concerns emanate from this discussion. As noted above, repeated interviews or interviews employing improper questioning methods can irreversibly taint the evidence, i.e., destroy the original testimony of the child, as early as the second interview. Improper questioning, even if the interviewer is unaware of using improper methods, can also destroy the primary evidence. Any attempt that is made to re-evaluate, re-examine or cross-examine the testimony of the child for presentation to a jury after several interviews may fail, since accurate information may no longer be obtained. The more interviews to which the child has been subjected, the greater the likelihood that the child's testimony has already been contaminated.

Hearsay testimony from mental health and other professionals plays a key role in many cases. Compounding the risks of contamination from improper methods of securing testimony from the child, the resultant hearsay testimony is fraught with dangers of inaccuracy. Mental health practitioners or others who testify on behalf of the child are not necessarily accurate in their statements about what the child testified and may misinterpret what the child said.

McGough (1995), addressing the issue of hearsay in cases of child abuse, notes that most child abuse trials do not depend solely on in-court testimony of the child witness. Although rules of evidence prefer in-court testimony, many types of "hearsay" — out of court statements — are admissible. In a great number of cases, the child does not testify directly, but a medical or mental health practitioner testifies regarding alleged reports obtained from the child, which is hearsay testimony. In such cases, the child is considered, by legal criteria, to be "psychologically unavailable" to testify directly. According to McGough (1995), there are three primary dangers when hearsay is received as trial evidence:

1. Faulty memory — the danger that the declarant will forget key material;

2. Ambiguity — the danger that the meaning intended by the declarant will be misinterpreted by the witness, and hence, the fact finder;

3. Misperception — the danger that the declarant misjudged, misinterpreted, or misunderstood what she heard or saw;

Faulty Memory

The first potential danger to the accuracy of hearsay is the faulty memory of the declarant. A number of researchers (Bruck & Ceci, 1995; Ceci & Bruck, 1993; Loftus & Davies, 1984; Loftus & Ketcham, 1991) have provided scientific evidence which bears on the potential danger of faulty memory on the part of the witness. This is especially true for children's memory but is also true for health care professionals. Difficulties with memory could fill and has already begun to fill volumes. Summarizing the memory literature in a few sentences is difficult, but generally, memory can be seen as constructive, often inaccurate, and susceptible to numerous influences which reduce accuracy. The reader is directed to the published works of these authors for more complete analysis. Such studies are intriguing from the scientific standpoint, but appalling from the legal standpoint, with heavy implications for the judicial system.

Here the possibility of faulty memory on the part of the hearsay declarant, i.e., the mental health professional, must also be considered. Bruck and Ceci (1995) have pointed out that hearsay declarants' statements are likely to be affected by faulty memory. According to these authors, adult interviewers are often inaccurate in recalling what was said or what took place in an interview. Neither the interviewer's remembrance of the interview nor the written documentation of the interview may be accurate. In general, adult remembrance of interviews is inaccurate. When asked to recall conversations, most adults may recall the gist, but they cannot recall the exact words used, nor the sequences of interactions between speakers. Bruck and Ceci (1995) observe that written summaries of unrecorded interviews may be subject to a number of distortions, and conclude that summaries of missing interviews do not substitute for an audio or video recording.

Ambiguity

The second danger affecting hearsay testimony, ambiguity (McGough, 1995), is also prominent in child sexual abuse investigations. For example, for mental health professionals to ask a four-year-old child if someone "touched" him or her invites inaccuracy. The child who is four years old often cannot distinguish a general, affectionate touch from a sexualized touch. The child may honestly relate, on the basis of a concrete interpretation of the word "touch," that he or she was "touched." The investigator may interpret this as meaning that the child was touched in a sexual way, whereas the child may have been referring to a non-sexual touching. Immediately, an allegation of sexual abuse arises, with tremendous personal and social costs to all involved.

Other terms such as "private parts," "bottom," or "rubbing," may be interpreted differently by the interviewer and the interviewee. Ambiguity is also present in questions such as, "Did he/she hurt you?" "Was it a good touch or a bad touch?" or "Did the hug make you feel yucky?" When hearsay testimony is given on the basis of such ambiguous questioning, the risks of inaccuracy are increased.

Ceci and Bruck (1995) provide several examples of ambiguity, one being the fact that some summaries of interviews are written in such a way as to make one believe that children made spontaneous and detailed statements about sexual abuse. But review of transcripts reveals that children only responded "yes" or "no" to a barrage of leading questions.

Misperception

The third danger to the accuracy of hearsay identified by McGough (1995) is the risk of misperception, the danger that the (hearsay) declarant misjudged, misinterpreted, or misunderstood what he or she heard or saw. Recent social science literature indicates that "if the interviewer has a bias that the child was sexually abused, this can color his interpretation of what the child said or did; and it is this interpretation that appears in the summary rather than a factual account of what transpired" (Ceci & Bruck, 1995; p. 243).

Bruck and Ceci (1995) note that the failure to have audio- or videotaped records of the initial interviews with children makes it impossible to determine the accuracy of their subsequent statements. In reviewing the methodologies used to interview children, when repeated or other improper questioning methods may have been used, it is crucial to know whether and how often the interviewer asked the child leading questions. We must know whether the interviewer "prodded the child's report" (p. 307).

Lamb and his colleagues (2000) compared verbatim contemporaneous accounts of 20 investigative interviews with audiotaped recordings thereof. More than half (57%) of the interviewers' utterances along with 25% of the incident-relevant details provided by the children were not reported in the “verbatim” notes. The structure of the interviews was also represented inaccurately in these accounts. Fewer than half (44%) of the details provided by the children were attributed to the correct eliciting utterance type. Investigators systematically misattributed details to more open rather than more focused prompts.

Rationale for Videotaping of All Interviews with Children

The accepted protocols for conducting child sexual abuse interviews calls for the video or as a substitue, the audio taping of the interview. Taping allows later review of questioning methods, shelter the child from subsequent stressful court proceedings, and are useful from a legal perspective (Bruck & Ceci, 1995; Ceci & Bruck, 1995; Gardner, 1995; Wexler, 1995).

Structured interviews

A promising approach to forensic interviews in child sexual abuse cases is the use of structured interviews, in which the interviewer utilizes a specific interviewing format (e.g., Orbach, Hershkowitz, Lamb, Esplin, & Horowitz, 2000; Sternberg et al., 2001; Wells, McCann, Adams, Voris, & Dahl, 1997; Wood & Garven, 2000). Benefits of using a structured approach include user-friendly and flexible protocols, past evidence that structured interviews are effective (i.e., Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM-IV), and improvement in quality of interviews (Wood & Garven, 2000).

One of the first such techniques was the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) structured interview protocol (e.g., Orbach et al., 2000; Wells et al., 1997). The NICHD investigative protocol was published in 2000 bto translate professional recommendations into everyday practice in the fieldQ (Lamb & Fauchier, 2001, p. 998). It was developed by Yael Orbach and colleagues based on research regarding effective interviewing techniques (Orbach et al., 2000). The NICHD protocol begins with an introduction, truth–lie discussion, and establishment of ground rules for the interview. Next, the interviewer focuses on building rapport and asks the child to describe a neutral event. The interviewer then transitions into the abuse-specific questioning by asking the child to describe why they are being interviewed. The interviewer is instructed to use nonsuggestive invitations and open-ended questions as much as possible, followed by focused nonsuggestive questions and option-posing questions if necessary. Each incident of possible abuse is examined in this way. Interviewers using the NICDH protocol also receive individual feedback and are required to attend regular group sessions to discuss interviews.

Several studies have demonstrated the NICHD protocol’s effectiveness in reducing leading and suggestive questioning, increasing the use of open-ended questions, and increasing the number of details elicited from children (e.g., Lamb & Garretson, 2003; Lamb et al., 2002, 2003; Orbach et al., 2000; Sternberg et al., 2001). Orbach et al., 2000 compared 55 interviews in which the NICHD protocol was used to 50 interviews in which it was not used. They found that interviews using the protocol contained more open-ended questions and elicited more details from children than the non-protocol interviews. Sternberg et al. (2001) also compared 50 interviews using the NICHD protocol to 50 interviews conducted before the protocol was introduced. Results showed that NICHD interviews included 3 times more open-ended questions and significantly fewer suggestive and option-posing questions than non-protocol interviews. Furthermore, children interviewed with the NICHD protocol provided significantly more details overall and the protocol was found to be equally effective for all ages.

RATAC Protocol

Developed by Minnesota’s “CornerHouse” Children’s Advocacy Center in 1989, the RATAC Protocol includes five elements:

• Rapport

• Anatomy Identification

• Touch Inquiry

• Abuse Scenario

• Closure

The RATAC protocol has been taught in 17 states in the U.S., as well as in Japan. It promotes the use of media, including easel pads, drawing of a “face picture” and “family circles” by the interviewer during the rapport stage. This is followed by asking young children to provide names for body parts using anatomically detailed drawings, and discussing touches as the primary method for introducing the topic of suspected abuse with children under age 10 years.

The RATAC protocol reflects several practices common in the U.S. at the time it was developed, such as anatomy identification (also called ‘body parts inventory’) and the use of anatomical dolls. Anatomical dolls are used as a demonstration aid following a verbal disclosure of sexual abuse in as many as 49% of RATAC interviews. To date, there have been no peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals describing the behavior of interviewers utilizing the RATAC protocol in the field.

Appendix

Areas of Agreement Among Experts in Child Sex Abuse Investigations

1) The investigator must carefully examine his or her own emotions and possible biases regarding child sex abuse before undertaking to interview children who allege sex abuse, so as not to unwittingly project those biases into the assessment of the child's allegations.

2) A well-trained and experienced forensic interviewer and not the child's therapist should conduct the investigation. This will yield more informative and accurate accounts by children.

3) The greatest accuracy is obtained by eliciting a free narrative from the child in response to open-ended questions. Inaccuracies increase with the level of suggestiveness and coerciveness of the interview techniques used.

4) A structured interview technique with which the interviewer is familiar should be used, not a freeform or unstructured interview.

5) The interview and child's behavioral responses should be recorded, preferably by videotape, but at least by audiotape with detailed notes. Note-taking alone should be reserved for cases involving special circumstances.

6) Preschool age children are prone to suggestiveness and fantasy/reality confusion, and thus require special skills by the interviewer, including a concession that such confusion is possible, and knowledge of developmental differences.

7) Some measure of a child's ability to distinguish between truth and falsehood must be taken and all such measures are not equal. For example, asking a child to "tell the truth" about the color of your sweater and the child says 'red' and the sweater is red, does not mean that the child can reliably distinguish between truth and falsehood in all applications.

8) Some children's statements will be false and must be distinguished from true statements by the application of a structured technique, and not by "gut feeling" or "hunches" unsupported by articulable criteria.

9) Behaviors that mimic sexual activity are seen more frequently in abused children than in non-abused children.

10) Children's accounts that contain peripheral details and are logically embedded in a rich context are more likely to represent a true occurrence.

11) Tools and props such as anatomically detailed dolls, puppets, or human figure drawings may be useful when interviewing children under age 5 or older children who are uncommunicative.

12) Although medical exams commonly do not show evidence of sexual abuse, they should be performed and documented in every case as soon as possible after the allegation, by a highly trained specialist using multiple techniques and sophisticated equipment.

References

American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. (1988). Guidelines for the clinical evaluation of child and adolescent sexual abuse. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 25, 655-657.

Boat, B. and Everson, M. (1986). Using anatomical dolls: Guidelines for interviewing young children in sexual abuse Investigations. Department of Psychiatry, University of North Carolina, Chapel hill, North Carolina.

Bruck, M. and Ceci, S. (1993/1995). Amicus brief for the case of State of New Jersey v. Michaels presented by committee of concerned social scientists, Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 1(2), 272-322.

Ceci, S., & Bruck, M. (1995). Jeopardy in the Courtroom: A scientific analysis of children's testimony, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Committee on Ethical Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists. (1991). Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 655-665.

Doris, J. (editor) (1991). The suggestibility of children's recollections: Implications for Eyewitness Testimony, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Doris, J., Mazur, R., & Rosenthal, R. (1995). Training in child protective services: A commentary on the brief of Bruck and Ceci (1993/1995), Psychology, Public Policy, and law, 1(2), 479-493.

Edwards, S. M. & Soetenhorst, J. (1994), The impact of 'moral panic' on professional behavior in cases of child sex abuse: An international perspective, Journal of Child Sex Abuse, 3(1), pp. 103-126.

Gardner, R. (1992). True and false accusations of child sex abuse. New Jersey: Creative Therapeutics.

Gardner, R. (1995). Protocols for the Sex-Abuse Evaluation. New Jersey: Creative Therapeutics.

Greenberg, S. (1990). Conducting unbiased sexual abuse evaluations, Preventing Sexual Abuse, 8-14.

Goodman, G., & Bottoms, B. (1993). Child victims, child witnesses: Understanding and improving testimony, New York: The Guilford Press.

Hindman, J. (1985). A very touching book. Ontario, Oregon: AlexAndria Associates.

Hindman, J. (1987). Step by step: Sixteen steps toward legally sound sexual abuse investigations. Ontario, Oregon: AlexAndria Associates.

Koocher, G., Goodman, G., White, S., Friedrich, W., Sivan, A., & Reynolds, C. (1994). Report of the Anatomical Doll Task Force to the American Psychological Association Council of Representatives: Psychological science and the use of anatomically detailed dolls in child sexual abuse assessments. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Lamb, M. (1994). The investigation of child sexual abuse: An interdisciplinary consensus statement. Journal of Child Sex Abuse, 3(4), 93-132.

Lamb, M., Sternberg, K., & Esplin, P. (1995). Making children into competent witnesses: Reactions to the amicus brief In re Michaels. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 1(2), 438-449.

Loftus, E., & Ketcham, K. (1994). The myth of repressed memory. New York: St. Martin's Press.

Perry, N., & Wrightsman, L. (1991). The Child Witness: Legal Issues and Dilemmas, California: Sage Publications.

Raskin, D., & Esplin, P. (1991). Statement validity assessment: interview procedures and content analysis of children's statements of sexual abuse. Behavioral Assessment, 13, 265-291.

Raskin, D., & Esplin, P. (1991). Assessment of children's statements of sexual abuse. In J. Doris (Ed.), The suggestibility of children's recollections (pp 153-164). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

State of Montana v. Harts, Gallatin County Cause No. DC-93-173.

State of New Jersey v. Margaret Kelly Michaels, 625 A.2d, New Jersey Sup. Ct.ff 1993.

Terr, L. (1994). Unchained memories. New York: Basic Books.

Underwager, R., & Wakefield, H. (1990). The real world of child interrogations. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Vidmar, N. (1997). Generic Prejudice and the Presumption of Guilt in Sex Abuse Trials. Law and Human Behavior, 21(1), 5-26.

Wells, G., & Loftus, E. (1991). Commentary: Is this child fabricating? Reactions to a new assessment technique. In J. Doris (Ed.), The suggestibility of children's recollections (pp. 168-171). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

References

Adams, J. K. (1995). Interviewing of children in suspected sexual abuse cases. Oklahoma Family Law Journal, 10(4), 105-111.

Arizona v. Youngblood (1988). 488 U.S.51.

Britt v. (Oklahoma) State 721 P.2d 812, 815 (Okl. Cr. 1986).

Bruck, M., & Ceci, S. (1995). Amicus Brief for the case of State of New Jersey v. Michaels. Presented by Committee of Concerned Social Scientists. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 1, 272-322.

Bussey, K., Lee, K., & Richard, K. (1993). Children's reports of an adult's transgression. Unpublished manuscript.

Ceci, S., & Bruck, M. (1995). Jeopardy in the courtroom: A scientific analysis of children's testimony. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Dawson, T. (1996, October). A system begging for change. Unpublished Manuscript. Katy, TX.

Gardner, R. A. (1992). True and false accusations of child sex abuse. Cresskill, NJ. Creative Therapeutics.

Gardner, R. A. (1995). Protocols for the sex-abuse evaluation. Cresskill, NJ. Creative Therapeutics.

Goodman, G. S., Wilson, M. E., Hazan, C., & Reed, R. S. (1989). Children's testimony nearly four years after an event. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Boston, MA.

Haugaard, J. J., & Crosby C. (1993). Children's definitions of the truth and their competency as witnesses in legal proceedings. Presented at the Southeastern Psychological Association Conference, Washington, DC.

Idaho v. Wright (1990). 497 U.S. 805.

Lamb, M. (1994). The investigation of child sexual abuse: An international, interdisciplinary consensus statement. Family Law Quarterly, 28(1), 151-162.

Loftus, E., & Davies, G. (1984). Distortions in the memory of children. Journal of Social Issues, 40, 51-67.

Loftus, E., & Ketcham, K. (1991). Witness for the defense: The accused, the eyewitness, and the expert who puts memory on trial. New York: St. Martin's Press.

Mapes, B. E. (1995). Child eyewitness testimony in sexual abuse investigations. Brandon, VT: Clinical Psychology Publishing Co.

McAlexander, L. N. (1996, October). NASVO/VOCAL gains respect with message in Washington. NASVO/VOCAL Colorado News, Denver, CO.

McGough, L. S. (1995). For the record: Videotaping investigative interviews. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 1(2), 370-386.

Myers, J. E. B. (1994, July). Child victim witness investigative pilot projects: Research and evaluation final report. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Justice.

New Jersey v. Michaels (1994, June 23). 642 A.2d 1372.

Pettit, F., Fegan, M., & Howie, P. (1990, September 2-6). Interviewer effects on children's testimony. Paper presented at the 8th International Congress on Child Abuse and Neglect, Hamburg, Germany.

Poole, D. A., & White, L. T. (1991). Effects of question repetition on the eyewitness testimony of children and adults. Developmental Psychology, 27(6), 975-986.

Riffe, G. H. (1993). Children's testimony in criminal physical and sexual abuse cases. The Oklahoma Bar Journal, 64(35), 2749-2760.

Smallwood, A. (1992, November). Admissibility of child hearsay in sexual abuse cases. Paper presented at Tulsa County Bar Association Criminal Law Committee Meeting, Tulsa, OK.

State v. Giles. 772 P.2d 191 (Idaho 1989)

Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1987, April). Mother's perception of children's lying and its relationship to behavior problems. Presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Research on Child Development, Baltimore, MD.

Wakefield, H. & Underwager, R. (1989). Evaluating the child witness in sexual abuse cases: Interview or inquisition? American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 7(3), 43-69.

Wexler, R. (1995). Wounded Innocents: The Real Victims of the War Against Child Abuse (). Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.

Yuille, J. C., Hunter, R., Joffe, R., & Zaparniuk, J. (1993). Interviewing children in sexual abuse cases. In G. S. Goodman & B. L. Bottoms (Eds.), Child Victims, Child Witnesses: Understanding and Improving Testimony (pp. 95-115). New York: Guilford Press.

General Resources

Ten Step Investigative Interview, Thomas D. Lyon, J.D., Ph.D. (Adaptation of the NICHD Investigative Interview Protocol): thomaslyon/5/

“A structured forensic interview protocol improves the quality and informativeness of investigative interviews with children: A review of research using the NICHD Investigative Interview Protocol,” Child Abuse & Neglect, Volume 31, Issues 11-12, November-December 2007, Pages 1201- 1231; Michael E. Lamb, Yael Orbach, Irit Hershkowitz, Phillip W. Esplin and Dvora Horowitz

“Achieving Best Evidence in Criminal Proceedings: Guidance on Interviewing Victims and Witnesses, and Using Special Measures,” 2007 revision, Home Office – UK:h ttp://.uk/publications/docs/ achieving_best_evidence_final.pdf

Tell Me What Happened: Structured Investigative Interviews of Child Victims & Witnesses, by Michael E. Lamb, Irit Hershkowitz, Yael Orbach, & Phillip W. Esplin; Wiley Series in Psychology of Crime, Policing and Law; Sept. 2008

“THE CORNERHOUSE FORENSIC INTERVIEW PROTOCOL: RATAC,” Thomas M. Cooley Journal of Practical and Clinical Law, Vol. 12, 2010, by Jennifer Anderson, Julie Ellefson, Jodi Lashley, Anne Lukas Miller, Sara Olinger, Amy Russell, Julie Stauffer, and Judy Weigman

The APSAC Handbook on Child Maltreatment, 3rd edition, edited by John E.B. Myers, Sage Publications, 2011. Chapter 20, “Interviewing Children,” by Karen J. Saywitz, Thomas D. Lyon, & Gail S. Goodman

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download