Interviewing young children: protocol, practice and perception in police interviews

Sarah Krhenbhl

sarahkrahenbuhl@yahoo.com

Key words: eyewitness testimony, repeated questions, investigative interviews, children

Introduction
Appropriate interviewing practice is essential for witness, victim and defendant alike. In the
United States (1984) Federico Macias was convicted of murder and received the death
penalty. Four years after her original testimony, which had been crucial to Macias
conviction, a 13-year-old witness made the following statement:

Because different people asked me so many questions about what I saw I became
confused. I thought I might have seen something that would be helpful to the police. I
didnt realize that it would become so important. I thought they wanted me to be
certain, so I said I was certain even though I wasnt the more questions I was
asked, the more confused I became. (Ceci and Bruck, 1995: 304)

This statement was made two weeks before Macias scheduled execution; the death
penalty was not imposed and he was finally exonerated in 1993.

This article will outline the interviewing practices (primarily in England and Wales) used
by investigative interviewers with children. There will be a descriptive summary of the use
and effect of question repetition in police interviews (a full account of which can be found
in Krhenbhl, Blades, and Westcott, 2007), which will be followed by the results of a
study using semi-structured interviews with police interviewers to examine their
perceptions of their own interviewing practices.

The premise that witnesses tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth may
be naive, simplistic and unrealistic (Ainsworth, 1998: 33). However, as children take part
in legal proceedings as witnesses, procedures have been established to allow childrens
witness evidence to be elicited and represented fairly.
 Research such as the effect of different questioning strategies on the accuracy and
quantity of information a child provides (Hershkowitz, 2001, 2002; Lamb and Fauchier,
2001; Lamb and Garretson, 2003; Lamb et al., 1996; Lamb, Sternberg, Orbach, Esplin,
and Mitchell, 2001; Orbach et al., 2000; Orbach and Lamb, 2001; Peterson, Dowden, and
Tobin, 1999; Peterson and Grant, 2001; Sternberg et al., 1996; Sternberg et al., 1997;
Zajac, Gross, and Hayne, 2003), and governmental directives (Davies, Marshall, and
Robertson, 1998; Home Office, 1989, 1998) have influenced and directed the formation of
investigative interviewing protocols. These protocols facilitate the eliciting of appropriate
eyewitness testimony from children involved in legal systems. In England and Wales the
Memorandum of Good Practice (MOGP) interviewing protocol was introduced in 1992 for
use with children under the age of 14 for violent offences and under the age of 17 for
sexual offences. This protocol was revised in 2001 and replaced by Achieving Best
Evidence (ABE) for use in interviewing children under the age of 17, regardless of the
offence involved, and also for interviews with vulnerable or intimidated adults (Home
Office, 1992, 2001, 2007).

In England and Wales, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) takes the decision about
whether a case should proceed to prosecution or be suspended. The CPS decision
depends on many factors, amongst which the quality of the childs testimony plays a major
part, in conjunction with the quantity and quality of corroborative evidence required. As
corroborative evidence is not always available, particularly in cases of alleged abuse, this
places particular emphasis on the quality of the childs testimony:

the strength of the additional evidence required was dependent on the clarity and
consistency of the childs account. Where a childs testimony was considered to be
exceptionally clear and detailed, evidence of opportunity might be considered
sufficient. When the childs account was vague or inconsistent, a case would only be
prosecuted where there was other strong evidence supporting the childs account,
such as clear medical signs or testimony from other children who were making
similar allegations. (Davis, Hoyano, Keenan, Maitland, and Morgan, 1999: 46)

Attrition rates for allegations of child abuse and neglect are high, which suggests that
the quality of childrens testimony, as described by above by Davis et al. (1999) appears to
be insufficient. Gallagher and Pease (2000) found that less than one-fifth of cases (in
1997) proceeded to prosecution. Factors concerning the witnesss statement, credibility,
ability to give evidence, reaction to the court case itself or reluctance to proceed accounted
for approximately half of the reasons given by the police for taking no further action.

The MOGP and ABE interviewing protocols (Home Office, 1992, 2001, 2007) are semi-
structured, and emphasise the positive use of free recall and the use of specific rather than
closed questions. Free recall is when the interviewer, in effect, invites the child to talk
without directing the child to a particular topic, for example by saying What shall we talk
about? Responses to specific questions (often termed open-ended questions) are
unlimited but the interviewer may direct the topic. Specific questions often start with wh-
(who, what, when, where, why) or how (the 5 wh questions) - for example What did he
do when he went downstairs? Closed questions are those with limited responses
available - they often require a yes or no response or a choice between alternatives; for
example Did he go downstairs? or Was the jumper brown or blue?

The beneficial effect of free recall and specific questioning styles in eliciting information
have been demonstrated in several studies of forensic transcripts (Hershkowitz, 2001;
Korkman, Santtila, and Sandnabba, 2006; Lamb and Fauchier, 2001; Lamb et al., 1996;
Orbach et al., 2000; Orbach and Lamb, 2000) and in many experimental studies (Dent and
Stephenson, 1979; Fivush, 1993; Steward, Bussey, Goodman, and Saywitz, 1993). Such
questions not only elicited the most accurate details (Akehurst, Milne, and Khnken, 2003;
Lamb et al., 1996; Memon and Vartoukian, 1996; Orbach et al., 2000; Peterson et al.,
1999; Quas and Schaaf, 2002; Sternberg et al., 1996) even across lengthy delays in time
(Jones and Pipe, 2002; Peterson, 2002), but also resulted in lower susceptibility to
suggestibility and misinformation (Gee, Gregory, and Pipe, 1999; Gobbo, 2000; Holliday,
2003).

Current interviewing practice

In order to facilitate the interviewing of children and in response to Governmental Acts
(Criminal Justice Act 1988, 1991), requirements and recommendations from Public
Inquiries (Butler-Sloss, 1988; Home Office, 1989; Department of Health, 1988, revised
edition 1991) the MOGP was developed (Home Office, 1992). Adherence to the MOGP
protocol was not mandatory but provided guidance to enable appropriate interviewing in
order to elicit an accurate and complete account of an event that would meet the courts
requirements. The use of the protocol was also intended to ensure that interviews would
be conducted in a manner that promoted the best interests of the child (Bull, 1992; Home
Office, 1992, 2001, 2007).

Both the ABE and MOGP interviewing protocols contain the four interviewing stages
described below: Rapport, Free Narrative, Questioning, and Closure. In the Rapport stage,
a relationship between the child and the interviewer is established, the interview aims and
conventions are explained (through ground rules) and the interviewer enhances their
knowledge of the childs social, cognitive and emotional development. The ground rules
include establishing that the child understands the difference between truth and lies, and
that to say I dont know or I dont understand is acceptable.

During the Free Narrative stage the interviewer asks only open-ended invitations to
speak. The information obtained from the child should not be subject to interviewer
direction or influence; the interviewers role is as facilitator rather than interrogator. The
Questioning stage starts with open-ended specific questions that may then be replaced by
closed questions and, if required, turn to leading questions (although these are generally
to be avoided). Repetition of questions should be used with caution, because:

Repeating a question soon after a child has answered may be interpreted by

children as a criticism of their original response persistent repetition of a question
may lead a child to give an answer he or she believes the interviewer wants to hear.
(Home Office, 1992: 18)

In the final closure stage, the interviewer may take the opportunity to check details that
have arisen in the questioning stage. The child is given the opportunity to ask questions
and contact information is provided. The interviewer then returns to neutral topics of
conversation to leave the child in a positive state of mind at the end of the interview.

Implementation
Evidence indicates, however, that interviewers do not always follow the methods and
procedures prescribed in interviewing protocols (Powell and Snow, 2007; Westcott and
Kynan, 2006). Issues that have been raised by studies of interviews indicate an
inappropriate reliance on closed and suggestive questions or prompts (Sternberg, Lamb,
Davies, and Westcott, 2001; Warren, Woodall, Hunt, and Perry, 1996; Westcott and
Kynan, 2006; Westcott, Kynan, and Few, 2006), which provided up to half of the
information gained (Cederborg, Orbach, Sternberg, and Lamb, 2000; Sternberg et al.,
2001). Between 1985 and 2002 (in Norway) there was a reduction in the use of suggestive
and closed questions; however, the frequency of open-ended specific questions did not
increase (Thoresen, Lnnum, Melinder, Stridbeck, and Magnussen, 2006). Additionally,
children are not always given the opportunity or encouragement to participate in free
narrative (Davies, Westcott, and Horan, 2000; Sternberg et al., 2001; Warren et al., 1996),
thus reducing the opportunity presented by following the interviewing protocol for children
to provide uninfluenced or undirected testimony.

Davies, Wilson, Mitchell and Milsom (1995) found that the structure and question
guidance of the MOGP protocol were not being consistently followed and that a quarter of
interviews lacked a free narrative phase and that only a third of interviewers began the
questioning stage with open-ended or specific questions. Nevertheless, three-quarters of
the interviews were judged to provide clear accounts of the alleged incidents and leading
questions were rare. These problems could have been due to unfamiliarity or a lack of
experience in the MOGP interviewing principles, but later evaluations produced similar
findings (Davies and Westcott, 1999; Davies et al., 2000; Sternberg et al., 2001; Westcott
and Kynan, 2006; Westcott and Jones, 1997). Children were still asked inappropriate
questions (Lamb et al., 1996; Powell, Fisher, and Wright, 2005) and encountered
confusing language, terminology or question structures (Perry et al., 1995; Plotnikoff and
Woolfson, 2004; Saywitz, Jaenicke, and Camparo, 1990).

This discrepancy between theory and practice is not limited to interviewing protocols in
England and Wales, however, and similar concerns regarding questioning strategies used
by interviewers have been expressed by researchers in the US (Warren et al., 1996),
Sweden (Cederborg, 2004; Cederborg et al., 2000), Israel (Lamb et al., 1996) and Norway
(Myklebust and Alison, 2000).

In addition to procedural reforms, therefore, interviewer training has been developed to

promote child welfare during their involvement in legal procedures and to enable the
prosecution of those responsible for committing crimes (Goodman, Quas, Bulkley, and
Shapiro, 1999). For example, the difficulty experienced by professionals in maintaining the
use of open-ended questions was addressed by Powell and Snow (2007) through
provision of practical suggestions for formulating open-ended questions in the free
narrative stage. Westcott et al. (2006) found that the use of a review programme for
trained interviewers had positive outcomes with improvements in interview quality.

In spite of such training, however, the use of question repetition in practice seems
almost inevitable if the childs response to the interviewers initial question is non-existent,
inadequate or if there are practical problems (for example, if the original question had been
misheard). The use of question repetition has, however, been shown to result in changes
in childrens responses (Krhenbhl and Blades, 2006; Moston, 1987; Poole and White,
1991) that are not only generally detrimental to accuracy but also to consistency,
especially among younger children. Warren, Hulse-Trotter and Tubbs (1991) found that
children who were given a direct suggestion that an original response was incorrect
changed their responses more often than children who were given no explanation.
However, changes in responses may also occur when the rationale for repetition did not
imply inaccuracy (Howie, Sheehan, Mojarrad, and Wrzesinska, 2004) or when no rationale
for repetition was given (Krhenbhl and Blades, 2006).

This is important since the level of consistency in responses was rated as one of the top
three criteria used by professionals in their assessment of the accuracy of a childs
testimony (Steward et al., 1996). Moreover, jurors may have existing stereotypes
concerning child witnesses, which include the belief that confidence equates with
accuracy, age-related abilities, gender and specific offence-related issues (Gilstrap, Fritz,
Torres, and Melinder, 2005). The assumption that accuracy equates with consistency is
also questionable (Quas, Davis, Goodman, and Myers, 2007) but a jury may view a child
who is seen as inconsistent or uncertain more negatively.

Study of police interviews

Krhenbhl et al. (2007) conducted a study of ninety-five interviews conducted between
1994 and 1997 according to the MOGP interviewing protocol (Home Office, 1992). The
interviews were collected from 13 different police forces on an opportunity sampling basis
and provided in transcript form by the Open University. Whilst it is acknowledged that
interview training and protocol revision may have had an effect on current interview
practice, the core features of the interviewing protocol - the four-stage approach and the
emphasis on free narrative and open-ended questions - remain the same in current
interviewing protocol guidance (Home Office, 2007).
 The interviews were conducted primarily by police officers with children aged between 4
and 11 (twenty-one interviews with 4-5-year-olds, nineteen with 6-7-year-olds, twenty with
8-9-year-olds and thirty-five with 10-11-year-olds). The children interviewed were either
victims or witnesses (or both) of alleged abuse ranging from indecent exposure to rape
and abduction. The duration of the interviews was between 11 and 136 minutes (M =
40.15, SD = 19.09 minutes). In the opinion of the interviewers, 84 (88.4%) of the children
had experienced the abuse they alleged.

The quantity, position, pattern, style, intent and consequence of question repetition
used by the interviewers was documented and examined to establish the effect that those
repetitions had on childrens responses. It was not possible to assess the childrens
responses for accuracy. Childrens responses were coded for consistency and change; a
change could add to the original information elicited or else it could provide novel (i.e.
unrelated but not necessarily contradictory) information.

In all age groups less than half of all questions were open-ended. One-fifth of all
interviews (nearly two-fifths of interviews with 4-5-year-olds) did not contain a free
narrative stage. Question repetition was found in all but two of the interviews and
accounted for over a quarter of all of the questions asked. The majority (four-fifths) of
repetitions were in found in the questioning stage of the interview and over half were in gist
(the same meaning but using different words) style. Three-quarters of the repetitions were
either immediate (with no response made between the previous question and the
repetition) or with a single response in between. Over a third of repetitions were made
because of a previous silent response to the question and a quarter were made in order to
elicit more detailed information; however, leading questions were extremely rare (less than
2%). Responses to three-quarters of repetitions resulted in a change in response, of which
one-quarter represented additional information and half novel information.

Interviews with the 4-5-year-olds tended to follow a different pattern from those with the
older children. The 4-5-year-olds had the shortest interviews but had the highest number
of questions and the highest number of repetitions per interview. These children were most
likely to remain silent in response to questions, which would necessitate the use of
repetition. This persistent silent response resulted in 4-5-year-olds showing similar levels
of consistency, if not similar amounts of information, to the older age groups.
 The results of this study support previous research (Cederborg et al., 2000; Davies et
al., 2000; Davies et al., 1995; Hershkowitz, Horowitz, and Lamb, 2005; Lamb and
Fauchier, 2001; Lamb et al., 2003; Orbach and Lamb, 2000; Westcott and Kynan, 2006),
which suggested that the interviewing protocols are not being fully implemented because
of omission of the free narrative stage, the quantity of closed questions and the quantity
and spacing of repeated questions. The results also demonstrated that not only was the
use of repetition a practical necessity, it was almost exclusively used for appropriate
reasons such as eliciting further information or because there had been no verbal
response to the previous question. However, the changes the children made in their
responses to repetitions, even if these changes represented further information, could
have an adverse effect on their consistency and therefore possibly compromise their
credibility (Davis et al., 1999) and the likelihood that their case would proceed (Gallagher
and Pease, 2000).

Whilst this interview study therefore revealed a discrepancy between theory and
practice, it was not clear whether the interviewers themselves were aware of their own
behaviour or its implications. Serving police officers were therefore asked about how they
conducted interviews in order to gain insight into their opinions of the interviewing process
in practice.

Police perception study

This study took place in 2 parts. First, in 2005 the author monitored a MAIVIC (Multi-
Agency Investigation and Video Interview Course) at a Police Headquarters. Second, in
2006 the author conducted semi-structured interviews with experienced police interviewers
about their interviewing practices.

The MAIVIC interview training course instructed police officers and social workers to
conduct interviews under the ABE (Home Office, 2001) interviewing protocol. There were 3
modules (each lasting 4 days): a generic module on the ABE protocol, a module on
interviewing children and a module on interviewing vulnerable adults. Through active
participation in the training, the author intended to ascertain what aspects of the
interviewing protocol were covered, in what way, and to what effect. Also, participation
enabled the author to experience some of the difficulties experienced by interviewers in
putting theory into practice and gave insight into implementation of the protocol from the
interviewers perspectives.
 The participants volunteered to take part in the study via contact with the Police
Training manager; their name, age, rank and police force was not recorded in order to
maintain anonymity; and all of the participating officers had been trained in ABE
interviewing (Home Office, 2001). Three of the officers had between two and three years
of experience; they generally conducted between three and five interviews with children
aged between 4 and 16 per month. The fourth interviewer had five years of interviewing
experience and conducted a similar number of interviews per month.

The semi-structured interviewing method was used, as there were specific points the
author wished to address within a restricted time-scale without the constraints on
responses imposed by use of a questionnaire. There was no attempt made to specifically
follow ABE (Home Office, 2001) interview protocol guidance in the interviews. However,
rapport was established (although not recorded) and the interviewers were asked specific
open-ended questions which would have been used in the questioning stage of an
investigative interview.

The author took notes of the interviewers replies to questions as it was stipulated by
the Police force that the interviews could not be recorded in any other form. A copy of
those notes was returned to each of the officers to amend if they wished. As the
information presented below represents a summary of the amended notes, it was not
considered appropriate to conduct a systematic analysis of the material gained from the
interviews.

Interviewer training
The basic tenets of the interviewing course were that the best interests of the child were
of utmost importance and that, in the words of the course leader, Incompetency comes
down to the person asking the questions. The initial generic module had the following
objectives: to identify vulnerable persons; to outline the principles of multi-agency
investigations; to explain communication issues, recognise categories of abuse, and to
plan and prepare an investigative interview; to identify relevant documentation and outline
the Four Phase Approach to interviewing; to recognise issues surrounding medical
examinations; and to describe issues relating to pre-trial therapy for witnesses and outline
responsibilities of those involved in conducting a video interview.
 The module concerning interviews specifically with children had the following objectives:
to recognise issues surrounding language development; to describe appropriate
circumstances in which to conduct a video interview; to outline specific areas for
consideration when communicating with disabled children; to recognise issues concerning
sex offenders in relation to the interviewing process; to conduct an Investigative Interview
to a recognised standard; to summarise the areas of concern for a non-abusing carer and
outline the powers to protect children; to describe the support mechanism for witnesses
attending court; and to explain the principles of a Child Protection Conference.

After successful completion of the course, interviewers could conduct interviews with
children and/or vulnerable adults. Initially, the interviewers were encouraged to take on the
role of a second interviewer (a second interviewer may be present at the interview but is
there to liaise with the first interviewer rather than interviewing the child directly) or video
recording controller (who records the interview and may liaise with the first interviewer
before the interview is terminated), in order to gain experience before conducting an
interview as a first interviewer. The police interviewers were expected to submit a copy of
a video interview (in which they had the first interviewer role) to Police Headquarters to
obtain feedback.

Police perceptions
The interview study described above (Krhenbhl et al., 2007) demonstrated that there
were difficulties encountered in implementing the interviewing protocol. The study also
demonstrated that, on the whole, interviewers did try to follow the prescribed guidelines
but found it particularly difficult with younger children who did not always respond
positively to interviewer requirements or expectations. Wright and colleagues (Wright and
Powell, 2007; Wright, Powell, and Ridge, 2006), who have studied the experience and
perceptions of police officers and expert witnesses, found that the personal attributes of
interviewers (being relaxed and friendly, showing empathy and sensitivity) were
emphasised by police officers above knowledge of legislation, childrens development,
previous experience or interviewing techniques.

This contrasted with the child eyewitness memory experts, who emphasised the
importance of the use of appropriate interviewing techniques (specifically the use of open-
ended questions) above the importance of individual characteristics. Wright and Powell
suggested that the over-emphasis of personal qualities could constitute a barrier to the
effective use of open-ended questions in interviews with child witnesses. This suggests
that there is also a discrepancy between those who devised the protocol (although there
were representatives from the Association of Chief Police Officers involved with the ABE
development via the Memorandum Project Steering group) and those who interview on a
frequent basis, in their understanding of the significance of what the interviewing protocol
is intended to promote.

The following issues were explored in the interviews with the police officers who
volunteered to participate in the study.
1. What would you describe as the easier and more difficult factors involved in interviewing
children?
Interviewers described the positive factors of immediate job satisfaction experienced when
the interview went well. Interviewing was described as a situation where one could learn
from others in order to become more skilled. Interviewers stated that older and more
mature children were easier to talk with as they understood what was required and
understood the questions being asked.

Interviewers said that they experienced difficulties in communicating with younger

children in a manner that maintained the childs attention and yet covered all of the
information required. There was awareness of difficulties in discussing serious or sexual
offences; there was a fine line between getting what you need and the persons needs.
The hardest thing was when interviewers knew what the child was trying to tell them but
they needed the child to be explicit. A way needed to be found of eliciting the level of detail
necessary for clarity in order to take the case further, but without prompting or leading the
child in any way.

One of the most difficult and frustrating aspects of interviewing was when the rapport
between interviewers and a child did not develop despite every effort made. Rapport was
emphasised as necessary with all interviewees but how this was done, and how long it
took, depended on the childs age and level of confidence. The establishment of ground
rules was easier with older children but took too long with younger children who had more
limited attention spans.

Children who did not have recognised special needs still covered a wide spectrum of
abilities both in terms of cognitive development and length of attention. These factors had
to be taken into account when determining the language to be used and the possible
length of the interview. One interviewer found that a lack of general experience (such as
that obtained through being a parent, for example) made interviewing younger children
more difficult. Pre-interview home visits were described as being extremely useful
particularly with very young children.

2.What would you consider a highly successful interview and, vice versa, a disappointing
interview?
A highly successful interview was seen as one where the child disclosed evidentially
relevant information that could lead to a successful prosecution. In such interviews, rapport
would have been successfully established and the interviewers would feel comfortable
with the child. One interviewer stated that the interview was likely to go well if rapport and
ground rules are kept to a minimum.

A disappointing interview was when interviewers were aware of being unable to engage
children and of asking questions that resulted in a child bottling-up or withholding
information. This situation was frustrating, especially as there was no opportunity to go
back and start the interview again.

3. How aware are you of the type of questions you ask? Which forms of questions do you
find more effective in eliciting information?
The interviewers were extremely aware of the questions used. Interviewers would plan
meticulously to structure the interview and form a mental checklist of issues and
questions that they wished to follow. It was crucial to Engage brain before you speak and
to formulate: 1) what information was hopefully going to be elicited by the question; 2)
what type of question would be instrumental in obtaining this information; and 3) how to
phrase the question in a way that was appropriate to the childs understanding.

The 5 wh questions were considered most effective in eliciting information. Closed

questions would tend to be used more frequently with younger children who may not
really understand what is expected of them. Closed questions may help these younger
children to understand what was required. Interviewers were wary of using direct or
leading questions if these were required then interviewers would move away from the
subject, to go off track or lighten up for a while and return to the subject later.
 Interviewers considered it was important not to overwhelm a child with questions and
believed it was usually more successful to have as natural a conversation as possible.
Interviewers acknowledged a tendency to jump in too soon, however, and that whilst it
was necessary to move at a pace that kept the child engaged the child must also be
allowed time to finish what they wanted to say. There needed to be a balance between
having to pull out the information and at the same time ensuring that the questioning
behaviour would not lead to problems with the CPS or defence.

The controller and/or second interviewer were considered to be important in ensuring

that points did not get missed and that enough detail was elicited.

4.Do you repeat questions in interviews? If so, why are they used, in which stages do they
occur, how often and in what form?
Interviewers were aware of repeating questions but tried to avoid them or keep them to a
minimum because using them Didnt do anything apart from potentially frustrate [the
child]. There was a Golden Rule, however, which was to be very careful not to repeat
questions to the extent that it could be perceived as intimidating the child.

Repetition was appropriate to check whether the child understood the question or to
clarify a particular point and in these situations, interviewers would explain why the
repetition took place. Repetitions could also be used at a later stage when the child didnt
answer the initial question or didnt answer appropriately. However, interviewers cant
push it too far as you cant force them into saying something they dont want to. When a
child did not give a response to a question, the interviewers reaction depended on the age
of the child. If the child was young then it might be better to move away from the subject
being discussed, go back to building rapport, or move to an alternative activity (for
example drawing) and then return to the subject. However, one interviewer expressed
concern that because time was limited, this technique could only be used for short periods.
With older children who did not respond to a question, interviewers would consider asking
the controller for some fresh ideas as to how to approach a subject the child did not wish
to discuss.

Interviewers stated that repetitions would account for approximately 5-10% of all
questions asked. Where there was a multiple incident, one interviewer expected the
amount of repetitions to rise to approximately 30% of questions asked. The most common
form of repetition was in gist (same meaning but different wording) form, so that the child
was not necessarily aware of the repetition. The interviewers stated that there was no
point in trying this technique more than a couple of times, however, and that subsequently
a closed question would be appropriate.

Interviewers would avoid repetition that was immediate or verbatim (repeated word for
word) but would try to use gist repetition after intervening questions. However, the form of
repetition used would depend on what you were trying to get out. When there had been
no response to the original question, interviewers would rephrase the question
immediately because they would be concerned that the child had not understood the
original. If the response to the original question had been incomplete or insufficient, then
repetition would be used in order to ask more specifically what was being asked or state
more clearly what information was required. If a child said that they did not understand a
question or gave an unrelated response then, depending on the age of the child,
interviewers might challenge this or attempt to get the child to qualify the response given.

5. Have you any concerns over the use of repetition? If so, what are those concerns and
how would you address them?
Interviewers thought that question repetition was useful in eliciting information but should
be used with caution because too much could numb the child towards the interviewer,
and could confuse the child or give the impression that the interviewer did not believe
them. There was also concern that the extensive use of repetition could make interviewers
appear intimidating or oppressive and possibly jeopardise the case.

Interviewers thought it was useful to reflect after each interview as to how well it went
and, if there were problems, to think about why their interviewing style had not worked with
a particular interviewee. If rephrasing or qualifying a question did not succeed in eliciting
the information required, then interviewers would accept responses such as I dont know
or cant remember from the child.

6. To what extent do you think that question repetition is equally appropriate in all
situations?
The reasons for using repetition depended on the age of the child being interviewed. One
interviewer suggested that older children might not answer a question through choice
rather than through a lack of understanding. Accordingly it made sense to stay on the
same subject longer and justifiable to use more repetitions with a younger child, but it was
necessary to move forward quicker with an older child. Interviewers stated that repetition
was appropriate when there was reason to expect (from other information/evidence) that
the child did know the answer and could respond if encouraged to do so.

Interviewers thought that repetition was inappropriate if it was over-done as this may
be detrimental to interviewee cooperation; there was concern that young children in
particular might become frustrated. One interviewer suggested the adoption of a different
interviewing style with younger children, behaving less like a drill sergeant and trying to
be more animated to enhance understanding and keep the childs attention.

In response to a request for any other comments, interviewers said they thought that
their training course was of a high standard and prepared the interviewers as much as was
possible although the real training came through experience. One interviewer mentioned
that it would be useful (if time and work load permitted) to observe more experienced
interviewers before doing their first interview. It was important to liaise with the controller
before the interview began, and also near the end, to check that everything had been
covered. Feedback was generally informal and came from colleagues or from the families
of the children involved. Formal feedback might come from the CPS if there was a
particular problem with the interviewing procedure.

Discussion and conclusions

All of the interviewers demonstrated a clear understanding of the intention and practical
implementation of the ABE (Home Office, 2001) interviewing protocol. Interviewers were
clear as to appropriate interviewing strategies, the advantages associated with the use of
specific questions, the avoidance of excessive repetition, the need for rapport, and that the
needs of the child were of paramount importance. The interviewers also expressed
difficulties associated with interviewing on an individual level, describing the frustration of
being unable to elicit information, and their concerns about inexperience. On a more
procedural level, interviewers described the restrictions they felt were imposed by the
requirements of the legal system and their concerns about the impression that their
interview style would make on other adults concerned (the jury, defence, CPS and so
forth), which needed to be balanced against strategies required to elicit information. There
was also frequent concern about conducting interviews with younger children, and how to
enable and encourage these children to give their testimony to the best of their abilities
within the constraints of the interviewing process.

There were specific areas in which the interviewers perceptions did not concur with the
evidence about interviewing practices detailed by previous research, however. For
example, Wright and Powell (2007) found that interviewers emphasised their own personal
attributes above interviewing techniques used with children, but the police interviewers in
this study emphasised the relationship they were able to establish with the child and the
advocated questioning strategy, with a particular emphasis on the use of open-ended
questions. However, whilst the interviewers advocated the use of open-ended questions,
there seemed to be little concern that the use of closed questions would be less likely to
elicit accurate details (Akehurst et al., 2003; Lamb et al., 1996; Orbach et al., 2000;
Orbach and Lamb, 2000; Sternberg et al., 1996) and that such questions might be more
likely to result in acquiescence to the introduction (either intentional or otherwise) of
misinformation and suggestibility (Gee et al., 1999).

In relation to establishing rapport, this was limited in the practice of these interviewers to
a subjective assessment of the interviewers personal state and as a description of the
quality of the relationship they had with the child. There was little focus on the
establishment of understanding of the ground rules or an assessment of cognitive, social
and emotional development in the individual child. In the rapport stage, it would be
possible that question repetition would be frequent and advisable in order to establish the
broader issues, but this was not apparent in the interviewers responses.

The interviewers also did not mention any difficulties specifically associated with the
Free Narrative stage, which was found in previous research to have been omitted or not
utilised fully on occasions, particularly in interviews with younger children (Krhenbhl et
al., 2007; Sternberg et al., 2001; Westcott and Kynan, 2006). The interviewers were not
asked directly about this stage, as it is described in the ABE as the core of the interview
and one in which the child should not be interrupted (Home Office, 2001: 41). It is
surprising, however, that it was not mentioned in the context of identifying when it would
be inappropriate to use question repetition.

It is interesting to note, however, that the amount of repetition used in interviews was
greatly underestimated by the interviewers, who estimated its use of to be between a fifth
and two-fifths of its actual usage. More significantly, although the interviewers described
the effects of repetition in terms of adverse effects on their relationship with the child, the
childs cooperation and the impression that their repetition strategy would have on others,
there was no awareness expressed that repetition may be disadvantageous to accuracy or
the amount of details elicited (Krhenbhl and Blades, 2006; Moston, 1987; Poole and
White, 1991).

The ABE interviewing protocol (Home Office, 2001) provides comprehensive guidance
to those who interview children in preparation for legal proceedings and could also be
used in other contexts where more formal testimony is required. However, research has
shown that the implementation of the protocol guidance is neither complete nor always
feasible with children, especially younger ones. The research described in this paper,
however, did not ascertain conclusively the basis for the discrepancy between interview
practice guidance and implementation. Further research, with more substantial interviews
and a larger participant pool, would establish whether there are problems with interview
practice or whether interviewers are responding to characteristics of their practice that are
not acknowledged or covered in the interviewing guidance. If the former were correct then
it is possible that more training or supervision would lower attrition rates; if the latter were
found to be the case, however, then a different range of research questions would be
required.

References
Ainsworth, P. B. (1998). Psychology, law and eyewitness testimony. Sussex: Wiley and
Sons Ltd.

Akehurst, L., Milne, R., and Khnken, G. (2003) 'The effects of children's age and delay on
recall in a cognitive or structured interview', Psychology, Crime and Law, 9, 97-107.

Bull, R. (1992) 'Obtaining evidence expertly: The reliability of interviews with child
witnesses',The International Digest of Human Behaviour Science and Law, 1, 3-36.

Butler-Sloss, Lady Justice E. (1988) The report of the inquiry into child abuse in Cleveland
1987, Cmnd 412. HMSO: London.

Ceci, S. J., and Bruck, M. (1995) Jeopardy in the courtroom: A scientific analysis of
children's testimony. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Cederborg, A.-C. (2004) 'Factors affecting children's disclosure of secrets in an
investigatory interview', Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 45, 197-205.

Cederborg, A.-C., Orbach, Y., Sternberg, K. J., and Lamb, M. E. (2000) 'Investigative
interviews of child witnesses in Sweden', Child Abuse and Neglect, 24, 1355-1361.

Davies, G. M., Marshall, E., and Robertson, N. (1998) Child Abuse: Training investigating
officers. London: Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate.

Davies, G. M., and Westcott, H. L. (1999) Interviewing child witnesses under the
Memorandum of Good Practice: A research review. London: Home Office.

Davies, G. M., Westcott, H. L., and Horan, N. (2000) 'The impact of questioning style on
the content of investigative interviews with suspected child abuse victims', Psychology,
Crime and Law, 6, 81-97.

Davies, G. M., Wilson, C., Mitchell, R., and Milsom, J. (1995) Videotaping children's
evidence: An evaluation. London: Home Office.

Davis, G., Hoyano, L., Keenan, C., Maitland, L., and Morgan, R. (1999) An assessment of
the admissibility and sufficiency of evidence in child abuse prosecutions. London: Home
Office.

Dent, H. R., and Stephenson, G. M. (1979) 'An experimental study of the effectiveness of
different techniques of questioning witnesses', British Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 18, 41-51.

Department of Health (1988) Working together: a guide to interagency cooperation for the
protection of children from abuse (revised edition 1991). London: HMSO.

Fivush, R. (1993) 'Developmental perspectives on autobiographical recall'. In

G.S.Goodman and B.L.Bottoms (eds.) Child victims, child witnesses: Understanding and
improving testimony. New York: The Guildford Press: 1-24.

Gallagher, B., and Pease, K. (2000) Understanding the attrition of child abuse and neglect
cases in the criminal justice system. ESRC End-of-Award Report, Grant number R 000
236 891.
Gee, S., Gregory, M., and Pipe, M.-E. (1999) ' "What color is your pet dinosaur?" The
impact of pre-interview training and question type on children's answers', Legal and
Criminological Psychology, 4, 111-128.

Gilstrap, L. L., Fritz, K., Torres, A., and Melinder, A. (2005) 'Child witnesses: Common
ground and controversies in the scientific community', William Mitchell Law Review, 32,
59-79.

Gobbo, C. (2000) 'Assessing the effects of misinformation on children's recall: How and
when makes a difference', Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, 163-182.

Goodman, G. S., Quas, J. A., Bulkley, J., and Shapiro, C. (1999) 'Innovations for child
witnesses', Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 5, 255-281.

Hershkowitz, I. (2001) 'Children's responses to open-ended utterances in investigative

interviews', Legal and Criminological Psychology, 6, 49-63.

Hershkowitz, I. (2002) 'The role of facilitative prompts in interviews of alleged sex abuse
victims', Legal and Criminological Psychology, 2002, 63-71.

Hershkowitz, I., Horowitz, D., and Lamb, M. E. (2005) 'Trends in children's disclosure of
abuse in Israel: A national study', Child Abuse and Neglect, 29, 1203-1214.

Holliday, R. E. (2003) 'The effect of a prior cognitive interview on children's acceptance of

misinformation', Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 443-457.

Home Office (1989) Report of the Advisory Group on Video-Recorded Evidence (The Pigot
Report). London: Home Office.

Home Office (1992) Memorandum of good practice on video recorded interviews with child
witnesses for criminal proceedings. London: HMSO.

Home Office (1998) Speaking up for justice: Report of the Interdepartmental Working
group on the treatment of vulnerable or intimidated witnesses in the Criminal Justice
System. London: HMSO.

Home Office (2001) Achieving best evidence in criminal proceedings:Guidance for

vulnerable or intimidated witnesses including children. London: Communication
Directorate.
Home Office (2007) Achieving best evidence in criminal proceedings: Guidance on
interviewing victims and witnesses and using special measures. London: TSO.

Howie, P. M., Sheehan, M., Mojarrad, T., and Wrzesinska, M. (2004)' "Undesirable" and
"desirable" shifts in children's responses to repeated questions: Age differences in the
effect of providing a rationale for repetition', Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18, 1161-1180.

Jones, C., and Pipe, M.-E. (2002) 'How quickly do children forget events? A systematic
study of children's event reports as a function of delay', Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16,
755-768.

Korkman, J., Santtila, P., and Sandnabba, N. K. (2006) 'Dynamics of verbal interaction
between interviewer and child interviews with alleged victims of child sexual abuse',
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 47, 109-119.

Krhenbhl, S. J., and Blades, M. (2006) 'The effect of question repetition within interviews
on young children's eyewitness recall', Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 94, 57-
67.

Krhenbhl, S. J., Blades, M., and Westcott, H. (2007) 'Question repetition in police
interviews of 4 to 11 year olds' (under review).

Lamb, M. E., and Fauchier, A. (2001) 'The effects of question type on self-contradictions
by children in the course of forensic interviews', Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15, 483-
491.

Lamb, M. E., and Garretson, M. E. (2003) 'The effects of interviewer gender and child
gender on the informativeness of alleged child sexual abuse victims in forensic interviews',
Law and Human Behavior, 27, 157-171.

Lamb, M. E., Hershkowitz, I., Sternberg, K. J., Esplin, P. W., Hovav, M., Manor, T., et al.
(1996) 'Effects of investigative utterance types of Israeli children's responses', International
Journal of Behavioral Development, 19, 627-637.

Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., Orbach, Y., Esplin, P. W., and 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, 86, 997-1005.
Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., Orbach, Y., Esplin, P. W., Stewart, H., and 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, 71, 926-934.

Memon, A., and Vartoukian, R. (1996) The effects of repeated questioning on young
children's eyewitness testimony. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 87, 403-
415.

Moston, S. (1987) 'The suggestibility of children in interview studies', First Language, 7,

67-78.

Myklebust, T., and Alison, L. (2000) 'The current state of police interviews with children in
Norway: How discrepant are they from models based on current issues in memory and
communication?', Psychology, Crime and Law, 6, 331-351.

Orbach, Y., Hershkowitz, I., Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., Esplin, P. W., and Horowitz, D.
(2000) 'Assessing the value of structured protocols for forensic interviews of alleged child
abuse victims', Child Abuse and Neglect, 24, 733-752.

Orbach, Y., and Lamb, M. E. (2000) 'Enhancing childrens narratives in investigative

interviews', Child Abuse and Neglect, 24, 1631-1648.

Orbach, Y., and Lamb, M. E. (2001) 'The relationship between within-interview

contradictions and eliciting interviewer utterances', Child Abuse and Neglect, 25, 323-333.

Perry, N. W., McAuliff, B. D., Tam, P., Claycomb, L., Dostol, C., and Flanagan, C. (1995)
'When lawyers question children: Is justice served?', Law and Human Behavior, 19, 609-
629.

Peterson, C. (2002) 'Children's long-term memory for autobiographical events',

Developmental Review, 22, 370-402.

Peterson, C., Dowden, C., and Tobin, J. (1999) 'Interviewing preschoolers: Comparisons
of Yes/No and Wh- questions', Law and Human Behavior, 23, 539-555.

Peterson, C., and Grant, M. (2001) 'Forced-choice: Are forensic interviewers asking the
right questions?', Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 33, 118-127.

Plotnikoff, J., and Woolfson, R. (2004) In their own words: The experiences of 50 young
witnesses in criminal proceedings. London: NSPCC.
Poole, D. A., and White, L. T. (1991) 'Effects of question repetition on the eyewitness
testimony of children and adults', Developmental Psychology, 27, 975-986.

Powell, M. B., Fisher, R. P., and Wright, D. B. (2005) 'Investigative interviewing'. In

N.Brewer and K.Williams (eds.) Psychology and law: An empirical perspective. New York:
Guildford Press: 11-42.

Powell, M. B., and Snow, P. C. (2007) 'Guide to questioning children during the free-
narrative phase of an investigative interview', Australian Psychologist, 42, 57-65.

Quas, J. A., Davis, E. L., Goodman, G. S., and Myers, J. E. B. (2007) 'Repeated
questions, deception, and children's true and false reports of body touch', Child
Maltreatment, 12, 60-67.

Quas, J. A., and Schaaf, J. M. (2002) 'Children's memories of experienced and

nonexperienced events following repeated interviews', Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 83, 304-338.

Saywitz, K. J., Jaenicke, C., and Camparo, L. (1990) 'Children's knowledge of legal
terminology', Law and Human Behavior, 14, 523-535.

Sternberg, K. J., Lamb, M. E., Davies, G. M., and Westcott, H. L. (2001) 'The
Memorandum of Good Practice: Theory versus application', Child Abuse and Neglect, 25,
669-681.

Sternberg, K. J., Lamb, M. E., Hershkowitz, I., Esplin, P. W., Redlich, A., and Sunshine, N.
(1996) 'The relation between investigative utterance type and the informativeness of child
witnesses', Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 17, 439-451.

Sternberg, K. J., Lamb, M. E., Hershkowitz, I., Yudilevitch, L., Orbach, Y., Esplin, P. W., et
al. (1997) 'Effects of introductory style on children's abilities to describe experiences of
sexual abuse', Child Abuse and Neglect, 21, 1133-1146.

Steward, M. S., Bussey, K., Goodman, G. S., and Saywitz, K. J. (1993) 'Implications of
developmental research for interviewing children', Child Abuse and Neglect, 17, 25-37.

Steward, M. S., Steward, D. S., Farquhar, L., Myers, J. E. B., Reinhart, M., Welker, J. J.
N., et al. (1996) 'Interviewing young children about body touch and handling', Monographs
of the Society for Research in Child Development, 57, 1-232.
Thoresen, C., Lnnum, K., Melinder, A., Stridbeck, U., and Magnussen, S. (2006) Theory
and practice in interviewing young children: A study of Norwegian police interviews 1985-
2002. Psychology, Crime and Law, 12, 629-640.

Warren, A., Hulse-Trotter, K., and Tubbs, E. C. (1991) 'Inducing resistance to suggestibility
in children', Law and Human Behavior, 15, 273-285.

Warren, A. R., Woodall, C. E., Hunt, J. S., and Perry, N. W. (1996) ' "It sounds good in
theory, but." Do investigative interviewers follow guidelines based on memory research?',
Child Maltreatment, 1, 231-245.

Westcott, H., and Kynan, S. (2006) 'Interviewer practice in investigative interviews for
suspected child sexual abuse', Psychology, Crime and Law, 12, 367-382.

Westcott, H., Kynan, S., and Few, C. (2006) 'Improving the quality of investigative
interviews for suspected child abuse: A case study', Psychology, Crime and Law, 12, 77-
96.

Westcott, H. L., and Jones, J. (eds.) (1997) Perspectives on the Memorandum. Hants,
England: Arena.

Wright, D. B., and Powell, M. B. (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, 30, 21-31.

Wright, R., Powell, M. B., and 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, 29, 498-512.

Zajac, R., Gross, J., and Hayne, H. (2003) 'Asked and answered: Questioning children in
the courtroom', Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 10, 199-209.